5:00 Women
6:00 Stevie Nicks singing Dreams
12:00 Helpless white people in need of me to do their thinking for them
14:00 My attitude towards conspiracy theories
15:00 Global Man
19:00 The Iron Law of Streaming
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
97 comments:
"If we were moved as easily by force as we are by truth, logic and morality, we would already be in paradise."
Truth, logic and morality rarely move people. Given your interest in persuading others, you might be interested in Think Again by Adam Grant. LOTS of discussion re: how changing people's views really happens.
Most people are sheeple who can be made to believe in anything. The idea is to get them believing in the right kind of thing while obeying the correct moral system. Getting this to happen is particularly difficult if there is really no one in charge, as is the case in a matriarchy.
my mistake. You are not interested in exploring the topic...
I am interested in changing people's minds, but most people are only interested in following the leader without much caring how the leader came to be leader even if they know the leader cheated to win. Thank you for the book recommendation.
You are welcome to change my mind about anything!
Given what you have said in the past, I thought you would be interested in how to change other people's minds. Fine with me if you continue your current approach.
"You’ll learn how an international debate champion wins arguments, how a Black musician persuades white supremacists to abandon hate, how a vaccine whisperer convinces concerned parents to immunize their children, and how Adam has coaxed Yankees fans to root for the Red Sox. "
https://www.adamgrant.net/book/think-again/
I am really more interested in talking to opinion formers rather than sheeple. Only honorable and influential people would be interested my ideas ie people in government or who want to be in government governing in the long term national interest who see the point in having a sustainable moral system. I am frankly not optimistic and you have more or less confirmed my fears by saying that no one is interested in Truth, Logic and Morality, not even educated and influential people in government as politicians. I still have to go through the motions though.
and assuming you can't learn anything from a book that talks about how international debate champions win debates is probably why you will continue only going through the motions: you aren't connecting with either the opinion formers or the 'sheeple'.
I invite you to change my mind about whatever you disagree with me about to show how open minded I am! I have identified quite a few people I would like to talk to, but what can I do if they refuse to engage with me? Perhaps they refuse to engage with me because they already know they are going to lose the debate or know they cannot answer any of my questions honestly without giving their position away.
Since you have read the book, you can try it out its techniques on me!
Good observation! Yes, I could try the different approaches - IF I were trying to influence you. All I was doing was sharing info about a book, which, when I was reading it, made me at times think of you, and your approach to discussions (typically, I thought of you when reading about 'what people often do and why it doesn't work') It is entirely up to you whether you want to invest some reading time to see if there are any techniques that might make you more effective.
I have been told I can be quite persuasive. I do only want to deal with honorable and influential people who make a point of acting on the moral imperative. The number of people who agree with me one day and then will have reset their minds by the next time we speak against whatever they agreed to is discouraging indeed. But this is what happens when you live in a matriarchy peopled by atheist nihilistic narcissists who reject the moral imperative in favour of the promptings of their appetites, ego and the mood of the moment.
Interesting. You've been told you can be quite persuasive, and yet you say a discouraging number of people have changed their minds by the time you next speak and you conclude that it has nothing to do with you, but rather an inevitable result of people living in a matriarchy, etc.
It is actually something that Hitler complained about in Mein Kampf about the people he debated with. They would appear to agree with him, and he would be delighted at what he thought was the progress he was making, but the next time he met them again, it was as if his winning arguments were never heard or conceded.
The fact that you are not about to use the methods of Adam Grant that you have so thoughtfully recommended to me does rather suggest that you do not think it will be effective against someone who has arrived at her considered position based on correct information as well sound conclusions and principles.
To prove me wrong, you would have to argue successfully that we do not live in a matriarchy in which most men and women are nihilists and habitual liars suffering from narcissistic personality disorder who were the badly parented children of broken homes who were never taught discipline, the use of reason either in the home or in their schools who were devoid of the shared values that a functioning moral system would have given them.
Of course, it is just easier for everyone to pretend that they have never heard such a thing as matriarchy because feminists are still complaining about patriarchy.
