Christian Reconstructionism...
-
'I remember one definition of a fanatic "You turn into what you fight against"' Maybe the secularist among us should take that warning to heart. I continue to be surprised that anyone would not expect this reaction from any community that has taken the sort of public beating that Christianity has over the last several decades. Of course they are going to become defensive. Of course they are going to react to actions takne against them. It is only natural. In the US at least Christianity does not have a history of this sort of behavior. It is only as they are driven out of every public sector that they now begin to turn and fight. Who the hell can blame them? "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
I firmly believe that the best advert for the Christian Faith is to act as Jesus taught us too - not to beat others up because they are different to any particular interpretation of what Christianity means. That's not "fighting" by any means. There's absolutely no place in my Faith for fundamentalism or literalism. I'll vote for a secular society (but without the PC rubbish that some seem to think goes with that) every time. Unfortunately Christianity does have a history of fundamentalism (look up the Defenestration of Prague, for example), so the danger is always there. I imagine life would become a lot less free in the West if more literal forms of Christianity took a hold again - and I doubt those in my position would survive that. For me at least, that's a very chilling prospect. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Granted, some politicians may favor Reconstructionism or whatever, but to say or imply that a majority of republicans subscribe to it does not sit well with me. Really? Who is the Republican leader currently? "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 "I don't bring God into my life to — to, you know, kind of be a political person." —George W. Bush, interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003 "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why seperation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic. "I have faith that with God's help we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible." DECEMBER 13, 2000 SPEAKER: PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 This is a general religious statement. He makes no reference to Christianity and trying to lead America to Jesus. JoeSox wrote: "I don't bring God into my life to — to, you know, kind of be a political person." —George W. Bush, interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003 This one just doesn't make sense. Classic Bushism, but I see no Reconstructionism as they define it. JoeSox wrote: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular Hearsay. JoeSox wrote: "I have faith that with God's help we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible." DECEMBER 13, 2000 SPEAKER: PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH Another generally religious statement. JoeSox wrote: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -- Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:20) JoeSox wrote: Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why seperation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic. Which should be feared more: church or state?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
JoeSox wrote: "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 This is a general religious statement. He makes no reference to Christianity and trying to lead America to Jesus. JoeSox wrote: "I don't bring God into my life to — to, you know, kind of be a political person." —George W. Bush, interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003 This one just doesn't make sense. Classic Bushism, but I see no Reconstructionism as they define it. JoeSox wrote: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular Hearsay. JoeSox wrote: "I have faith that with God's help we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible." DECEMBER 13, 2000 SPEAKER: PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH Another generally religious statement. JoeSox wrote: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -- Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:20) JoeSox wrote: Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why seperation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic. Which should be feared more: church or state?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 This is a general religious statement. He makes no reference to Christianity and trying to lead America to Jesus. True but context man. What is his concept of God? Jason Henderson wrote: Hearsay. I agree but it is still a possibility with the crap that comes out of GWB's mouth. Jason Henderson wrote: Another generally religious statement. Yes. Good thing for speech writers and GWB's ability to read them. Jason Henderson wrote: Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -- Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:20) "21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. ........ [21-25] True wisdom and power are to be found paradoxically where one would least expect them, in the place of their apparent negation. To human eyes the crucified Christ symbolizes impotence and absurdity." Supports the paradoxical statement of Seneca the Younger "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Jason Henderson wrote: Which should be feared more: church or state? Silly question in regards to this conversation, imo. I am talking about Power(State) using Religion(Church) to send fear to control. So I still stand by my statement "Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why separation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic." State should be control by logic, not decisions based upon fear. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔
-
