How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

#401
#401
Orange_Crush said:
Exactly. I'm fishing for a bro-hug here. :crossfingers:
Click to expand...

You don't have to fish bro

raw
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#403
#403
joevol320 said:
that is completely not true. the majority of true Christian absolutely oppose homosexual marriage. now there may be people who claim to be Christians that support it, but no true Christian will ever supported that immoral lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I think you guys are using the term "support" in conflicting ways.
Oh, and you committed the no true Scotsmen fallacy.
 
#404
#404
Roustabout said:
I think you guys are using the term "support" in conflicting ways.
Oh, and you committed the no true Scotsmen fallacy.
Click to expand...

Agree. The original discussion based on VSF's post was "not have an issue with" versus "support". I started to make this point as well, but sense the poll referenced actually used the word "support" I decided to not bring it up. But clearly, the majority of Christians are not out marching in the streets to "support" gay marriage.
 
#405
#405
volbeast33 said:
Yeah I have never understand the hatred it seems that some have towards Christian nor the way Volprof feels about Christian influence towards policy when we have the politicians that we have in office today.
Click to expand...

I think the primary reason is because humans naturally wish to impose themselves upon another for gain, therefore the conflict is with any ideology that opposes your value system, secular or religious. A good example was Hitler's violent opposition to other (international) socialist and communist groups. The Nazis were not adverse to socialism but considered themselves the evolution of the impractical, globalist socialists; they wanted *their* version of socialism to prevail and set about eliminating competition.

In the same manner, secularists have a belief system which is fundamentally statist in nature. Despite the spectacular carnage of secular governments in the last century, secularists simply say it either wasn't socialism, or it was done wrong.

We all have belief systems we wish to see become ascendant, and often despite evidence of their frailty or failure. Religious...secular...belief systems are, at their core, the same.
 
Last edited:
#406
#406
NCFisher said:
I think the primary reason is because humans naturally wish to impose themselves upon another for gain, therefore the conflict is with any ideology that opposes your value system, secular or religious. A good example was Hitler's violent opposition to other (international) socialist and communist groups. The Nazis were not adverse to socialism but considered themselves the evolution of the impractical, globalist socialists; they wanted *their* version of socialism to prevail and set about eliminating competition.

In the same manner, secularists have a belief system which is fundamentally statist in nature. Despite the spectacular carnage of secular governments in the last century, secularists simply say it either wasn't socialism, or it was done wrong.

We all have belief systems we wish to see become ascendant, and often despite evidence of their frailty or failure. Religious...secular...belief systems are, at their core, the same.
Click to expand...

Are you saying secular faith in science and the state is ...at it's core... the same as religious faith in a higher power, God? Y/N?

Please explain. faith=faith?
Is it, secular faith is still faith, therefore it too is a form of religion, as some have claimed?
 
#407
#407
Orangedogsrule said:
Are you saying secular faith in science and the state is ...at it's core... the same as religious faith in a higher power, God? Y/N?

Please explain. faith=faith?
Is it, secular faith is still faith, therefore it too is a form of religion, as some have claimed?
Click to expand...

No. I said everyone has a belief system whether secular or religious, and 'believers' will accept or ignore the failings of their 'faith' in an attempt to have theirs prevail. The backdrop, insofar as statist believers, was the 20th century examples alluded to, yet, statism thrives despite demonstrable failures. In that, both belief systems are the same.
 
Last edited:
#408
#408
NCFisher said:
I think the primary reason is because humans naturally wish to impose themselves upon another for gain, therefore the conflict is with any ideology that opposes your value system, secular or religious. A good example was Hitler's violent opposition to other (international) socialist and communist groups. The Nazis were not adverse to socialism but considered themselves the evolution of the impractical, globalist socialists; they wanted *their* version of socialism to prevail and set about eliminating competition.

In the same manner, secularists have a belief system which is fundamentally statist in nature. Despite the spectacular carnage of secular governments in the last century, secularists simply say it either wasn't socialism, or it was done wrong.

We all have belief systems we wish to see become ascendant, and often despite evidence of their frailty or failure. Religious...secular...belief systems are, at their core, the same.
Click to expand...

Wtf?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#414
#414
NCFisher said:
Oh, and libertarians. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Improving.

You could continue by explaining how secularists are statist at their core. How secular vs non-secular, statist vs non-statist, and religious vs non-religious are not independent of each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#415
#415
PKT_VOL said:
Improving.

You could continue by explaining how secularists are statist at their core. How secular vs non-secular, statist vs non-statist, and religious vs non-religious are not independent of each other.
Click to expand...

