Far left ideology is based on Alinskyism, Marxism, Leninism, Hegelism, and Stalinism, which believes in none of those things.
Marx's Communist Manifesto is anchored at helping the poor by means of a new political theory to replace the rich vs. poor capitalism, he was definitely concerned with the poor. I don't know of anyone in the American political system trying to push any of the ideas you've listed. How many political pundits in America subscribe to any of these views? I think you've cherry picked quite a bit.
Anyone can see which side is censoring free speech.
Then address the supporting evidence I gave in the argument from Vox. In addition, the ACLU is by far the largest defender of free speech in the united states and it's an extremely liberal organization.
Far left ideology is centered on altruism, like building a better society in terms of care for the poor, the environment, bettering education, civil liberties, globalization, and so on. All these beliefs can be held without a sense of revenge.
In fact studies show that extreme liberals support free speech more than moderates or conservatives.. . . here is the link below!
Passivity can be very wise though, especially in violent situations like the one Jesus mentioned. Also, to hit someone on the right cheek meant in the first century greco-roman world that you were showing a subject that he was an inferior, so what Jesus meant by "turn and offer the other cheek" was to show an aggressor that you are his equal. Perfectly sensible.
Religious organizations that divorce themselves from the disastrous concept of religious authority are the most acceptable. Different religions exist for different types of people, and religious traditions contain universal truths on which all religious experience is grown.
"Four blind men went to see an elephant. One who touched its leg said, 'The elephant is like a pillar.' The second who touched the trunk said, 'The elephant is like a thick club.' The third touched the belly, and thought it to be like a big jar. The fourth who felt the ears, concluded that the elephant was like a winnowing fan. They then began to dispute amongst themselves as to the nature of the animal they had touched. A passer-by hearing them quarrel, said, 'What is it this you are disputing about?' Then they stated the question and asked him to arbitrate. He said, 'Not one of you knows the real elephant. As a whole, it is neither like a pillar, nor a jar, nor a winnowing fan, nor a club. But its legs are like pillars, its belly like a big jar, its ears like a winnowing fan, and its trunk like a thick club. The elephant itself is a combination of all these.' In exactly the same manner do men quarrel among themselves about religion, each having seen some different aspect of the Deity."
-The Gospel of Ramakrishna, authorized edition, p. 28-29.
Scholars admit the large possibility of annihilation or universal salvation as alternatives to the traditional view held at the Synod of Constantiople, for textual reasons, and theologically the idea of a merciless God contradicts everything we know about Jesus. Hans Kung sites many early stage pre-doctrinal church fathers in his argument against literal Hellfire,
"Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, and Ambrose, interpreted the fire metaphorically. 'Fire' is a metaphor for God's wrath, 'eternal' is not always understood in the strict sense in Hebrew, Greek and modern linguistic usage….Neither in Judaism, nor in the New Testament is there any uniform view of the period of punishment for sin."
-Prof. Hans Kung, Eternal Life, p.136
Plenty Old-New Testament verses contradict the non-biblical doctrine of eternal Hell.
"For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as ALL die in Adam, so ALL will be made alive in Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:21,22)
"God has imprisoned men in their own disobedience only to show mercy to all mankind." (Romans 11:32)
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)
"Jesus Christ, the savior of all men, especially those who believe." (Timothy 4:10)
The situation is much worse than thou thinketh, for the lunatics are running the asylum when it comes to the english language. There are different definitions in different dictionaries for "notoriety", and uniquely there is no official institution designated for the english language as with other languages.
adjective
1. widely and unfavorably known:
a notorious gambler.
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait:
a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.
noun. 1. the state, quality, or character of being notorious or widely known:
a craze for notoriety.
If there is no Hell, there is no reason for anybody to refrain from doing any evil they feel like doing….. The Bible says false teachers will receive extra punishment in Hell for leading people in their heresy, and it is JUSTICE from God.
So everyone should be inspired by fear?
According to modern psychology, fear is closely related to cruelty and hatred.
The alternative would be inspiration by love which requires a real transformation of the heart.
