Unheathen me please - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
User avatar
By Albert
#14905575
I was speaking of kingdom of heave that will be established on earth. How can kingdom of heaven be established on earth if we sin in abundance and prosperity?

Think also of Job, he was a righteous man living in abundance but he never forgot god both in abundance and in depravity.
#14905582
Albert wrote: was speaking of kingdom of heave that will be established on earth. How can kingdom of heaven be established on earth if we sin in abundance and prosperity?


Do you mean the establishment of the kingdom of heaven in the sense of a post-millennial realization or the eschatological concept of the New Heavens and New Earth?

If the former, then I reject that view of realized millennialism as I am an A-millennialist.

If we speaking of the latter, we are referring to the eternal state after sin and hence my point would still obtain.

Albert wrote:Think also of Job, he was a righteous man living in abundance but he never forgot god both in abundance and in depravity.


Correct, which is why I am not a communist (among other things), for obviously the possession of wealth is not sinful.

Likewise, Satan's request to tempt Job proves that even he believed that the removal of possessions would lead to Job blaspheming God as that would have been a common reaction, God let Satan tempt Job because God knew that Job was an exception, He was righteous in this regards (and some argue he even typifies the Christ to come). Indeed, God even gave Him more wealth as a reward.

However, such can be a temptation, if it were not, we wouldn't have warnings against the love of money, worshiping money rather than God, etc. Even the offering of immediate gratification and abundance was used against Our Lord by the devil himself in the midst of his fast (which is the quintessential act of delayed gratification).

There is an old saying that shows forth the pattern, which in my opinion, can only be explained by the conditions of sin generated by the Fall of man:

Image
User avatar
By Albert
#14905584
I implore you to find where Jesus preached that prosperity leads to sin or that what is symbolized by the image above. He did say it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven then a camel to pass through an eye of a needle. But I think he meant that in a way that it is not abundance of possessions that leads to sin, but the mentality of rich people. For remember he met a tax collector and he only gave half of his wealth. Saying "I have robbed people but now I can help much more with the wealth I have accumulated". And Jesus said he will be in heaven with him. (paraphrasing here is an actual passage I found it https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV)

There is a lesson in all this.

Also consider career criminals, they lead destitute lives yet many of them do not turn to god. That is because evil loves destruction, regardless if it is in wealth or poor, evil people will do evil regardless. Because evil loves evil, that is why evil people do evil, because they derive joy from it.

This is why we sin, because we enjoy it.
#14905592
Albert wrote:I implore you to find where Jesus preached that prosperity leads to sin


I never made this claim, I thought I was quite explicit.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Correct, which is why I am not a communist (among other things), for obviously the possession of wealth is not sinful.

Likewise, Satan's request to tempt Job proves that even he believed that the removal of possessions would lead to Job blaspheming God as that would have been a common reaction, God let Satan tempt Job because God knew that Job was an exception, He was righteous in this regards (and some argue he even typifies the Christ to come). Indeed, God even gave Him more wealth as a reward.

However, such can be a temptation, if it were not, we wouldn't have warnings against the love of money, worshiping money rather than God, etc. Even the offering of immediate gratification and abundance was used against Our Lord by the devil himself in the midst of his fast (which is the quintessential act of delayed gratification).


I will restrain myself from the belief that you are intentionally trying to misunderstand me, so I will merely make very succinct points on this.

1. The possession of wealth is not sinful.
2. abundance is a blessing.
3. wealth can be a temptation to sin.
4. the love of money is the root of all evil.

I affirm all of the above # 1-4.

Albert wrote:This is why we sin, because we enjoy it.


Agreed.

Albert wrote:Also consider career criminals, they lead destitute lives yet many of them do not turn to god. That is because evil loves destruction, regardless if it is in wealth or poor, evil people will do evil regardless. Because evil loves evil, that is why evil people do evil, because they derive joy from it.


