PDA

View Full Version : Christianity



Casper
09-25-2011, 09:46 PM
I've been attending church recently.

.....just thought I'd say.

:banana:

I'm particularly interested in combining my political views (Libertarianism) with faith (Christianity). So I'm going to make a collection of interesting articles on Christianity and Libertarian politics:

A Biblical Case for Ron Paul (on who should be the Republican nominee for president of USA 2012). (http://networkedblogs.com/v0Vwp)

Why Ron Paul? (written by a Grace Baptist Christian Pastor) (http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/why-ron-paul-2012-01/#.TxXeYQXDLLc.facebook)

Should Christians Support the War on Drugs? (http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance283.html)

eatmywords
09-26-2011, 10:06 AM
Have you found what you're looking for?

Sid
09-26-2011, 12:21 PM
What a waste of time that is.

Will
09-26-2011, 06:58 PM
What a waste of time that is.

That's a subjective opinion of course.

Sid
09-26-2011, 07:45 PM
That's a subjective opinion of course.

It was one of my many rash and inaccurate statements as usual.
Many people devote their whole lives to the church and all things churchy. This gives them a sense of fulfilment, worth and hope for eternal life.
I prefer to spent my time in the real world.

Casper
09-26-2011, 09:04 PM
Have you found what you're looking for?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnD6ojjA0OA



Many people devote their whole lives to the church and all things churchy. This gives them a sense of fulfilment, worth and hope for eternal life.
I prefer to spent my time in the real world.

Why can't the real world also be full of fulfilment, worth, and hope for an eternal life?

eatmywords
10-25-2011, 10:31 PM
I believe in a greater power than ourselves that regulates the universe, considering the system must be a functioning system, otherwise there is no point to anything. What that system is, and how it is regulated is well beyond me, but if the universe is an engine, then there must be a fuel powering that engine, and there must be a purpose to the energy that is being produced and expended. I really don't think religion comes into that in any way. Why we should bend down and praise this unknown is palpably ridiculous, seeing as we are part of that system and must have a divine purpose to its function. In essence people who adhere to religion, but not God, are praising something they know nothing about.

Casper
10-30-2011, 04:10 PM
I believe in a greater power than ourselves that regulates the universe, considering the system must be a functioning system, otherwise there is no point to anything. What that system is, and how it is regulated is well beyond me, but if the universe is an engine, then there must be a fuel powering that engine, and there must be a purpose to the energy that is being produced and expended. I really don't think religion comes into that in any way. Why we should bend down and praise this unknown is palpably ridiculous, seeing as we are part of that system and must have a divine purpose to its function.

Hey that's a really interesting analogy about how the universe is an engine powered by a divine fuel. The reason why we praise God is because, if he is the fuel of the universe, we are so thankful for his grace which includes all the privileges and opportunities in life as well as what Jesus did for for us so that we may come to know him.



In essence people who adhere to religion, but not God, are praising something they know nothing about.

Christianity is in total agreement with this.

Sid
11-05-2011, 11:59 AM
Hey that's a really interesting analogy about how the universe is an engine powered by a divine fuel. The reason why we praise God is because, if he is the fuel of the universe, we are so thankful for his grace which includes all the privileges and opportunities in life as well as what Jesus did for for us so that we may come to know him.




Christianity is in total agreement with this.
I believe that Jesus was a terrorist who brought together various terrorist factions to attempt to take back their land from the Romans. When he was caught his fellow terrorists helped to free him and help him escape to France.

eatmywords
11-07-2011, 10:28 AM
I believe that Jesus was a terrorist who brought together various terrorist factions to attempt to take back their land from the Romans. When he was caught his fellow terrorists helped to free him and help him escape to France.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU3aQ43YkwU&feature=related

Curious. A terrorist's mandate taking over the dominant culture so completely it can barely be recognised 300 years later? I can't see it happening today.

Casper
11-07-2011, 11:38 PM
i believe that jesus was a terrorist who brought together various terrorist factions to attempt to take back their land from the romans. When he was caught his fellow terrorists helped to free him and help him escape to france.