Ian Darling wrote: Now you mention it, that is curious. It's really just a throwback to two things 1. people not knowing how the Bible works ( in terms of OT vs NT ) 2. people naturally being drawn to lists of rules. Ian Darling wrote: Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule instead Jesus said that the law is contained in two things, love God with all your being, and love other people the way you want to be loved. That's definately something worth putting on the wall, but even then, words on a wall are pretty useless IMO. If you show those attitudes ( or just the second, if you don't believe in God ), then you're far more likely to pass them on than if you just write them somewhere and forget about them. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule Golden Rule #1 Do unto others as they would do unto you - only do it first. Golden Rule # 2 Them that has the gold - makes the rules. Religion causes wars. Peace begats religion. Its a circle folks. Makes you dizzy. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
What Bible version is that? Mine was The New American version. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: What Bible version is that? Mine was The New American version. This sounds like a VB vs C++ debate now. How many "versions" of the Bible are there and how do they relate to the original Greek text sematicaly and syntaxally. And if the Bible is to be taken as "Gods Word" how can there be different versions. Sounds like a con job to me (or a customer spec sheet - one that says what he ordered vs what he really wants). Consider the permutations: Version 1: "And God said 'Let there be light'" Version 2: "And God lit up the heavens" Version 3: "God lit up" Version 4: "God fired that sucker up" version 5: "And God said 'Don't Bogart that joint boy'" Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
Jason Henderson wrote: "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 This is a general religious statement. He makes no reference to Christianity and trying to lead America to Jesus. True but context man. What is his concept of God? Jason Henderson wrote: Hearsay. I agree but it is still a possibility with the crap that comes out of GWB's mouth. Jason Henderson wrote: Another generally religious statement. Yes. Good thing for speech writers and GWB's ability to read them. Jason Henderson wrote: Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -- Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:20) "21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. ........ [21-25] True wisdom and power are to be found paradoxically where one would least expect them, in the place of their apparent negation. To human eyes the crucified Christ symbolizes impotence and absurdity." Supports the paradoxical statement of Seneca the Younger "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Jason Henderson wrote: Which should be feared more: church or state? Silly question in regards to this conversation, imo. I am talking about Power(State) using Religion(Church) to send fear to control. So I still stand by my statement "Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why separation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic." State should be control by logic, not decisions based upon fear. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔
JoeSox wrote: True but context man. What is his concept of God? Does that matter? We have a first amendment. He can worship a can of sardines if he so chooses. This statement doesn't support the idea that Bush is a reconstructionist. I think he's a methodist, which to my knowledge has little to do with modern evangelicalism. JoeSox wrote: I agree but it is still a possibility with the crap that comes out of GWB's mouth. I disagree. I have never heard him say anything like this. This is like calling yourself a prophet. JoeSox wrote: Supports the paradoxical statement of Seneca the Younger "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Sure it does, except for the "rulers as useful" part. But in your context it seemed to be a slap at religious people. Forgive me if I misinterpretted your meaning. JoeSox wrote: Jason Henderson wrote: Which should be feared more: church or state? Silly question in regards to this conversation, imo. I am talking about Power(State) using Religion(Church) to send fear to control. So I still stand by my statement "Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why separation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic." State should be control by logic, not decisions based upon fear. OK, I'll give you that one. But I still don't see anything in what GWB has done to make it look like he's trying to establish a theocracy. It's absurd, imo.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Christian Graus wrote: Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule Golden Rule #1 Do unto others as they would do unto you - only do it first. Golden Rule # 2 Them that has the gold - makes the rules. Religion causes wars. Peace begats religion. Its a circle folks. Makes you dizzy. Richard "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
Richard Stringer wrote: Golden Rule #1 Do unto others as they would do unto you - only do it first. Golden Rule # 2 Them that has the gold - makes the rules. :sigh: There's always the Meta-Golden Rule[^] too :rolleyes:
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Granted, some politicians may favor Reconstructionism or whatever, but to say or imply that a majority of republicans subscribe to it does not sit well with me. Really? Who is the Republican leader currently? "God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear." —George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 "I don't bring God into my life to — to, you know, kind of be a political person." —George W. Bush, interview with Tom Brokaw aboard Air Force One, April 24, 2003 "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why seperation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic. "I have faith that with God's help we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible." DECEMBER 13, 2000 SPEAKER: PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " The Gettysburg Address Whats scary is that you will find versions of this speech where the expression "under God" is ommitted. Richard Hey I don't make this up. "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
