Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[Hans Blaster]

And yet it was these very reasons that the Left were wiped out in the election. So it seems the majority of people are with me and not you. In fact you don't have to be a Christain to agree with this as many were not Christains who agreed with Conservatives.

What election in what country are you talking about?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah yeah, every sect other than the one true someone
belongs to must be what Jesus warned about.

if you want to claim it was not-
as I SAID- inspired by Christianity fine.

Deny.

Of course I'll deny it, based upon the same sort of historical criteria by which you yourself affirm, value----and make qualified distinctions within---- the field of Geology. This is what Historians do. And I'm not wrong about this.

The Taiping Rebellion doesn't represent "true" Christian faith and we should all be able to see that its leader, Hong Xiuquan, was a false teacher or false prophet where Christianity is concerned, and this is the case not only because he proclaimed to be the "brother of Jesus Christ" and a savior of the world. He also authorized force.

As my initial research on Xiuquan informs me, it seems to me to suggest he was just a very confused individual, like so many today in the world who tried to imagine Christianity from his own limited, uneducated vantage point.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, no. I didn't realize there was another post on this. Oh, well, apparently it bears repeating since it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

I mean exactly what I wrote originally. It isn't obscure.

Secular is a *LABEL* for many things that are not related to religion. It is a *category*, not an "ism".

The problem is its a category with some definition and meaning. Its not empty and measningless. It has to be filled with something and we find common traits that fill that label.

SECULARISM AS A RELIGION: QUESTIONING THE FUTURE OF THE 'SECULAR' STATE
This article has argued that the secular is a type of religion.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2017/2.pdf

When you call the "alternative" to Christianity as "secularism" you are making an error.

Ok so you tell me how can we destinguish secular ideology from Christain belief. I know secularism can mean a number of things such as secular humanism or Wokism. But they are all basically Godless and don't include considerations of a god of order and morality beyond the secular ideas and beliefs. What can we label this destinction with for secular society.

Heres the Ai definition of secularism

Secularism is a political principle and worldview that separates religion from other aspects of human life, especially from the political realm. It can also be defined as the idea of conducting human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, without religion. The term "secularism" was coined by British social reformer George Jacob Holyoake in the mid-19th century. Holyoake intended the term to describe an ethical framework that was independent of religion, while avoiding the negative connotations of atheism.

Secular means more or less the same thing. So secularism is just the application of secular.

We are talking about the word (secular) and you misuse of it. Your attempt too create a singular "secular ideology" when no such thing exists. (And many secular things live in harmony with religious things without any conflict.)

Thats why I was qualifying it as secularism, secular ideology, secular humanism ect. These are all secular (non God or spiritual) values, ideas and beliefs as opposed to Christain ideas and beliefs.

Yes some will align with Christainity. The point is that secular ideas and values also allow any ideas and values and as a matter of necessity then becomes the arbitor of what is allowed. In doing so the State redefines religion and belief into its own ideology thus becoming a religion itself.

But that ideology (if it exists at all) is not "secularism". That is my point. If you want to complain about some non-religious ideology and its impact on society go ahead (but elsewhere, as this thread is about the impact of christianity), just don't call it "secularism".

So if I explain how Christainity does benefit society and someone with a secular or non God ideology objects and claims Christainity is not beneficial how else can we determine the truth without questioning the truth of secular beliefs and ideology that is making this claim that Christainity is no good fro society.

By the way referring to the Ai generated answer on secularism. Seems its a reality in philosophy and sociology and has been for over 100 years.

Certainly not. "no religion" is not a religion. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Some people have no use for what religion claims to offer. (For example, I saw no practical benefit to religion in my daily life even as a believer and limited my participation to match only my extant belief in the requirements of the god I thought existed.)

It seems to me your speaking from a personal POV which is not factual. The fact is at least some commentators in the fields relate the new movement of 'no religion' as a type of religion based on studies of what 'no religion' actually represents for modern society.

How belief is a natural cognition and really theres no such thing as 'No religion' as if its not expressed in traditional terms its expressed in other ways like atheism or secular ideas about metaphysics and the beliefs and behaviours that go with this which are similar to religious belief.

I means even the Ai result mentions secularism as a belief system
Secularism is a philosophical worldview that can be considered a belief system with its own practices and beliefs, and can be seen as a replacement for religion:

Sociological theology explains, in theistic terms of reference, how nonreligion may indeed be stated to be religion. Atheism undertakes the same project as Theism. It frames the ‘secular’ life project as no less religious than the ‘religious’ life project. These naturalistic commitments are as much passionate endeavours to live meaningful lives in community, as are the theistic religious endeavours.
https://thensrn.org/2017/03/21/reflection-no-religion-really-is-the-new-religion/

Secularism, often seen as a replacement for religion, is itself a belief system with its own set of beliefs and practices. Secularism can also be used by governments to justify their suppressive actions towards certain groups.
Secularism: A Religion of the 21st Century

The idea that somehow scientific rationalists have got things right and everyone else is wrong is unfounded and just as much a belief position as they claim about religious belief.
https://theconversation.com/why-atheists-are-not-as-rational-as-some-like-to-think-103563

In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.

