The Netherlands ranks 11th in freedom whereas the U.S. ranks 15th on the world freedom index.
What is this “world freedom index”? You never answered that. Link?
So I would have the best of both worlds, more freedom, more safety.
You missed my point. Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat. Safety is fine when we provide it for ourselves and our families, but if a government provides it for us then we lack freedom.
It’s because we are an individualist society. We simply do not care for the well-being of others as well as other nations do.
Yes, we’re individualist, but that’s not what individualism is.
I used to be a christian
No, you weren’t. That much is abundantly clear. You have conflated salvation with religious affiliation. You have misunderstood idolatry. You have failed to grasp the dichotomy of good and evil. You have been blind to the spiritual warfare that rules our world. You deny having evidence for God’s glory. You have not yet been born again. You have not yet given your life to Christ. You have not yet been saved. Once saved, always saved.
and I will refer you back to the time when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of jehovah’s witnesses that the pledge of allegiance was idolatry:
Sexuality labels such as that one refer to one’s sexual attraction, not the status of their current relationship. I am attracted to both men and women, and so by definition I am bisexual.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant. If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin. Repent for it, and don the armor of God that it may shield you from temptation. Know that we are all tempted to sin, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s your response to the temptation that matters.
I watch both heterosexual and homosexual content, and I enjoy both. Not everybody does that. I’ve been with both sexes, not everybody does that.
By “content” do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you’re not being explicit here, so thank you. I don’t judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
I’m happy just the way I am.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
And in my experience, prayer never works.
Well it probably won’t work very well if you don’t first establish a relationship with Christ. Otherwise it’s like receiving a call from a number that’s not in your contacts — He’s apt to ignore it.
Over the years I’ve talked with christians, countless of them have prayed for me to change, to stop being an atheist/leftist/bisexual/etc. None of it has changed a thing.
That would also require you to actually want to change, you know. Your “I’m happy just the way I am” attitude suggests you don’t.
The U.S. is a right wing, authoritarian state, not a left one. It’s not an objectively measurable thing, because politics is such a messy thing to study, but on the world stage we are in no way a leftist country.
Agreed that it’s subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I’ll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
Open borders
No prayer in schools
Legal marijuana
DEI
ESG
Homosexuality
Transvestites
Paid abortion vacations
Birth control
Size of the federal government
The mass media
SPLC’s influence
Woke Hollywood
I don’t think I am cherry picking or being irrational. The sea of good things the U.S. has done is just as vast as the despicable things we’ve done. And I would rather be truthfully depressed than happy and oblivious.
Well that says it all. Instead of giving thanks to God for being an American, you deny all that is holy, and contemplate the despicable. You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
Not really. You can have countries that are free and safe (Netherlands), countries that are free and unsafe (USA), countries that are neither free nor safe (Afghanistan).
The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat.
I would say that is an inherently worse kind of safety in comparison to the safety of not having any threats to begin with.
Yes, we’re individualist, but that’s not what individualism is.
I wasn’t stating that it was the definition of individualism, I meant that a lack of care for one another is the result. Sorry, I should have chosen my words better there.
No, you weren’t.
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant.
I’ll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can’t ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
The 5000 character limit is sorta making me miss reddit.
Yes, this thing is buggy. But it’s brand new. If these problems are still unresolved in a year, that’ll be bad, but it’s open source and I’m under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you had asked. This is what I was referring to:
Thank you. They write in their intro:
Human freedom enables and empowers people to do as they please, free from constraints or punishments, so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of another.
That’s a libertine definition of freedom. It advocates for legal cocaine and prostitution. I acknowledge they’re not the only ones to hold that definition, but I do not.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God, do His will, worship Him as they see fit, and (as a result) to be blessed with emancipation from sin.
(Skipping a bunch here. Sorry, I’m reading what you wrote, and I don’t have much to say in reply that I haven’t already said. I guess that’s for the best, all things considered.)
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It doesn’t, but the ruling it mentioned does. Sorry, I should have given you a better link than that.
Thank you, that was informative. Much as I disagree that the Pledge is idolatry, I respect that you’re not the only one to believe it. Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I’ve got a few grains of salt. I completely side with SCOTUS on that ruling, that compelled speech breaks the first amendment. I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
I’ll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can’t ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
I’d argue with you on the ethics point, and the claim of a “dying world” (what), but your follow-up point about her disability overrides anything I’d say. I’m happy for you! When’s the wedding?
and I’m under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
I am quite hopeful. Look how far linux has come as an OS, I’m confident that lemmy/kbin can do the same.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you “freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters” or “work will make you free”, I’m sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you’ve said yourself?
