You need to be able to discern between genuine conspiracies and conspiracy "theories".
Indeed you do. And you do that by considering the evidence for the contention, and against. So what do you have?
Best wishes, 2RM
Last edited:
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You need to be able to discern between genuine conspiracies and conspiracy "theories".
How about a worldwide religion with one leader and no one can buy or sell without his mark? Sounds like that is what you are working towards or at least a left leaning religion that gives up the convictions that set us apart from the world. Throw in fighting climate change and I think a lot of people would want to join your 21st century Church
If we did that, there would be space not only for all humanity, but the rest of God's creation, also. And there would be no climate change.I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.
God's Kingdom of Heaven on Earth requires no human leader, or rules about who can buy or sell anything to or from anyone. We regulate ourselves, because we love each other.How about a worldwide religion with one leader and no one can buy or sell without his mark?
Christians, in my view, should not set themselves apart from God's world, but be very much in it, and part of it, fighting for social justice and the well-being of all. That is not Socialist, or even left-leaning. It is just what is ethical. Any 'conviction' that prevents us doing that is obsolete has no place in a modern, fit-for-purpose, Christianity.Sounds like that is what you are working towards or at least a left leaning religion that gives up the convictions that set us apart from the world.
Particularly Pope Francis the heretic. And he would also include the LGBTQ agenda.
Agreed.
Sadly, the perversion of equality has infected many Christians.
Obviously you have not read Revelation or the parable of the wheat and taresThank you for those suggestions.
If you read the OP, you will find I said:
If we did that, there would be space not only for all humanity, but the rest of God's creation, also. And there would be no climate change.
God's Kingdom of Heaven on Earth requires no human leader, or rules about who can buy or sell anything to or from anyone. We regulate ourselves, because we love each other.
Christians, in my view, should not set themselves apart from God's world, but be very much in it, and part of it, fighting for social justice and the well-being of all. That is not Socialist, or even left-leaning. It is just what is ethical. Any 'conviction' that prevents us doing that is obsolete has no place in a modern, fit-for-purpose, Christianity.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I have, in fact, read them both. But I try to keep a little perspective, and a pragmatic attitude, and emphasise those parts of the Bible that are useful to us on our pilgrimage through life, and likely to see us in good standing with God on Judgment Day. Abdicating our responsibility to everyone else will not achieve either a good life or such good standing, I assure you. I know, because I've been there.Obviously you have not read Revelation or the parable of the wheat and tares
Neither will abandoning the message of the Bible in favor of your own version of ChristianityI have, in fact, read them both. But I try to keep a little perspective, and a pragmatic attitude, and emphasise those parts of the Bible that are useful to us on our pilgrimage through life, and likely to see us in good standing with God on Judgment Day. Abdicating our responsibility to everyone else will not achieve that, I assure you.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Neither will abandoning the message of the Bible in favor of your own version of Christianity
Can you justify that remark?
What makes equality a 'perversion'?
Why would it be 'perverted' to attempt to mitigate or ameliorate those social ills that render us physically, mentally, or economically unequal?
Do you think, for example, the legless should be denied wheelchairs and prosthetics?
That our children should not be educated as far as their potential, talents and inclinations will take them?
Or that the rich are entitled to so great a portion of the world's wealth that many others are left hungry, malnourished and starving?
Clearly, outcomes will never be wholly equal.
But surely, opportunities can be and should be. Meanwhile, we can ensure that even outcomes are at least equitable, don't you think?
After that we could Crown the Anti-Christ in the Temple and celebrate the New World Order by offering those that worship the OLD God on the altar of the New Religion in the Image of Man that we have created ... (and all the demons cried "AMEN!").Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.
Sinners, as the Bible defines, are those who live in daily habitual sin; in effect separated from God.
...
My idea is God's idea about sin. 1 John 3:4
Why do the same problems of identical inequality exist under Communism and Medieval Feudalism and the God-Kings of the Grain Empires?It is interesting that capitalism, many economists, and philosopher writers such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick, elevate selfishness until it is barely distinguishable from the purpose and meaning of life. For many, particularly those without a faith, it is not distinguishable at all. And this, I suspect, is the root of the many global problems that afflict us in our time.
Why do the same problems of identical inequality exist under Communism and Medieval Feudalism and the God-Kings of the Grain Empires?
