- This topic has 263 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(Sure. By my understanding of Masonry (which is limited), it isn’t Christian, but many Masons can be Christians. George Washington for example was a Mason, but also an Anglican Christian. Masonry is more of a philosophy than a religion, though it does have a unified belief in a creator. I would love to discuss this more, because I don’t know too much about the Masons. Either way though, even if some of the fathers denied the Christ, which I don’t think any did (Please correct me if I’m wrong), differing beliefs allowed for the Freedom of Religion to be established, a right I believe in greatly. It allows us to live on a higher law, we are not pushed to the Savior, but it is instead our right to choose to walk to Him, or to deny Him. This obviously is not unique to the US now, but it is a fundamental part of it.)
“As for Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts to his Divinity; tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” – Ben Franklin.
(Some of the masons and founding fathers were deists which is/was a faith that believed in a god who created the world and followed Christian principles but refused to believe in God’s miracles such as raising Jesus from the dead.)
(Sorry if I didn’t explain perfectly. I was referring to the US flag on crosses, not nationalism in general. And no, I haven’t been living under any conservative rocks. I’ve lived the majority of my life in Oregon until recently, a state that is extremely leftist. That being said, as for America specifically, despite that I was only referencing the flag thing, I actually don’t think that toxic Nationalism is the biggest issue, in fact it’s the opposite. Far left is now making claims like the US was founded on Fascism (Which it wasn’t), and are taking any opportunity to discredit the constitution and its precepts. Because far left has most control over the media within the US, a lot of far right has simply lost hope in the nation, and are looking to get out. So I think that the US could actually stand to have a little more nationalism right now on both sides, not in it’s current state, but in it’s original values of freedom, and in the constitution (Yes, I know, there’s many countless atrocities done within the US that is hypocritical towards the idea of freedom, but again, those are the faults of man, not the nation their supposed to represent. Many could say the same thing about Christianity, but those are the faults of man, not the religion their supposed to represent). I’m not saying that toxic nationalism isn’t an issue. In fact, I think what your calling nationalism is occurring, but not really reflected towards any nation as much, but other things instead within the US. This is just what I’ve been seeing as someone on the inside.)
Do you understand what nationalism, toxic nationalism, or fascism are (please don’t get offended by this I am just trying to make sure we are on the same page)?
Also who is the Far left you are talking about and what source claimed this (specifically was it fox news quoting someone on Twitter)?
I am also confused about what you mean here: “In fact, I think what your calling nationalism is occurring, but not really reflected towards any nation as much, but other things instead within the US,”?
(Personally, I feel like we need unity, not Nationalism. I would make a difference between the two. I would argue that our country needs to find a way to fix the divide between liberals and conservatives as opposed to the continual division that the two-party system seems to perpetuate. Our democracy was never meant to be run in a two-party system according to George Washington. I feel like we need more unity and tolerance in this country from both sides of politics. )
Through darkness,
light shines brightestIs the name Marcin (which is polish) pronounced kind of like Marsin or is it something else?
Through darkness,
light shines brightest(Hey sorry for not getting back to you sooner! I was in bed sick and my brain was certainly not in the mood for deep discussions in question form! I’m feeling much better now, so we’ll see how this goes.)
(No worries! I’m glad your feeling better!!!)
(Geometry is definitely a puzzle piece to reality. (love the pun there.)) Do not all parts of nature point us to God, since He created them?
Yep, does not all truth point to Him?
Indeed it seems likely, which your well thought out name attests to; are you searching for the mysteries of God, or to have a relationship with Him in some way? And are those two things connected? Can you have one without the other? (Whoops, I’m going down a rabbit trail here.)