A speech by the late David Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace, who died last week, was the most brilliant American writer of his generation. In a speech, published here for the first time, he reflects on the difficulties of daily life and 'making it to 30, or maybe 50, without wanting to shoot yourself in the head'

www.theguardian.com

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as ‘religion’ may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(99)01419-9

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

The three-year Oxford University project incorporated more than 40 different studies of nations such as China, Poland and the United States.

www.dailymail.co.uk

You are so dedicated to your narrative that you think a society that doesn't bow down to your god is chaos.

This is telling that you equate the idea of a God equals bowing down and giving up some autonomy. This is an outdated view and a typical atheistic idea of what God represents.

This is so not true it isn't even funny. You should really think about this for a while.

Once again you resort to absolute truth claims that there is no way possible that God and Christainity could represent stability and good things for society. The facts are there. Christain beliefs and values have been shown to offer stability and order for families and society.

At the very leasy we could say that some of these Christain ideas align with secular ones and that secular commentators have acknowledged their worth as good social principles and values to order society with.

"we" do not "need" a belief. There is plenty of evidence that many people are perfectly fine without beliefs equivalent to religion, and our societies have done fine with different people having a variety of beliefs.

The evidence shows that humans are naturally predisposed to belief. We have a God shaped hold in our cognition. If its not belief in God then it will be belief in some other metaphysical idea that gives meaning and morality. These are the facts and not your personal opinion which can be biased already due to that priori belief.

The only reason to chose Christianity is that you believe its claims, like about 1/4 of Americans, and 2/3 of all humans, I do not believe those claims. That alone is good enough for Christianity to not be beneficial to us. At most the Christianity of others can be net neutral.

Actually studies show that just about everyone naturally and intuitively believe in God or some sort of god or metaphysics of disembodied souls or spiurtits of some sort. But its often redirected to other sorts of beliefs in modern times. But around 80% of society believed in the Christain God only around 60 years ago.

Even more before this. Its been a gradual indoctrination away from God thanks to secular ideology taking over. But this has not resulted in non belief but belief in all sorts of other metaphysical ideas which shows that belief in God is natural and universal and hard to expunge from human cognition.

I think that was the intent of the OP.

Ok then we should be able to do some research and see if it does come down to cold hard facts sbout costs and benefits. I mean we can take any simple belief difference. The modern secular ideology claims there is no innate male and female and they are interchangable. Thus there is no fixed roles for parents and families.

Yet the science clearly shows that this is not the case and male and female are innate sexes and are needed for parents for healthy children. Yet secular ideology still believes in the blank slate social constructivist theoy of humans. How is this not based on a belief which denies the science. Look at trans ideology. It claims a male can become a female and yet the science is absolutely clear.

Yet the belief overpowers the science and persist. Thats just two examples. I can show you many where secular ideology believes in anti science and objective reality ideas and yet still push these are the only truth of reality. That's classic belief and not reality.

The problem is that most of "Christian values and beliefs" fall either into the category of things that are not unique to Christianity and those that are not relevant to the improvement of society. In that case, why should anyone outside the faith care if Christianity is around or not?

Just because some Christain values and beliefs are also supported by secular society doesn't devalue them as part of the Christain worldview. But there are many that secular society rejects as mentioned with just a couple above. Abortion is another, SSM, promiscious sex, homosexuality ect.

In fact even some of the agreed values are still rejected by secular ideologues like the truth principles most western nations were built on and are in our Declarations like being made in Gods image. Up until 5 minutes ago secular society also believed in the values for marriage and abortion and objective morality. The sacredness of sex within marriage.

 

[stevevw]

What election in what country are you talking about?

THe US election and similar is happening in other nations where the Left are being rejected due to the destructive policies and ideologies that are dividing and destroying society. The majority of people rejected the Lefts ideology and chose the Right which primarily is made up of conservatives and Christains.

 

[stevevw]

I think you will be disabused of that notion pretty soon. The swing vote that elected Trump came from the issues of immigration and the economy. You're making a mistake if you think of it as a validation of your social agenda. And it looks like Trump is starting to sell you out already. He has refused to block the mail-order sale of Mifepristone, has installed a pro-union Secretary of Labor and has even come out in favor of the Longshoremen's strike.

