Health and Religion - page 11. | Bitcointalksearch.org

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 02:51:05 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 01:06:26 PM

LOL.

And who were the bigots that use the Bible to justify slavery? Fucking Christians, that is who.
Progressive Christians went AGAINST their religion because they were good people.

Was the emancipation of slaves a progressive change?

Did the emancipation cause moral degradation and decay, as YOU claimed?

The Christians who brought about the emancipation of slaves are the same type of Christians who today stand for the LGBT community and the dicks who opposed the emancipation then, oppose the progressive changes (sex and gender equality, women's reproductive rights) today.

Go back to your sandbox and think about it some more.

The Christians were the ones driving the abolitionist movement. Your attempt to argue that they were somehow acting against their faith are foolish hand waving. I am certain that those individuals were they alive today would be deeply insulted by your smear.

It is true that there have always been and always will be men who do evil in the name of God but the message of the Bible is one of freedom.

If you want proof of that just look at what those "religious slaveholders" felt they had to do to the Bible to make it safe for their slaves to learn about it. They chopped it up and left removed huge parts of it. They did so because they were concerned about the message of freedom it carries.

The Shocking 'Slave Bible'
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/february/freedom-in-christ-how-this-bible-was-used-to-manipulate

Quote

In Washington DC’s Museum of the Bible, a copy of the so-called “Slave Bible” sits on display.
...
This Bible, used by slave masters in the early 1800s, is quite different than the one used in pews today.

“It starts off with the creation story…then it jumps to Joseph getting sold into slavery by his brothers and how that ends up being a good thing for him,” Schmidt told CBN News.

“We skip over the Israelites in slavery in Egypt being let out,” said Schmidt.

Other references to freedom were also omitted.
...
Most slaves were illiterate or prohibited from reading, so what would be the point of such a Bible?

“The abolitionist movement was beginning to make waves on both sides of the Atlantic “said Schmidt.

One way slave owners could combat pressure from abolitionists was to tell them they were good Christians that taught their slaves about God.

You are not only ignorant of the Bible but the history of the slave trade.

The Bible explicitly sanctions slavery to this fucking day.
That is what Christian slave owners and traders used as the justification for their immoral actions.

Progressives are the good people here, always were and always will be. Christian abolitionists stuck their necks, had to break their ties with traditional churches that were in favor of slavery. They stood up AGAINST their religion for the right reasons. Just like some Christians today are doing when they campaign for women or gay rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

The Roman Catholic canon law was changed, wait for it, in 1917 to make selling human beings into slavery a crime.

You can continue to be a prick, and be against gay rights, gender equality, women's reproductive rights, etc.

You can thump your Bible all you want, nobody cares anymore about people like you. You are like the pricks the abolitionists were up against.

Progressives will win for one reason, they are morally right.

Be a better person and join them. Or die a prick.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 01:06:26 PM

LOL.

And who were the bigots that use the Bible to justify slavery? Fucking Christians, that is who.
Progressive Christians went AGAINST their religion because they were good people.

Was the emancipation of slaves a progressive change?

Did the emancipation cause moral degradation and decay, as YOU claimed?

The Christians who brought about the emancipation of slaves are the same type of Christians who today stand for the LGBT community and the dicks who opposed the emancipation then, oppose the progressive changes (sex and gender equality, women's reproductive rights) today.

Go back to your sandbox and think about it some more.

The Christians were the ones driving the abolitionist movement. Your attempt to argue that they were somehow acting against their faith are foolish hand waving. I am certain that those individuals were they alive today would be deeply insulted by your smear.

It is true that there have always been and always will be men who do evil in the name of God but the message of the Bible is one of freedom.

If you want proof of that just look at what those "religious slaveholders" felt they had to do to the Bible to make it safe for their slaves to learn about it. They chopped it up and removed huge portions of it. They did so because they were concerned about the message of freedom it carries.

The Shocking 'Slave Bible'
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/february/freedom-in-christ-how-this-bible-was-used-to-manipulate

Quote

In Washington DC’s Museum of the Bible, a copy of the so-called “Slave Bible” sits on display.
...
This Bible, used by slave masters in the early 1800s, is quite different than the one used in pews today.

