the right religion

[1robin]

You're going back on my ignore. Can't deal with this cow-manure.

I thought you were already ignoring me pretty well.

 

[Flankerl]

Things, people and groups are defined by what they do, not what Wikipedia says about them.
These are also not actions but mere slogans.

Here is another

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]
Classical liberalism


Now is that what liberals do or what they say?

1. Obama and a liberal controlled Congress grew the government larger than it has ever been at a pace outstripping any in non-wartime emergency on US history. Roosevelt is a close second.

I guess that limited government label is out.

2. The modern liberal party is the first in out history to take God out of their platform and reject an 80% Christian nation as a Christian nations. Liberal laws have restricted military prayer, God in schools, even the mention of Christ by chaplains.

I guess the religious tolerance is out. So is sanity and reality with that one.

3. The press I agree with. They love, control, abuse, threaten, and use the press as a weapon. They are almost evil geniuses at using media.

4. Assembly. Let me give just one typical example that illustrates where we are at. Pelosi referred to the tea party as brown shirts. A marine stood up in a town hall and said as far as he remembered it was the national socialists that actually wore brown shirts. Anyone who is trying to keep us out of bankruptcy, moral judgment, or being overrun by illegal aliens is called every despicable name possible. Even free speech is under assault in the diametrically unconstitutional legislation requiring equal airtime be given to both views regardless of it's being desired or market driven. Freedoms of every kind are currently under assault. For the first time in our history a president is openly declaring he will bypass congress if he wishes. Liberals like Obama are exactly hat the founders feared and did everything in their power to restrict, but you cannot legislate the evil out on mankind. Any party that denies legal rights to life for human life in the womb does not respect assembly.

This one is not even on the map.

5. There have been more restrictions on free markets in the last 6 years than in our entire history. Insurance companies are told what they can sell, we for the first time are told what we must buy, homes can't be sold unless a green compliance criteria is reached, cars are restricted to mileage limits that mandate they be so light they have lost much of their safety, Corporations are taxed out of existence or move to foreign countries. I believe our corporate tax rates just became the highest on Earth, billions have been given to Obamas cronies for bankrupt green projects which the Chinese bought or web sites that do not work (in fact the same buddy was hired by New York that created the famous non-functional billon dollar Obama care site), the IRS is targeting conservative groups, banks were mandated to give bad loans and backed up by my money, I can go on indefinitely.

I do not care about party slogans, I care about what actually takes place.

Its actually quite simple. There is the word Liberalism outside of the US where it means what it means. And then there is the word Liberalism in the US where it doesnt means what it means because the US has two conservative parties that routinely switch places and accuse eachother as being evil aka "liberal".

 

[metis]

That was not the question. I demanded none, but I do appreciate the humility that comes with an apology. I also apologize. I get short fused with daily debates. Debates are word fights, they are a no casualty war of ideas and contentions are necessary and mild hostility expected but I find emoticons or sarcasm for effect alone, meaningless. Anyway rock-on and Selah.

Thanks, and we're good?

Shalom

 

[1robin]

Its actually quite simple. There is the word Liberalism outside of the US where it means what it means. And then there is the word Liberalism in the US where it doesnt means what it means because the US has two conservative parties that routinely switch places and accuse eachother as being evil aka "liberal".

I could agree with the first part but not the second. We used to have two far more conservative parties than we do and an actually conservative individual person now and then. Today we have fanatical liberalism (statists, collectivism, socialism) and another party of compromise to preserve personal power. There is no conservative party any longer. There are many conservative people but as is always true of history fallibility always triumphs over being correct.

Your latter comments seem to have been made in direct dismissal of the dozens of facts I had listed. It is as if I gave a 200 year temperature record of the north pole and you claimed it was hot.

 

[1robin]

Thanks, and we're good?

Shalom

Very, well.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not care about party slogans, I care about what actually takes place.

Yes but how do you figure that out since IMO both sides try to manipulate public thinking through #3...

3. The press I agree with. They love, control, abuse, threaten, and use the press as a weapon. They are almost evil geniuses at using media.

I think the underlying factor here is human greed. We can't really say to know who is and is not acting from personal greed. We accept the perception of a politician provided by the media.

In Calif a politician doesn't pick a party because of personal convictions. They pick a party because they know which party will get elected in a particular location. Or claim to live in a location that will get them elected if they want to stay with a particular party.

Party idealism is just more media hype IMO.

 

[1robin]

Yes but how do you figure that out since IMO both sides try to manipulate public thinking through #3...

I wish the Republicans would do this more. They stink at it and I have no idea why. They seem to have just surrendered popular media to liberalism. I agree they both use messaging and talking points but the liberals have perfected it and attempt to literally legislate their message not reality. The problem is not the inability to know the truth. It can be found. The problem is that modern US culture does not care. They want drive by, quick, and simple slogans to operate on. It is kind of a symptom of the fast paced world and liberals have taken advantage of it. The truth takes effort to get at. You must read books, investigate, and compare thoughtfully what is claimed, not spend 20 minutes watching the boob tube, or considering the daily show a legitimate source. journalism died in the 90's and low information voters did not notice it's passing.