One of the first things that Adam Grant suggests is not entering a discussion with the intent of 'proving' the other person wrong. That, and some of the other things I read in the book are indeed ideas I'm using. Another point is that regardless of how a person arrives at a deeply held belief - via correct info and well thought out principles or absolute irrationality - it is difficult to change their mind.
You've outlined what I'd have to do to prove you wrong. What I'm interested in is where have you shown your theory right - who have you persuaded, who is not a member of a matriarchy, and not a nihilist etc.? As a logical person, I'm sure you have been able to compare the characteristics of times when you've been successful, with times you haven't
I am aware that when discussing politics with people it is exactly the same as discussing religion. In the end, it will be about good and evil as well who is good and who is evil. Atheists who hold nothing sacred hold their own long held views to be sacred. The longer they have held that view, the more sacred they think their view is. This is fair enough if the ground rules of Truth and Logic were being observed, but often they are not.
In arguments of words, some verbal response is always possible even if it is repetitive and nonsensical - the purpose of Catholics learning their catechism as a form of verbal defence against doubters and challengers.
Very few men want to acknowledge that they live in a matriarchy because it is like discovering that your society has cancer.
When someone asks you to do something, you can always deny that it needs doing, or if it does need doing but you are the one to do it, or if you are the one to do it that the person asking you to do it has the right to compel you to do it.
What bemuses me is that no one even tries to prove me wrong since they do not engage. They do not engage because they wish to ignore their moral imperative.
It is not actually my responsibility to effect the changes, since I am but the messenger, looking for the recipient, who is supposed to be the responsible adult in charge. Do Americans really think Biden is in charge? My job, insofar as I understand it, is to make sure that my message is understood by those in a position to do something about it. If my proposal is rejected, proper reasons should be given instead of the predictable accusations of being mad, since nobody can ever tell me what I have said that is untrue, illogical or immoral.
My thesis is that in a matriarchy, no one is in charge. Neurotic men with status and wealth try to impress women, and the most desirable of them would be young, foolish and cruel. Their beauty does not last and neither does their hold on power, until the next lot of young foolish and cruel women take over, and on and on and on until your civilisation is destroyed by civil war or ended by invasion and conquest.
I had to smile when I read "What bemuses me is that no one even tries to prove me wrong since they do not engage. They do not engage because they wish to ignore their moral imperative. " Again with the binary worldview. There are so many other reasons people do not engage than your explanation of ignoring their moral imperative. And one of those reasons is that you often do not listen to what others are saying.
For example, I hoped you would provide me with a non-matriarchy example.
I am always listening to people. They do not engage because they already know they cannot win the argument, probably!
To be binary is to be primed for decision and action!
to be binary is to be blind to much of reality.
appearances are apparently deceiving as you have not given the appearance of always listening. I'm still waiting for an example of a non-matriarchal society. How will anyone believe you offer a better alternative if you can't point to anywhere where your alternative is working?
I didn't answer your question because I didn't understand it at first. Any society operating representative democracy suffering from globohomo and feminism imposed by the West would be technically a matriarchy eg Taiwan in contrast to China. Iran also comes to mind.
Please tell me to which reality I have blinded myself.
So to be clear - you view China and Iran as examples of how you believe society ought to be run?
China and Iran are the only countries in the world strong enough to defy the might of America and its allies.
So if I'm following what you have said in this and previous exchanges, your message to the leaders of the US (whoever they may be) that the US is headed in the wrong direction, and the US needs to adopt your recommended rational and moral solutions in order to change and be more like China and Iran. Is that correct?
Let us first define what rational and moral Americans may find appealing about Iran and China: the fact that they have an independent foreign policy that they believe to be in the national interest. Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was a Western puppet under the Shah. Before China had its Communist Revolution, it was a victim of Western imperialism. Western citizens feel invaded by the illegal immigration that their governments facilitate and know that their government does not care about them and even actually means them harm, which must be profoundly dispiriting. Whatever sacrifices Chinese and Iranian citizens are expected to make for their national interest, they probably feel more trust and confidence in their government than Trump voters feel now towards the Biden Administration.
Ok, I need to understand what you mean by your first sentence - what is 'an independent foreign policy'?