“It starts off with the creation story…then it jumps to Joseph getting sold into slavery by his brothers and how that ends up being a good thing for him,” Schmidt told CBN News.
“We skip over the Israelites in slavery in Egypt being let out,” said Schmidt.
Other references to freedom were also omitted.
...
Most slaves were illiterate or prohibited from reading, so what would be the point of such a Bible?
“The abolitionist movement was beginning to make waves on both sides of the Atlantic “said Schmidt.

One way slave owners could combat pressure from abolitionists was to tell them they were good Christians that taught their slaves about God.

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 12:31:44 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 12:10:45 PM

So I guess you are for slavery after all.

The emancipation of slaves from religious bigots did not lead to moral degradation and decay as YOU suggested.

Only progressive thought is worth a consideration. Religious thought is a history, never to be repeated.

Sigh... open your eyes af_newbie the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement.

Christian Abolitionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

Quote from: wikipedia

Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]

In particular, the effects of the Second Great Awakening resulted in many evangelicals working to see the theoretical Christian view, that all people are essentially equal, made more of a practical reality. Freedom of expression within the Western world also helped in enabling opportunity to express their position. Prominent among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."

Maybe this will help you understand

Freedom and Moral Self-Control

LOL.

And who were the bigots that use the Bible to justify slavery? Fucking Christians, that is who.
Progressive Christians went AGAINST their religion because they were good people.

Was the emancipation of slaves a progressive change?

Did the emancipation cause moral degradation and decay, as YOU claimed?

The Christians who brought about the emancipation of slaves are the same type of Christians who today stand for the LGBT community and the dicks who opposed the emancipation then, oppose the progressive changes (sex and gender equality, women's reproductive rights) today.

Go back to your sandbox and think about it some more.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 12:10:45 PM

So I guess you are for slavery after all.

The emancipation of slaves from religious bigots did not lead to moral degradation and decay as YOU suggested.

Only progressive thought is worth a consideration. Religious thought is a history, never to be repeated.

Sigh... open your eyes af_newbie the abolitionist movement was a Christian movement.

Christian Abolitionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

Quote from: wikipedia

Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from 'un-institutional' Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]

In particular, the effects of the Second Great Awakening resulted in many evangelicals working to see the theoretical Christian view, that all people are essentially equal, made more of a practical reality. Freedom of expression within the Western world also helped in enabling opportunity to express their position. Prominent among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."

Maybe this will help you understand

Freedom and Moral Self-Control

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 12:06:13 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 11:29:06 AM

It was your argument that "No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty ", then your brought up the liberty and democracy into the fold.

So now you are backtracking it because the Bible does not support it?

I think we just went a full circle.

Moral improvement cannot be achieved using the Bible because the Bible does not CHANGE.

Progressive moral improvements are made by secularists. Religious folks constantly OPPOSE ALL progressive changes.

You lost on both counts:

1. God is not required to run or to sustain a democracy. (God did not know that democracy was a thing, LOL)
2. God opposes any moral improvements. "My way or the highway" - God.

Read the bolded portion again.

Then watch this video.

How Do We Make Society Better?

If you still don't understand then I am sorry but its not that complicated.

Democracy and liberty are not synonyms. Liberty is individual human freedom, a freedom that is maximized by increasing human virtue. Democracy is a flawed form of human government that is nevertheless in most circumstances superior to monarchy or despotism.

Religious people oppose most progressive changes because most progressive changes lead to moral degeneration and decay. Western society is currently in a fairly severe state of decay largely thanks to the progressive secularists and their "improvements". Time will tell if the structure can be renewed or if it will collapse. It is certainly possible to have elections and "democracy" without liberty. Even the Soviet Union had that.

Elections in the Soviet Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union

So I guess you are for slavery after all.

The emancipation of slaves from religious bigots did not lead to moral degradation and decay as YOU suggested.

Only progressive thought is worth a consideration. Religious thought is a history, never to be repeated.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 11:29:06 AM

It was your argument that "No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty ", then your brought up the liberty and democracy into the fold.

So now you are backtracking it because the Bible does not support it?

I think we just went a full circle.

Moral improvement cannot be achieved using the Bible because the Bible does not CHANGE.

Progressive moral improvements are made by secularists. Religious folks constantly OPPOSE ALL progressive changes.

You lost on both counts:

1. God is not required to run or to sustain a democracy. (God did not know that democracy was a thing, LOL)
2. God opposes any moral improvements. "My way or the highway" - God.

Read the bolded portion again.

Then watch this video.

How Do We Make Society Better?

If you still don't understand then I am sorry but its not that complicated.