(Skipping a bunch here.
No worries, I’ve been skipping stuff too. That’s sorta how it has to be or else this already splintered conversation would be ten times worse.
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
It’s been years ago, well over a decade ago so I don’t remember the details too well. But what I can tell you is that I felt what I thought was a connection to something greater than myself, that yes, Jesus was raised. I know there was more but I honestly cannot remember it all.
And I didn’t “decide” that none of it was true. Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I’ve got a few grains of salt.
Don’t get me wrong, I think JWs are off in the deep end too, but on that particular issue they have merit.
I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can’t really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
and the claim of a “dying world” (what)
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
For instance, bug population is on a huge decline, and they are pretty low in the food chain and therefore very important to the health of the planet. The further trends like this increase, the greater the chance of a food chain collapse. I couldn’t ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn’t have her current health issues.
I’m happy for you! When’s the wedding?
Thank you! We aren’t official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable. But so far we have agreed that we will be getting married in her home country, Costa Rica, and the church will not be involved (sorry!).
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you “freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters” or “work will make you free”, I’m sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you’ve said yourself?
I understand how that seems like cognitive dissonance or self-contradiction to a non-believer. Consider Romans 6:22:
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
We must be servants of someone, but we have freedom to choose who it is that deserves our loyalty and obedience. True freedom is freedom from sin, as the alternative is to be servants of Satan.
Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
That’s ignoring the whole notion of faith. You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can’t really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
True, and I think that’s a very good thing. In practice, maybe one out of ten thousand kids would refuse to pray. The few who insist have their freedom to succumb to evil, but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students. That’s how we always were, beginning before the founding of the country.
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
You and I should be cautious of starting new branches of the conversation! But I did ask, and you were just answering me. Suffice it to say I trust that God’s in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God’s plan.
I couldn’t ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn’t have her current health issues.
Based on your perspective, I understand your conclusion.
Thank you! We aren’t official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable.
Waiting for that mythical living wage? You don’t really need money to marry. Life is short.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
Suffice it to say I trust that God’s in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God’s plan.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
You don’t really need money to marry. Life is short.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren’t exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don’t have much money so I would likely need to help some of them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. She also has a lot of medical debt (and will likely continue to grow it) as a result of her condition, and a lot of student loan debt, all of which would be significantly harder to get forgiven if my income were to be considered hers. So financially it doesn’t make sense to get married here. And I am ok with that. I don’t care what the state has to say about us, nor do I care what the church says. We’re together and that’s what I care about.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
Wiktionary’s definition of “freedom” is better than M-W’s, which is typical. M-W’s not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it’s antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
That’s correct, and I’m glad you’re familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
Don’t be misled by the terms “negative” and “positive”. They don’t indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called “rights”. They’re only called “negative” and “positive” on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you’re forced to have your eyes open or closed. It’s somewhat disingenuous to use the word “forced”. It’s just a product of living in reality.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
And [peer pressure to pray] is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it’s a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
[To trust that God’s in control] is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God’s will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they’re in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it’s the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth’s current climate is God’s will because it’s Earth’s current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God’s will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there’s somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface
It’s not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn’t a form of control by some other being.
But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
To be honest I don’t think that is a choice either. I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We’ve released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
let alone changing the entire planet.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we’ve done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin.
Why should I think that?
By “content” do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you’re not being explicit here, so thank you. I don’t judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
Yes, that was what I meant. And I have no reason to think of them as sins. And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it’s worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
I don’t believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists? If somebody told you that you angered Odin by being a christian, I suspect you wouldn’t be bothered very much.
Agreed that it’s subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I’ll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
I’ll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:
It’s a little bit arbitrary, incomplete, and needs updated now that Roe v Wade is dead. But it’s the closest I could find within the time I can afford. At least according to this list/methodology, the United States is not anywhere near being far-left. And I say it is incomplete, because it doesn’t take into account corporate power, or military/policy power/budget. If those two were taking into account I think the U.S. would easily be on the higher end of the list. Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues. Look at the GDPR regulations they have, we simply have nothing like it here in the U.S.