Independent foreign policy = doing anything that will get the US mad at you for whatever reason
In fact, you don't even get to choose the political process you want to have, because you must be a democracy or you will be denounced for "human rights abuses" by Western media and regime change imposed on you.
I have already argued before that liberal democracy is a kind of white supremacy because America wants every country in the world to use liberal democracy so Washington can control it.
And now I'm even more confused. You have said in this and previous exchanges, your message to the leaders of the US (whoever they may be) that the US is headed in the wrong direction, and the US needs to adopt your recommended rational and moral solutions in order to change and be more like China and Iran because they have independent foreign policy, which means doing anything that will get the US mad at you for whatever reason. SO you are advocating that the US do whatever that will make the US mad??
I am saying that the US and all nations should have government i the national interest whose domestic and international policy should reflect the principles of Secular Koranism.
So we are back to my original question - what country or countries currently have domestic and international policies that reflect the principles of Secular Koranism?
They would be countries that don't tolerate unmarried parents.
and exactly what does this lack of tolerance mean? Does the state take the child away? Abort unborn children? Imprison one or both parents?
I had in mind treating unmarried parents as sex offenders as quran.com/24/2 prescribes. I do not propose to ban abortion. Unmarried women in need of an abortion would be lashed 100 times before having it performed.
OK you are now saying the test of a country's morality is whether they give 100 lashes to fornicators, and force abortion on unwed women. And you believe that if you could talk to governmental leaders and persuade them to follow that path that they might be able to save their country. And you believe that the only reason someone wouldn't be persuaded by your message is because they come from a society which doesn't believe in giving lashes to unwed couples. And you believe "nobody can ever tell me what I have said that is untrue, illogical or immoral. "
Have I got that right?
The fact that no one in government can entertain let alone propose the idea of punishing parents of illegitimate offspring who are the agents of chaos and criminality is ipso facto conclusive evidence that the West is a matriarchy. As if further evidence were needed, the fact that no one complaining about their government is either able to entertain or propose restoring the patriarchy is further evidence that the West is a hopelessly degenerate matriarchy. It is fortunate indeed that I am here to propose a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism which includes the punishment prescribed at Quran.com/24/2 so Westerners need only discuss their truth, logic and morality. You may think of me as your Jonah, if you like. The global media event of Western leaders in sackcloth and ashes grovelling on the ground is something many will be looking forward to!
Since some 75 million Americans voted for Trump in part because he claimed to be pro-life, where abortions weren't allowed even in the case of rape, and you are willing to advocate abortion simply because a child was conceived out of wedlock, you have a LONG ways to go to persuade Americans that Secular Koranism is a solution to anything: it violates the morality of most Americans. And for many of Americans, Secular Koranism does not represent truth or logic. You also have misinterpreted Jonah - Jonah didn't want to say what God wanted him to say, and he ran away, and got swallowed by the whale. Once he went to Nineveh and started speaking, the people repented and changed their ways.
I find it unimaginable that a significant proportion of Trump supporters voted for him solely because of his position on abortion. Trump voters would be social conservatives against abortion and certainly against abortion on demand. It is possible that even the dimmest Trump supporter has made the connection between a low birth rate and immigration and that sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting could be cured by being significantly sterner against promiscuous women who casually get themselves knocked up and becoming welfare moms producing the next generation of unemployable criminals.
If no one will warn Americans about their precarious position of being a matriarchy and being on the slippery slope of suffering ever worsening government, education and criminality in high places and low, I will not turn away from that task. Imagine how the world would be if America saw its role as being that shining Islamic city on a hill, the indispensable and exceptional nation that adopts Secular Koranism kicking out the matriarchy of liberal democracy out of the West and Israel! The prospect of seeing neocon American politicians grovelling on the ground outside Congress in their sackcloth and ashes may just be enough to mollify victims of American foreign policy.
50% - 80% of Americans already think we are on the slippery slope of ever worsening government. And warnings fill the airwaves and social media. So that part of your message just gets lost in all the noise. If you have have observed the US at all, you would know that being a 'shining Islamic city' and kicking matriarchy out of West and Israel are the very last things those Americans think would be the solution. Being the least bit Islamic is an anathema to Christians, and being anti-democracy is an anathema to most Americans.