Well, I've amended (unnecessarily, I think) the *general* statement by excluding the relative paucity of free market/free mind adherents and anarchists, which leaves us everyone else. Of that large majority, those who are not religious I think overwhelmingly subscribe to a statist worldview. Does that mean religious people of any stripe - or even 'conservatives' - are never statists? No; in fact, despite exhortation against 'big government' and wrapping themselves in the Constitution, conservatives in practicality subscribe to their own brand of statism.

In the main, whether one's belief system is oriented in theology or technocracy, one wants their 'faith' to predominate the political and societal spectrum, warts and all.

You disagree?
 
Last edited:
#417
#417
NCFisher said:
Well, I've amended (unnecessarily, I think) the *general* statement by excluding the relative paucity of free market/free mind adherents and anarchists, which leaves us everyone else. Of that large majority, those who are not religious I think overwhelmingly subscribe to a statist worldview. Does that mean religious people of any stripe - or even 'conservatives' - are never statists? No; in fact, despite exhortation against 'big government' and wrapping themselves in the Constitution, conservatives in practicality subscribe to their own brand of statism.

In the main, whether one's belief system is oriented in theology or technocracy, one wants their 'faith' to predominate the political and societal spectrum, warts and all.

You disagree?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, as in I agree.
 
#419
#419
NCFisher said:
What will we move on to?
Click to expand...

By sheer volume, Islam is destined to overtake Christianity.

I am personally rooting for Cthulu to make a surge, though Odin still reigns supreme in terms of sheer badassery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#421
#421
NCFisher said:
Well, I've amended (unnecessarily, I think) the *general* statement by excluding the relative paucity of free market/free mind adherents and anarchists, which leaves us everyone else. Of that large majority, those who are not religious I think overwhelmingly subscribe to a statist worldview. Does that mean religious people of any stripe - or even 'conservatives' - are never statists? No; in fact, despite exhortation against 'big government' and wrapping themselves in the Constitution, conservatives in practicality subscribe to their own brand of statism.
Click to expand...

You didn't remotely answer either question. You haven't established any necessary or causal link between secularism, statism, or religiousness.

Yet, you are doubling down (don't think an amendment is necessary).

NCFisher said:
In the main, whether one's belief system is oriented in theology or technocracy, one wants their 'faith' to predominate the political and societal spectrum, warts and all.

You disagree?
Click to expand...

Of course not. You set up a false dichotomy; theology OR technocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#422
#422
PKT_VOL said:
You didn't remotely answer either question. You haven't established any necessary or causal link between secularism, statism, or religiousness.

Yet, you are doubling down (don't think an amendment is necessary).
Of course not. You set up a false dichotomy; theology OR technocracy.
Click to expand...

The amendment comment is stating that of course libertarians and anarchists are not statists.

I concede that in replying to a question regarding atheists/irreligious who feel the need to attack their opposites, 'secular' was an overly broad term to use in making the point regarding belief systems.
 
#423
#423
NCFisher said:
The amendment comment is stating that of course libertarians and anarchists are not statists.

I concede that in replying to a question regarding atheists/irreligious who feel the need to attack their opposites, 'secular' was an overly broad term to use in making the point regarding belief systems.
Click to expand...

Your amendment that you don't think you need:

NCFisher said:
secularists have a belief system which is fundamentally statist in nature.
Click to expand...

You are still tying secularism to statism as if they have a necessary or causal link. What is that link? How are they not independent concepts (along with religious vs non-religious)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#424
#424
PKT_VOL said:
...
You are still tying secularism to statism as if they have a necessary or causal link. What is that link? How are they not independent concepts (along with religious vs non-religious)?
Click to expand...

Secularity or the degree of influence secularism has on the state is the word describing that link to which you refer. Secularism, or I believe more correctly secular humanism, is the belief that there is no longer a need for religions (the OP's thesis) and that the degree of secularity among those who favor any kind of state at all will greatly increase within a very few years to next to nil. This, of course, is their belief. A statement of faith in humanity and science overcoming religious faith.
 
#425
#425
Orangedogsrule said:
Secularity or the degree of influence secularism has on the state is the word describing that link to which you refer. Secularism, or I believe more correctly secular humanism, is the belief that there is no longer a need for religions (the OP's thesis) and that the degree of secularity among those who favor any kind of state at all will greatly increase within a very few years to next to nil. This, of course, is their belief. A statement of faith in humanity and science overcoming religious faith.
Click to expand...

I don't see any link in your post between secularism and statism. If you want to argue that there will be an increase in percentage of secularists vs non-secularists in the coming years, I'd agree with you.

However, that is wholly different than statism. It is a completely different concept. If we have an increase in statism in the coming years, which I'd say is a reasonable prognosis, it will be due to statism vs non-statism on its own merits with respect to the will of the people; not secularism.

Similarly, secularism and religiousness are wholly different issues.

They are all independent concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top