Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
05-28-2016, 11:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2016, 11:26 PM by radind.)
(05-28-2016, 08:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-23-2016, 11:47 PM)radind Wrote: I have not seen any polls on how the secular group breaks down. My assessment is based on the operational effects that appears to be a working majority. The 10% with a Biblical worldview is based on the barna.org polls. ( I would have guessed this to be ~ 20%).
Quote:I have seen many polls on this, but am not sure I want to research them now. I'm sure you know that Evangelicals are a larger proportion of the population than 10%.
I realize that you are unlikely to accept the barna.org results. The key issue to me is how many have a Biblical worldview. Following is an extract.
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/trans...0pp6lc_ZGI
… "The same questions were asked of respondents in national surveys by Barna in 1995, 2000 and 2005. The results indicate that the percentage of adults with a biblical worldview, as defined above, has remained unchanged for more than a decade. The numbers show that 7% had such a worldview in 1995, compared to 10% in 2000, 11% in 2005, and 9% now. Even among born again adults, the statistics have remained flat: 18% in 1995, 22% in 2000, 21% in 2005, and 19% today.”…
Quote:I understand the freedom opened up by Jesus' resurrection very well. I doubt most evangelicals and even most Christians understand it at all. But this is a new age. It is time we moved to a more accurate interpretation of this, free from the obvious need the Church has had to impose its authority with its traditional interpretation (and which I think you subject yourself to, whether you admit this or not).
I don't belong to or follow any large Christian organization and do not recognize any 'Church' authority except for my local congregation. I believe that each person is accountable for his or her views, so I absolutely disagree with your assessment of my views. I think that the large organizations( 'Churches') actually are responsible for most of the problems attributed to Christianity.
Our points of view ( worldviews) are so different that we are unlikely to agree on much.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
It is my opinion that the 'secular group' is the dominant political force in the USA and can therefore dictate whatever views and laws that it wants. I am convinced , based on barna.org and observable behavior that the percentage of those with a Biblcial worldview is ~ 10% in the USA. Because the secular views are dominant does not mean that I have to accept them. It may be that there will be a price to pay, depending on how the majority chooses to enforce their views.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(05-28-2016, 09:41 PM)Odin Wrote: (05-28-2016, 06:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: So then you favor malnutrition and rioting then. Or is that you expect to be able to exploit farmers in the so-called third world to obtain food. Either are in direct opposition to the needs of the vast majority of humans.
Most famines nowadays are political problems, not food supply problems. We can grow more than enough food for everyone and still protect the environment.
I will not deny that political problems are an issue. However, the expectation of that humanity produces more than enough food for itself is negated by the fact that famines occur regularly. Furthermore the heavy use of petrol-chemicals in order to produce those large surpluses of staple grains seems to indicate that producing this large surplus at the same time as "protecting the environment" (which is poorly defined) is not a possiblity. Indeed the most destructive use of land is agriculture yet without it, we are locked into a situation where close to 90% of the human population must starve to death.
Sorry Odin, you have to make a choice, food or 3 inch fish. Everyone else is going to choose the food.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-28-2016, 09:17 AM)Odin Wrote: "Daddy" thinks the drought in California isn't real. 
(05-28-2016, 09:41 PM)Odin Wrote: (05-28-2016, 06:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: So then you favor malnutrition and rioting then. Or is that you expect to be able to exploit farmers in the so-called third world to obtain food. Either are in direct opposition to the needs of the vast majority of humans.
Most famines nowadays are political problems, not food supply problems. We can grow more than enough food for everyone and still protect the environment.
Indeed, in Michigan most of our out-of-season vegetables are grown somewhat locally in hydroponic hothouses (these would be local, except that the DEA harasses hydroponic growers whom the DEA assumes can go quickly to growing marijuana instead of tomatoes or onions). Out-of-season vegetables have always been luxuries due to their cost of transportation. Now they can be produced at costs lower than for transportation from California or Florida.
We have a very different problem with nutrition, namely with people eating themselves into grotesque obesity and hence disability and early death. That may be one cynical way to solve the 'welfare problem' -- that people die of heart failure at age 45 or so if they can't hold jobs. They can sit on a recliner and devour chips and drink sugary sodas while watching the Idiot Screen and dig their own graves with their unhealthy appetites.