Democracy and liberty are not synonyms. Liberty is individual human freedom, a freedom that is maximized by increasing human virtue. Democracy is a flawed form of human government that is nevertheless in most circumstances superior to monarchy or despotism.

Religious people oppose most progressive changes because most progressive changes lead to moral degeneration and decay. Western society is currently in a fairly severe state of decay largely thanks to the progressive secularists and their "improvements". Time will tell if the structure can be renewed or if it will collapse. It is certainly possible to have elections and "democracy" without liberty. Even the Soviet Union had that.

Elections in the Soviet Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 11:04:47 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 06:20:52 AM

And you are still avoiding answering my question:

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?

In the words of Winston Churchill:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Why would you expect the Bible to talk about the preservation of a flawed system of government?

The quality of government is dependent on the virtue of the individuals within it. The freedom that is possible is directly proportional to the virtue of the population and inversely proportional to the capacity of individuals within that population to do harm.

The Bible is directed towards individuals with a focus on redemption, salvation and moral improvement. That process on a large enough scale will shift the foundation of a society allowing mankind to do away with despotism and monarchy without reverting to the state of nature where life was accurately described by Hobbs as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Democracy is an incremental improvement not a final state. The Bible outlines the process that leads to the incremental improvement.

It was your argument that "No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty ", then your brought up the liberty and democracy into the fold.

So now you are backtracking it because the Bible does not support it?

I think we just went a full circle.

Moral improvement cannot be achieved using the Bible because the Bible does not CHANGE.

Progressive moral improvements are made by secularists. Religious folks constantly OPPOSE ALL progressive changes.

You lost on both counts:

1. God is not required to run or to sustain a democracy. (God did not know that democracy was a thing, LOL)
2. God opposes any moral improvements. "My way or the highway" - God.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 06:20:52 AM

And you are still avoiding answering my question:

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?

In the words of Winston Churchill:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Why would you expect the Bible to talk about the preservation of a flawed system of government?

The quality of government is dependent on the virtue of the individuals within it. The freedom that is possible is directly proportional to the virtue of the population and inversely proportional to the capacity of individuals within that population to do harm.

The Bible is directed towards individuals with a focus on redemption, salvation and moral improvement. That process on a large enough scale will shift the foundation of a society allowing mankind to do away with despotism and monarchy without reverting to the state of nature where life was accurately described by Hobbs as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Democracy is an incremental improvement not a final state. The Bible outlines the process that leads to the incremental improvement.

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: BADecker on October 24, 2019, 10:05:17 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 08:54:20 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 24, 2019, 08:11:26 AM

None of that stuff you say is wrong regarding your government, if it is part of your government.

How does a government get to be your government? By your acceptance of it... a contract or agreement between you and your government.

For example, consider Stockholm Syndrome. You are a hostage in a hostage situation. Your captor says, "Submit or die." What are you going to do? You have the choice of maintaining your prior government and dying, or of making a deal with your captor that he is your new government through the force he is exerting.

The example of this is King Zedekiah of Judah, when he made a deal with Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah accepted Babylon as his government. Then he broke the agreement that he had made with Nebuchadnezzar, and God was against him for this.

God talks about the preservation of your government - even Democracy - right in Romans 13. Obey your government. But before you can obey your government, you have to choose your government. If you choose Democracy, then obey, just like Romans 13 says.

So, think clearly about which government you want to obey. If you don't obey the right government, you will wind up being a slave. But God's government is a government of freedom... Galatians 5:1:

Quote from: https://biblehub.com/galatians/5-1.htm

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Romans 13 has nothing to do with democracy, more like a monarchy with God the ultimate monarch.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment..."

Keep looking. You won't find it.

You quoted it: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. If the government is set up as a democracy, then it is: Let every person be subject to the democracy.

The point is, whatever government you choose, be subject to the governing authorities of that government. After all, how does a government become your government if not by your choosing of it? And how do you choose it: by accident by being born there; by formal acceptance; by force in a hostile takeover; etc.

God is the head of all government. But for you, government is what you choose. Since you don't accept God as your government, and since God is for freedom, He will give you over to the government you choose. What is that government? You don't really know, do you?

Cool

You ignored the rest of the quote.

By your logic, the Bible supports Islamic governments, Nazism, Communism, etc.
Basically, any government because "those that exist have been instituted by God.".