I think chasing the "evil of capitalism" is a dead end and a folly that will not pass the test of cursory historicity.
After that we could Crown the Anti-Christ in the Temple and celebrate the New World Order by offering those that worship the OLD God on the altar of the New Religion in the Image of Man that we have created ... (and all the demons cried "AMEN!").
[A bit hyperbolic and overly dramatic, but my basic message is: "I disagree" that what Christianity needs is to discard truth and God for ecumenical humanism, and focus on saving the world as the new ruling men and women decide is best.]
Yes.
You advocated communisim or Cultural Marxism but pervertedly call it equality. We are unequal independent of social ills.
OK, let's tackle sin then. Sin is not an action. Though an act may be sinful. Sin is not a belief, though a belief may be sinful. Sin is not a way of life, though a way of life may be sinful. Sin is a way of being.
Let me explain what I mean by that, since the concept and distinctions I have made are all quite subtle.
The early Church fathers had a lot to say about sin, and amongst it all was their list of the seven 'deadly' or 'cardinal' sins. (Pope Gregory 1, in 590 AD, came up with the final list, which was endorsed subsequently by Thomas Aquinas) These are: pride, avarice, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. None of these are actions, beliefs or ways of life. They are all ways of being that lead to sinful actions, beliefs and ways of life. They are how we are, not what we think, do or how we live. In philosopher-speak a sin is not a matter of ethics, or epistemology, though these may be, and often are, distorted by sin, rendering our outlook on life somewhat jaundiced. It s a matter of our ontological state. And, without exception, they focus on the self, rather than God or other humans or God's world. As a rough approximation, therefore, one may say that sin is a wholly selfish way of being, and that anything wholly selfish is sinful.
It is interesting that capitalism, many economists, and philosopher writers such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick, elevate selfishness until it is barely distinguishable from the purpose and meaning of life. For many, particularly those without a faith, it is not distinguishable at all. And this, I suspect, is the root of the many global problems that afflict us in our time.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Sin is the breaking of the Commandments. Just as the Bible states it is.I have two perfectly good Bibles, one of which is the KJV. When I quote from it, the archaic language should warn people of the invoked authority.
But I do not often do so. When I use ordinary, plain language, I offer my own opinions, interpretations and reasoning. They may not suit you, but they do not amount to Satanism. Which kind of insult is known by philosophers as the ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack on the protagonist not the argument proffered. It is quite irrelevant, because I could be a Satanist, and still have some pertinent observation to contribute to the discussion. And that is why it is a fallacy. That you feel the need to take refuge in insult, rather than reason, says more about you than it does about me, my friend. It says your philosophy is so impoverished, you have have nothing useful left to say.
I'll read your references, in due course. I try to make a habit of doing so, for every reference I receive. They are all part of human understanding, and therefore of interest to me.
Best wishes, 2RM
The flaw in your starting assumptions is that even the checkout operator at minimum wage is in the top 1% by world-wide standards. If you own the electronic device you are reading this on ... welcome to the 1% club.But even the checkout operator deserves a wage on which he or she can afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families, and pay their bills with a little discretionary left over to enjoy some of life's little luxuries.
So, then, as far as you are concerned, anyone who disrupts your complacent world view from a liberal perspective and dares to suggest that ethics are relevant as we decide our path into the future, is a Communist and/or Cultural Marxist?
It won't do, because I am neither.
I do not, as it happens, advocate equality, just equitability.
Clearly, for example, a doctor is rather more socially important, and has studied longer and harder, and knows more, and has greater responsibilities, than a young supermarket checkout operator. And deserves to see those differences reflected in his or her take home pay. But even the checkout operator deserves a wage on which he or she can afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families, and pay their bills with a little discretionary left over to enjoy some of life's little luxuries.
Sin is the breaking of the Commandments. Just as the Bible states it is.
Keep things simple, 2RM. That'll help you out a lot in your efforts to represent God and the Bible.
God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33
Why should we be?
The flaw in your starting assumptions is that even the checkout operator at minimum wage is in the top 1% by world-wide standards. If you own the electronic device you are reading this on ... welcome to the 1% club.
How to Make the Top 1% List. To be in the [global] top 1%, you must have an annual wage of at least $823,763, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That excludes sources of unearned income like investment returns.