...Starvation is commonplace under tyranny. If a despotic or totalitarian regime wants to kill people but lacks the nerve to shoot or gas people that it wants dead, then it can starve people. So send them off to the desert or steppe where there is no food and simply have 'logistical problems' that allow bureaucrats to never have food (much of the Armenian genocide). Or put them in labor camps and have people work to exhaustion with the promise of food... and deliver food only to the administrators. That was the Gulag and Nazi 'labor' camps, the latter after 'selections' for quick gassing of children, the elderly, and women who would not part with their children. Or requisition food from peasants and return nothing. So they weren't going to give up their land and become serfs of the 'Socialist' state? The government gets to ensure that the State becomes the heir. Problem solved. But that is the twentieth century. The Irish potato famine occurred in the English colony known as Ireland because English plutocrats imposed a near monoculture upon Ireland, replacing other agriculture with the more profitable potato. In a rainy climate bordering on the subtropical, blights and insects flourish, and if there is but one crop, then that crop fails. The UK did not then have a responsible government; the Irish potato famine compelled many Irish to leave for the US, Canada, Australia, and other places... with many of the Irish dying.
Democracies recognize that food comes first. Tyrannies put power first. Plutocracies put profit first. Totalitarian states put ideology first. Kleptocracies put stealing first. It is telling that Ethiopia under the Commie Dergue and Botswana both endured the same drought. Botswana sacrificed its support for its anti-Apartheid agenda to get food aid; Ethiopia went full bore on collectivization. Ethiopia had a catastrophic famine.
Peasant farmers have no friends -- except in democracies. But if you want food, maybe you need peasant farmers more than you need show projects, a powerful military, rapid industrialization, a bureaucratic morass, or achievement of some ideological dream. Contrast India, for most of its existence a democracy, which has generally avoided any extremist ideology, to many similarly-poor countries. It has been slow to industrialize or set up a huge military establishment, or even to develop motorways. Its economy was long based upon peasant farmers and cottage industries. It put much more emphasis on elementary education than upon universities.
Nightmare? India last had a famine in Bengal when it was British India, and then when the usual source of food for people of eastern India, the rice crop of Burma, was cut off by the Japanese in occupation of Burma (again, as elsewhere in the "Greater East Asia Co-Prospeirty Sphere, the Japanese requisitioned the rice crops to feed the Japanese soldiers who in a peaceful Japan would have been working the rice paddies). India was a horrible place to visit, let alone to travel around. But people ate, which is more than one could say of Russia in the 1930s or China in the 1950s. That's the difference between having Mohandas Gandhi and having Vladimir Lenin or Mao Zedong as a hero in a very poor country.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-30-2016, 01:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2016, 01:32 AM by Eric the Green.)
(05-28-2016, 11:22 PM)radind Wrote: I realize that you are unlikely to accept the barna.org results. The key issue to me is how many have a Biblical worldview.....
No, I can't. To me, any member of an evangelical religion, or any loyal and church-going traditional-believing Catholic, has a Biblical worldview. The Barna survey defines it as a very specific, lengthy, and quite superstitious list of outrageous beliefs which they attribute to the Bible. No, that's not a basis for such an assessment.
Quote:I don't belong to or follow any large Christian organization and do not recognize any 'Church' authority except for my local congregation.
I believe that each person is accountable for his or her views, so I absolutely disagree with your assessment of my views. I think that the large organizations( 'Churches') actually are responsible for most of the problems attributed to Christianity.
As I hear your views on some of these religious and "moral" subjects, they are views that can only be the result of belief in traditional teachings as given by Church authority, whether local OR organization-wide. I mean, geez; you seem to accept the Barna interpretation of things, and he says, "Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian churches would be wise to invest more effort and tangible resources into helping young people understand and adopt the core ideas of Christianity..." If that isn't "recognizing Church authority" I dunno what is.
Of course, it is every individual's decision whether to believe these things, or generally what spiritual convictions to have. So in that sense, I don't doubt that you have decided what your views are, and take responsibility for them. They are not, however, and as I see it, what Jesus really taught at all. The New Age/New Thought interpretation is correct, as I see it. And I take responsibility for my view on that 
But I doubt you can question that the golden rule is Biblical, or that my interpretation of what the resurrection means is true.