X D

Isn't it cool how after 2000 years, we're still talking and even singing about him?

bad machine
12-25-2011, 12:01 AM
So our constantly expanding universe has not reached the peak!
Are we to avoid the destructive habit of humanity before the Ice-Age and before the next large enough Meteor strikes
13.5 billion years of chance launches us through time to an inevatible trajectory hopefully?
Will God pull the Galaxy apart to save us or are we still immersed in the dark ages of fable and Myth.........

bad machine
12-27-2011, 07:35 PM
X D

Isn't it cool how after 2000 years, we're still talking and even singing about him?


Actually I fail too see any relevance and especially what is cool in the sense of advancing the human reace as a minority that is inrtertwined with law and supports' continue to report our very existence with a dishevelled philosophy. It is not hasn't and will never be.

Mack
01-02-2012, 09:09 PM
X D

Isn't it cool how after 2000 years, we're still talking and even singing about him?

Considering he was most certainly a socialist, it is a little cool to know so many people with right wing views like to think they are in touch with him.

Casper
01-03-2012, 09:19 PM
Considering he was most certainly a socialist, it is a little cool to know so many people with right wing views like to think they are in touch with him.

Hi Mack. I harbour right wing views in terms of the economic perspective, but not from the personal perspective. I'm a Libertarian and I believe Jesus was a Libertarian too. Hopefully, the diagram of the political spectrum below shows what I mean about the two different dimensions of politics:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lornjwv4G21qamjdr.png


Jesus Christ's views are more consistent with libertarianism than socialism. Christ's words and actions reflect the libertarian commitment to the rights of person and property, and hint at the Austrian School understanding of money (free market economics). Jesus taught the Golden Rule and believed all individuals, including state actors, must observe it and must make reparations for violating it. He believed that taxation was theft and a violation of individual private property rights. He believed in wise, calculated, and non-violent civil disobedience. He believed that neither the state nor any collective group has a role in punishing or enforcing victimless crimes. Finally, he believed in sound money. One does not have to accept any particular Christian creed to know that politically, Jesus was a libertarian.

Although Jesus’ interactions with the state are limited, those few interactions provide deep insight into his political views. Some of the most reviled characters in the New Testament gospels are unquestionably the tax collectors. These are the locals who served the empire by collecting from their own people, often skimming or demanding their own personal tribute. Although Jesus is kind and generous to the tax collectors, there is no question that he regards them as "sinners" who have violated God’s law and who must acknowledge their sins and repent.

Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all. Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose and although there is some authority in his teachings for the use of force in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

I accept that Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group’s money. So one might conclude that Jesus had little regard for private property. But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalisation, for the core of Jesus’ teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift, entrepreneurship, the productive use of capital, negotiation of debts, respect for others’ property, responsible stewardship of one’s own private property and freedom of contract.

Jesus said that the rich should give to the poor, not that the rich man should have his possessions taken from him and then given to the poor - a subtle but important difference. Helping the needy, ill and poor, as well as preserving the rights of individuals is exactly what should happen in a Libertarian society. The difference is that in a Libertarian society it happens out of love and respect whereas in a Socialist one it happens out of violence and hatred against the rich and those that do not conform with the collectivist ideal. Just because Libertarians don't believe in taxation, that doesn't mean we don't believe in helping the poor, ill, and needy. It's just that we don't believe that such charitable notions are best served by the state through the use of taxation.

Mack
01-04-2012, 09:04 PM
O K, Casper he was a Libertarian, but with a distinct whiff of socialism. He didn,t like money lenders, bankers to you and me, he had no doubts that rich men would not get to heaven. His views on tax collectors , was more to do with the nature of the governance, demanding those taxes." The Roman occupation, and local despots" not an opposition to organised government. He may not have wanted the rich to have there money forced from them, and given to the poor, but he told them time and time again, to spread it about, not now and again, when it felt good,but constantly, because there was a price to pay if they didn,t. Bit one sided of you with the violence and hatred accusations, Some of the treatment of the poor dished out in many right wing countries around the world hasn,t come to your attention yet it seems.