Could you elaborate? When you say “searching for the mysteries of God, or to have a relationship with Him”, are you meaning searching for it’s own sake, vs doing it to have a relationship with Him? (If so, I would say that it is both. I do already have a strong relationship with Him, but I try to continue growing it. I cannot deny all that I’ve both seen and felt, but I still wish to continue to build more on that foundation. I do this through scripture study, prayer, and reflection, what I think is the best way to truly build one’s testimony of Him. But I believe that truth can still be found in all places, and thus can also be used to further grow said testimony, but only as long as He is at the very base of it. Learning truth simply brings me joy, which I think does draw me closer to Him, as long as I don’t lose sight of the whole point of it all, something I know many have faltered from.) Can you have a relationship with someone if you don’t know them? (You don’t need to know all of God’s mysteries to have a relationship with Him, but I do think that you must know Him.) What’s wrong with rabbit holes? Is that not highly encouraged on this forum?
Is it different because spoken language is something you have to learn, unlike a physical feature of our bodies which is given to us?
Should I have said similar instead of like manner? (Whoops! The point I was trying to make was they were similar questions, not identical ones, concerning Adam and to whether or not he was given said things, or said things came into fruition through him. But yes, that would be a clear difference😅)
Is is also possible that all of this is speculation and this is one of the many questions which we will never know the answer to in this world? (Although it is fun to speculate!!)
True, but is it not also possible that if we ask Him, and it is according to His will, that God may reveal the truth to us? (Yep! Speculating is one of my favorite things to do!)
(Awesome! I’ve studied some Spanish, French and Hebrew in the past, and am currently learning Polish. I’ve attempted to create a few words of conlang but found it’s hard enough learning an existing language never mind one that doesn’t even exist yet. 😉 ) Which have you studied?
(That’s awesome! I’ve mostly studied French, but also have been working on Arabic, Thai, Vietnamese, and Toki Pona (If you count conlangs), and if conlangs do count, I might as well put my own conlang Lasi’el, it’s the most developed out of all of them. Actually, I think you and I already talked about the languages we’ve studied on my KP intro forum, I totally forgot, lol😅😆)
(When reading over the fascinating discussion between you and the twins I came across you’re opinion on what you prefer being called. And I realized I had called you you’re un-preferred title in my post. Sorry about that and thanks for educating us! Please know that I was not trying to be rude, that’s just the title that I knew your church by.
(I’m responding to this early out of relevance. Yeah, no worries! Thank you for understanding, I know no ill will was meant:) )
(Oh so you must be Mormon! That’s very interesting. I believe that the souls who trust in Jesus will receive a new and better “body” after they die, but not become as God. Nope, no frustration 😉 Thanks for being considerate though. Some people get really bothered about people who have different doctrines and can’t discuss things without getting into verbal fist fights, but I don’t agree with that. There’s always something you can learn from everyone, and just because people disagree doesn’t mean they should always be fighting.)
(Guilty, my religion has been exposed😅😆 I’m glad we can have these healthy discussions! I find it sad when contention takes root between different beliefs, because Christ said that we should love our neighbor, as well as our enemies, and we see clearly where it get’s us when we don’t do that. It is only continuous contention, and further polarization to the us them. It brings me so much joy when I can hear the devote testimonies of all those who are actively and honestly seeking out Christ!)
Maybe we need to first define what a question is then, as the name of this honorable forum hints?
Yes, what is a question? Where does one start with such a question? Should we develop some sort of axioms of inquisition, eliminating all biases from our linguistic minds?
(Yes you are totally right! We all interpret the details of scripture a bit differently, and most of the time that’s not a problem because like you said, hopefully we can all agree on the ultimate objective truths.)
(Yes. Me too. There is only one Way to the Father, and as long as we are in that Way, we’re going to be ok in the end. John 14:6)
(Yep! I couldn’t say more if I tried, you’ve put it beautifully! And thanks for the scripture, that one is one of my favorites! It is plain in it’s truth, speaking a truth that I would say is the single most important thing for us to learn in this life!)
(Awesome. Thumbs up. I feel like we’re needlessly going in circles a bit here so will leave this at that. 🙂 Great minds think alike.)
(😁)
Wait so you believe even if we don’t choose God in this life, we’ll have a second chance?