Now for your list of “far left” things.
The U.S. does not have open borders, it is illegal to cross without permission. Prohibiting the government from forcing prayer on children is not a far left thing, most other developed nations are the same. Marijuana status is more of an authoritarian/libertarian issue than a left/right one, and it certainly isn’t far left to the degree it is a left/right issue. DEI has only recently become controversial, and was started by corporations. ESGs are left, but they aren’t far left, they’re just a type of investment. Few people in the U.S. are neo-marxists. As for the LGBTQ+, our rates aren’t very different from other developed/free nations. (And in case you were not aware, “Transvestite” is considered to be a slur by many people due to it’s malicious use. People generally use inter-sex nowadays.) As for paid abortion vacations, I assume you’re talking about what corporations are offering to pregnant employees. Abortion is generally supported by the left, and some parts of the right, so it is hardly a far left thing. The same goes for abortion. As for “Post-Temperance Feminism”, I’m honestly not sure what you mean by that. As for government size, I think we already covered that in one of the other threads. There are just as much right wing media as there is left wing in america. The SPLC is a hate group watch, so I don’t see why you would have a problem with them. And as for hollywood, they are definitely left, but they ain’t far left. The only air centrist to center left opinions at most, if at all.
You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
It seems to me that you have done the same. You gave me an entire list of “far left” things in the U.S. that you are critical of.
Why should I think that? [“If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin.”]
Because it’s true. If you find a quarter in your pocket, you should acknowledge that quarter as monetary unit equivalent to one fourth of a dollar. Why? Because that’s what it is.
Yes, that was what I meant [pornography]. And I have no reason to think of them as sins.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Note “fornication” there is translated from “πορνεία”, which is a generic term for sexual sin of any kind, and is better translated as “sexual immorality”.
Now you have a reason. And there are more where that one came from!
And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it’s worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.
This reflects your decision not to become a father yourself. But you can imagine for a moment what it feels like to have a child. You very much do care who that child associates with, even as a friend, but certainly as a mate. There’s a good reason why when you want to marry a girl, you ought to first ask her father for permission. God created us in His own image for a particular reason. If you’ve ever created anything at all, you know that you care about whatever it was you made.
I don’t believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists?
Because He still believes in you.
I’ll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:
Thank you. I think the “far-” prefix is contentious on both sides of the aisle. Are you familiar with allsides.com? They rate news sources as one of: { far-left, left, center, right, far-right }. I sometimes disagree with their exact assessments, but I recognize that it’s difficult to rate the bias of news sources. Especially because when I consider where I’d personally categorize them, I realize that there’re not close to enough options. It’s radically oversimplified.
When I say “left” (or “center-left”), I approximately mean pro-trade-union, Robin Hood taxation, pro-birth-control, and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. You get the idea. Anything to the left of that I consider far-left. These days, the Left is off-the-chart far-far-far-left in my opinion.
Also it’s impossible to compare the US to other countries for a wide variety of reasons, one of them particular to this case being that classical liberal principles played a major role in our founding, which are now considered conservative principles by most measures. That’s how we wind up with (for example) liberal gun law being widely supported by the Right.
Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues.
True, but that means nothing. They’re dragging us leftward, due to so many leftists who hate America and think we should abandon our traditional values and instead imitate other countries.
The U.S. does not have open borders, it is illegal to cross without permission.
This is wildly out of touch with reality. The Biden Administration is coordinating tens of thousands of illegals flooding in per week, and giving them “free” (taxpayer-funded) plane tickets to any US city they choose. The Southern border is essentially wide open. All you have to do is check any conservative news source from any time in the last two years to know this.
Prohibiting the government from forcing prayer on children is not a far left thing, most other developed nations are the same.
Anything anti-Christian and pro-Satan is far-left. The fact that other nations do it too is no excuse. Traditional American culture is Christian.
ESGs are left, but they aren’t far left, they’re just a type of investment.
Are you joking? They are extremely far-left. I mean they’d have to be openly communist to be any further left.
Few people in the U.S. are neo-marxists.
Few might self-identify as such, but the philosophy is readily apparent everywhere you look. Anyone who thinks people can legitimately derive their identity from their group membership is neo-Marxist.
As for the LGBTQ+, our rates aren’t very different from other developed/free nations.