I am actually in favor of some kind of voter qualifications. I do not know specifically what but at least some kind of basic civics test or something. A majority of idiots with dependent mind-sets should not have the power to destroy what their betters created by blood and sweat.

I think the underlying factor here is human greed. We can't really say to know who is and is not acting from personal greed. We accept the perception of a politician provided by the media.

I imagine it is one of the most prominent motivations. Our founders knew about it very well. They did everything possible to limit it's impact, but nothing is evil proof that men can devise. That is why not one single government has been impervious. They all consist of evil people. That is why my ultimate hope does not reside in man and I am pretty sure we have already committed suicide and are still bleeding out. That does not mean I will go quietly not should but it is pretty much inevitable. Our leaders have spent us into oblivion in order to buy votes.

In Calif a politician doesn't pick a party because of personal convictions. They pick a party because they know which party will get elected in a particular location. Or claim to live in a location that will get them elected if they want to stay with a particular party.

It is a shame because California is a great place. I loved Fresno and Yosemite especially. However you cannot make a straight thing out of crooked timber.

Party idealism is just more media hype IMO.

It certainly can be. However truth is an ideology worth preserving and fighting for. We may be doomed regardless but I want to go down defending the right or less wrong side if possible. There is too much at stake to watch this country being stolen from the hard men who gave everything to build it and our grandchildren enslaved to guaranty personal power.

 

[Nakosis]

It certainly can be. However truth is an ideology worth preserving and fighting for. We may be doomed regardless but I want to go down defending the right or less wrong side if possible. There is too much at stake to watch this country being stolen from the hard men who gave everything to build it and our grandchildren enslaved to guaranty personal power.

Truth, what is truth. Should we talk about that?

I see truth as flowing, changing. Never stable. Some things may be true for a long time. Like my existence. Maybe 100 years if I'm lucky. At some point that statement will no longer be true. Right now the truth is I'm 54. Next year that statement will no longer be true. Neither was it the truth last year.

The truth changes from moment to moment. So to fight for something so flowing and changing... I think there are better things to fight for like life and love and compassion.

There maybe Truth but I don't think it is something anyone can possess for any length of time.

I would fight for compassion. In many stories about Jesus I see a model for compassion.

 

[metis]

I would fight for compassion. In many stories about Jesus I see a model for compassion.

And this is what I think Jesus was mostly about. IOW, to me, he's essentially saying "Compassion and justice is what's most important, so do it!". Much like Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church and not leave it forever, I think Jesus was trying to correct some of the ills he saw that tainted true observance in eretz Israel.

Because this teaching of compassion and justice is characteristic of many other religions and even some philosophies, I don't see Jesus as a totally unique figure. Yes, each of us are unique in one way or another, as was Jesus, but I seen Jesus as the reformer, much like Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the Buddha, Gandhi, etc.

Therefore, to me, "the narrow path" is how we are to deal with both God and others in both a compassionate and just way, and I believe that faiths all over this world can very much be partners in that task.

shalom

 

[1robin]

Truth, what is truth. Should we talk about that?

That is the same question Pilate asked Christ.

I see truth as flowing, changing. Never stable. Some things may be true for a long time. Like my existence. Maybe 100 years if I'm lucky. At some point that statement will no longer be true. Right now the truth is I'm 54. Next year that statement will no longer be true. Neither was it the truth last year.

Truth never changes. Your 100 year existence for example would always be true. The truth you are 54 years old will also always be true. Truths can be added but never eliminated. However truth is notoriously hard to know and agree upon. That has nothing to do with it being true however. Epistemology may change but ontology does not. I have noticed along with countless others that since the increasing amount of theoretical truth that is discovered (a finite universe, Christ's historicity, the philosophical necessities reality entails, etc...) that those who lack faith have begun to deny truth exists at all. Convenient but not true or helpful. We do not need to get into this. For this discussion the most reasonable conclusion that explains the evidence more comprehensively or satisfactory is all we need to discuss.

The truth changes from moment to moment. So to fight for something so flowing and changing... I think there are better things to fight for like life and love and compassion.

Your talking about our perception of truth not truth it's self. If you want to be hyper-technical about our apprehension of truth then we may conclude one and only one thing. We think. By your standards we are done, science is done, philosophy is done, history is done, nothing is able to be a certainty beyond we think and a debate forum is the last place to be. I think that you like everyone else make faith based decisions constantly based on the best evidence and that is where debates take place. You are introducing an irrelevant criteria of absolute certainty.

There maybe Truth but I don't think it is something anyone can possess for any length of time.

Then we sure are wasting a lot of time writing books, making discoveries, and working out formulas. No one operates their lives as if this is true. Your statement is also contradictory. If true then it disproves it's self. Why are you setting up this self contradictory criteria here and only here?

I would fight for compassion. In many stories about Jesus I see a model for compassion.