(Weelllllll… kinda. Not exactly, I’ll try to elaborate the best I can. We believe that each of us will have a chance to learn of Him, and then accept Him in this life or the next. If we learn of Him, and reject Him in this life, then that is our choice, but there are many who don’t have those same luxuries, never even hearing the name Jesus Christ, or anything else of Him in this life. This life is still a place for those people to develop and draw closer to truth if they seek it, but they still may never find that in their current state. Thus, after experiencing Earth life, they are then taught the gospel in the next life, and are given the choice to either accept it or reject it. That being said, we still strive to teach the gospel to all corners of the Earth, proclaiming the name of the Savior and what He did for us, so that people can be touched in this life, and they can turn to Him, and their burdens can be eased as they take up His yoke, and they may also proclaim His name. I hope that makes sense.)
(You know I’ve thought of that too.) Can God limit Himself? (If so, I don’t see why its a problem. He could decide to limit Himself to the natural laws that He made.)
(Yeah! It is actually within the doctrine of our Church that He is bound by natural law, albeit a far higher law then we may fully understand in this life. Personally, I think this is what enables Him to be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. This may seem paradoxical to some, but my mind turns to law of a lesser nature concerning us. We abide by laws like the ten commandments, but what would happen if we were given full freedom from these? If I went ahead and murdered someone because it was something within my power, my life obviously isn’t going a direction where I can further use that agency I was given. Through disobeying, I lost agency, and therefore power. This may only be a metaphor for the true nature of God, but I think that it makes a good point that it is through the law He abides by, whether that be by choice or by fundamental nature, that He is God.)
(I tend to take the Molinist position on the subject of free will and God’s divine decree. I already discussed it earlier so I won’t go into detail again but one of the reasons why I appreciate it is because of how mind boggling it is to think about. It puts me in awe of how powerful God is. His knowledge is truly greater than we can comprehend! Rom. 11:34)
(Yeah! Again, such beautiful scriptures in their plainness!)
(Same here! Thanks for making it possible!)
(Thank you!😁😁)
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
“As for Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts to his Divinity; tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think needless to busy myself with it now, where I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” – Ben Franklin.
(Some of the masons and founding fathers were deists which is/was a faith that believed in a god who created the world and followed Christian principles but refused to believe in God’s miracles such as raising Jesus from the dead.)
(Thanks for the quote! I personally didn’t know that about Franklin. I would love to learn more!)
Do you understand what nationalism, toxic nationalism, or fascism are (please don’t get offended by this I am just trying to make sure we are on the same page)?
Is there anything I’ve said that seems to suggest that I don’t know what those are? I understand “In fact, I think what your calling nationalism is occurring, but not really reflected towards any nation as much, but other things instead within the US,” may through you off, I’ll elaborate, but is there something else? (I will give my understanding of the three. Nationalism is the loyalty/belief/support in your countries interests and morals. It is a very broad term, encompassing many differing offshoot ideologies. Toxic nationalism is obviously the same thing, but it’s more in your face, pushing your ideologies down other’s throats, likely thinking your country is inherently better and more deserving. Fascism is the belief that some group (nation or otherwise) is uniquely superior to every other group, whether it be genetically, nationalistically, or some other generally shared feature, and as such, is entitled to be the top class, or even only class in some shape or form. It is usually seen with dictatorial leadership, and high levels of military enforcing the political boundaries and ideologies.) Does this differ from your understanding in any way?
Also who is the Far left you are talking about and what source claimed this (specifically was it fox news quoting someone on Twitter)?
(I don’t really watch the news, I find most services to be quite unreliable. I either rely on personal witness, or study. Do I generalize, yes, is it far more nuanced than “far left” and “far right”, also yes. I don’t pay too much attention to particular political sub factions, as politics in general is not within my interest, but I have lived with both sides, and understand the humanity of both sides. It is actually a handful of different sources I’ve picked this up from over time, I can dig a few back up if you really need me to. Please know that I am aware of the gaps in my knowledge concerning such a sensitive subject, but please don’t write me off as someone that group thinks as your clearly implying, jokingly or otherwise. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve lived in Oregon, many very liberal teachers and peers I’ve become close friends with, and agree on many of their points, but not without my own critical thinking, and I apply that to both sides.)