You said "I find it unimaginable that a significant proportion of Trump supporters voted for him solely because of his position on abortion" - which clearly shows out of touch with US politics you are. There are significant numbers of supporters with this belief, and it has nothing to do with the insight you speculated. For many Trump supporters, human life starts with conception, and thus abortion is murder and Jesus condemns murder. There were Trump supporters who literally said that you couldn't vote Democrat and still be a Christian, simply because of that one issue.
Most Americans are not really Christian because they are not confirmed Christians. If they are confirmed Christians, they don't really believe that Jesus is God. This means most Americans are without the guidance of a moral system, unless you consider the mess that generations of Americans politicians have served up as legislation to be a moral system.
While I would completely agree with you that most Americans and Westerners are Islamophobes, I am just pointing out that if you did believe in God but deny the Trinity, you are closer to being Muslim in belief than you are to being Christian. The Christian belief that Jesus is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe is regarded as idolatry and blasphemy by Jews and Muslims.
Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington were non-Trinitarian proto-Muslims because they believed in God but denied the Trinity.
What cannot be denied is that most Americans and Westerners are atheists. Atheists would be hedonists and nihilists who would be narcissists and sociopaths - people easily threatened and bribed because they subscribe to no moral principle. The narcissist is a person who makes a god of his own appetites, beliefs and inclinations. Since this is precisely the problem of those who govern as well as those who are governed, Truth, Logic and Morality will continue to be denied, ignored and rejected for as long as the existence of the matriarchy is denied.
This goes back to an earlier comment I made about how you oversimplify and twist things so they fit neatly into your world view with little to no recognition that the resulting image you have bears little resemblance to reality.
You are entitled your own definition of Christian. However, your definition is irrelevant, since a large number of people believe they are Christian, that Jesus is God, and that in following Christ, they are following a moral system laid out in the Bible.
If your laws do not reflect your moral system, then your moral system is not in operation, is it?
I'm not aware of any evidence that most Americans and Westerners are self-professed atheist. (You may choose to label them that way, but your label is irrelevant.) And I know atheists. Again, you have decided people fit neatly into box A or box B. Atheist have all the range of personality types as non-atheists. There are atheists with more of a moral code than some self-professed Christians.
Can you give an example of atheists with more of a moral code than some self-professed Christians?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/states-with-the-most-atheism-in-america.html
It is actually necessary to say that you believe in an afterlife or posterity for you to take morality necessary.
You've again twisted what I said. I said that that Christians feel they are following the Bible. And since Americans have long viewed themselves as a Christian country (right or wrong), their faith has informed the legal system. So the laws do indeed reflect the moral system. Many people follow the laws, however, because they are consistent with their belief in the Bible., and they believe when the Bible and the laws collide, the Bible is the greater authority, hence bakers who would not make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Which Christian principles are US law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States is a 1892 case which suggests Americans have been wondering whether they are a Christian country way back.
They are people I know. And since I live in New England, which, per the info you shared, has a higher % of non-religious, makes some sense (I didn't have a chance to read the whole thing, but 'non-religious' doesn't sound like a synonym for atheist.
It is exasperating how so many terms are undefined and cannot be agreed on, like trying to do algebra where none of the values are defined.
RE: Holy Trinity link you shared - this was an especially relevant excerpt "But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. .. It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis—one which justifies its use"
RE: your earlier discussion of Christians who don't believe in the Trinity being proto Muslims. The Trinity is part of why I believe it is of God - mankind alone would not have developed such a mind bending concept. Without it, Jesus is just a prophet.
It is only the Koran that guarantees freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256
But it is idolatry to worship a man as God!
I certainly agree with the challenges of lack of shared definitions!!
and it is not idolatry if the man is God.
quran.com/2/256 certainly doesn't sound like a freedom of belief to me. Sounds like a variant of one of the 10 Commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"
"There shall be no compulsion in belief" sounds to me like "There shall be no thought crime".
You can't really explain how an executed revolutionary could be the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe. There is no authority for this proposition in the New Testament.
yes, that part of the verse sounds good. However it goes on "for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah..." which sounds to me like it is saying Allah is the only true God.