Saying that Jesus "fulfilled" the law is just poetic language that is perfectly consistent with my view, because "fulfilled" symbolizes a metamorphosis in ethical behavior that was ushered in by Jesus.
I said there was no "eternal" punishment, which is vastly different from saying no punishment period. You may have strong opinions but just know that this is a disputed issue among mainstream scholars.
not the concept of hell or punishment in general, but eternal hell is disputed among scholars
The question raises a problem for those who believe in the orthodox view that Hell is eternal, but there are many Christian intellectuals who reject the doctrine of eternal hellfire as a polarized opposite of heaven with biblical proofs in support of an alternative more unified outcome.
Two good examples are the theologian Karl Barth and biblical scholar N.T. Wright.
The Doctrine of eternal Hellfire is not found in the greek text of the New Testament. The mistranslation is "kolasin anion" as translated "eternal punishment", but correctly translated as "punishment in the age to come."
The doctrine of Universal Salvation (Apocatastasis) is present in numerous verses:
God's will is to have all saved (1 Tim. 2:4)
Salvation of all testified (1 Tim. 2:6)
Jesus came to save all (John 12:47)
All come into Him (Eph. 1:10)
All reconciled to God (Col. 1:20)
Mercy on all (Rom. 11:32)
God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)
Jesus is Heir of all things (Heb. 1:2)
All families blessed by seed of Abraham (Gen. 18:18)
All flesh will come to God (Psalms 65:2-4)
Jesus will draw all mankind to Himself (John 12:32)
Jesus is Savior of all (John 4:42)
Etc, . . . .
Jesus gives a distinction between the nominally Christian and the actually Christian and divides them up between hearers and doers. So, according to Jesus, Christianity is a programmatically ethical religion instead of a merely doctrinal belief system. Plenty of proof texts exist, but this is one example:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 7:15-21)
the actual father of modern linguistics explained the definition of "socialism" and the abuse of the term in this clip. . . . .
The GOP wants to lower taxes on the rich and they want school children to pay for the transaction…. and this party has highjacked Christianity.
jesus rejects leviticus in the NT gospels and asserts that man has authority over kooky OT laws, for example he didn't condone execution over violating the sabbath.
It is interesting that you should quote William James since his statement actually lends credence to my views rather than yours, albeit that his obsolescence relative to more recent scientific discoveries causes him to attribute the biological determinism underpinning religion to the liver rather than genetics.
Clearly you haven't read the full lecture. What James said about the liver was a play on how atheists try to dilate religious beliefs. He lays out a dismissal of the origin of belief as bearing any weight of argument: “By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their roots.” He gives reference and quotes both Jonathan Edwards and Saint Tersea to bolster this point….
"Immediate luminousness, in short, philosophical reasonableness, and moral helpfulness are the only available criteria. Saint Teresa might have had the nervous system of the placidest cow, and it would not now save her theology, if the trial of the theology by these other tests should show it to be contemptible. And conversely if her theology can stand these other tests, it will make no difference how hysterical or nervously off her balance Saint Teresa may have been when she was with us here below."
(full lecture . audio lecture)
But if William James isn't modern enough, hither a widely respected psychologist and Harvard researcher who gives the same argument in his exchange with Paul Bloom in the beginning of this CLIP.
Jung argued that religion was a linguistic association and expression of the individual human psyche, necessary for human happiness and development.
Jung claimed that god was a reality that could be known, and was himself very religious and believed in life after death, so his claims about religion weren't merely a linguistic thing as your counter-assertion posits.
Carl Jung is a similarly outdated reference whose field was medicine rather than biology or psychology, and whose views you also misunderstand.
I wouldn't be so quick to discredit Jung (1875–1961) as "outdated" on theoretical matters. Jung was a train'd psychoanalyst, founder of the school of analytical psychology, whose theoretical beliefs still hold an impact on modern psychology, chiefly his typology. To give an example of his range of contact, Jung influenced quantum mechanics "non locality" with the idea of synchronicity, a mode of relationship that is not causal. To categorize these psychical geniuses and put them in boxes is not something that I engage in grant'd the range of influence, especially if we're talking in broad stroke theory. Bohm is a good example of an unusually renown physicist who held this position of not compartmentalizing different scientists, or sciences for that matter. Bohm is more modern, died in the early 90's, but still an associate of Albert Einstein who spoke broadly and affirmatively about religion as did Einstein, James, Jung, etc,…. I'm pretty sure Neitzsche would dismiss Bohm for being depressed. I guess we all have our prejudices in this space age hustle.