-
JoeSox wrote: True but context man. What is his concept of God? Does that matter? We have a first amendment. He can worship a can of sardines if he so chooses. This statement doesn't support the idea that Bush is a reconstructionist. I think he's a methodist, which to my knowledge has little to do with modern evangelicalism. JoeSox wrote: I agree but it is still a possibility with the crap that comes out of GWB's mouth. I disagree. I have never heard him say anything like this. This is like calling yourself a prophet. JoeSox wrote: Supports the paradoxical statement of Seneca the Younger "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Sure it does, except for the "rulers as useful" part. But in your context it seemed to be a slap at religious people. Forgive me if I misinterpretted your meaning. JoeSox wrote: Jason Henderson wrote: Which should be feared more: church or state? Silly question in regards to this conversation, imo. I am talking about Power(State) using Religion(Church) to send fear to control. So I still stand by my statement "Fear controls it is a fact that can not be ignored and is why separation of church and state is critical for any democratic/republic." State should be control by logic, not decisions based upon fear. OK, I'll give you that one. But I still don't see anything in what GWB has done to make it look like he's trying to establish a theocracy. It's absurd, imo.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Does that matter? Of course it matters. He is a leader that has to make decisions. Decisions are made using one's belief system. Do you want a President who thinks sardines are important in law making or critical decisions that effect the county and it's future. Or worse a President who is scared of evil sardines! Jason Henderson wrote: I have never heard him say anything like this. This is like calling yourself a prophet. Why does he keep using the word "Evil" and "Will." Past presidents have not done so too the extent GWB Administration does. It's obvious to me the administration is exploiting Seneca's quote. It's a paradoxical quote, many meanings can come forth and can be true, imo. Jason Henderson wrote: OK, I'll give you that one. But I still don't see anything in what GWB has done to make it look like he's trying to establish a theocracy. It's absurd, imo. Please, the only reason why we are at war is because of the "Axis of Evil" whenever the Presidents popularity goes down, ever notice how there is a new security warning or statement? Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " The Gettysburg Address Whats scary is that you will find versions of this speech where the expression "under God" is ommitted. Richard Hey I don't make this up. "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein
What does this have to do with decision making in leadership? Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
Roger Wright wrote: Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify... How does that work? My boss sugguested to me once that I should look into New Zealand / Australia as a place to move/live/work. He said you had to pass a system of points based on age, level of education, etc. before they would let you in. I looked into it for a short while but found no way to look into jobs, entry, etc. Eventually I gave up. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
-
What does this have to do with decision making in leadership? Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: What does this have to do with decision making in leadership? These people used the word God in their speeches, so obviously by your logic, they are reconstructionists.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Jason Henderson wrote: Does that matter? Of course it matters. He is a leader that has to make decisions. Decisions are made using one's belief system. Do you want a President who thinks sardines are important in law making or critical decisions that effect the county and it's future. Or worse a President who is scared of evil sardines! Jason Henderson wrote: I have never heard him say anything like this. This is like calling yourself a prophet. Why does he keep using the word "Evil" and "Will." Past presidents have not done so too the extent GWB Administration does. It's obvious to me the administration is exploiting Seneca's quote. It's a paradoxical quote, many meanings can come forth and can be true, imo. Jason Henderson wrote: OK, I'll give you that one. But I still don't see anything in what GWB has done to make it look like he's trying to establish a theocracy. It's absurd, imo. Please, the only reason why we are at war is because of the "Axis of Evil" whenever the Presidents popularity goes down, ever notice how there is a new security warning or statement? Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Of course it matters. He is a leader that has to make decisions. Decisions are made using one's belief system. Do you want a President who thinks sardines are important in law making or critical decisions that effect the county and it's future. Or worse a President who is scared of evil sardines! The point is, that he claims to be a christian, so what? He has that right as an American and he also has the right to be president as a citizen born in this country. You have every right to be scared if you wish, but for goodness sake man, be rational. JoeSox wrote: Why does he keep using the word "Evil" and "Will." Past presidents have not done so too the extent GWB Administration does. It's obvious to me the administration is exploiting Seneca's quote. It's a paradoxical quote, many meanings can come forth and can be true, imo. I think you're reading WAY too much into it. JoeSox wrote: Please, the only reason why we are at war is because of the "Axis of Evil" whenever the Presidents popularity goes down, ever notice how there is a new security warning or statement? Huh? Were you awake on 9/11? Open your eyes man! There really are evil people in this world and I happen to think Osama, Saddam, Ayatollah whatever, and Kim Jong-Il are among them. We can't keep treating these people with kid-gloves so as not to arouse their anger. They exploit our fears for power. That's how they work, and the only way to win this war (that they started) is to take it to them, rather than to wait and allow them to bring it to us again. This is not a Christian vs. non-christian war, or an evangelism tool for the president or his advisors. It's a struggle for survival, and if we don't win, then neither will western civilization.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