The Abrahamic God became man and walked among us, and was crucified in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The concept of God becoming man exceeded the vocabulary of the times, so at times the word 'son' was used. The New Testament has Jesus saying 'Before Abraham was, I AM'. for more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_(biblical_term)
I regret to have to inform you that confusing God and His Creation is idolatry, as Spinoza found to his cost when he conceived of pantheism.
Agreed. And Jesus, as God, was the Creator.
Exactly how did Jesus merge with the Abrahamic God?
May I know what denomination of Christianity you are?
Protestant
Exactly how did Jesus merge with the Abrahamic God?
He is the Abrahamic God made man.
Are religious narratives reliable when there are so many religions in the world?
There are only two Abrahamic faiths for gentiles: Christianity and Islam. The First Amendment is based on Quran.com/2/256 and Christianity has failed not just in America but in the West since hardly anyone is Christian these days. The First Amendment is the most notable human right principle of the American Republic Islamic in origin.
Apparently when all else fails, you repeat yourself. And I'll repeat myself: Whether you consider them legitimately Christian is irrelevant - Many Americans consider themselves Christian. And while there is some resemblance between the Quran verse and the 1st Amendment, the Founding Fathers had other inputs (and personal experiences) to influence them as well.
RE: Are religious narratives reliable when there are so many religions in the world? It depends on who wrote them when and how man others copied it. Personally, I don't consider narratives based on one individual very reliable (e.g. John Smith and founder of Mormonism.)
I am well aware that my problem is that people are not moved by Truth, Logic and Morality because their society is a matriarchy. You don't seem to care and are in fact pleased about it rather than being concerned, which proves my point.
Nobody saw Jesus becoming God, did they? This narrative was cooked up by a bunch of bishops in Nicaea who couldn't even agree called to a council by an emperor who wasn't even Christian, 300 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. The Koran says Jesus didn't die on the cross and only appeared to do so. The New Testament doesn't mention Jesus becoming God and is therefore only hearsay evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, being the testimony of mortal fallible men. The Torah and the Koran are believed by Jews and Muslims to be the Word of God while the Christian narrative itself states that Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin for saying his papa was God. Christian worship after the Council of Nicaea in fact took this narrative much further because it not only said the papa of Jesus was God, but that Jesus has become God. This must have been painful for Jew's to have a man they convicted of blasphemy worshipped as the co-equal of God!
No, your problem is that you choose to simplify your logic and analysis to those who agree with you and those who don't. Truth, Logic and Morality move me very much. We disagree, however, re: what the Truth is, what is logical, and how morality is defined.
Jesus didn't 'become' God, He was God. He said He was God in the front of many witnesses. And there were several witnesses to His resurrection, who separately told their stories, which were written down prior to Nicaea. You choose to believe what was written in the Koran (which, as I understand it, is purportedly the words of one man). I choose to believe what was written in the New Testament.
The Muslim narrative is that the Koran is the word of God in Arabic revealed through Muhammad, who was illiterate. The Classical Arabic of the Koran would not be the vocabulary of an illiterate merchant like Muhammad. It would be rather like a New York taxi driver coming up with a play by Shakespeare in Tudor English, as I understand it. I think it is rather thrilling that the American Republic was conceptually proto-Muslim, don't you think? Therein lies its indispensable exceptionalism!
In which verse in the New Testament did Jesus say he was God in front of many witnesses?
Belief in God can be deduced through logos, it has to been said. We are here because the must have been a Creation and that Creator must have been God. Jews remain in existence because of Judaism which states that Jews are God's Chosen People chosen to promote the Noahide laws which they have neglected to do on the whole. I have been pointing out to them that they could easily do this by ranking the four gentile religions correctly according to their conformity with the Noahide laws which makes Islam the most Noahide and Christianity the least. Are you familiar with the Noahide laws?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws
No, the Athanasian Creed is not the only evidence of the Trinity. From Genesis to Revelation, God refers to Himself as "us" or "our". And there is an explicit reference in Matt 28:19. The purpose of the New Testament certainly had nothing to do with state religion of Rome - early Christians were persecuted. And Islam did come along quite a while after the fall of Rome. Mankind doesn't have a particularly good history with any institutional religions. That is why Christianity is focused on individuals - it isn't about government. Mankind also likes new things so there are always people coming along with the latest inspired word and varying numbers of people will line up behind the new prophet...
re: Koran - I looked it up - Muhammad didn't read or write. However, that was not at all uncommon, and doesn't mean he wasn't a very good speaker. He had others write things down. And, as with all things written down, and copied over the years, they are subject to variations. Sounds quite similar to the history of the Bible. I think it is quite interesting how well read our Founding Fathers were and how they incorporated thinking from many different realms.