The Gallup study…
Posting that in there was a multitask error, out of context. Obviously it has no textual basis here. Oops! I apologize for that. Actually this is probably the last "religion" exchange that I will engage in. I don't think it worth while. At rock bottom people are religious or non-religious for emotional reasons. You can have the last word.
….religion is a pervasive socio-evolutionary attribute that would not have been selected for had a majority religious population not created some sort of objective benefit to the species. I think that theism and deism are delusional coping mechanisms….
All of our experiences are at one level happening inside our heads, but that isn't the right criteria for deciding whether or not a thing is real; naturally explaining a process is not conclusive information as to whether or not a thing is true or false. Or as the father of American Psychology puts it,
"….there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process of it's condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the fact intimately enough, we should doubtlessly see 'the liver' determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind." (William James, Varieties, page 14)
As for the replacement of religion by science in modern times, I adhere to the view annunciated well by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, that the modern state is psychically taking the place of religion by swallowing up religious forces, and argal taken the place of god. Jung goes into details of it's negative impact with examples from the Dark Ages in his book The Undiscovered Self.
I favor goodness for 'tis wise. I'll yea throw in objective morals.
...you idiot...
are you the intellectually judgmental type?
Bruh ok well us Catholics/Christians (not church people you idiot)
language is tricky because different words mean different things to different people. "church people" and "christians" art not exactly identical. i'm talking specifically about the herd'd crowd that wholeheartedly believes everything they learn'd at mothers knee. these are the outcomes of indoctrination, which is in fact child abuse. if parents teach their children to believe something since infancy then those children will grow up deeply condition'd by that belief.
well us Catholics. . . have our morals in check.
people living in the city generally haven't conquer'd morality. you've to go up into the mountains 'r join a monastery to get that level of spirituality going, for the simple reason that there are too many distractions involved in city life. unless you're a augur i am skeptical. as for catholicism, i read augustine, g. k. chesterton and hans kung, but that's about as familiar as i am with that tradition.
God made sex for the INTENTION for the women to get pregnant. If you don't want a baby then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Seriously WHAT THE LOGIC?!?
most of human portance is just self-center'd meaningless pleasure seeking. sexuality is consistent with the way nature works. sure lust may be out of control, because the animal instincts art too strong- overpowering.
You say that the invention of condoms makes fornication unethical because now the girl can't get pregnant. Well did you know there's still a chance of the girl getting pregnant? OH MY GOSH! That's a true statement.
2% chance of pregnancy…. 98% has a massive impact. and don't forget other forms of contraceptives like birth control. morality is contextual. situations will determine 'r not a given action as immoral.
….sex was made for the couple to have a baby. A married couple. Using a condom is unnatural.
would you discourage the lay-to of condoms in aids-ridden africa? (contextual)
Only reason i didn't see 'twas because of almost universal bad reviews. When you consider how much chink they put into films you'd think they'd produce better.
Human nature is neither good nor bad exclusively; human nature is both good and bad completely. You can't know goodness without knowing ugliness. Nature works out because of the opening up of action oriented possibility. The answer is in the positive.
After scientific data is in, the conclusions we draw are faith based, not scientific. There is good scientific evidence that decisions are emotional, not logical. What do atheists generally postulate? That material is unconscious, human consciousness an illusion, the laws of nature are fixed, free will an illusion, nature exists without purpose, etc,… These are faith based conclusions and science therefore still remains in an infantile state of existence.
"Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought… The sense-experiences are the given subject matter. But the theory that shall interpret them is man-made. It is hypothetical, never completely final, always subject to question and doubt."
- Albert Einstein, Out of my Later Years, p. 98
"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "
- Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, p. 24