Stop trying to compare the US to any other country, because it’s illegitimate. The US is the greatest country possible, and there’s no comparison to be made. Yes, we have sodomites trying to take us down, but the fact that other countries do too doesn’t make it acceptable.
(And in case you were not aware, “Transvestite” is considered to be a slur by many people due to it’s malicious use.
Far be it for me to potentially break any terms of service. I only meant to refer to people who reject their God-given sex, and play dress-up, whether or not assisted by hormone pills and genital mutilation. Thank you for letting me know.
Abortion is generally supported by the left, and some parts of the right, so it is hardly a far left thing.
It’s about as far left as possible. It’s anti-Christian, anti-family, and pro-murder — of innocent babies no less. It’s like the essence of far-lefthood bundled up into a single word.
As for “Post-Temperance Feminism”, I’m honestly not sure what you mean by that.
The Temperance movement was a coalition between Christians, conservatives, and feminists back in the day. Women didn’t want their husbands coming home drunk anymore. Around the same time Prohibition succeeded, they also succeeded in gaining the women’s “right” to vote, which is one of the primary origins of all of this far-left madness and social devastation we’ve witnessed since their success in that endeavor. Following that, they moved on in subsequent “waves” which became increasingly hostile to traditional family values. When I wrote “Post-Temperance Feminism”, I was referring to that entire history after their coalition with Christians and conservatives fell apart.
The SPLC is a hate group watch, so I don’t see why you would have a problem with them.
Please tell me you’re joking. They’re widely derided for grouping normal conservative groups with Christian values alongside neo-Nazis and actual “hate groups”. Nobody takes the SPLC seriously. And that’s ancient news at this point.
And as for hollywood, they are definitely left, but they ain’t far left.
Almost every single movie they produced in the last fifteen years, or so, has featured anti-Christian sentiment, a complete lack of understanding of Christian theology, anti-American sentiment, anti-family sentiment, especially anti-traditional-family sentiment, pro-sodomy sentiment, premarital sex, illicit drugs, strong women and weak men, transvestites, global warming alarmism, anti-corporate sentiment, and the list goes on and on. It’s quite hard to find any movie that’s not woke through and through, unless it was made in the '90s or earlier. There are a couple exceptions, but they’re rare.
It seems to me that you have done the same. You gave me an entire list of “far left” things in the U.S. that you are critical of.
Fair, but that’s within the overall context of my message that America is essentially great, and always will be. Of course I have my minor gripes, and plenty of them. But at the end of the day, I pray for our country because there’s no better place on earth.
What is this “world freedom index”? You never answered that. Link?
You missed my point. Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. The only good kind of safety is the switch you flip on your firearm before engaging a threat. Safety is fine when we provide it for ourselves and our families, but if a government provides it for us then we lack freedom.
Yes, we’re individualist, but that’s not what individualism is.
No, you weren’t. That much is abundantly clear. You have conflated salvation with religious affiliation. You have misunderstood idolatry. You have failed to grasp the dichotomy of good and evil. You have been blind to the spiritual warfare that rules our world. You deny having evidence for God’s glory. You have not yet been born again. You have not yet given your life to Christ. You have not yet been saved. Once saved, always saved.
That link says nothing about idolatry.
If you are attracted to your girlfriend, then marry her and keep her pregnant. If you find yourself attracted to a man, acknowledge that attraction as an evil temptation to sin. Repent for it, and don the armor of God that it may shield you from temptation. Know that we are all tempted to sin, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s your response to the temptation that matters.
By “content” do you mean pornography? I appreciate that you’re not being explicit here, so thank you. I don’t judge you for your sins, but I do urge you to recognize them as sin, and repent for them. Your eternity is on the line.
But is God? We are to live for God, not for ourselves.
Well it probably won’t work very well if you don’t first establish a relationship with Christ. Otherwise it’s like receiving a call from a number that’s not in your contacts — He’s apt to ignore it.
That would also require you to actually want to change, you know. Your “I’m happy just the way I am” attitude suggests you don’t.
Agreed that it’s subjective and messy. But the list of ways in which the US is currently far-left is a long list. I’ll give you a few off the top of my head, in no way close to comprehensive:
Well that says it all. Instead of giving thanks to God for being an American, you deny all that is holy, and contemplate the despicable. You are absolutely cherry-picking, and more than that you have managed to amass a basket of negativity from which to cherry-pick.