I am not denying this, nor am I denying that many wealthy men can serve God, and I am not even speaking in regards to wealth per se, only the correlation between people with high time preferences (instant gratification) and low time preference (delayed gratification) and how such can be correlated to their spiritual states.

Criminality increases in societies with larger governments and welfare states as people in these communities become accustomed to instant-gratification lifestyles which makes criminality more appealing overrall (which is my entire point).

Why is this the case?

Why did the advent of social security lead to a decrease of patriarchal values that are taught in Scripture?

Why did the advent of welfare lead to the black family abandoning Christian marriage?

The immediate answer is sin and faithlessness; however, we must also ask why this sort of pattern even exists at all, how do we describe it?

Why do societies with unprecedented wealth and ease of lifestyle tend to be the most decadent?

That is what I am getting at.

Do not misrepresent my arguments as so simplistic as to say that wealth is sinful and poverty is righteous. That is not my position in any manner whatsoever.

I believe that men tend to create governments which necessarily create social conditions that de-civilize people by making it so that all of the people under their control no longer need to manage scarcity out of necessity. That is my position as to universal societal patterns of decadence and civilizational decline, and if you want to ask me why this pattern even exists at all, I am going to say: "because of sin."
User avatar
By Albert
#14905668
In basics VS I believe when we stray from god that is when sin arises. You can be poor become sinful and go to destruction, or poor and become rich and sinful. Or rich and then become poor and sinful. Or just be rich and sinful ending up destroyed.

Specking socially and not on individual level, a nation becomes destitute when many in it sin, it has nothing to do with its social structure for me. It can be monarchy, republic or dictatorship. If it is sinful it will end up in destitute.

Yes wealth does make it easier for one to become corrupted as it allows much more freedom, this is why I believe Jesus said "blessed are the poor for theirs is kingdom of heaven". But I do no believe it necessary works exactly that way. Poverty can foster better environment for a person to cherish what are the most important things in life. Yet if that worked for all then we would not have immorality that you see so much in poor communities.
#14905829
Albert wrote:If it is sinful it will end up in destitute.


Agreed, but why do certain societies gravitate towards certain sins at certain times in their history en masse, but not at other times?

Why does this pattern exist in almost every civilization that has ever existed?

Why is that @Albert?

That is what I am talking about. We agree that the problem is sin and rebellion against God, but why do societal sins follow certain patterns in historical societies?
#14905852
Because the economic substructure of society has impelled most people to a certain behaviour, and the church at the time has not yet adapted and sees the behaviour as sinful.
#14905859
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because the economic substructure of society has impelled most people to a certain behaviour


Please demonstrate that the economic impelling is of a morally neutral or positive nature as to support your conclusion that the church's condemnation was mal-adaptive.

Thanks.
#14907319
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That is what I am talking about. We agree that the problem is sin and rebellion against God, but why do societal sins follow certain patterns in historical societies?


Modern capitalism strongly altered christian morality by turning the pursuit of material interests into something positive instead of judging it as a sin.
Now we're stuck with a silly prosperity gospel, which is the reason why so many American evangelicals voted for trump. :roll:
#14907322
Reichstraten wrote:Modern capitalism strongly altered christian morality by turning the pursuit of material interests into something positive instead of judging it as a sin.
Now we're stuck with a silly prosperity gospel, which is the reason why so many American evangelicals voted for trump.


This is a complicated comment to address. My response is Yes and No.

I say Yes in the sense that decadence has created a culture that seeks instant gratification, but as I argued earlier in this thread, those economic conditions of "modern" capitalism were created by government policy, not free markets. Thus, the prosperity gospel originated in people who seek "blessings now" over God who gives the blessings and who asks Christians to suffer in His name. This is not the fault of capitalism (depending on how we define that term), but the fault of conditions that were ultimately created by the state.

I say No in the sense that Christianity has never been inherently opposed to private property societies. In protestantism, it is no secret that Calvinists (and to a lesser extent) the Lutherans and Anglicans believed that one demonstrated their calling through their work in the free-market and that they helped to bolster capitalism's expansion internationally.