RE: when Jesus claimed to be God - John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" & John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Most of John 8 is Jesus revealing himself as God, including "44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
What do you mean when you say "Christianity is focused on individuals"?
Why do you say Christianity is "not about government"?
The New Testament is not claimed even by Christians to be from Jesus, let alone God. It is only the testimony of mortal and fallible men. Jews and Muslims believe their scripture to come from God and the Word of God must logically and necessarily have greater authority than that of the mortal and fallible men who wrote the New Testament.
RE: Trinity - yes, that is the passage.
Re: Christianity is about individuals - Jesus asks individuals to be 'born again', become new creations, and He talks about individuals behaviors. And individuals get into Heaven on their own, not because of anything the government says or does.
Which is what I meant about Christianity not being about government. Jesus makes the distinction when He says "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" So far as I recall, Jesus never said anything about His followers becoming a government.
If Christianity is not about government, why did Constantine make Christianity the state religion of Rome?
If Christianity is not about government, why did European monarchs become Christian?
If Christianity is not about government and politics, what was the cause of the Wars of the Reformation AKA the European Wars of Religion?
Jesus only said what he did to get out of trouble with the Roman authorities. The New Testament is the testimony of those who witnessed what a powerless dissident found himself saying because he understandably wanted to keep out of trouble with the Roman authorities and his fellow Jews while the Torah and the Koran are supposed to be the legislation of God. There is a difference, don't you think?
Logically, if Jesus is God, then those who heard Jesus, heard God. And if some of those who heard Jesus wrote down what they heard Him say, then that, to me, has greater authority, since there is corroboration when 2 or more people heard the same thing.
Did Muhammad have multiple scribes writing at any one time? If not, then there is only one person who knows whether what was written was what was said.
MEN like to create governments. MEN thought it was a good idea to make Christianity a state identity. THAT is what makes US so special - the Founding Fathers said that no religion should have direct influence in governing.
And what a strikingly peculiar interpretation of the NT you have!
Part of the reason Koran doesn't hold any appeal for me is because it is too much about government.
If none of your moral principles are reflected in your laws, can it be said that the religion of your moral system is even in operation?
Who said that our laws didn't reflect any of our moral principles??? Of course, our laws reflect our principles.
Which mortal sin is also a crime in America?
I wonder if gay marriage makes America Amalek.
mortal sins include murder, theft, false witness/perjury, fraud, rape, suicide, pornography, polygamy and those are also crimes in America. The concept of mortal sin is Roman Catholic, and there are certainly mortal sins which the US does not have laws around, such as heresy, and missing mass.
one issue, such as gay marriage, hardly makes America Amalek. Again, you like to simplify and put forward binary arguments.
But America is spreading the abomination of gay marriage globally in its global empire!
The US may have global influence, but it certainly doesn't have a global empire. And it certainly has no ability to impose gay marriage on any country. Personally, I think a man having multiple wives is a greater abomination than gay marriage to 1 other person.
Why is polygamy an abomination if a man's wives are prepared to share him? The purpose of marriage is sex and legitimate children and gay people cannot be expected to have offspring. There is therefore no reason for them to marry each other. The US in behaves as if the all the world were its backyard and gay marriage came from Washington. Any non-white country that has adopted gay marriage is in fact showing fealty to Washington eg Taiwan.
Gay marriage came from Washington DC? Why do you believe that?
The Western world fell like a row of dominoes to gay marriage because that was what Washington wanted.
We know America gloated when it changed the meaning of marriage.