Nothing to do with democracy.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 08:54:20 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 24, 2019, 08:11:26 AM

None of that stuff you say is wrong regarding your government, if it is part of your government.

How does a government get to be your government? By your acceptance of it... a contract or agreement between you and your government.

For example, consider Stockholm Syndrome. You are a hostage in a hostage situation. Your captor says, "Submit or die." What are you going to do? You have the choice of maintaining your prior government and dying, or of making a deal with your captor that he is your new government through the force he is exerting.

The example of this is King Zedekiah of Judah, when he made a deal with Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah accepted Babylon as his government. Then he broke the agreement that he had made with Nebuchadnezzar, and God was against him for this.

God talks about the preservation of your government - even Democracy - right in Romans 13. Obey your government. But before you can obey your government, you have to choose your government. If you choose Democracy, then obey, just like Romans 13 says.

So, think clearly about which government you want to obey. If you don't obey the right government, you will wind up being a slave. But God's government is a government of freedom... Galatians 5:1:

Quote from: https://biblehub.com/galatians/5-1.htm

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Romans 13 has nothing to do with democracy, more like a monarchy with God the ultimate monarch.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment..."

Keep looking. You won't find it.

You quoted it: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. If the government is set up as a democracy, then it is: Let every person be subject to the democracy.

The point is, whatever government you choose, be subject to the governing authorities of that government. After all, how does a government become your government if not by your choosing of it? And how do you choose it: by accident by being born there; by formal acceptance; by force in a hostile takeover; etc.

God is the head of all government. But for you, government is what you choose. Since you don't accept God as your government, and since God is for freedom, He will give you over to the government you choose. What is that government? You don't really know, do you?

Cool

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: BADecker on October 24, 2019, 08:11:26 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 06:20:52 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 12:19:12 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 23, 2019, 07:40:08 PM

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious? You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government? How? By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors. Is he that insane? Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath. I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking. If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another? He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.

How much of the speech did you watch? The speech is 37 minutes long and you wrote your post 19 minutes after mine.

Consider watching the rest when you have time. It really is a great one and will help you understand the perspectives of those who disagree with you.

Democracy is a social structure possible as a superior alternative to despotism or monarchy only when society has attained a sufficient degree of moral virtue and social capital. God and the Bible over time create that moral foundation.

See Religion and Progress

William Barr has spent his life in the justice department where he would have seen firsthand the spectrum of human evil. Yet you question his sanity as you have on many occasions questioned mine.

You should consider the possibility that insanity is not very common and perhaps you are missing something.

And that is a difference between us.

I would question anything and anyone. You won't.

I will not agree with religious moral teaching because I KNOW it is wrong. That is why people like Barr are wrong.

Slavery is wrong, the killing of gays is wrong, the killing of people who work on Sabbath is wrong, the discrimination of women is wrong.

I am all for moral teaching just not the religious moral teaching Mr. Barr is advocating.

I would agree with him if he dropped the 'religious moral teaching' and replace it with the 'secular moral teaching'. Of course, there is a link between one's upbringing and one's future criminal activity. Secular education is always the answer.

And you are still avoiding answering my question:

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?

None of that stuff you say is wrong regarding your government, if it is part of your government.

How does a government get to be your government? By your acceptance of it... a contract or agreement between you and your government.

For example, consider Stockholm Syndrome. You are a hostage in a hostage situation. Your captor says, "Submit or die." What are you going to do? You have the choice of maintaining your prior government and dying, or of making a deal with your captor that he is your new government through the force he is exerting.

The example of this is King Zedekiah of Judah, when he made a deal with Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah accepted Babylon as his government. Then he broke the agreement that he had made with Nebuchadnezzar, and God was against him for this.

God talks about the preservation of your government - even Democracy - right in Romans 13. Obey your government. But before you can obey your government, you have to choose your government. If you choose Democracy, then obey, just like Romans 13 says.

So, think clearly about which government you want to obey. If you don't obey the right government, you will wind up being a slave. But God's government is a government of freedom... Galatians 5:1:

Quote from: https://biblehub.com/galatians/5-1.htm

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Romans 13 has nothing to do with democracy, more like a monarchy with God the ultimate monarch.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment..."

Keep looking. You won't find it.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on October 24, 2019, 06:20:52 AM

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 12:19:12 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 23, 2019, 07:40:08 PM

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious? You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government? How? By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors. Is he that insane? Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath. I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking. If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another? He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.