Furthermore, going back the medieval period, we see a society built and designed around Scriptural concepts of authority and patriarchy (and thus private property absolutism) which helped to develop that system of international market capitalism that developed out of the 16th century.

Those who support "the prosperity gospel" are a significant minority of evangelicals, mostly within the charismatic and Pentecostal tradition. It is generally opposed in the Southern Baptist tradition (the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S.) and is condemned in classically Reformed and Lutheran churches (PCA, OPC, RPCNA, LCMS, WELS, etc.) which also hold significant shares of the evangelical population.

As far as supporting Trump, Christians supported trump more because of a fear of "cultural displacement" than for reasons of economic concerns as polling had revealed around the time of election. That is, Christians still voted on socio-religious grounds, but advocated for someone who they believed would actually fight for them even if he did not fit their preferences for moral character (like Ted Cruz likely would have). This shows how desperately cornered Christians feel they have become in the culture wars, they are willing to support a nominally religious strong-man to defend their views over the Godly evangelical who is open to compromise.

This not unlike the Christian community in Rome being "all-in" on the less-than-perfect Constantine.
#14907329
@Victoribus Spolia,
I'm talking about morality here. What do people consider to be good behaviour or bad behaviour?
I'm not a marxist or materialist who thinks that material conditions determine consciousness.
Of course not all evangelicals embrace the propeserity gospel, but protestants are a modern version of christianity and thus more adapted to the modern mind set.
About the support for Trump, ask yourself this question: Why did a majority of evangelicals vote for the candidate with the most un-christian walk of life?
Is grapping women by their genitals the kind of culture they want to see preserved?
User avatar
By Albert
#14907356
Besoeker wrote:Do you believe it is the truth - actually factual?
Not factual per say in literal way of things but the wisdom it relates through its teachings.
#14907357
Besoeker wrote:Do you believe it is the truth - actually factual?


Truth ≠ Fact

P1: All Rumpoozuls are self-actuating.
P2: The Dingey is a Rumpoozul.
C: The dingey is self-actuating.

The conclusion is true as it follows from the premises, but this conclusion is not a fact as no such thing exists in empirical reality.

The Word of God is true because the God that authored it is the necessary (transcendental) precondition of all human intelligibility. The veracity of which, is dependent not human will or reasoning, but on the efficacy of that Word to change the dispositions of man to accept it in the first place by faith.
#14907359
Reichstraten wrote:I'm talking about morality here. What do people consider to be good behaviour or bad behaviour?


That depends on the person's beliefs, obviously, but most people think that a billionaire playboy and adulterer is a generally bad person.

Reichstraten wrote:I'm not a marxist or materialist who thinks that material conditions determine consciousness.


Same here. :D I am a berkeleyan immaterialist.

Reichstraten wrote:Of course not all evangelicals embrace the propeserity gospel, but protestants are a modern version of christianity and thus more adapted to the modern mind set.


I wouldn't lump all protestants into that category, but in general, you are correct when talking about the large swath of american evangelicals.

Reichstraten wrote:About the support for Trump, ask yourself this question: Why did a majority of evangelicals vote for the candidate with the most un-christian walk of life?


Because they believed he would fight and win.

Reichstraten wrote:Is grapping women by their genitals the kind of culture they want to see preserved?


No, but they didn't think he was going to make that acceptable either.

American evangelicals made a choice between a Phillip Melanchton and a Charles Martel and they chose a Martel. They wanted someone who would openly defy anti-Christian forces even if he was morally vacuous and theologically ignorant. They chose this because, sadly, many morally upright (as far as Scripture laws) and theologically educated men are spineless.

This is pretty self-evident in my opinion. There is no mystery to it at all.

I guess i'm not sure what you are "getting at"?
User avatar
By colliric
#14909142
Besoeker wrote:Including creation in six days?