I am also confused about what you mean here: “In fact, I think what your calling nationalism is occurring, but not really reflected towards any nation as much, but other things instead within the US,”?
(Yes, I get why that would be confusing. I said “what your calling nationalism” because what I was talking about isn’t nationalism at all, but idolization. You seemed to be suggesting the idea of putting the nation before God, which is a form of idolization. What I was trying to point out was that I agree that idolization is a big problem, but not in the nation, but a variety of other things of influence, like products, particular industries, or influential figures, political or otherwise. These have little to do with nationalism, but they do have to do with what you seemed to be saying was the issue with nationalism. Perhaps I misinterpret, but that’s what I’m reading from you. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
(Personally, I feel like we need unity, not Nationalism. I would make a difference between the two. I would argue that our country needs to find a way to fix the divide between liberals and conservatives as opposed to the continual division that the two-party system seems to perpetuate. Our democracy was never meant to be run in a two-party system according to George Washington. I feel like we need more unity and tolerance in this country from both sides of politics. )
(I agree. The two party system is honestly really dumb, because there is so much more nuance to what one believes. However, that is what I mean when I say we need more nationalism for both sides. what I was saying about gaining more nationalism in the case of the US I argue would lead to more unity, again to it’s precepts to in the constitution and morals of freedom, not in it’s current state. Here’s the pledge of allegiance “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic by which it stands, One Nation Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”) Does that not state Unity, to live as one people? Does that not state being under God, putting Him before our nation? These are the things the flag and nation are supposed to represent, though unfortunately that has been ignored as of late. I understand your point, and it’s a good one, but I still think the opposite to nationalism is a bigger crisis we are dealing with. As you say, we need to band together, bridge the gap, and find unity as a people, and I’d point out that that is a form of nationalism. I suppose this may root to what we define as nationalism, and you seem to be saying that unity is something set apart from it, I suppose I may give it a broader definition. Either way though, if the people of the US all agreed to unite despite our differences, that would be the true spirit of what America is supposed to be.)
(Thanks again for your points, I’d love to continue this debate, but let’s make sure not to let it turn into an argument. This has turned from theology and philosophy to more of just politics though, something I don’t feel as edified by in discussion.) Are there other questions that you would like to explore instead?
I ask again, do we live on a potato, a donut, or a pringle? Do you need elaboration?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Did you know only one of the 56 founding fathers was a member of the clergy?
(Also in addition Jefferson was a very interesting person religiously speaking and just in general. As his beliefs are a bit complicated I’m just going to say to read this article
from Montechello’s website (Monticello is Jefferson’s house (if you ever end up in Virginia I highly recommend checking it out).)
I think that you and otherworldlyhistorian (I’m not tagging him cause I can just talk to him in person) are to an extent arguing about the same thing. This is because within nationalism there is negative and positive integration. Negative integration involves ostracising one group in order to unite another, defining what we are not in order to define what we are. (this can lead to some really bad stuff most notably the holocaust). Positive integration involves uniting a group of people around similar ideas, and defining what we are in order to define what we are.
(Thanks again for your points, I’d love to continue this debate, but let’s make sure not to let it turn into an argument. This has turned from theology and philosophy to more of just politics though, something I don’t feel as edified by in discussion.) Are there other questions that you would like to explore instead?
(I agree. I feel like this has gone a bit from the original point. I would as well like to turn away from an argument. I also do enjoy discussing theoretical politics but I doubt that will go well or that you would wish to do that.
I do have a few less argumentative comments.
I should probably also clarify that my fox news comment was not meant to be insulting. If you haven’t read fox news recently (which I don’t usually do but do check occasionally) they really like making huge deals out of Twitter posts. The fascism thing just felt like something a crazy person on Twitter would write. Mostly because fascism as a political theory has only come about rather recently (post WW1). I do have a question though on your views of news sources.) Do you find them unreliable or do you just disagree with their bias? Also which sources do you find unreliable? (I would like to know so that I can have a warning about potential unreliability)
(I would also like to point out that nationalism is not exclusive to a nation but can also be for groups. I would demur your point that the idolization of (some form of) America. I feel (and personal opinion (I don’t really expect you to agree)) that unity means finding a common ground and stopping the infighting between political factions, something that I feel the currently popular brand of nationalism (that I have seen/met) does not support this and instead divides us as it focuses on a very specific view of this nation.)