Quote:Our points of view ( worldviews) are so different that we are unlikely to agree on much.
Not on some of these sorts of subjects. I find them unfathomable, and you did not try to justify them here, as I challenged you to do. It's a different culture that we come from; a different part of the country too. But, I'm sure I agree with you on some other subjects, as we have in fact.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(05-28-2016, 11:36 PM)radind Wrote: It is my opinion that the 'secular group' is the dominant political force in the USA and can therefore dictate whatever views and laws that it wants. I am convinced , based on barna.org and observable behavior that the percentage of those with a Biblcial worldview is ~ 10% in the USA. Because the secular views are dominant does not mean that I have to accept them. It may be that there will be a price to pay, depending on how the majority chooses to enforce their views.
The price is that you will have to accept that there are others in America that don't conform to your norms and wishes as to how they should behave, and that they will be permitted to behave contrary to your norms.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 01:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-28-2016, 11:22 PM)radind Wrote: I realize that you are unlikely to accept the barna.org results. The key issue to me is how many have a Biblical worldview.....
No, I can't. To me, any member of an evangelical religion, or any loyal and church-going traditional-believing Catholic, has a Biblical worldview. The Barna survey defines it as a very specific, lengthy, and quite superstitious list of outrageous beliefs which they attribute to the Bible. No, that's not a basis for such an assessment.
Quote:I don't belong to or follow any large Christian organization and do not recognize any 'Church' authority except for my local congregation.
I believe that each person is accountable for his or her views, so I absolutely disagree with your assessment of my views. I think that the large organizations( 'Churches') actually are responsible for most of the problems attributed to Christianity.
As I hear your views on some of these religious and "moral" subjects, they are views that can only be the result of belief in traditional teachings as given by Church authority, whether local OR organization-wide. I mean, geez; you seem to accept the Barna interpretation of things, and he says, "Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian churches would be wise to invest more effort and tangible resources into helping young people understand and adopt the core ideas of Christianity..." If that isn't "recognizing Church authority" I dunno what is.
Of course, it is every individual's decision whether to believe these things, or generally what spiritual convictions to have. So in that sense, I don't doubt that you have decided what your views are, and take responsibility for them. They are not, however, and as I see it, what Jesus really taught at all. The New Age/New Thought interpretation is correct, as I see it. And I take responsibility for my view on that
But I doubt you can question that the golden rule is Biblical, or that my interpretation of what the resurrection means is true.
Quote:Our points of view ( worldviews) are so different that we are unlikely to agree on much.
Not on some of these sorts of subjects. I find them unfathomable, and you did not try to justify them here, as I challenged you to do. It's a different culture that we come from; a different part of the country too. But, I'm sure I agree with you on some other subjects, as we have in fact.
The climate of religious and intellectual freedom has made possible the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in America, often to the consternation of the secularist types who believe themselves the heirs of the Enlightenment. It also makes possible inquiries into alternatives, including Islam and Buddhism.
People get to choose what authorities they accept and reject, and they are free to express their contempt of some putative authorities with the staunchest contempt. But such is freedom.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 01:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-28-2016, 11:36 PM)radind Wrote: It is my opinion that the 'secular group' is the dominant political force in the USA and can therefore dictate whatever views and laws that it wants. I am convinced , based on barna.org and observable behavior that the percentage of those with a Biblcial worldview is ~ 10% in the USA. Because the secular views are dominant does not mean that I have to accept them. It may be that there will be a price to pay, depending on how the majority chooses to enforce their views.
The price is that you will have to accept that there are others in America that don't conform to your norms and wishes as to how they should behave, and that they will be permitted to behave contrary to your norms.
That is not the price, just the current reality of what the majority thinks. The 'price' is how much coercion the 'secular group, will impose on anyone who does not agree and accept their views. The is not a problem if you already agree with the majority.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 01:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-28-2016, 11:22 PM)radind Wrote: I realize that you are unlikely to accept the barna.org results. The key issue to me is how many have a Biblical worldview.....
