Radical Politicians and political free for all

QuickTwist said:
Epistemology is founded on the principle of Justified True Belief. If we do not have knowledge, we have nothing. If we cannot "know" things, then morality goes out the window, and now it is possible in some world to torture a baby for fun. That is what you get with "post-modern relativism."

Exodus 34:6
"The LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed:
The LORD—the LORD is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth,"

The word for "truth" here is actually truth. It comes from the Hebrew word אֱמֶת

Truth is not a nebulous term. It is a person. Why? If you start to ask "Why?" questions, then you inevitably end up with a "Who?" question because Truth is gounded in minds. And minds come from a person. So, which person, in all of human history, is the Truth? That would be Jesus Christ who said,

John 8:31-32
"“If you continue in my word, you really are my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”"

All the world religions want a piece of Jesus. They all say He is part of the way, or you can get to the way through Him. But he does not share his glory. Rather, He says,

John 14:6
"“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”"

Everyone says Jesus is "a" way, but Jesus says he is THE way.

Jesus is the Truth.
Click to expand...
100 percent
 
Misty said:
"Epistemology is founded on the principle of Justified True Belief." 100 percent
Click to expand...
"In different parts of its extensive history, different facets of epistemology have attracted attention. Plato’s epistemology was an attempt to understand what it was to know, and how knowledge (unlike mere true opinion) is good for the knower. Locke’s epistemology was an attempt to understand the operations of human understanding, Kant’s epistemology was an attempt to understand the conditions of the possibility of human understanding, and Russell’s epistemology was an attempt to understand how modern science could be justified by appeal to sensory experience. Much recent work in formal epistemology is an attempt to understand how our degrees of confidence are rationally constrained by our evidence, and much recent work in feminist epistemology is an attempt to understand the ways in which interests affect our evidence, and affect our rational constraints more generally. In all these cases, epistemology seeks to understand one or another kind of cognitive success(or, correspondingly, cognitive failure)."
 
QuickTwist said:
Epistemology is founded on the principle of Justified True Belief. If we do not have knowledge, we have nothing. If we cannot "know" things, then morality goes out the window, and now it is possible in some world to torture a baby for fun. That is what you get with "post-modern relativism."

Exodus 34:6
"The LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed:
The LORD—the LORD is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth,"

The word for "truth" here is actually truth. It comes from the Hebrew word אֱמֶת

Truth is not a nebulous term. It is a person. Why? If you start to ask "Why?" questions, then you inevitably end up with a "Who?" question because Truth is gounded in minds. And minds come from a person. So, which person, in all of human history, is the Truth? That would be Jesus Christ who said,

John 8:31-32
"“If you continue in my word, you really are my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”"

All the world religions want a piece of Jesus. They all say He is part of the way, or you can get to the way through Him. But he does not share his glory. Rather, He says,

John 14:6
"“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”"

Everyone says Jesus is "a" way, but Jesus says he is THE way.

Jesus is the Truth.
Click to expand...
clearly this is a revelatory set of passages that juxtaposes rationality and irrationality, normal and paranormal experience, while this is a gateway to deep religious experience it is no way to determine the actuality of events or to gauge the intentions of bodies of peoples as they exert lethal power.
 
SlowUpTake said:
clearly this is a revelatory set of passages that juxtaposes rationality and irrationality, normal and paranormal experience, while this is a gateway to deep religious experience it is no way to determine the actuality of events or to gauge the intentions of bodies of peoples as they exert lethal power.
Click to expand...

Look at some of the first threads I ever made on this forum. There is VERY strong evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Now, saying that, you have the last word because I don't want to clutter up this political thread with my faith posts. There are plenty of my faith posts around the forum, and the last thing I want to do is bring my faith posts where they do not belong.
 
QuickTwist said:
Look at some of the first threads I ever made on this forum. There is VERY strong evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Now, saying that, you have the last word because I don't want to clutter up this political thread with my faith posts. There are plenty of my faith posts around the forum, and the last thing I want to do is bring my faith posts where they do not belong.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. Everyone should be free to express their faith, but it's not necessarily always relevant to the discussion. I hope that you never feel silenced. I don't believe I have ever said anything about, nor against any of the religious posts around the forum. They appear, and I am silent, because I respect your faith. Just the same as you are free to have your faith, I am free to not have any
 
hush said:
Thank you for that. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. Everyone should be free to express their faith, but it's not necessarily always relevant to the discussion. I hope that you never feel silenced. I don't believe I have ever said anything about, nor against any of the religious posts around the forum. They appear, and I am silent, because I respect your faith. Just the same as you are free to have your faith, I am free to not have any
Click to expand...