How much of the speech did you watch? The speech is 37 minutes long and you wrote your post 19 minutes after mine.

Consider watching the rest when you have time. It really is a great one and will help you understand the perspectives of those who disagree with you.

Democracy is a social structure possible as a superior alternative to despotism or monarchy only when society has attained a sufficient degree of moral virtue and social capital. God and the Bible over time create that moral foundation.

See Religion and Progress

William Barr has spent his life in the justice department where he would have seen firsthand the spectrum of human evil. Yet you question his sanity as you have on many occasions questioned mine.

You should consider the possibility that insanity is not very common and perhaps you are missing something.

And that is a difference between us.

I would question anything and anyone. You won't.

I will not agree with religious moral teaching because I KNOW it is wrong. That is why people like Barr are wrong.

Slavery is wrong, the killing of gays is wrong, the killing of people who work on Sabbath is wrong, the discrimination of women is wrong.

I am all for moral teaching just not the religious moral teaching Mr. Barr is advocating.

I would agree with him if he dropped the 'religious moral teaching' and replace it with the 'secular moral teaching'. Of course, there is a link between one's upbringing and one's future criminal activity. Secular education is always the answer.

And you are still avoiding answering my question:

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?

None of that stuff you say is wrong regarding your government, if it is part of your government.

How does a government get to be your government? By your acceptance of it... a contract or agreement between you and your government.

For example, consider Stockholm Syndrome. You are a hostage in a hostage situation. Your captor says, "Submit or die." What are you going to do? You have the choice of maintaining your prior government and dying, or of making a deal with your captor that he is your new government through the force he is exerting.

The example of this is King Zedekiah of Judah, when he made a deal with Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah accepted Babylon as his government. Then he broke the agreement that he had made with Nebuchadnezzar, and God was against him for this.

God talks about the preservation of your government - even Democracy - right in Romans 13. Obey your government. But before you can obey your government, you have to choose your government. If you choose Democracy, then obey, just like Romans 13 says.

So, think clearly about which government you want to obey. If you don't obey the right government, you will wind up being a slave. But God's government is a government of freedom... Galatians 5:1:

Quote from: https://biblehub.com/galatians/5-1.htm

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 24, 2019, 12:19:12 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 23, 2019, 07:40:08 PM

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious? You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government? How? By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors. Is he that insane? Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath. I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking. If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another? He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.

How much of the speech did you watch? The speech is 37 minutes long and you wrote your post 19 minutes after mine.

Consider watching the rest when you have time. It really is a great one and will help you understand the perspectives of those who disagree with you.

Democracy is a social structure possible as a superior alternative to despotism or monarchy only when society has attained a sufficient degree of moral virtue and social capital. God and the Bible over time create that moral foundation.

See Religion and Progress

William Barr has spent his life in the justice department where he would have seen firsthand the spectrum of human evil. Yet you question his sanity as you have on many occasions questioned mine.

You should consider the possibility that insanity is not very common and perhaps you are missing something.

And that is a difference between us.

I would question anything and anyone. You won't.

I will not agree with religious moral teaching because I KNOW it is wrong. That is why people like Barr are wrong.

Slavery is wrong, the killing of gays is wrong, the killing of people who work on Sabbath is wrong, the discrimination of women is wrong.

I am all for moral teaching just not the religious moral teaching Mr. Barr is advocating.

I would agree with him if he dropped the 'religious moral teaching' and replace it with the 'secular moral teaching'. Of course, there is a link between one's upbringing and one's future criminal activity. Secular education is always the answer.

And you are still avoiding answering my question:

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 23, 2019, 07:40:08 PM

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious? You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government? How? By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors. Is he that insane? Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath. I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking. If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another? He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.

How much of the speech did you watch? The speech is 37 minutes long and you wrote your post 19 minutes after mine.

Consider watching the rest when you have time. It really is a great one and will help you understand the perspectives of those who disagree with you.

Democracy is a social structure possible as a superior alternative to despotism or monarchy only when society has attained a sufficient degree of moral virtue and social capital. God and the Bible over time create that moral foundation.

See Religion and Progress

William Barr has spent his life in the justice department where he would have seen firsthand the spectrum of human evil. Yet you question his sanity as you have on many occasions questioned mine.

You should consider the possibility that insanity is not very common and perhaps you are missing something.

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 23, 2019, 07:21:26 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 22, 2019, 10:24:53 PM

...
Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy? More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy? You are a funny guy.