No, I can't. To me, any member of an evangelical religion, or any loyal and church-going traditional-believing Catholic, has a Biblical worldview. The Barna survey defines it as a very specific, lengthy, and quite superstitious list of outrageous beliefs which they attribute to the Bible. No, that's not a basis for such an assessment.
Quote:I don't belong to or follow any large Christian organization and do not recognize any 'Church' authority except for my local congregation.
I believe that each person is accountable for his or her views, so I absolutely disagree with your assessment of my views. I think that the large organizations( 'Churches') actually are responsible for most of the problems attributed to Christianity.
As I hear your views on some of these religious and "moral" subjects, they are views that can only be the result of belief in traditional teachings as given by Church authority, whether local OR organization-wide. I mean, geez; you seem to accept the Barna interpretation of things, and he says, "Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian churches would be wise to invest more effort and tangible resources into helping young people understand and adopt the core ideas of Christianity..." If that isn't "recognizing Church authority" I dunno what is.
Of course, it is every individual's decision whether to believe these things, or generally what spiritual convictions to have. So in that sense, I don't doubt that you have decided what your views are, and take responsibility for them. They are not, however, and as I see it, what Jesus really taught at all. The New Age/New Thought interpretation is correct, as I see it. And I take responsibility for my view on that
But I doubt you can question that the golden rule is Biblical, or that my interpretation of what the resurrection means is true.
Quote:Our points of view ( worldviews) are so different that we are unlikely to agree on much.
Not on some of these sorts of subjects. I find them unfathomable, and you did not try to justify them here, as I challenged you to do. It's a different culture that we come from; a different part of the country too. But, I'm sure I agree with you on some other subjects, as we have in fact.
I posted a few sites just to make the point that there are other points of view( not all from red states) and did not expect agreement. The reason that I reference barn.org is that they do surveys and their definition is OK ( I don’t agree 100%, but the key is the surveys that barna conducts).
This type discussion is best done in person and I this we have exhausted any value for this forum. Probably better to move to private messages or abandon discussion.
I will conclude with the following.
Quote:John 3:16
… "This famous vs. 16, which Luther called "the gospel in miniature," is not content with declaring the measure of the divine love; it asserts its outcome on the plane of history. Yet the result of the Incarnation is not an arbitrary fiat in the sphere of redemption. It confronts men with a moral dilemma. Faced with the alternatives, life or perdition, man has himself the responsibility of the choice that determines his destiny. Faith is the activity of the whole personality. It is not merely intellectual but moral in its nature. The antithesis to faith is not doubt but disobedience (vs. 36). God's purpose in the mission of his Son is not to condemn but to save (vs. 17); yet the reaction of men to this revelation of light determines their end (vs. 18), for it is a man's essential character that is brought under judgment (vs. 19). The test of that character is its attitude to light. The doer of worthless actions dreads and avoids the light for fear of exposure (vs. 20). He who does what is true—an O.T. expression, meaning to act with regard to reality rather than to pretense and display (cf. I John 1:6)—welcomes the light for the opportunity of proving that his deeds have been prompted and empowered by God (vs. 21; cf. Eph. 5:13;…)”…
Interpreter's Bible, The - Exegesis -
Suggested Christian sources if anyone is interested:
Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
http://straighttalkwithclaudiak.com/why-...-position/
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
… "The Kalam Cosmological Argument was started by a medieval Christian named Philoponus and was developed by Muslims. Apologists and philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland made it popular.”…
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 05:09 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (05-30-2016, 01:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-28-2016, 11:22 PM)radind Wrote: I realize that you are unlikely to accept the barna.org results. The key issue to me is how many have a Biblical worldview.....
No, I can't. To me, any member of an evangelical religion, or any loyal and church-going traditional-believing Catholic, has a Biblical worldview. The Barna survey defines it as a very specific, lengthy, and quite superstitious list of outrageous beliefs which they attribute to the Bible. No, that's not a basis for such an assessment.
Quote:I don't belong to or follow any large Christian organization and do not recognize any 'Church' authority except for my local congregation.
I believe that each person is accountable for his or her views, so I absolutely disagree with your assessment of my views. I think that the large organizations( 'Churches') actually are responsible for most of the problems attributed to Christianity.