Thanks. As you brought up the separation of Church and State, I agree with that, but I have a few things to say about faith and politics.

First, I think the separation of Church and State goes both ways. The Church should not be imposing things on the legislation of the State. But also, likewise, the State should stay out of the Church's business. It doesn't work if it is only one way. It has to go both ways.

And we see the above working itself out practically from the story of Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake that violates his faith. Jack views his baking as an art, and it was under that principle that the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot make art compulsive to something that violates someone's faith. After all, art is somewhat sacred, and if it had gone the other way, it would mean that artistic expression takes on a completely different meaning than expression of one's views and creativity, and would make art just another mechanical thing much like that of the way a factory works to produce a product meant to make money rather than being based in expression.

There is a long history of the State abusing the Church and the Church abusing the State. That is why the separation of Church and State is so important. Throughout the Church's long history, there have been many abuses by the Church that persecuted people by means of the State because someone did something the "official Church" did not agree with. Likewise, there was the rise of Communism in Russia, to completely remove God from the society, and this led to the death of over 100M people. It turns out, when you rob people of belief in God, they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.

Having talked about removing God from a society, it is important to understand what I mean by that. I do not believe that the Church should impose its views on government. However, as I live in a Democratic Republic, the government should pass laws in accordance with the faith of its people if and when the majority of the people want to live by their convictions of faith in government. This distiction is key as politics is down stream from culture. So, while I am heartily against shoehorning religious based morality into the laws of a country, if it were to happen that the country was thouroughly faith-based, then this will work itself out in the laws of the government. But it must be organic and not forced. There are stories throughout history where Revival has sprung out in a society or country which then had a radical effect on the government and its laws. One such example is how the slave trade was made illegal based on people of faith's conviction that owning slaves goes against God's plan for humanity. All the way back to Gregory of Nyssa, it was people of faith who were the first to criticize the act of slavery, the main reason being that all humans are made in the image of God. People in the West today often do not give enough credit to the Church for the condemnation of slavery, as this is not at all a native belief of humanity. Rather, it is based almost exclusively on holding to Christian principles to not condone slavery, which many people in the West are not aware of, WHY they are against slavery today, which is explicitly because of the Church.

And, this is getting longer than I anticipated, so I think I will just cut it short here.
 
QuickTwist said:
Thanks. As you brought up the separation of Church and State, I agree with that, but I have a few things to say about faith and politics.

First, I think the separation of Church and State goes both ways. The Church should not be imposing things on the legislation of the State. But also, likewise, the State should stay out of the Church's business. It doesn't work if it is only one way. It has to go both ways.

And we see the above working itself out practically from the story of Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake that violates his faith. Jack views his baking as an art, and it was under that principle that the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot make art compulsive to something that violates someone's faith. After all, art is somewhat sacred, and if it had gone the other way, it would mean that artistic expression takes on a completely different meaning than expression of one's views and creativity, and would make art just another mechanical thing much like that of the way a factory works to produce a product meant to make money rather than being based in expression.

There is a long history of the State abusing the Church and the Church abusing the State. That is why the separation of Church and State is so important. Throughout the Church's long history, there have been many abuses by the Church that persecuted people by means of the State because someone did something the "official Church" did not agree with. Likewise, there was the rise of Communism in Russia, to completely remove God from the society, and this led to the death of over 100M people. It turns out, when you rob people of belief in God, they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.