Casper
01-30-2012, 08:18 PM
The Biblical Case for a Libertarian Government (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/biblical-case/)

The Relic
02-16-2012, 04:24 PM
I believe in a greater power than ourselves that regulates the universe, considering the system must be a functioning system, otherwise there is no point to anything. What that system is, and how it is regulated is well beyond me, but if the universe is an engine, then there must be a fuel powering that engine, and there must be a purpose to the energy that is being produced and expended. I really don't think religion comes into that in any way. Why we should bend down and praise this unknown is palpably ridiculous, seeing as we are part of that system and must have a divine purpose to its function. In essence people who adhere to religion, but not God, are praising something they know nothing about.

The universe just is because it has to be. It is a single system, probably among a "froth" of other universes existing to deny the paradox that would be complete absence, that obviates the need for gods or driving energies beyond what it already encompasses. It doesn't need governance beyond the mathematical rules and balances that keep it in check.

One of the great conceits of religion is that such a perspective robs life of meaning, yet beyond simple appreciation of the unimaginable vastness of the universe itself, and of the multifarious organisms that have been spawned on this planet as a result of a few quite simple rules, there is the fulfilment engenderd by creativity, love, family and friends.

The Relic
02-16-2012, 04:26 PM
Casper, as analgesics for that selective article you linked to(all attitudes based on that silly old book are necessarily selective), I suggest a strong dose of Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great and a lie down with a very friendly woman.

eatmywords
02-18-2012, 09:47 AM
The universe just is because it has to be. It is a single system, probably among a "froth" of other universes existing to deny the paradox that would be complete absence, that obviates the need for gods or driving energies beyond what it already encompasses. It doesn't need governance beyond the mathematical rules and balances that keep it in check.

One of the great conceits of religion is that such a perspective robs life of meaning, yet beyond simple appreciation of the unimaginable vastness of the universe itself, and of the multifarious organisms that have been spawned on this planet as a result of a few quite simple rules, there is the fulfilment engenderd by creativity, love, family and friends.

Under such a premise, we should still be in the trees munching on leaves. Whether that is a good or bad thing is irrevocably debatable, but putting forward an argument something is because it is, is rather trite and something that should be left in the Dark Ages. How can you appreciate something if you don't know what it is, nor have any understanding of it? If I have no understanding of a tree, then I could suppose it is a threat to my existence. But then I'm supposing on something I'm not supposed to suppose about. Your argument supposes we should be non-thinking beings that should accept everything that is merely for the sake of being. I'd say your argument leads into religion, not out of it.

By having a greater understanding of the unknown brings us closer to a unified theory on what is, and therefore a greater understanding of what it is not.

Mack
02-20-2012, 08:43 PM
Oh! What fun it is to not know the answers to the many questions involved in knowing why we exist, and what is behind the universe we exist in. We are though aware of our existence and its bounds, as they are at this time. So to deny the possibility of a creator in what ever form that may take , is an assumption almost as poor as denying ones own existence. This is not to say that we know, it is to say that we have an open mind which is going to be receptive to any answer which may come in time. To say that we just exist in a universe that just happens to be there is in basic terms a cop out, only to be used if we are not interested in whatever the answer may ever be. The trouble with religions is that they profess to know the answers, which they don,t.

The Relic
02-20-2012, 10:52 PM
Under such a premise, we should still be in the trees munching on leaves. Whether that is a good or bad thing is irrevocably debatable, but putting forward an argument something is because it is, is rather trite and something that should be left in the Dark Ages. How can you appreciate something if you don't know what it is, nor have any understanding of it? If I have no understanding of a tree, then I could suppose it is a threat to my existence. But then I'm supposing on something I'm not supposed to suppose about. Your argument supposes we should be non-thinking beings that should accept everything that is merely for the sake of being. I'd say your argument leads into religion, not out of it.