It was also due to trans ideology a big part of the Lefts progressive ideology and a bunch of other radical ideas like DEI, defunding police and being slack on crime. All of these stem directly from the Lefts progressive ideology.

The same ideology that wanted open borders also fueled the ideas about being slack on crime and the ambivelence on world politics and the conflict in Isreal which made matters worse as well as corruption in abusing their power using lawfare and targetting conservatives and Christains which defied democracy.

A big and obvious one was the lies that told and are still telling about Bidens health and allowing an unprecedented situation of allowing Biden as president in one of the most powerful positions in the world. Which we now know caused many problems due to confusion and poor decisions.

It wasn;t just the ecomony but the overall chaos the Lefts ideology caused for society.

The Left are not learning and so long as they continue this ideology they will never regain power.

 

[BCP1928]

It was also due to trans ideology a big part of the Lefts progressive ideology and a bunch of other radical ideas like DEI, defunding police and being slack on crime. All of these stem directly from the Lefts progressive ideology.

The same ideology that wanted open borders also fueled the ideas about being slack on crime and the ambivelence on world politics and the conflict in Isreal which made matters worse as well as corruption in abusing their power using lawfare and targetting conservatives and Christains which defied democracy.

A big and obvious one was the lies that told and are still telling about Bidens health and allowing an unprecedented situation of allowing Biden as president in one of the most powerful positions in the world. Which we now know caused many problems due to confusion and poor decisions.

It wasn;t just the ecomony but the overall chaos the Lefts ideology caused for society.

The Left are not learning and so long as they continue this ideology they will never regain power.

Well, I hope you are not disappointed in what Trump will do for you. What's the most important thing, do you think?

 

[Hans Blaster]

THe US election and similar is happening in other nations where the Left are being rejected due to the destructive policies and ideologies that are dividing and destroying society. The majority of people rejected the Lefts ideology and chose the Right which primarily is made up of conservatives and Christains.

First, you non-sequitored a comment about the US elections into existence from nowhere. Neither the thread, nor the sub-forum are about US politics, or even politics in general. Second, you are not an American, so calling something "the election" is quite confusing and lacks context. (There were other elections going on in the same period, and who knows, there might be an election that happened recently in Antepodia.)

The text below was the part I quoted with the election claim. I can now respond to it properly.

And yet it was these very reasons that the Left were wiped out in the election. So it seems the majority of people are with me and not you. In fact you don't have to be a Christain to agree with this as many were not Christains who agreed with Conservatives.

1. No entity called "the Left" participated in the recent US election. If you mean "the Democrats" then say that. The US Democratic Party isn't really a "Left" party anyway, either by US or international standards. They do not call themselves "Left" and the most leftward wing (the progressive faction) is close, but not quite Leftists. Actual US Leftists *HATE* the Democratic party. (Even in a US context, the Democratic Party is a center/center-left party.)

2. The Democrats were not "wiped out" in the November election. Not even close. Yes they lost the US presidency to Trump (without a popular/raw vote majority), but everywhere else things are messy and rather balanced. The Democrats lost seats in the US Senate (net 4), but *gained* seats in the US House of Representatives (not enough for control, but it is extremely narrow). In state legislative elections, Democrats gained in some states and lost seats in others. This was not a wave election of any sort. My over all impression of the rather messy results is that the Republicans in the states came out slightly ahead, and their narrow wins nationally gave them control in Washington.

3. It's not clear *what* the American people were voting for. Some people who are open to voting for either party or not voting at all were clearly worked up by the same culture war things that animate you and others by economic populism, but overall the understanding of voter motivation is extremely confused. (One sign of this is that the Democratic pundit/election professional class can't seem to put together coherent picture of why they didn't do better.)

4. I'm not going to get into a general discussion on the RW war on American culture. If you think the 2024 US election signifies they are winning, then you are clearly confused on the topic.

 

[BCP1928]

Still, the question before us is whether Christianity improves the world. In Steve's view Christianity has elected Trump. It would be interesting to hear how Steve thinks that will improve the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is its a category with some definition and meaning. Its not empty and measningless. It has to be filled with something and we find common traits that fill that label.

SECULARISM AS A RELIGION: QUESTIONING THE FUTURE OF THE 'SECULAR' STATE
This article has argued that the secular is a type of religion.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2017/2.pdf

I am well aware that there are academics who make such arguments (secular/atheist is a religion, etc.) I find their arguments hollow and their reasoning motivated. Generally such arguments do no demonstrate how this secular "ideology" actually behaves like a religion. There arguments aren't any better than yours, they are built on the same assumption (as is seen clearly later in your post), that everyone "needs" what religion "provides" and some alternative must fill the "hole" created by not having religion of a traditional kind.