As I hear your views on some of these religious and "moral" subjects, they are views that can only be the result of belief in traditional teachings as given by Church authority, whether local OR organization-wide. I mean, geez; you seem to accept the Barna interpretation of things, and he says, "Christian families, Christian schools, and Christian churches would be wise to invest more effort and tangible resources into helping young people understand and adopt the core ideas of Christianity..." If that isn't "recognizing Church authority" I dunno what is.
Of course, it is every individual's decision whether to believe these things, or generally what spiritual convictions to have. So in that sense, I don't doubt that you have decided what your views are, and take responsibility for them. They are not, however, and as I see it, what Jesus really taught at all. The New Age/New Thought interpretation is correct, as I see it. And I take responsibility for my view on that
But I doubt you can question that the golden rule is Biblical, or that my interpretation of what the resurrection means is true.
Quote:Our points of view ( worldviews) are so different that we are unlikely to agree on much.
Not on some of these sorts of subjects. I find them unfathomable, and you did not try to justify them here, as I challenged you to do. It's a different culture that we come from; a different part of the country too. But, I'm sure I agree with you on some other subjects, as we have in fact.
The climate of religious and intellectual freedom has made possible the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in America, often to the consternation of the secularist types who believe themselves the heirs of the Enlightenment. It also makes possible inquiries into alternatives, including Islam and Buddhism.
People get to choose what authorities they accept and reject, and they are free to express their contempt of some putative authorities with the staunchest contempt. But such is freedom.
I just hope that freedom of religion for Christians does not go away.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 07:06 AM)radind Wrote: I posted a few sites just to make the point that there are other points of view( not all from red states) and did not expect agreement. The reason that I reference barn.org is that they do surveys and their definition is OK ( I don’t agree 100%, but the key is the surveys that barna conducts).
This type discussion is best done in person and I this we have exhausted any value for this forum. Probably better to move to private messages or abandon discussion.
I have never found that in-person discussions with authoritarian Christians works out any better than those on-line. It is up to people themselves to look into reality beyond what a book or expert says. Truth is within, as Jesus says. Merely obeying authorities does not get you to your own experience of truth.
Quote:I will conclude with the following.
[quote]
John 3:16
… "This famous vs. 16, which Luther called "the gospel in miniature," is not content with declaring the measure of the divine love; it asserts its outcome on the plane of history. Yet the result of the Incarnation is not an arbitrary fiat in the sphere of redemption. It confronts men with a moral dilemma. Faced with the alternatives, life or perdition, man has himself the responsibility of the choice that determines his destiny. Faith is the activity of the whole personality. It is not merely intellectual but moral in its nature. The antithesis to faith is not doubt but disobedience (vs. 36). God's purpose in the mission of his Son is not to condemn but to save (vs. 17); yet the reaction of men to this revelation of light determines their end (vs. 18), for it is a man's essential character that is brought under judgment (vs. 19). The test of that character is its attitude to light. The doer of worthless actions dreads and avoids the light for fear of exposure (vs. 20). He who does what is true—an O.T. expression, meaning to act with regard to reality rather than to pretense and display (cf. I John 1:6)—welcomes the light for the opportunity of proving that his deeds have been prompted and empowered by God (vs. 21; cf. Eph. 5:13;…)”…
Interpreter's Bible, The - Exegesis -
These are not the same as the very specific superstitions laid down as standards by Barna.
Polls I have read say that "belief in God" is upheld by about 90% of the people. Evangelicals are certainly upholders of a Biblical worldview, even if they don't hold 100% to all the superstitions that Barna lists. The Christian worldview is still widely held, and "secularists" want religious freedom. It is projection to claim that secularists are going to take away religious freedom from Christians. It is some Christians who want to do that; not secularists. Just because YOU guys might do that, does not mean that we liberals would do that. Secularism means upholding the First Amendment.