By having a greater understanding of the unknown brings us closer to a unified theory on what is, and therefore a greater understanding of what it is not.

Read my post. I didn't say that it is because it is: I said it is because it has to be, which is the position of Hawking and countless other physicists, and went on to refer to the paradox that would be total absence.

To quote Hawking directly: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [....] Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist...It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I think he said this to clarify that when most physicists speak of God, and in particular when he made his own reference to the "mind of God", they are speaking in an airy cosmological rather than theological sense, though that tit Robert Winston never seems to understand that.

Richard Feynman also deemed it necessary to make similar remarks on several occasions, and speaking of that great man here are three quotes from him that rank among the wisest things I've ever read.

"It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe, beyond man, to contemplate what it would be like without man, as it was in a great part of its long history and as it is in a great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting. It usually ends in laughter and delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is, this thing—atoms with curiosity—that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate."

"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time—life and death—stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."

And here's one from Andy Partridge which is just as profound.

http://youtu.be/Cn_ESuu0xIw

The Relic
02-20-2012, 11:10 PM
Oh! What fun it is to not know the answers to the many questions involved in knowing why we exist, and what is behind the universe we exist in. We are though aware of our existence and its bounds, as they are at this time. So to deny the possibility of a creator in what ever form that may take , is an assumption almost as poor as denying ones own existence. This is not to say that we know, it is to say that we have an open mind which is going to be receptive to any answer which may come in time. To say that we just exist in a universe that just happens to be there is in basic terms a cop out, only to be used if we are not interested in whatever the answer may ever be. The trouble with religions is that they profess to know the answers, which they don,t.

Except that the presence of a universe which proceeds according to recognisable laws, together with the discernible absence of the influence of a god within it (it's very quiet for a god, isn't it?) removes the necessity for one, and once it's out of the way we can better approach the truth without obfuscating references to loopy ideas drawn from ancient texts.

In the meantime even positing the existence of a creator that somehow exists outside of space/time yet is capable of manipulating both remains risible beyond belief, even if you leave aside the understanding that a "necessary" creator would only necessitate a creator for the creator and so on. Let's grow up and put this crap behind us.

The Relic
02-20-2012, 11:50 PM
The difference is that in a Libertarian society it happens out of love and respect whereas in a Socialist one it happens out of violence and hatred against the rich and those that do not conform with the collectivist ideal.

So the NHS was born out of violence? The tolerant, free Chile that reflects the spirit of Salvador Allende was born out of violence?

For a "Christian" you wear your prejudices and lack of understanding - both things concomitant with hatred - like a great big badge on your chest.

Just wondering, are you still into eugenics, Mr Libertarian?

Casper
02-21-2012, 12:17 AM
So the NHS was born out of violence? The tolerant, free Chile that reflects the spirit of Salvador Allende was born out of violence?

For a "Christian" you wear your prejudices and lack of understanding - both things concomitant with hatred - like a great big badge on your chest.

Just wondering, are you still into eugenics, Mr Libertarian?

Well actually yes the NHS is supported by violence. People are forced to fund the NHS by the state. I'd much rather prefer a mixture of totally privatised and charity provided healthcare. You're right, I do have an unhealthy disliking of anything that seems like socialism and I pray to God that I can appreciate the arguments put forward by socialists. Indeed, since taking up Christianity I have decided to stop mocking socialists. The socialist argument is a powerful one, but that's only because it is mostly emotional based and not practical (in my opinion). Anyway, no I don't remember when I was ever seriously into the idea of eugenics. If I ever stated my support for it, it was probably as a wind up.

rmg3
02-22-2012, 11:27 AM
Well actually yes the NHS is supported by violence. People are forced to fund the NHS by the state. I'd much rather prefer a mixture of totally privatised and charity provided healthcare.