(Anyway)
I ask again, do we live on a potato, a donut, or a pringle? Do you need elaboration?
Who are we? (If we are talking about Americans it would be a potato as it is an American crop (not Irish. Look this up if you don’t believe me).)
(question)
Do you prefer stories which have clear-cut heroes and villains or stories which focus more on grey characters?
Through darkness,
light shines brightestThis is because within nationalism there is negative and positive integration. Negative integration involves ostracising one group in order to unite another, defining what we are not in order to define what we are. (this can lead to some really bad stuff most notably the holocaust). Positive integration involves uniting a group of people around similar ideas, and defining what we are in order to define what we are.
Well said. Well said.
Through darkness,
light shines brightestfor finding the validity of news sources I find these sights helpful
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
for finding the validity of news sources I find these sights helpful
KP only let me post one link per a post (I don’t know why)
[quote quote=137711]
This is because within nationalism there is negative and positive integration. Negative integration involves ostracising one group in order to unite another, defining what we are not in order to define what we are. (this can lead to some really bad stuff most notably the holocaust). Positive integration involves uniting a group of people around similar ideas, and defining what we are in order to define what we are.
Well said. Well said.[/quote]
I will admit that the end of that is unseriously adapted from a crash course video
Hey guys interesting question here what do you think of this statement?
If democracy represents the collective conscious of those who can vote then would it not be the fault of the Christians that the collective conscious is been trending away from Christianity for the past 50 years? And thusly it would not be the power of the democrats or liberals or whatever that is making our country move away from Christian values but the Christians’ fault for not spreading their beliefs and evangelizing effectively in their own country. Supported by the fact that our country went from being 90% Christian in 1970 to being 64% Christian in 2020 and is experiencing a growing number of people who turn away from Christianity once they become adults.
numbers were sourced from this NPR article
Did you feel things heating up or something? (I thought we were staying cool. Thanks for the reminder though! It’s important that we can have discussions without going nuts.)
(No, not at all! I just wanted to make my intentions clear. Y’all were just debating as true Christians should. 🙂 With brotherly love as Christ commanded.)
Write what should not be forgotten. — Isabel Allende
Did you know only one of the 56 founding fathers was a member of the clergy?
(Nup, but it makes sense to me, as too many would likely lead religion to become too politically involved.)
(Also in addition Jefferson was a very interesting person religiously speaking and just in general. As his beliefs are a bit complicated I’m just going to say to read this article
from Montechello’s website (Monticello is Jefferson’s house (if you ever end up in Virginia I highly recommend checking it out).)
(Thanks for the link!)
I think that you and otherworldlyhistorian (I’m not tagging him cause I can just talk to him in person) are to an extent arguing about the same thing. This is because within nationalism there is negative and positive integration. Negative integration involves ostracising one group in order to unite another, defining what we are not in order to define what we are. (this can lead to some really bad stuff most notably the holocaust). Positive integration involves uniting a group of people around similar ideas, and defining what we are in order to define what we are.
Are those statements? Do you work for the Statemency? What did they offer you? Did they bribe you with answers???
(I second your brother’s comment, this is indeed very well said. I think we are simply defining things slightly differently, but we ultimately agree on the same core point on the need to unite.)
(I agree. I feel like this has gone a bit from the original point. I would as well like to turn away from an argument. I also do enjoy discussing theoretical politics but I doubt that will go well or that you would wish to do that.
(Yeah, politics is interesting, but it isn’t really my cup of tea. glad we can agree on that though!)