Since you clearly don't want to hear it from me I recommend another source. William Barr the US attorney general recently gave an excellent talk on this exact topic. It was superb 100% on point and I highly recommend watching it.

Attorney General William Barr on Religious Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM87WMsrCWM

His speech starts at the 9:00 minute mark of the video.

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious? You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government? How? By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors. Is he that insane? Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath. I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking. If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another? He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.

CoinCube

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1055

Quote from: af_newbie on October 22, 2019, 10:24:53 PM

...
Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy? More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy? You are a funny guy.

Since you clearly don't want to hear it from me I recommend another source. William Barr the US attorney general recently gave an excellent talk on this exact topic. It was superb 100% on point and I highly recommend watching it.

Attorney General William Barr on Religious Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM87WMsrCWM

His speech starts at the 9:00 minute mark of the video.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on October 23, 2019, 12:24:51 PM

In the end, it does not matter if what you believed was true or not, you'll rot and decompose the same, atoms in your body will be used to form something else.

What matters to some people is that their genes were passed on to their offsprings.

If a belief in some sky daddy is what makes you happy, go for it.
Just don't tell me it is the 'truth' because I will have a mirad of follow up questions. LOL.
And don't tell me that I have to do something because of your belief.

All you are saying is that whenever you blow your nose or use the toilet, it's simply a dead part of you that is mingling with everything else. Just think! There goes part of af_newbie, into the sewer pipes, into the ground, into the plants and animals that eat him up. That's really the real af_newbie, even though it might be part of the dead af_newbie.

You are absolutely so funny to think that you are limited by death to a hole in the ground, or whatever. And you think that the religion of other people is goofy. Yours has them beat all around.

Cool

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: Niya on October 23, 2019, 11:51:17 AM

I think the most deleterious effect of atheism is depression, often correlated with anxiety and apathy. If you look at suicide rates, you will notice many low-suicide rates countries are very religious. For example, suicide rates in Morocco, Pakistan, Kuwait and even Syria are far lower than Japan, South Korea or Finland (countries with high atheism rate).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/talking-about-men/201812/the-mental-health-atheists-and-the-nones

_{"Christmas is approaching, and religious people across the world are preparing with the appropriate prayers, observations, and services. However, a growing proportion of the population is non-religious, and for them, Christmas can be a meaningless, empty, and lonely period.

Indeed, a small but growing body of research continues to explore the relationship between religiosity, non-religiosity, and mental health. Much of this includes broad comparisons between the religious and non-religious.

Who are the non-religious?
The ‘non-religious’ is an umbrella term referring to a heterogeneous group of people, often known as the ‘nones.’ These can include people who are lapsed, non-affiliated, agnostics, the ‘spiritual but not religious’ and atheists.

Interestingly, Pew Research Center surveys indicate a growth in the ‘nones’ as a proportion of the population. A 2014 survey indicated that 23 percent of Americans identified as a ‘none,’ significantly higher than the 16 percent observed in 2007. Within these ‘nones’ are a growing number of atheists.

Indeed, the Pew Research Centre reports that ‘the share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years’, now making up 3.1 percent of the population, compared to 1.6 percent in 2007. Interestingly, young white educated men make up a disproportionate number of atheists.

This rise may be related to ‘the new atheism,’ a social movement created and led by major public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom wrote best-selling books promoting atheism and atheistic worldviews.

Religiosity and mental health
Much research indicates that religious people as a group tend to have better mental health than the ‘nones’ as a group. This is manifest in various indicators, including lower rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, self-harm, and substance use among the religious.

The protective mental health effects of religiosity have been attributed to various factors. These include social support in religious congregations, a sense of purpose and meaning offered by religions, and moral codes commanding certain behaviors (e.g. abstinence) within religions. These are discussed in the short video below with Dr. Eric Jarvis, a leading authority on religion, atheism and mental health.

However, the studies leading to these conclusions often collapse a variety of different groups (e.g., agnostics, lapsed, unaffiliated, weak atheists, strong atheists) into a single category of ‘nones,’ comparing these to a single category of ‘religious.’ This binary ‘lumping’ approach loses granular-level information about the many specific sub-groups within the ‘nones.’