Having talked about removing God from a society, it is important to understand what I mean by that. I do not believe that the Church should impose its views on government. However, as I live in a Democratic Republic, the government should pass laws in accordance with the faith of its people if and when the majority of the people want to live by their convictions of faith in government. This distiction is key as politics is down stream from culture. So, while I am heartily against shoehorning religious based morality into the laws of a country, if it were to happen that the country was thouroughly faith-based, then this will work itself out in the laws of the government. But it must be organic and not forced. There are stories throughout history where Revival has sprung out in a society or country which then had a radical effect on the government and its laws. One such example is how the slave trade was made illegal based on people of faith's conviction that owning slaves goes against God's plan for humanity. All the way back to Gregory of Nyssa, it was people of faith who were the first to criticize the act of slavery, the main reason being that all humans are made in the image of God. People in the West today often do not give enough credit to the Church for the condemnation of slavery, as this is not at all a native belief of humanity. Rather, it is based almost exclusively on holding to Christian principles to not condone slavery, which many people in the West are not aware of, WHY they are against slavery today, which is explicitly because of the Church.

And, this is getting longer than I anticipated, so I think I will just cut it short here.
Click to expand...

Good can be done in the name of any religion, but equally so can atrocities be committed. Therein lies the trouble. Religion is powerful. Put something that powerful in the hands of people, and they will twist it, use it to harm instead of heal. I said this recently:

You can be Christian and full of love. What you see there is not true Christianity. Jesus preached love, not hate. People don't stop and think about how they are going against the very faith to which they adhere
Click to expand...

Context is lacking here, but hopefully the idea comes across. Any god worth following would not support using one's faith to justify prejudice and hate. Jesus didn't want that. Can you call yourself a christian if you don't love your neighbor? I don't think so
 
hush said:
Good can be done in the name of any religion, but equally so can atrocities be committed. Therein lies the trouble. Religion is powerful. Put something that powerful in the hands of people, and they will twist it, use it to harm instead of heal. I said this recently:



Context is lacking here, but hopefully the idea comes across. Any god worth following would not support using one's faith to justify prejudice and hate. Jesus didn't want that. Can you call yourself a christian if you don't love your neighbor? I don't think so
Click to expand...

Sure, that is all true. But there is this idea in our culture today that disagreement = hate. This is completely backwards. I can love the person and disagree with their behavior. Just as a parent will need to correct their child sometimes, because the child naturally does something the parent does not approve of, so too does it work in all human relationships. I'd never "approve" of calling an anorexic person who weighs 80 lbs fat, even if that person wants to be called fat, because clearly that is not what is best for them. What is best for them in that situation is to seek help to realize that they have a mind-body problem, in which their mind is not in accord with their body.
 
QuickTwist said:
Sure, that is all true. But there is this idea in our culture today that disagreement = hate. This is completely backwards. I can love the person and disagree with their behavior. Just as a parent will need to correct their child sometimes, because the child naturally does something the parent does not approve of, so too does it work in all human relationships. I'd never "approve" of calling an anorexic person who weighs 80 lbs fat, even if that person wants to be called fat, because clearly that is not what is best for them. What is best for them in that situation is to seek help to realize that they have a mind-body problem, in which their mind is not in accord with their body.
Click to expand...

We have that idea because it is true. For many, disagreement does = hate. I am glad that this is untrue for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't true for others. It leads to so much hate, I often feel like I am drowning in it. We have to be careful not to let our beliefs take us too far. Our disagreements push us so far apart, those with opposing views become "other" - less than human, undeserving of the same dignity and respect. This has always been true for humanity, now and in the past
 
hush said:
We have that idea because it is true. For many, disagreement does = hate. I am glad that this is untrue for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't true for others. It leads to so much hate, I often feel like I am drowning in it. We have to be careful not to let our beliefs take us too far. Our disagreements push us so far apart, those with opposing views become "other" - less than human, undeserving of the same dignity and respect. This has always been true for humanity, now and in the past
Click to expand...

As per my examples, it is plainly false that disagreement = hate. People may try to rationalize that disagreement = hate, but some things are wrong regardless of their justification. Hitler had his justifications as well, but we all look back on his decisions as being abhorrent. Sometimes, it is actually the loving thing to do to disagree with someone because if no one asks the person to reconsider their position, they will always have that wrong belief. Beliefs can be true or false because beliefs are based on propositions. For the law of non-contradiction states that two things that are opposite can not be true in the same way at the same time. If this is not allowed, then you end up with a vast array of absurdities.
 
I propose the booty
Reconsider the booty
Do not contradict the booty
 
Wyote said:
I propose the booty
Reconsider the booty
Do not contradict the booty
Click to expand...

Finally, a campaign platform I can stand behind. You have my vote, sir. I pledge allegiance to the booty

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top