Quote:Suggested Christian sources if anyone is interested:
Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
http://straighttalkwithclaudiak.com/why-...-position/
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
… "The Kalam Cosmological Argument was started by a medieval Christian named Philoponus and was developed by Muslims. Apologists and philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland made it popular.”…
Belief in God is as rational as non-belief. But in our new age, alternatives to these two authoritarian, traditional views are open to us.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Regarding Pbrower2a's statements about democracies putting the people first, this is not true to my observation. Our government at the beltway does not put people first but, but money first, the worst possible combination. Strong governments put power first because increasing the amount of power a nation has increases that nation's security, thus allowing prosperity to potentially develop among the people.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
The question may not be so much whether one believes in God but instead what one means by "God". If one means that physical, mathematical, and logical laws exist and operate reliably, then such at the minimum is God. Paradoxically the rejection of miracles is consistent with that view of God.
An inexplicable entity intervening in daily life? Sure. Blind, random chance beyond manipulation by any human will.
If one thinks that one has some way of manipulating blind, random chance to his favor, then he is either a bad gambler or a believer in a god of miracles... which I find suspect.
I can just imagine what I would have done had I been God during the monstrous reign of Adolf Hitler. Maybe I would have translated some heavy metal (maybe a lead statue of the Fuhrer) into U-235 while some Nazis were plotting horrific crimes against Humanity and detonated it. Just enough -- and then I would have made My Presence known to the world, explaining My Intolerance for monstrous iniquity. The scene out of Raiders of the Lost Ark in which the Nazis make a blasphemous prayer (I don't know Hebrew, but I can just imagine one that Biblical patriarchs might have used):
Hear, O Lord, as we beseech Thee, that Thou might deliver us from a foe that showeth contempt for Thy Law, that Thou might smite the doers of evil and injustice but avoid harm to the innocent in our time of greatest need.
Asking God to use His Powers to aid evil is the worst of all blasphemies, and, yes, the Nazis would find out exactly what happens when God smites His foes in the name of Justice.
Don't you wish?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 01:05 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Regarding Pbrower2a's statements about democracies putting the people first, this is not true to my observation. Our government at the beltway does not put people first but, but money first, the worst possible combination. Strong governments put power first because increasing the amount of power a nation has increases that nation's security, thus allowing prosperity to potentially develop among the people.
Arguably the most murderous regimes to have ever existed:
1. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
2. the Devil's Reich (Nazi Germany)
3. Rwanda during the great massacre
4. Stalin's Soviet Union
5. Mao's China
6. Uganda under Idi Amurderin'
7. Ethiopia under the Dergue
8. Turkey in WWI
9. Thug Japan, WWII
10. Croatia under the Ustase
11. The "Congo Free State" (really, the personal fief of King Leopold II of Belgium)
12. North Korea
13. Imperial Russia
14. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
15. Iraq under Satan Hussein
16. Ba'athist Syria
17. Nationalist China
18. Mongol rule
19. the human-sacrificing Aztec Empire*
Do you think of any of these showing any responsibility toward the people of those countries for their welfare or happiness?
The democracies get the powers that they need to serve the People -- and the only rap upon them is that they protect their people with overkill of the Enemy. Maybe had it not been for the Bataan Death March, Harry Truman might have had more indecision about using the atom bomb upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
*interesting scenario for an alternative history: the Vikings, probably the least objectionable of all barbarian enemies of civilized peoples, successfully colonize what is now eastern North America and in a short time begin successful trade with the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas. Part of the trade is in horses and firearms; part is in Christianity which eventually prevails among the Vikings. The First Peoples are able to stand their ground.
The Vikings also start enticing some overseas trade by China... and the sites of San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver do not have Chinatowns. They are Chinese towns!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-30-2016, 02:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2016, 02:11 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-30-2016, 01:05 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Regarding Pbrower2a's statements about democracies putting the people first, this is not true to my observation. Our government at the beltway does not put people first but, but money first, the worst possible combination. Strong governments put power first because increasing the amount of power a nation has increases that nation's security, thus allowing prosperity to potentially develop among the people.
The French didn't think so in the 1780s. The Russians and Chinese didn't think so in the early 20th century. The Arabs don't think so in the era of the Arab Spring.
What "strong governments" of your type allow is prosperity among the elites. Democracy allows prosperity to grow among the people. Increasing democracy allowed the British to prosper, as well as the Americans, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, the French, the Italians, etc. The German autocracies of modern times boosted the aristocratic junker class. Democracy since the fall of the last such autocracy in 1945 has boosted German prosperity among the people. As democracy has come to Eastern Europe, prosperity is growing there too.