Unfortunately this another one that will have to be split up. The 5000 character limit is sorta making me miss reddit.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you had asked. This is what I was referring to:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
Not really. You can have countries that are free and safe (Netherlands), countries that are free and unsafe (USA), countries that are neither free nor safe (Afghanistan).
I would say that is an inherently worse kind of safety in comparison to the safety of not having any threats to begin with.
I wasn’t stating that it was the definition of individualism, I meant that a lack of care for one another is the result. Sorry, I should have chosen my words better there.
I believed in Jesus, god, christianity, the whole thing. I was raised christian and believed it all. I went to church, believed I was saved, felt the holy spirit, etc. I just now realize none of it was true.
It doesn’t, but the ruling it mentioned does. Sorry, I should have given you a better link than that.
I’ll definitely be marrying her, but we have mutually agreed not to have kids. We can’t ethically justify bringing a kid into a dying world, and also her physical disabilities would quite literally kill her if she were pregnant. And suicide is generally considered to be a sin.
Yes, this thing is buggy. But it’s brand new. If these problems are still unresolved in a year, that’ll be bad, but it’s open source and I’m under the impression an increasing number of people are contributing to it.
Thank you. They write in their intro:
That’s a libertine definition of freedom. It advocates for legal cocaine and prostitution. I acknowledge they’re not the only ones to hold that definition, but I do not.
Human freedom enables and empowers people to obey God, do His will, worship Him as they see fit, and (as a result) to be blessed with emancipation from sin.
(Skipping a bunch here. Sorry, I’m reading what you wrote, and I don’t have much to say in reply that I haven’t already said. I guess that’s for the best, all things considered.)
What do you suppose you actually felt, when you thought you felt the Holy Spirit? When you say that you believed it all, did you really believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, or did you only say you did? When you decided that none of it was true, do you think you might be enduring a test of faith?
Thank you, that was informative. Much as I disagree that the Pledge is idolatry, I respect that you’re not the only one to believe it. Of course JWs also believe the Second Coming happened in 1914, so I’ve got a few grains of salt. I completely side with SCOTUS on that ruling, that compelled speech breaks the first amendment. I just wish they had the same decision on school prayer, that nobody can be forced to partake, but the rest of us are going to proceed with it anyhow.
I’d argue with you on the ethics point, and the claim of a “dying world” (what), but your follow-up point about her disability overrides anything I’d say. I’m happy for you! When’s the wedding?
I am quite hopeful. Look how far linux has come as an OS, I’m confident that lemmy/kbin can do the same.
How do you not see freedom as being incompatible with obeying? Not to be glib, but if somebody told you “freedom enables and empowers people to obey their slave masters” or “work will make you free”, I’m sure you would recognize the contradiction there. How do you not see the contradiction in what you’ve said yourself?
No worries, I’ve been skipping stuff too. That’s sorta how it has to be or else this already splintered conversation would be ten times worse.
It’s been years ago, well over a decade ago so I don’t remember the details too well. But what I can tell you is that I felt what I thought was a connection to something greater than myself, that yes, Jesus was raised. I know there was more but I honestly cannot remember it all.
And I didn’t “decide” that none of it was true. Beliefs as far as I am concerned are not choices. You are either convinced or you are not, the only extend to which we have a choice (if we have free will at all), is over the extent to which we expose ourselves to other ideas.
Don’t get me wrong, I think JWs are off in the deep end too, but on that particular issue they have merit.
As nice as that would be on paper, in reality you can’t really have one without the other due to societal pressures. If everybody in the room is praying except for you, there is immense social pressure to conform. Allowing prayer of any kind in school will result in what is effectively forced prayer/speech.
Climate change is killing off countless species/animals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63875331
For instance, bug population is on a huge decline, and they are pretty low in the food chain and therefore very important to the health of the planet. The further trends like this increase, the greater the chance of a food chain collapse. I couldn’t ethically justify putting a kid at risk of enduring that even if my girlfriend didn’t have her current health issues.
Thank you! We aren’t official engaged yet, as we have agreed we would only get to that point when we both feel we are financially stable. But so far we have agreed that we will be getting married in her home country, Costa Rica, and the church will not be involved (sorry!).
I understand how that seems like cognitive dissonance or self-contradiction to a non-believer. Consider Romans 6:22:
We must be servants of someone, but we have freedom to choose who it is that deserves our loyalty and obedience. True freedom is freedom from sin, as the alternative is to be servants of Satan.