Examining the ‘nones’
New research has set out to examine the broad mental health differences in the sub-categories constituting the ‘nones.’ Interestingly, a growing number of studies suggest that people possessing strong religious beliefs and convinced atheists tend to share similarly positive mental health. The worst mental health is observed in those with more ambiguous, confused and weaker religious or spiritual beliefs.

For example, a just-published study by Dr. Joseph Baker at East Tennessee State University indicates that atheists have the best mental health among the ‘nones,’ similar to that of the highly-religious. In contrast, ‘non-affiliated theists’ had the poorest mental health.

These findings overlap with a classic British study which found that the ‘spiritual but not religious’ had higher levels of drug dependency, abnormal eating, generalized anxiety disorder, neurotic disorders and use of psychotropic medication, in comparison with both ‘religious people’ and people who were ‘neither religious nor spiritual.’

These results tantalizingly suggest that ‘certainty of belief,’ rather than the content of the belief itself, may be a key determinant of positive mental health in the groups studied. Contrariwise, uncertainty or inconsistency of belief, as sometimes witnessed in agnostics, the non-affiliated and the ‘spiritual but not religious’ may be a risk factor for poor mental health.

Conclusion
Richard Dawkins himself has joked about atheists possibly being ‘despairing neurotics driven to suicide by relentless cosmic angst’ because they lack the emotional and psychological consolations of religion. However, emerging evidence suggests that convinced atheists may derive consolation from a certainty of belief in their own solidly-held worldview, leading to similar mental health to the highly-religious.

Such consolation may not be present for those with more uncertain and ambiguous beliefs, such as the ‘spiritual but not religious’ and agnostics.

All this implies a need for further research examining the psychosocial and mental health differences between the different categories of the ‘nones.’ A ‘splitting’ rather than ‘lumping’ approach is necessary to enrich the scientific literature and avoid false conclusions.

Merry Christmas."}

In the end, it does not matter if what you believed was true or not, you'll rot and decompose the same, atoms in your body will be used to form something else.

What matters to some people is that their genes were passed on to their offsprings.

If a belief in some sky daddy is what makes you happy, go for it.
Just don't tell me it is the 'truth' because I will have a mirad of follow up questions. LOL.
And don't tell me that I have to do something because of your belief.

Niya

hero member

Activity: 811

Merit: 512

Enhalo Mining

I think the most deleterious effect of atheism is depression, often correlated with anxiety and apathy. If you look at suicide rates, you will notice many low-suicide rates countries are very religious. For example, suicide rates in Morocco, Pakistan, Kuwait and even Syria are far lower than Japan, South Korea or Finland (countries with high atheism rate).

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: CoinCube on October 22, 2019, 02:57:24 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 22, 2019, 11:19:46 AM

So your argument is that we need religion as the proverbial stick to keep everyone in line otherwise we would fall into anarchy, communism, nazism or some other form of dictatorship? Have you really thought this through?

Since you agree that secular, democratic society might be good in the short-term to advance humanity, how about we try it and see what happens in the long-term. LOL.

If you stick with democracy you will never descent into dictatorship, religious or secular.

My point was that the religious world view is regressive.

It not only does not help but impedes our scientific progress.

No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty and that without such a foundation any given democracy is unlikely to be capable of sustaining itself. My argument is that a genuinely secular democracy once its abandons its foundation in the transcendent will become unstable. That it will in the words of Froude become:

"the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its own earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being 'beautiful forever,' and in the midst of the discovery it dies."

We agree that a secular democratic society is the form a government most capable of rapid scientific advancement over short time periods. We also agree that a society that holds firmly to religious principles will naturally slow the rate of scientific advancement as not all avenues, methods, and implementation of research will be acceptable to said society.

We disagree on the importance of maximizing short term scientific advancement.

As for a real life trial we only have to wait and observe. Western Europe and especially Scandinavia are pursuing the experiment now.

I think you might be skipping more than a few verses in the Bible.

Wasn't your God who sanctioned slavery?

And now he is all about liberty and preservation of democracy?

You are just throwing God everywhere and see where it sticks.

Problem is that this 'God' concept is as diverse as the insect family. Every church or even community uses different verses, interprets them differently, verses from different books, from different publishers, different translations, all coming to different conclusions of what God is wants, allows or disallows.

A comedy show, really. And you come along and claim that God is required to maintain democracy or liberty?

You are just like the whites who were saying that Blacks need to submit to their masters because God said so.

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy? More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy? You are a funny guy.

Topic: Health and Religion - page 11. (Read 210888 times)