Arguably, the East-Asian Communist regimes have held onto power while allowing some greater freedoms. China and Vietnam don't have democracy, but they have ostensibly "peoples' " governments. Meanwhile, the purest communist autocracy in that region has made its nation desperately poor.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-30-2016, 02:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2016, 02:41 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-30-2016, 01:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The question may not be so much whether one believes in God but instead what one means by "God". If one means that physical, mathematical, and logical laws exist and operate reliably, then such at the minimum is God. Paradoxically the rejection of miracles is consistent with that view of God.
An inexplicable entity intervening in daily life? Sure. Blind, random chance beyond manipulation by any human will.
If one thinks that one has some way of manipulating blind, random chance to his favor, then he is either a bad gambler or a believer in a god of miracles... which I find suspect.
It may be suspect. The notions that there are no miracles, or that random chance and/or determinism can explain things and events, are very much over-rated. Determinism explains very little, except our capacity to use its ideas to make machines. But the universe is alive, not a machine. And life is mysterious and miraculous by nature. Science has not and cannot explain these miracles away. Every action and every event is really quite miraculous.
So the question is, how far can you go with this? Our experience does show that, so far, miracles have strong limits. Though determinism is false, being an absurd explanation of infinite regress, habits of nature persist. Things don't usually happen willy-nilly by miracles, except within those habits and limits. Still, they are possible, and happen sometimes. So, absolute convictions about the extent of miracles, or lack thereof, is merely speculation.
In a sense, then, everything is a miracle to some degree. So the term has little meaning. The question then is what is one willing to believe. We have various methods of obtaining knowledge of likely trends. To some degree, these trends are predictable. Merely attributing events to miracles, (or to conspiracy theories), when more prosaic explanations suffice, seems foolish. My rule of thumb, which I think is a good one, is that the more alive your subject of study is, and the more conscious it is, the least you can apply empirical-based predictions to them. More-dead things yield themselves to determined explanations or random chance explanations much more easily.
Quote:I can just imagine what I would have done had I been God during the monstrous reign of Adolf Hitler. Maybe I would have translated some heavy metal (maybe a lead statue of the Fuhrer) into U-235 while some Nazis were plotting horrific crimes against Humanity and detonated it. Just enough -- and then I would have made My Presence known to the world, explaining My Intolerance for monstrous iniquity. The scene out of Raiders of the Lost Ark in which the Nazis make a blasphemous prayer (I don't know Hebrew, but I can just imagine one that Biblical patriarchs might have used):
Hear, O Lord, as we beseech Thee, that Thou might deliver us from a foe that showeth contempt for Thy Law, that Thou might smite the doers of evil and injustice but avoid harm to the innocent in our time of greatest need.
Asking God to use His Powers to aid evil is the worst of all blasphemies, and, yes, the Nazis would find out exactly what happens when God smites His foes in the name of Justice.
The mistake here seems to be to attribute miracles only to one priviledged, miraculous, separate being, or maybe to a dueling pair of miraculous power beings (such as God and Satan); when in fact miracles (at least to a small or moderate degree) are constant and everywhere, and prayer to the God that Is-All-in-All is available to all.
So, let's kill two birds with one stone on this thread. Miracles are available to all, democratically, not just to the spiritual version of Cynic Hero's strong-man state heroes.
But yes, I like the idea of the Ark Spirit dealing with Trump and our other Republican enemies!
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 11:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-30-2016, 07:06 AM)radind Wrote: I posted a few sites just to make the point that there are other points of view( not all from red states) and did not expect agreement. The reason that I reference barn.org is that they do surveys and their definition is OK ( I don’t agree 100%, but the key is the surveys that barna conducts).
This type discussion is best done in person and I this we have exhausted any value for this forum. Probably better to move to private messages or abandon discussion.
I have never found that in-person discussions with authoritarian Christians works out any better than those on-line. It is up to people themselves to look into reality beyond what a book or expert says. Truth is within, as Jesus says. Merely obeying authorities does not get you to your own experience of truth.
Quote:I will conclude with the following.