That’s ignoring the whole notion of faith. You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
True, and I think that’s a very good thing. In practice, maybe one out of ten thousand kids would refuse to pray. The few who insist have their freedom to succumb to evil, but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students. That’s how we always were, beginning before the founding of the country.
You and I should be cautious of starting new branches of the conversation! But I did ask, and you were just answering me. Suffice it to say I trust that God’s in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God’s plan.
Based on your perspective, I understand your conclusion.
Waiting for that mythical living wage? You don’t really need money to marry. Life is short.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren’t exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don’t have much money so I would likely need to help some of them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. She also has a lot of medical debt (and will likely continue to grow it) as a result of her condition, and a lot of student loan debt, all of which would be significantly harder to get forgiven if my income were to be considered hers. So financially it doesn’t make sense to get married here. And I am ok with that. I don’t care what the state has to say about us, nor do I care what the church says. We’re together and that’s what I care about.
Wiktionary’s definition of “freedom” is better than M-W’s, which is typical. M-W’s not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it’s antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
That’s correct, and I’m glad you’re familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
Don’t be misled by the terms “negative” and “positive”. They don’t indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called “rights”. They’re only called “negative” and “positive” on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you’re forced to have your eyes open or closed. It’s somewhat disingenuous to use the word “forced”. It’s just a product of living in reality.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it’s a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God’s will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they’re in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it’s the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth’s current climate is God’s will because it’s Earth’s current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God’s will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there’s somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
It’s not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn’t a form of control by some other being.
To be honest I don’t think that is a choice either. I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We’ve released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we’ve done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/how-nuclear-testing-transformed-science/607174/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
Why should I think that?
Yes, that was what I meant. And I have no reason to think of them as sins. And I have no reason to believe eternity is on the line, or that it would be based on sexual attraction. If a god exists, I would think the least of it’s worries would be humans, let alone who humans choose to mate with.
I don’t believe in god, so why would I consider the feelings of something I do not believe exists? If somebody told you that you angered Odin by being a christian, I suspect you wouldn’t be bothered very much.
I’ll address each of the things you listed, but I want to go on something a little more objective than us tossing things back and forth about how the country is left/right. The closest to useful/objective info I came across was this:
https://objectivelists.com/2022/06/26/countries-with-the-most-conservative-laws/
It’s a little bit arbitrary, incomplete, and needs updated now that Roe v Wade is dead. But it’s the closest I could find within the time I can afford. At least according to this list/methodology, the United States is not anywhere near being far-left. And I say it is incomplete, because it doesn’t take into account corporate power, or military/policy power/budget. If those two were taking into account I think the U.S. would easily be on the higher end of the list. Because if you were to compare the U.S. to many European countries, they go far more to the left on such issues. Look at the GDPR regulations they have, we simply have nothing like it here in the U.S.
Now for your list of “far left” things.
The U.S. does not have open borders, it is illegal to cross without permission. Prohibiting the government from forcing prayer on children is not a far left thing, most other developed nations are the same. Marijuana status is more of an authoritarian/libertarian issue than a left/right one, and it certainly isn’t far left to the degree it is a left/right issue. DEI has only recently become controversial, and was started by corporations. ESGs are left, but they aren’t far left, they’re just a type of investment. Few people in the U.S. are neo-marxists. As for the LGBTQ+, our rates aren’t very different from other developed/free nations. (And in case you were not aware, “Transvestite” is considered to be a slur by many people due to it’s malicious use. People generally use inter-sex nowadays.) As for paid abortion vacations, I assume you’re talking about what corporations are offering to pregnant employees. Abortion is generally supported by the left, and some parts of the right, so it is hardly a far left thing. The same goes for abortion. As for “Post-Temperance Feminism”, I’m honestly not sure what you mean by that. As for government size, I think we already covered that in one of the other threads. There are just as much right wing media as there is left wing in america. The SPLC is a hate group watch, so I don’t see why you would have a problem with them. And as for hollywood, they are definitely left, but they ain’t far left. The only air centrist to center left opinions at most, if at all.
It seems to me that you have done the same. You gave me an entire list of “far left” things in the U.S. that you are critical of.
Reply to “Why should I think that?” part 1 of 2:
Because it’s true. If you find a quarter in your pocket, you should acknowledge that quarter as monetary unit equivalent to one fourth of a dollar. Why? Because that’s what it is.
