Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What a goofy non sequitur.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.
The question for science is, does any physics we know of support this transcendence of time or is this a metaphysical claim like is common in religion? If so should separation of church and state apply?
In terms of reverse engineering this claim, to make it work, it would work is we had an eternal soul, where the essence of who we are could transcend time and space. We could be reborn in different bodies, with the same soul and same conscious awareness, again and again. This would support the liberal claim. Does any science support this?
If you look at revisionist history, it assumes the eternal soul of today was living in the past, and since it transcends time, it also had access to the future. Even though it had the capacity to see the future, it nevertheless made a decision to do evil in the past, in spite of the modern standards it could see. Therefore it is guilty in the present, of the past, since time to the eternal reincarnated soul is relative and not sequential. To the eternal soul, it hops like an internet search, instead of like reading a book in time, from start to finish. Is the human brain capable to stepping out of time while being conscious in different bodies in many different times, simultaneously? This would make the past and present relative.
In more practical terms of examples, white people of the present are said to be responsible for the past days of slavery that was controlled by white people. Since they have the eternal soul, they should have been aware of the future ,and never have done this in the past. They need to feel guilty because of their eternal souls and its ability to time hop, while consciously making poor choices in the past, while knowing the future. How does science and physics weigh in in terms of time hoping based on skin color? Does skin pigment generate quantum affects? And does the eternal soul have to stay with the same skin color or sex for these quantum affects to work over time?
In reincarnation within Eastern Religions, Karma is in affect, so the eternal soul, would reincarnate into a different form, to balance its previous choices of good and evil. In this case, the blacks of today would have been the whites of the past to balance this out with the current hardships. Which of the two reincarnations is supported by science; the liberal eternal soul that never changes or learns, or the Eastern balanced eternal soul that improves with time?
One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.
The question for science is, does any physics we know of support this transcendence of time or is this a metaphysical claim like is common in religion? If so should separation of church and state apply?
In terms of reverse engineering this claim, to make it work, it would work is we had an eternal soul, where the essence of who we are could transcend time and space. We could be reborn in different bodies, with the same soul and same conscious awareness, again and again. This would support the liberal claim. Does any science support this?
If you look at revisionist history, it assumes the eternal soul of today was living in the past, and since it transcends time, it also had access to the future. Even though it had the capacity to see the future, it nevertheless made a decision to do evil in the past, in spite of the modern standards it could see. Therefore it is guilty in the present, of the past, since time to the eternal reincarnated soul is relative and not sequential. To the eternal soul, it hops like an internet search, instead of like reading a book in time, from start to finish. Is the human brain capable to stepping out of time while being conscious in different bodies in many different times, simultaneously? This would make the past and present relative.
In more practical terms of examples, white people of the present are said to be responsible for the past days of slavery that was controlled by white people. Since they have the eternal soul, they should have been aware of the future ,and never have done this in the past. They need to feel guilty because of their eternal souls and its ability to time hop, while consciously making poor choices in the past, while knowing the future. How does science and physics weigh in in terms of time hoping based on skin color? Does skin pigment generate quantum affects? And does the eternal soul have to stay with the same skin color or sex for these quantum affects to work over time?
In reincarnation within Eastern Religions, Karma is in affect, so the eternal soul, would reincarnate into a different form, to balance its previous choices of good and evil. In this case, the blacks of today would have been the whites of the past to balance this out with the current hardships. Which of the two reincarnations is supported by science; the liberal eternal soul that never changes or learns, or the Eastern balanced eternal soul that improves with time?
Liberalism is not a religion.
You would think that that would be fairly obvious, but I guess some people prefer being ignorant.
Huh.
One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.
What a silly claim. Been a liberal all my life and have known liberals all my life and neither I or any other liberal I know supports to such a moronic position.
Marxism is a form of religion. It has it holy trinity of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
It has its holy texts
It has ready made explanations of how we got here, why we are here and
where we are all going.
It has its hell and heaven too.
Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count. And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.
Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count. And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.
I can vouch for that. *Grin*Bazooka Joe-ism is also a religion.
Everything you are saying is nonsense.The question was not about philosophy, political opinion or circling the wagons. It was about using science to determine if there is a scientific basis, that justifies blaming the present for the past, or judging the past in term of the present, and then forcing this on everyone. If not, then this approach is similar to a religion in the sense it makes claims that cannot be supported by science; only opinion based on faith.
I like religion. I do not judge those who practice any religion. However the separation of church and state prohibits any religion from controlling the state. I asking this question to see if some parts of left wing politics is a religion. If it quacks, it is a duck; science inference.
For example, if you look at the quota system, it attempts to make up for the discrimination of the past by altering the present, to balance this out. This is a nice utopian vision; paradise. I can respect that.
However, those who live in the present, who expect to benefit from such laws, were not part of that past. This is a con artist trick, unless you assume there is a type of reincarnation, where the spirits of the past, transmigrate, and can now live in the same skin and sex of people in the present. If this was true, then it makes perfect sense. But without this assumption, it creates injustice. It blames some new who was not there to pay someone who was not there. How can you punish someone for something they never did or give a wage to someone who never worked?
I asked if there is any science that can prove, transmigration of consciousness, through time, so the guilty parties and the recipients of restitution meet once again in the future, so they can all set is right. Nobody answered in terms of proven science, therefore this is not supported by science. This topic of science venus religion, has no problem using this standard for established religions. But a dual standard is used for closet religions.
Quotas were an example of a closet religion infiltrating the state. One is free to practice this religion, and practice the quotas among the faithful in a voluntary way. Left wing white men, who have the faith, can step down and let left wing women and blacks and minorities step up. Your faith in transmigration will make it all work out. But this religion, because it is based on unproven science, cannot force its dogma on those with other religions, or a line is crossed. It is unconstitutional to use the state to force everyone to obey a religion. Only the faithful are under its laws, not everyone.
And if I said the term "New Deal", would you know why?
I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!Marxism is a form of religion. It has it holy trinity of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
It has its holy texts
It has ready made explanations of how we got here, why we are here and
where we are all going.
It has its hell and heaven too.
Except none of these have anything to do with either liberalism or historical revisionism.Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
I have never heard anyone say this, ever.Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count.
No, it's just irrelevant because the policies and values of a party given a certain name in the past are not the same as the policies and values of a party with a similar name in the present.And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.
I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!
You'd think it obvious atheism isn't a religion, but many insist it is.Liberalism is not a religion.
You would think that that would be fairly obvious, but I guess some people prefer being ignorant.
Huh.
I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!
Misleading question. Just because a book is seminal doesn't make it holy.Which is the more holy book to a Communist, Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto?
Why not? It's a statement of fact.Shall the cultural Marxists ever call these Dead White Men?
But they weren't literal (or even metaphorical) Gods.Certainly the Communist Trinity existed.
This is just insane rambling. No matter how hard you try, Communism isn't a religion.Who said that Lenin was the cruelest man he ever met?
It shows in his portrait.
I can confirm that communism isn't a religion.Which is the more holy book to a Communist, Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto?
View attachment 26866
Shall the cultural Marxists ever call these Dead White Men?
I doubt it.
Certainly the Communist Trinity existed.
Who said that Lenin was the cruelest man he ever met?
It shows in his portrait.
View attachment 26865
I have often wondered why conservative Christians and the like so frequently try to label things they disagree with "religions."This is just insane rambling. No matter how hard you try, Communism isn't a religion.