Quote:John 3:16
… "This famous vs. 16, which Luther called "the gospel in miniature," is not content with declaring the measure of the divine love; it asserts its outcome on the plane of history. Yet the result of the Incarnation is not an arbitrary fiat in the sphere of redemption. It confronts men with a moral dilemma. Faced with the alternatives, life or perdition, man has himself the responsibility of the choice that determines his destiny. Faith is the activity of the whole personality. It is not merely intellectual but moral in its nature. The antithesis to faith is not doubt but disobedience (vs. 36). God's purpose in the mission of his Son is not to condemn but to save (vs. 17); yet the reaction of men to this revelation of light determines their end (vs. 18), for it is a man's essential character that is brought under judgment (vs. 19). The test of that character is its attitude to light. The doer of worthless actions dreads and avoids the light for fear of exposure (vs. 20). He who does what is true—an O.T. expression, meaning to act with regard to reality rather than to pretense and display (cf. I John 1:6)—welcomes the light for the opportunity of proving that his deeds have been prompted and empowered by God (vs. 21; cf. Eph. 5:13;…)”…
Interpreter's Bible, The - Exegesis -
These are not the same as the very specific superstitions laid down as standards by Barna.
Polls I have read say that "belief in God" is upheld by about 90% of the people. Evangelicals are certainly upholders of a Biblical worldview, even if they don't hold 100% to all the superstitions that Barna lists. The Christian worldview is still widely held, and "secularists" want religious freedom. It is projection to claim that secularists are going to take away religious freedom from Christians. It is some Christians who want to do that; not secularists. Just because YOU guys might do that, does not mean that we liberals would do that. Secularism means upholding the First Amendment.
Quote:Suggested Christian sources if anyone is interested:
Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig
http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
http://straighttalkwithclaudiak.com/why-...-position/
Why Belief in God is a Rational Position
… "The Kalam Cosmological Argument was started by a medieval Christian named Philoponus and was developed by Muslims. Apologists and philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland made it popular.”…
Belief in God is as rational as non-belief. But in our new age, alternatives to these two authoritarian, traditional views are open to us.
We have totally different worldviews and it is time to move to other issues.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(05-30-2016, 03:54 PM)radind Wrote: We have totally different worldviews and it is time to move to other issues.
No doubt. You can lead a horse to the river of nectar of a new world view that liberates and nourishes your life, but you can't make him drink!
Please remember, though, that there are other worldviews besides yours, which others consider valid, and that people with other views do not necessarily threaten your own. There's no need to see a problem where none exists.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
I live in upstate NY, here both El Nino and La Nina usually mean a warmer than average weather pattern for us.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
Anti-Semitic Trump fans built this creepy internet app to mark and stalk Jews online
Quote:If you’ve ever encountered some of Donald Trump’s rabid “alt-right” supporters on the web, you know that they really relish attacking Jewish people with anti-Semitic slurs and images. Mic.com noticed this week that some alt-right Trump fans created an incredibly creepy browser extension for Google Chrome whose purpose is to mark and track Jewish people online and make them targets of anti-Semitic harassment.
The “Coincidence Detector” extension, which was just removed from the Chrome store by Google this week, marked Jewish journalists and reporters with an “echo” tag that consists of three parentheses on both sides of their names. So if you were using the extension and reading an article by Mic’s Cooper Fleishman, you would see his name as “Cooper (((Fleishman)))” to single him out as Jewish.
The “echo” tag is a reference to the neo-Nazi notion that “all Jewish surnames echo throughout history” — that is, they believe Jewish people are responsible for myriad conspiracies over the centuries designed to extinguish the white race.
The point of the Chrome extension, wrote one neo-Nazi on Twitter, was to expose how much influence Jews have over the media and how they’re supposedly all conspiring to bring down Trump and promote Hillary Clinton.
“With this tool you begin to see patterns, constant bias, a common theme,” he wrote. “You want it deny it, rationalize it, fine, but we see it constantly. And that plugin shows it.”
At any rate, if you’re on social media and you see a Trump fan putting multiple parentheses around someone’s name, it’s because they’re marking them as Jewish and signalling to their followers that they should be targeted for harassment.
|