1 Corinthians 6:18
Note “fornication” there is translated from “πορνεία”, which is a generic term for sexual sin of any kind, and is better translated as “sexual immorality”.
Now you have a reason. And there are more where that one came from!
This reflects your decision not to become a father yourself. But you can imagine for a moment what it feels like to have a child. You very much do care who that child associates with, even as a friend, but certainly as a mate. There’s a good reason why when you want to marry a girl, you ought to first ask her father for permission. God created us in His own image for a particular reason. If you’ve ever created anything at all, you know that you care about whatever it was you made.
Because He still believes in you.
Thank you. I think the “far-” prefix is contentious on both sides of the aisle. Are you familiar with allsides.com? They rate news sources as one of: { far-left, left, center, right, far-right }. I sometimes disagree with their exact assessments, but I recognize that it’s difficult to rate the bias of news sources. Especially because when I consider where I’d personally categorize them, I realize that there’re not close to enough options. It’s radically oversimplified.
When I say “left” (or “center-left”), I approximately mean pro-trade-union, Robin Hood taxation, pro-birth-control, and sexual intercourse out of wedlock. You get the idea. Anything to the left of that I consider far-left. These days, the Left is off-the-chart far-far-far-left in my opinion.
Also it’s impossible to compare the US to other countries for a wide variety of reasons, one of them particular to this case being that classical liberal principles played a major role in our founding, which are now considered conservative principles by most measures. That’s how we wind up with (for example) liberal gun law being widely supported by the Right.
True, but that means nothing. They’re dragging us leftward, due to so many leftists who hate America and think we should abandon our traditional values and instead imitate other countries.
Reply to “Why should I think that?” part 2 of 2:
This is wildly out of touch with reality. The Biden Administration is coordinating tens of thousands of illegals flooding in per week, and giving them “free” (taxpayer-funded) plane tickets to any US city they choose. The Southern border is essentially wide open. All you have to do is check any conservative news source from any time in the last two years to know this.
Anything anti-Christian and pro-Satan is far-left. The fact that other nations do it too is no excuse. Traditional American culture is Christian.
Are you joking? They are extremely far-left. I mean they’d have to be openly communist to be any further left.
Few might self-identify as such, but the philosophy is readily apparent everywhere you look. Anyone who thinks people can legitimately derive their identity from their group membership is neo-Marxist.
Stop trying to compare the US to any other country, because it’s illegitimate. The US is the greatest country possible, and there’s no comparison to be made. Yes, we have sodomites trying to take us down, but the fact that other countries do too doesn’t make it acceptable.
Far be it for me to potentially break any terms of service. I only meant to refer to people who reject their God-given sex, and play dress-up, whether or not assisted by hormone pills and genital mutilation. Thank you for letting me know.
It’s about as far left as possible. It’s anti-Christian, anti-family, and pro-murder — of innocent babies no less. It’s like the essence of far-lefthood bundled up into a single word.
The Temperance movement was a coalition between Christians, conservatives, and feminists back in the day. Women didn’t want their husbands coming home drunk anymore. Around the same time Prohibition succeeded, they also succeeded in gaining the women’s “right” to vote, which is one of the primary origins of all of this far-left madness and social devastation we’ve witnessed since their success in that endeavor. Following that, they moved on in subsequent “waves” which became increasingly hostile to traditional family values. When I wrote “Post-Temperance Feminism”, I was referring to that entire history after their coalition with Christians and conservatives fell apart.
Please tell me you’re joking. They’re widely derided for grouping normal conservative groups with Christian values alongside neo-Nazis and actual “hate groups”. Nobody takes the SPLC seriously. And that’s ancient news at this point.
Almost every single movie they produced in the last fifteen years, or so, has featured anti-Christian sentiment, a complete lack of understanding of Christian theology, anti-American sentiment, anti-family sentiment, especially anti-traditional-family sentiment, pro-sodomy sentiment, premarital sex, illicit drugs, strong women and weak men, transvestites, global warming alarmism, anti-corporate sentiment, and the list goes on and on. It’s quite hard to find any movie that’s not woke through and through, unless it was made in the '90s or earlier. There are a couple exceptions, but they’re rare.
Fair, but that’s within the overall context of my message that America is essentially great, and always will be. Of course I have my minor gripes, and plenty of them. But at the end of the day, I pray for our country because there’s no better place on earth.