JoeSox wrote: Of course it matters. He is a leader that has to make decisions. Decisions are made using one's belief system. Do you want a President who thinks sardines are important in law making or critical decisions that effect the county and it's future. Or worse a President who is scared of evil sardines! The point is, that he claims to be a christian, so what? He has that right as an American and he also has the right to be president as a citizen born in this country. You have every right to be scared if you wish, but for goodness sake man, be rational. JoeSox wrote: Why does he keep using the word "Evil" and "Will." Past presidents have not done so too the extent GWB Administration does. It's obvious to me the administration is exploiting Seneca's quote. It's a paradoxical quote, many meanings can come forth and can be true, imo. I think you're reading WAY too much into it. JoeSox wrote: Please, the only reason why we are at war is because of the "Axis of Evil" whenever the Presidents popularity goes down, ever notice how there is a new security warning or statement? Huh? Were you awake on 9/11? Open your eyes man! There really are evil people in this world and I happen to think Osama, Saddam, Ayatollah whatever, and Kim Jong-Il are among them. We can't keep treating these people with kid-gloves so as not to arouse their anger. They exploit our fears for power. That's how they work, and the only way to win this war (that they started) is to take it to them, rather than to wait and allow them to bring it to us again. This is not a Christian vs. non-christian war, or an evangelism tool for the president or his advisors. It's a struggle for survival, and if we don't win, then neither will western civilization.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: You have every right to be scared if you wish, but for goodness sake man, be rational. Exactly, bad judgments are made when they are made based upon fear and not logic. You missed my point it's about decision making which leaders do. Bad leaders made bad judgments. Jason Henderson wrote: I think you're reading WAY too much into it. I don't think so. Choosing an American President is important to the world. "...The argument from moral order hereby throws up a striking paradox. On the one hand, evil in the world serves as the ground for an argument for God's existence. On the other, that same evil serves as a ground for thinking that there is no God. The evil pointed to in the moral argument highlights the evil that is the basis of the more famous problem of evil in arguments for God's non-existence. In particular, the fact of evil provides an interesting tu quoque to any version of Argument V. Such arguments point to evil and state that, on the premise that morality is a rational enterprise, there must be a God whose providence shows that such evil is but a temporary or surface feature of our world. But if there is such a God, why is there this evil in the first place? If there was a God, there would be a moral order and a vital premise of the argument from moral order would be false. The God of theism, if actual, is working now to remedy the defects in the human will and ensure that the course of events supports the goals of virtue...." The Secular Problem of Evil[^] Logically, no one can prove if one God exists or not. So using the concept of "Evil" in any decision making is not logical and is probably bad judgment. Jason Henderson wrote: Huh? Were you awake on 9/11? Yes. It's my birthday (1974). I take it perhaps too serious and think about it everyday. Jason Henderson wrote: Open your eyes man! They have been open since I was born. Jason Henderson wrote: It's a struggle for survival, and if we don't win, then neither will western civilization. Please. These groups were never even close to wiping out Western Civilization. Then why did we retaliate so quickly? Because of fear. What do we know now? False information, etc., etc. Th
-
JoeSox wrote: What does this have to do with decision making in leadership? These people used the word God in their speeches, so obviously by your logic, they are reconstructionists.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: These people used the word God in their speeches, so obviously by your logic, they are reconstructionists. I never said that anyone that uses the word God is a reconstructionist. You are ignoring my points. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home Come to the UK! We may have an established church, but that's probably going to change soon (when Prince Charles becomes King is my guess), plus it's largely irrelevant as it is anyway, and we have a good ratio of loonies to mostly sane people (and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python) We also have the added advantage of fantastic Real Ales :-D The downside of living here is unpredictable weather, slow fast food, and sports such as cricket and darts on TV(hides in asbestos bunker ;P).
Ian Darling wrote: The downside of living here is unpredictable weather, I thought the weather was always, predictably, terrible!
//placeholder for witty verbiage
-
Ian Darling wrote: The downside of living here is unpredictable weather, I thought the weather was always, predictably, terrible!