It is meant to be read as a singular narrative by multiple authors. The best way is to read it in chronological order. I recommend reading any good version(Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic) so long as the translation of what is in there is solid. Catholic versions simply have Tobit, Maccabees and one or two others placed in the OT(per the Septuagint) in the correct chronological order.

If you have read the Tanakh already then reading the NT is fine.

If you haven't read it all, but are highly aware of ancient Jewish History anyway, you should be ok reading the Gospels and New Testament straight up.
User avatar
By Orestes
#14909482
Albert wrote:Jesus essentially opened Judaism to the rest of the world, before then from what I understand reading the bible, Jews were this mystical secluded religious/ethnic sect. That not many new much about, because of how ancient Jews took care not to interact with other peoples of the empire. They saw other non-Jews as spiritually unclean and took great care to preserve their seclusion. When Jesus came he essentially opened up 'gods' people, who were preserving and preparing god's way for humanity.

Edit: It was a strange phenomena even for the Romans at the time. That these secluded people of whom not much was know and their ways, started to open up to them and rest of the empire.


This may sound surprising but Romans actually knew a Judaism which did not shy away from making converts, independently of any Christian efforts. The closing off that now seems like an inherent trait since forerver dates to the period when Christianity, and then Islam, became so powerful and entrenched proselytism got too risky for the whole community (conversions declined sharply after 325, and Roman law banned citizens from converting to Judaism in 391).

Around the time of Jesus there were actually some prominent Romans known to be sympathetic to the Jewish religion (such sympathizers and half-converts from among Gentiles were called "God-fearers" or "God-worshippers"- theosebes): Fluvia (a senator's wife), Clavius Flemens (Domitian's nephew), Poppea Sabina (wife of Nero). This is why Philo of Alexandria could boast that "our customs are spreading East and West, to Greeks and to barbarians alike". Some traditional Romans like Tacitus or Seneca on the other hand feared this phenomenon and publicly bemoaned it (both fears and boasts were obviously exaggerated).

Much of The Invention of the Jewish People by S. Sand talks about non-Jewish followers of Judaism from different areas (the Himyarite Kingdom, Judeo-Berbers, Khazars, etc.)
User avatar
By colliric
#14909575
The secluded inwards looking group was the Judaen Jews. I've studied this topic at Catholic Theological College. The Judaen Jews living around Jerusalem included groups that were hostile to Roman Rule(the Zealots were literally anti-Roman terrorists) and therefore were antagonistic to Romans(and Gentiles in General).

The groups that lived outside this small area were more accommodating to Gentiles, especially in business & trade and open to negotiating rulership with the Gentiles. This even included King Herod Antipas and the herodian line, which literally "signed a contract" with Rome to "act a client state of Rome".

Naturally Galilian Jews like Jesus were happy to deal with Gentiles and that is reflected in both the easy wholesale adoption of Galilian Religious culture by the Romans(in the form of Christianity), Jesus own rabbonic teachings (found in the Gospels) and also is evidenced in the Talmud which literally blasts Galilian s for being "pro-gentile traitors" and "Lazy in their Jewish faith". This was before Christianity grew and before the Jewish Revolt of 70AD(where the remaining Galilians fell in line with the Judeans to their detriment).

Most of the people you mentioned respected Jews living outside of Judea(as in the area specifically surrounding Jerusalem, not the entire province) but disliked Judean Jews.

One could argue this is similar or analogous in a way to modern Jewish culture (Israel VS Jews living outside Israel that can't stop bitching about Israel doing whatever bad thing Israel did today).

Basically "The closing off" was the crushing spread of the already existing Judean Jewish isolation culture promoted by the Pharisees & Zealots that codified their beliefs in the Jerusalem Talmud partly to "combat Christians" and also a natural cultural response to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple and destruction of Jerusalem in general.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Apparently Hindsite is a true American, and defin[…]

EU-BREXIT

Three Years On: Still Divided Today marks […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Lefties hound battered woman out of her home. […]

The take-away: Experts say that all warming over[…]