Christian Reconstructionism...
-
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not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am.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Roger Wright wrote: Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am.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?
-
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
"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." But we're not discussing your interpretation of religion, or mine for that matter. And I am not argueing either way for allowing religion of any sort to be "enshrined" into law. I'm argueing for dis-enshrineing secularism from the law. (Note, my arguments apply only to the US, which would simply need to return to a more traditional Jeffersonian interpretation of our constitution to achieve this. I don't know how you guys would do it. In fact, I could care less how you guys manage things, I just want my country to stop following your lead). "but I don't wish to be told what to believe any more than I suspect you would." But a secularist state is telling me not merely what to believe, but how to act upon those beliefs. "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. " Would this new law allow me to discriminate against you (or anyone else) in my own private daily life? That is, if I had a problem with transgender people, could I refuse to hire you down at my little "quicky mart" store? If not, than the state is most certainly imposing your interpretation of morality upon me now isn't it? And if it assumes the power to impose yours on me, than you cannot honestly blame me for wanting to use it to impose mine upon you in exactly the same way. "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?
(why isn't my "quote selected text" button not working?) "Care to provide a real example Stan?" An example of what? The fact that many Christians are living a nightmare scenario in which they are becoming impotent to affect the direction of society? That they will obviously beomce extinct as a state sponsered secularist agenda slaps them into submission at every turn? For God's sake, man, go read their web sites. These guys are scared shitless of you. And they should be. "Is there an objective form of human morality?" Do I believe there is? No, I don't. However, apprently I arrive at a completely different set of concusions based upon that observation. First, I acknowleged that there are many people on this planet who do believe it, and who feel threatened enough by me to stand in line for the opportunity to kill me over it. There are only three ways to deal with that situation: a) Ensure that I do not allow my own beliefs to be promulgated by the state. b) Be willing to share power with those who believe otherwise. c) Kill everyone who disagrees with me. Secondely, if there is no 'objective form or human morality' than I have absolutely no basis upon which to argue that Chrisitian morality, for example, is not as good a foundation for morality as is any other. And since we already have a Christian foundation for our code of moral ethics, than we might as well leave it as is. It is doing no one any harm, and provides a great deal of social stability. The only motivation for doing otherwise would be because I wanted to define a newly defined code of moral ethics and impose those ethics on others, including Christians, agaisnt their will. I refuse to participate in that and will side with the Christians every goddamned time. And that is not in any way a non-sequitur regardless of how you try to lamely dismiss it as such. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
"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." But we're not discussing your interpretation of religion, or mine for that matter. And I am not argueing either way for allowing religion of any sort to be "enshrined" into law. I'm argueing for dis-enshrineing secularism from the law. (Note, my arguments apply only to the US, which would simply need to return to a more traditional Jeffersonian interpretation of our constitution to achieve this. I don't know how you guys would do it. In fact, I could care less how you guys manage things, I just want my country to stop following your lead). "but I don't wish to be told what to believe any more than I suspect you would." But a secularist state is telling me not merely what to believe, but how to act upon those beliefs. "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. " Would this new law allow me to discriminate against you (or anyone else) in my own private daily life? That is, if I had a problem with transgender people, could I refuse to hire you down at my little "quicky mart" store? If not, than the state is most certainly imposing your interpretation of morality upon me now isn't it? And if it assumes the power to impose yours on me, than you cannot honestly blame me for wanting to use it to impose mine upon you in exactly the same way. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: Would this new law allow me to discriminate against you (or anyone else) in my own private daily life? That is, if I had a problem with transgender people, could I refuse to hire you down at my little "quicky mart" store? If not, than the state is most certainly imposing your interpretation of morality upon me now isn't it? And if it assumes the power to impose yours on me, than you cannot honestly blame me for wanting to use it to impose mine upon you in exactly the same way. (Now I understand better where you're coming from.) If I had some religious beliefs that allowed me to kill people called "Stan", would it be wrong of the state to jail me if I killed you - because I was acting on deeply held religious beliefs? That's what you're essentially arguing - just in a toned down manner to try and present it as respectable and some onerous imposition of morality. Secular humanist morality (which is what you're complaining about) is essentially based on rationality and reason. You have to have a good reason for a particular moral. When dealing with multiple possible moralities in a country (like in modern Western countries, where we have secular humanist, christian literalist, christian humanist, and muslim moralities etc), the only sensible approach to take is to use reason and rationality to work things out. Unless you have a better and fairer idea? That does mean that you don't get to discriminate against people who are TS in your hypothetical quickiemart (actually, why would you even be asking about that - it's irrelevant to the job of working for a quickiemart), because there are no rational reasons for doing so. (This goes double for constructive/unfair dismissal in the UK - if one of your existing staff became TS, you couldn't mistreat them to make them leave the job or fire them, because they're still capable of doing it.) I'm not even convinced if the state is really imposing a moral particularly in this case - it's practically a business regulation for people who want to run business in that country. And you could make the case that discrimination itself is immoral (being the whole point of the civil rights movement, after all), and so all the state is doing is increasing the morality to be kept to. Almost all religious denominations in the UK (and I bet in the US too) don't see this as a problem for their beliefs - why do you? The only place where the discrimination you want has a rational basis is when dealing directly with reli