//placeholder for witty verbiage
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I thought the weather was always, predictably, terrible! Not really. Some of today and earlier this week was fairly sunny Then only a few hours later (this afternoon) we had torrential rain. For about half an hour :rolleyes:
-
I firmly believe that the best advert for the Christian Faith is to act as Jesus taught us too - not to beat others up because they are different to any particular interpretation of what Christianity means. That's not "fighting" by any means. There's absolutely no place in my Faith for fundamentalism or literalism. I'll vote for a secular society (but without the PC rubbish that some seem to think goes with that) every time. Unfortunately Christianity does have a history of fundamentalism (look up the Defenestration of Prague, for example), so the danger is always there. I imagine life would become a lot less free in the West if more literal forms of Christianity took a hold again - and I doubt those in my position would survive that. For me at least, that's a very chilling prospect. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
"I imagine life would become a lot less free in the West if more literal forms of Christianity took a hold again - and I doubt those in my position would survive that. For me at least, that's a very chilling prospect." But what you don't seem to grasp is that others see the imposition of your philosphies in exactly the same way. The feel threatened, they feel like they are the ones being actively attacked and denied a right to exist. The only difference between you and them is that your nightmare might come true, their's is coming true right now. Those of you who defend the secularist agenda seem, ironically, to feel as though you have a God given right to impose it. That it is an innocuous set of principles that does no one no harm and leaves everyone free to pursue their own preferred life style. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secularism is a source of moral authority dependent upon the state, rather than upon the church to impose it. Those who feel threatened by it, very accurately percieve that they too must get the power of the state behind their beliefs or they will be systimatically exterminated. And they are correct in that view. They will be. Just as you would be under theirs. As I see it the solution is to stop being dependent upon the state to enforce your agenda. If you stop, they will stop. If you persist, you had better be prepared to kill a lot of people, because sooner or later, they will all be driven to terrorism to defend themselves against you. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
"I imagine life would become a lot less free in the West if more literal forms of Christianity took a hold again - and I doubt those in my position would survive that. For me at least, that's a very chilling prospect." But what you don't seem to grasp is that others see the imposition of your philosphies in exactly the same way. The feel threatened, they feel like they are the ones being actively attacked and denied a right to exist. The only difference between you and them is that your nightmare might come true, their's is coming true right now. Those of you who defend the secularist agenda seem, ironically, to feel as though you have a God given right to impose it. That it is an innocuous set of principles that does no one no harm and leaves everyone free to pursue their own preferred life style. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secularism is a source of moral authority dependent upon the state, rather than upon the church to impose it. Those who feel threatened by it, very accurately percieve that they too must get the power of the state behind their beliefs or they will be systimatically exterminated. And they are correct in that view. They will be. Just as you would be under theirs. As I see it the solution is to stop being dependent upon the state to enforce your agenda. If you stop, they will stop. If you persist, you had better be prepared to kill a lot of people, because sooner or later, they will all be driven to terrorism to defend themselves against you. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Needless to say I don't agree Stan. While there aren't (to my knowledge) any fundamentalist Christian states around at the moment (though some in Africa come close I suspect), if I lived in a fundamentalist state such as Iran I'd probably be dead by now. Call that selfishness born of an instinct for self preservation if you will, but I for one would rather be able to let individuals find their own Faith rather than having religion (of any form) rammed down their throat by the State. Don't forget I'm Christian too - but I still can't support an interpretation of Christian (or any other) doctrine becoming enshrined in Law. For a multi-cultural society such as the UK to survive, the Law must be impartial - and individuals must be free to find their own road to Faith. I don't depend on the state by the way. I merely ask that it doesn't interfere in my life any more than you would. We may differ on areas such as healthcare, but I don't wish to be told what to believe any more than I suspect you would. Incidentally, in the UK you and I (since the passing of the GerBill in Parliament on Tuesday) would have the same rights. In the US, that wouldn't be true - you would have rights I would not. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
"I imagine life would become a lot less free in the West if more literal forms of Christianity took a hold again - and I doubt those in my position would survive that. For me at least, that's a very chilling prospect." But what you don't seem to grasp is that others see the imposition of your philosphies in exactly the same way. The feel threatened, they feel like they are the ones being actively attacked and denied a right to exist. The only difference between you and them is that your nightmare might come true, their's is coming true right now. Those of you who defend the secularist agenda seem, ironically, to feel as though you have a God given right to impose it. That it is an innocuous set of principles that does no one no harm and leaves everyone free to pursue their own preferred life style. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secularism is a source of moral authority dependent upon the state, rather than upon the church to impose it. Those who feel threatened by it, very accurately percieve that they too must get the power of the state behind their beliefs or they will be systimatically exterminated. And they are correct in that view. They will be. Just as you would be under theirs. As I see it the solution is to stop being dependent upon the state to enforce your agenda. If you stop, they will stop. If you persist, you had better be prepared to kill a lot of people, because sooner or later, they will all be driven to terrorism to defend themselves against you. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: But what you don't seem to grasp is that others see the imposition of your philosphies in exactly the same way. The feel threatened, they feel like they are the ones being actively attacked and denied a right to exist. The only difference between you and them is that your nightmare might come true, their's is coming true right now. Care to provide a real example Stan? I also have some questions which may help illuminate this debate (as the rest of your post just reads as meaningless non-sequiturs to me) Is there an objective form of human morality? What is moral authority, what does it represent (eg, is it merely the right to make and enforce some sort of legal system, or does it also include constructing social taboos and other social customs which may be outside the legal system, such as the view of drinking, smoking, sex and various forms of entertainment), and how does it come about? Are your so-called moral authorities relevant if human morality is objective? To put it another way, given the presence of an objective form of human morality, does it matter which institute or organisation or lack thereof promotes it?