How is this justifiable since your understanding of what is compassionate would be wrong most of the time, given your claims? Especially since without God no objective criteria exists concerning the truth of compassion at all. Not even theoretically.

Before I fought for anything (and I served 9 years in the Navy ready to do so) I would have to think I have a good understanding of what compassion is, and that is grounded in an objective and transcendent standard. The opinion of a race that have had 300 years of peace in 5000 and are now killing lives in the womb on an industrial scale are not credible for establishing what is compassionate or not. We are quite good however at denying actual truth to allow for the substitution of our own opinions. Once you detach morality from it's objective foundation it is free to be plugged anywhere except into moral truth.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is the same question Pilot asked Christ.

Pilate the pilot? LOL! Just teasing...

 

[1robin]

Pilate the pilot? LOL! Just teasing...

I never claimed to be a grammatical expert and I do not mind jokes concerning it. I however have worked in aviation for 25 years and everyone is a pilot to me. I must have written his name that way a hundred times and just can't stop. My hands are on automatic - Pilate. I was in the Navy as well so he might be a pirate at some point.

 

[Ouroboros]

I never claimed to be a grammatical expert and I do not mind jokes concerning it. I however have worked in aviation for 25 years and everyone is a pilot to me. I must have written his name that way a hundred times and just can't stop. My hands are on automatic - Pilate. I was in the Navy as well so he might be a pirate at some point.

I know exactly what you mean. I do the same things. It wasn't meant to be mean spirited.

 

[Muffled]

Since I'm non-theistic, I have no irons in the fire, but it seems illogical that God would only appear to one small area of the world very late in human history and ignore everyone else. To me, if "God" is real, moral, and demand we be moral, then I would assume that he would "speak" to all peoples at all times in some fashion. Maybe something like a "God gene", as some have hypothesized; or an "inner light", as the Society of Friends ("Quakers") tend to believe.

I believe lateness is a relative proposition. Jesus came in the fulness of time. Coming as a person limits Him to one place. However only a seed needed to be planted for it to spread to all the world.

I don't believe this is a safe assumption. There is no sense in speaking to those who will not listen.

The inner light is Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

]Uhmmmm! There obviously is NO proof Christianity can take away anyone's sin![/COLOR] :sarcastic


Also - most religions contain elements for improving self.


Which would obviously mean recognizing and doing no more wrong.



*

I believe my testimony is evidence unless you are saying that I am giving false testimony. I believe my testimony corroborates what God says in the Bible but there are those who believe that is a false testimony also. In any event it is the only religion that says it can take away sin.

I believe Christianity is no exception. That is what happens when a person lapses back into a reliance on self rather than relying on God. I would call it a safety net.

 

[Northern Lights]

I believe in my previous posts I have used those arguments and that they are better. Can Hinduism take away a person's sin? No. Can Islam take away a person's sin. No. Can Judaism take away a person's sin? No. Can Buddhism take away a person's sin. No. Only Christianity can do it.

That's a really weak rationale in my opinion....

Christianity can only "take away a person's sin" because it put's it there in the first place!

I don't behold any concept of 'sin', just skillful and unskillful actions, so I don't need Christianity to "take away sins" because I don't believe in the Christian concept of 'sin' and especially not 'original sin'.

Our "original sin" outside of the negativity and guilt-motivations of Christianity, is in fact, the Human Condition.

The Human Condition besets us all. And we do not know why. No-one does. But it sure isn't a reason for guilt and we don't enter this human condition inherently 'sinful'. To think so is really quite perverse and illogical in my opinion.

 

[Muffled]

What I said is absolute fact. There is no proof Christianity can take away anyone's sins. You believing it does not automatically make it real, nor is it proof for the rest of us.


PS. People have greatly changed their lives in other religions as well, and also by joining non-religious groups.


*

What you said is what you believe is absolute fact.

However the taking away of sin that I am talking about is that sin which I would commit if Jesus were not my savior. Robin is talking about past sins which has no proof outside of the fact that God says so.

I am not saying that people have not changed their lives. All I am saying is that relying on self is like electing the local criminal to be police chief and expecting him to keep the law.

 

[metis]

I believe lateness is a relative proposition. Jesus came in the fulness of time. Coming as a person limits Him to one place. However only a seed needed to be planted for it to spread to all the world.

I don't believe this is a safe assumption. There is no sense in speaking to those who will not listen.

The inner light is Jesus.

The above still does not in any way really address the problem. The fact of the matter is that Jesus only appeared roughly 2000 years ago in one small area of the world, and there are areas of the world even today whereas the majority of the population couldn't give you even a basic definition of who Jesus was.

Therefore, as even basic logic would have it, there's gotta be more to the story.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is one way of creating meaning to and understanding of the human condition. its truth claims are claims of description and subjectivity, not claims of definition and objectivity.

The same is true of any other religion.

 

[1robin]

I know exactly what you mean. I do the same things. It wasn't meant to be mean spirited.

I know, no offense taken.