21st Century Christianity - A brief manifesto for our age.

[2ndRateMind]

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

 

[2ndRateMind]

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

Thank you for those suggestions.
If you read the OP, you will find I said:

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.

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.

How about a worldwide religion with one leader and no one can buy or sell without his mark?

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.

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.

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 Any 'conviction' that prevents us doing that is obsolete has no place in a modern, fit-for-purpose, Christianity.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.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Particularly Pope Francis the heretic. And he would also include the LGBTQ agenda.

Hey, there is room for only one heretic in this movement, and that is me! Seriously, though the current Pope, to whom I owe no earthly allegiance whatsoever, strikes me as a thoroughly good chap, doing the best he can for his flock, within the constraints that confine him.

I really don't intend to debate the LGBTQ issue here. I have discussed it extensively on other forums, and it always generates heat, not light. I made my position clear in the OP, and that is all I have to say on the matter on this thread.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Agreed.

Sadly, the perversion of equality has infected many Christians.

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?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[RLT63]

Thank 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.

Obviously you have not read Revelation or the parable of the wheat and tares

 

[2ndRateMind]

Obviously you have not read Revelation or the parable of the wheat and tares

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.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[RLT63]

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 that, I assure you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Neither will abandoning the message of the Bible in favor of your own version of Christianity

 

[2ndRateMind]

Neither will abandoning the message of the Bible in favor of your own version of Christianity

There are many messages in the Bible, perhaps as many as there are Christians. So I'm not abandoning the Bible at all. Just trying to explain what the good messages are, and why they are good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Wrangler]

Can you justify that remark?

Yes.

What makes equality a 'perversion'?

Holding unequal things as equal is a perversion. It is the application of the idea that is perverted, not the idea itself.

Why would it be 'perverted' to attempt to mitigate or ameliorate those social ills that render us physically, mentally, or economically unequal?

You advocated communisim or Cultural Marxism but pervertedly call it equality. We are unequal independent of social ills.

Do you think, for example, the legless should be denied wheelchairs and prosthetics?

Not denied but who is paying for it?

That our children should not be educated as far as their potential, talents and inclinations will take them?

Absolutely they should NOT be so educated. You are advocating an ideal. For the State, the purpose of education is to produce economic units. Going beyond that is perverting equality. Each of us individually may pursue our own interests - but not at the expense of the State.

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?

Class envy. 10C violator.

The poor are not starving because the rich have wealth.

Clearly, outcomes will never be wholly equal.

Clearly.

But surely, opportunities can be and should be. Meanwhile, we can ensure that even outcomes are at least equitable, don't you think?

No. Absolutely not. I think you are entirely wrong on the whole subject at every level of analysis.

 

[atpollard]

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

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.]

 

[2ndRateMind]

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

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 try to 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.

 

[atpollard]

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.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Why do the same problems of identical inequality exist under Communism and Medieval Feudalism and the God-Kings of the Grain Empires?

Because when we fail to observe Jesus' two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule, bad stuff happens.

I think chasing the "evil of capitalism" is a dead end and a folly that will not pass the test of cursory historicity.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against capitalism. On a small scale, between mutually consenting, uncoerced individuals, it works very well indeed. The problem is, the modern implementation of large scale capitalism has proven to be a complete disaster. With many millions, and even billions, of dollars at stake, ethics are relegated to a secondary consideration, if, indeed, they are a consideration at all. Consequently, we have capitalism on steroids, and it threatens our very continued existence as a species.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

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.]

Your're allowed to disagree. Debate is good. And God's Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is a voluntary affair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Yes.

You advocated communisim or Cultural Marxism but pervertedly call it equality. We are unequal independent of social ills.

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.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GEN2REV]

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.

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

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?

 

[atpollard]

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.

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.

Equality means dragging that checkout operator down to the level of a Somali "Technical" (an illiterate teenage gunman addicted to drugs and dependent on the local warlord). The checkout operator would rather you didn't (even if that means Mr Musk gets to keep Billions).

 

[Wrangler]

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?

Dares to suggest that ethics are relevant? That you are a Cultural Marxist is seen, in part, by your failure to distinguish between ethics and politics.

It won't do, because I am neither.

You quack like a duck, fly like a duck and sound like a duck. So, there is that.

I do not, as it happens, advocate equality, just equitability.

Equity, the new buzz word Leftists are perverting. Being the good Communist and/or Cultural Marxist, just how are you advocating for "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.

IF it is deserved, people will be voluntarily willing to pay for it.

 

[2ndRateMind]

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?

Ah, but God is not simple, and nor is the world He devised for us to inhabit. And nor are we, either. Unless we are so intellectually lazy, we choose to make ourselves so. As for the 10 commandments, well, they leave a lot of sinful actions out. Like getting absurdly rich, when others need the money more.

I sense we are not going to find common ground on this, but come the End of Days, when God passes His judgement on us all, you will find that, while I would not claim to know absolute truth, I am, at least, closer to it than you are. Meanwhile, I'm quite content to agree to disagree.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

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.

That kind of whoppa is worthy even of Trump.

Google has:

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.

I doubt that checkout operators are paid that much even in the US. They certainly aren't in the UK.

Best wishes, 2RM.