What a load of bullshit that first part is. The NHS is funded by central government. The idea that working people's NI contributions is to fund the NHS is as outdated as child chimney sweeps. For the second part, move to America and see how their healthcare system doesn't work unless you have the ability to pay. Oh, and next time you're ill, don't go to your local NHS surgery, or call an ambulance. Call a private clinic and pay a fortune for it. In a previous job I was lucky to have private healthcare as part of the package. It didn't cover regular GP visits or emergencies though. A few years ago I had a slipped disc in my neck which required surgery. The total bill (paid by my work system) was £5,000.00. Still support a private system Casper?

eatmywords
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
What a load of bullshit that first part is. The NHS is funded by central government. The idea that working people's NI contributions is to fund the NHS is as outdated as child chimney sweeps. For the second part, move to America and see how their healthcare system doesn't work unless you have the ability to pay. Oh, and next time you're ill, don't go to your local NHS surgery, or call an ambulance. Call a private clinic and pay a fortune for it. In a previous job I was lucky to have private healthcare as part of the package. It didn't cover regular GP visits or emergencies though. A few years ago I had a slipped disc in my neck which required surgery. The total bill (paid by my work system) was £5,000.00. Still support a private system Casper?

I don't think you can call it bullshit rmg3, as I can see the point trying to be made, no matter how much I disagree with it. The NHS, much like the tv licence fee, is an aggressive system. We must all pay even though many may never use it. And much of it is subsidised because of violence and stupidity. But this is not taking away anything from the fact it is a glorious socialist system where all, including the rich, can exploit it without fear of cost or consequence.

Indeed you are right that if we were to travel down the road of corporate health systems, then the rich would create a safe-haven of all the best doctors, facilities and after-care. While the poor would be nothing more than lab-rats for the treatment of the rich. Now, that seems to be a much more aggressive system to me.

Mack
02-22-2012, 06:11 PM
Except that the presence of a universe which proceeds according to recognisable laws, together with the discernible absence of the influence of a god within it (it's very quiet for a god, isn't it?) removes the necessity for one, and once it's out of the way we can better approach the truth without obfuscating references to loopy ideas drawn from ancient texts.

In the meantime even positing the existence of a creator that somehow exists outside of space/time yet is capable of manipulating both remains risible beyond belief, even if you leave aside the understanding that a "necessary" creator would only necessitate a creator for the creator and so on. Let's grow up and put this crap behind us.
So you consider it grown up to refuse to accept the possibility there is more to our existance, than merely being here. I,d have thought that was more akin to refusing to open one,s mind enough to accept that anything is possible.

Northumbrian
02-24-2012, 12:18 AM
So you consider it grown up to refuse to accept the possibility there is more to our existance, than merely being here. I,d have thought that was more akin to refusing to open one,s mind enough to accept that anything is possible.

I find the question "Why do we exist?" utterly meaningless. This odd human need to apply a purpose to everything is called teleology and it is the source of much misunderstanding. I believe teleology is the foundation of religious belief, and it is something that every science teacher has to fight against. Its starts in young children. If you ask a 6 year old why there are clouds in the sky, he will not talk about the condensation of water vapour in saturated air. He will say that clouds exist "to give us rain" or to "shade us on a hot day". Ask another 6 year old why there is a funny shaped rock in the next field and again he will not talk about wind erosion or glacial deposition. He will say the rock is there so that "animals can scratch their back on it". Unfortunately, this need for teleological explanations for everything persists into adulthood for many of us. Once you accept that there is a reason for the existence of clouds or rocks, its is not a huge mental leap to start imagining a supernatural being who puts them there.

Natural objects and phenomena exist in the Universe because the laws of Physics and Chemistry allow them to exist. This applies equally to clouds, rainbows, stars, human beings and atoms. It is a delusion of grandeur to suggest that human beings have a greater purpose in the Universe. Indeed, as a former Astrophysicist I can confirm that the Universe is blissfully unaware that we even exist at all.

Just because the Universe (or "God") doesn't give us a reason why we exist, it doesn't mean that we cannot give a purpose to our own lives. If all humans concentrated on improving themselves, and improving their society, instead of perpetuating ancient myths, the world would be a better place.