I should probably also clarify that my fox news comment was not meant to be insulting. If you haven’t read fox news recently (which I don’t usually do but do check occasionally) they really like making huge deals out of Twitter posts. The fascism thing just felt like something a crazy person on Twitter would write. Mostly because fascism as a political theory has only come about rather recently (post WW1). I do have a question though on your views of news sources.) Do you find them unreliable or do you just disagree with their bias? Also which sources do you find unreliable? (I would like to know so that I can have a warning about potential unreliability)
(Yeah, sorry if I came off as needlessly defensive. It can be really hard to tell what one is implying based purely on how they word something. To be fair, It was very late while I was writing this, and I can get more easily upset when tired, but that should in no way be an excuse to assume what others are saying, nor should I care even if they do mean ill. It does certainty sound like something that would be from some crazy angry twitter poster, but from what I’ve perceived at least, the polarization has just felt like it’s been getting that crazy, ignoring any general logical consistency, though there is much in between. Though there may be high biases I’m coming from when I say that. Basically I just disagree with all the different biases in the news, and perhaps there is a big issue with that, but that’s where I currently stand. My opinions on particular warnings on what is and isn’t reliable I feel may be far more controversial, and I’d rather not get into it, still to answer your question though, one thing for me is whether or not it is sponsored by Pfizer, if it is, I’m weary.)
(I would also like to point out that nationalism is not exclusive to a nation but can also be for groups. I would demur your point that the idolization of (some form of) America. I feel (and personal opinion (I don’t really expect you to agree)) that unity means finding a common ground and stopping the infighting between political factions, something that I feel the currently popular brand of nationalism (that I have seen/met) does not support this and instead divides us as it focuses on a very specific view of this nation.)
(Yeah, that’s fair. I totally agree on your point on unity, and what nationalism may be currently, that’s why I tried to emphasize not the current brand of nationalism, but what the country once was supposed to represent, a country of unity regardless of any features physical or preferential. Perhaps that’s too ideological, as that may never have been truly met at any point in the country’s history, but that’s how I feel. I think as your brother mentioned, we’re really on the same page, just defining things differently.)
Who are we? (If we are talking about Americans it would be a potato as it is an American crop (not Irish. Look this up if you don’t believe me).)
(Nah, I mean we as in everybody, earthling or otherwise.)
Do you prefer stories which have clear-cut heroes and villains or stories which focus more on grey characters?
Can I not appreciate both depending on the characters, and story being told? (This is a common discussion within the sci fi/fantasy genre, but I don’t think it’s so black and white, though that may sound ironic where one side is by definition black and white, and the other isn’t. Grey characters can feel more relatable because they can often feel more human, having trouble doing the right thing. However, I think clear good guys can also be interesting, and even relatable and human. A paragon character may always know the right thing to do, but there are consequences to that choice, there are costs to maintaining one’s morals, it doesn’t come easily, so it can still make a very great story. As for villains, I’ve already explained my thoughts on the what makes a good villain forum you started.) What about you?
for finding the validity of news sources I find these sights helpful
(Thanks for the link! I’ll check that out!)
If democracy represents the collective conscious of those who can vote then would it not be the fault of the Christians that the collective conscious is been trending away from Christianity for the past 50 years? And thusly it would not be the power of the democrats or liberals or whatever that is making our country move away from Christian values but the Christians’ fault for not spreading their beliefs and evangelizing effectively in their own country. Supported by the fact that our country went from being 90% Christian in 1970 to being 64% Christian in 2020 and is experiencing a growing number of people who turn away from Christianity once they become adults.
First, is this more statemacist agenda??? (Second, I’d say that this is very true. The quote “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” comes to my mind. I would say that there is much subtly in liberalist views however, convincing much general Christianity of what should and shouldn’t be ok, and therefore much of general Christianity has given in to many of those views, and eventually turning them on their heads completely. So I agree that it is much in the fault of Christians in general that many have turned away.) What about you?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Would anyone like some fresh questions to ponder?
Who has tasted protons before?
What do protons taste like?
When did you taste said protons?
Where did you taste said protons?
Why did you taste said protons?
How did you taste said protons?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.