Washington actually didn't want it. The first state authorized it in 2004 and Washington DC tried to overturn the state rule, and it was over 10 years later that the Supreme Court said that the laws opposing gay marriage were unconstitutional. So one could say that our Founding Father permitted gay marriage - those same proto Muslim folks that endorsed freedom of religion...
It doesn't matter what the laws says. Even if it forbids and encourages the right thing, a corrupt ruling class will interpret it in the opposite way. In any case, liberal democracy died on 3 November 2020 though its death certificate has yet to be written.
Oh, so, after all of your emphasis on laws, now the laws don't really matter since laws don't really influence behavior?
Of course we should have the right laws, but it is also important that the right people enforce the law.
and when in the history of the world have we had that perfect match of the right laws and the right people to enforce the laws?
We just need a functioning moral system being operated by people not obviously corrupt or incompetent.
And when in history have we had a functioning moral system operated by people not obviously corrupt or incompetent?
The West is now degenerate in that people get stupider, weaker and more corrupt with each passing generation because governments condone widespread illegitimacy and Westerners fornicate as a leisure activity.
so where in the world in a good example - people getting smarter, stronger and less corrupt with each pass generation?
I am just pointing out the people whose IQ have been reported to have fallen most catastrophically over the past century by their own media.
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html
So? This study didn't seem to say anything about other countries, so doesn't answer the question about where in the world is there an example of your rational & moral solutions at work. It is also an odd IQ study ""We tested the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations using high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study," the researchers wrote in the study, which was published online in the journal Intelligence on Thursday. "Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence and are considered elementary measures of cognition.""
How is the IQ of other countries relevant to our discussion?
I don't know why you introduced IQ. You seemed to think that the falling IQ in the West was significant. However, in the absence of comparison to any other countries that is a meaningless data point. (not to mention that the particular study saying IQ had fallen in the West would have needed to be vetted against other data)
The presumption is that it is a bad thing if the IQ of your society falls, surely? Even if the IQ of other societies falls, that should also be a concern if yours is falling too. However, if yours is falling while that of others rise, that would be an even greater cause of concern.
Falling IQ is certainly something to consider. First is validating how IQ is being measured to be sure there is consistency. And if that is validated, then the reason is why. How much of a country's IQ is influence by immigrants or declining birth rates among higher IQ women?
Bad parenting is caused by unmarried mothers who should be treated as sex offenders by quran.com/24/2 whose badly parented illegitimate offspring go through the education system lowering standards of behaviour and education for everyone else.
Unmarried mothers are now the sacred cow of liberalism which has become an ideology of offering ever increasing varieties of extramarital sex to men to distract them from the business of becoming husbands and fathers of legitimate children.
The unmarried mother is clearly a "soldier" of feminism whose illegitimate offspring is her badge of service to the matriarchy.
A society of immoral unmarried mothers with badly parented illegitimate offspring conspiring to make recreational sex a lifestyle choice for the unmarriageable is surely unsustainable and degenerate. It is therefore no surprise that any society that relies on these practices would suffer degeneracy evidenced by the collapse of confidence in its political and moral system as well as ever lowering levels of IQ and ever increasing levels of criminality.
People who hate Trump are just trying to shoot the messenger bearing the bad news that the days of liberalism are now numbered.
I wondered when you would return to your familiar refrains.
You show no distinction between a teenage unwed unemployed mother, living in poverty, whose parents were probably not married nor educated, and a well-educated working woman with happily married educated parents, who decides to have a child without getting married. The latter may be a feminist 'soldier' and the child has a reasonable chance of being a contributor to society. The former tends to be ignored by the feminist movement (as well as the rest of society).
The affluent and high status should be punished to the fullest possible extent of the law for the bad example they set when they become unmarried parents.
personally, an affluent/high status woman who plans when to have a child and having the financial resources to care for the child is a better example than a married couple having children they can't care for. I'm appalled every time I see refugees and immigrants and mothers in famine ravaged areas with infants - what were they thinking when they brought children into the world?!?
Perhaps you don't think very well in famine-ravaged areas of the world nor would you have access to effective contraception.
I also suspect there are more marauding men who don't care about the women they impregnate.
Post a Comment