Ok so you tell me how can we destinguish secular ideology from Christain belief. I know secularism can mean a number of things such as secular humanism or Wokism. But they are all basically Godless and don't include considerations of a god of order and morality beyond the secular ideas and beliefs. What can we label this destinction with for secular society.

Heres the Ai definition of secularism

Secularism is a political principle and worldview that separates religion from other aspects of human life, especially from the political realm. It can also be defined as the idea of conducting human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, without religion. The term "secularism" was coined by British social reformer George Jacob Holyoake in the mid-19th century. Holyoake intended the term to describe an ethical framework that was independent of religion, while avoiding the negative connotations of atheism.

Secular means more or less the same thing. So secularism is just the application of secular.

I was aware of this concept, but I didn't bring it up because I thought you might be confused by it. You manage to be confused by it anyway.

This kind of "secularism" is a movement about making common spaces of society neutral to religion, from government to parks, schools and libraries. The crown jewel of this movement is the separation of religion and government and historically the majority of people in this "secular movement" have been religionists. (Often of smaller religions or sects). It is a recognition that if you put religion in charge of things, it might not be your variety of religion. As I have mentioned on this site many times before, I was a "secularist" of this kind from a young age since it was clear that if the Christians were in charge of everything, then everything would be controlled by the protestants.

I hope you can see why thus "secularism" isn't an alternative to religion nor does anyone who agrees with it involved in some sort of non-religious religion.

Thats why I was qualifying it as secularism, secular ideology, secular humanism ect. These are all secular (non God or spiritual) values, ideas and beliefs as opposed to Christain ideas and beliefs.

Yes some will align with Christainity. The point is that secular ideas and values also allow any ideas and values and as a matter of necessity then becomes the arbitor of what is allowed. In doing so the State redefines religion and belief into its own ideology thus becoming a religion itself.

So if I explain how Christainity does benefit society and someone with a secular or non God ideology objects and claims Christainity is not beneficial how else can we determine the truth without questioning the truth of secular beliefs and ideology that is making this claim that Christainity is no good fro society.

By the way referring to the Ai generated answer on secularism. Seems its a reality in philosophy and sociology and has been for over 100 years.

AI is GIGO.

It seems to me your speaking from a personal POV which is not factual. The fact is at least some commentators in the fields relate the new movement of 'no religion' as a type of religion based on studies of what 'no religion' actually represents for modern society.

How belief is a natural cognition and really theres no such thing as 'No religion' as if its not expressed in traditional terms its expressed in other ways like atheism or secular ideas about metaphysics and the beliefs and behaviours that go with this which are similar to religious belief.

I means even the Ai result mentions secularism as a belief system
Secularism is a philosophical worldview that can be considered a belief system with its own practices and beliefs, and can be seen as a replacement for religion:

Sociological theology explains, in theistic terms of reference, how nonreligion may indeed be stated to be religion. Atheism undertakes the same project as Theism. It frames the ‘secular’ life project as no less religious than the ‘religious’ life project. These naturalistic commitments are as much passionate endeavours to live meaningful lives in community, as are the theistic religious endeavours.
https://thensrn.org/2017/03/21/reflection-no-religion-really-is-the-new-religion/

Secularism, often seen as a replacement for religion, is itself a belief system with its own set of beliefs and practices. Secularism can also be used by governments to justify their suppressive actions towards certain groups.
Secularism: A Religion of the 21st Century

The idea that somehow scientific rationalists have got things right and everyone else is wrong is unfounded and just as much a belief position as they claim about religious belief.
https://theconversation.com/why-atheists-are-not-as-rational-as-some-like-to-think-103563

In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.

A speech by the late David Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace, who died last week, was the most brilliant American writer of his generation. In a speech, published here for the first time, he reflects on the difficulties of daily life and 'making it to 30, or maybe 50, without wanting to shoot yourself in the head'

www.theguardian.com

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as ‘religion’ may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(99)01419-9

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

The three-year Oxford University project incorporated more than 40 different studies of nations such as China, Poland and the United States.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's weird how they make these claims, and yet, I feel exactly *zero* inclination to believe in a god or a religion. I never have. (I only believed because it was inculcated as a "fact" in my impressionable youth at the same time I was learning to count and read.) I am I somehow "not human" then? I am not alone in this. It might be that a *majority* of humans feel such a need, but it is hard to tell when most people are indoctrinated with supernatural/religious beliefs before they even have a chance to think critically about such things. [And you know I hold this position, and yet you insult me by claiming that I really aren't what I know myself to be.]

This is telling that you equate the idea of a God equals bowing down and giving up some autonomy. This is an outdated view and a typical atheistic idea of what God represents.

I didn't get that impression (bow down and submit to God) from not believing in your god, Steve. If you've got a problem with it take it up with the pope. (Or yourself, as the "bow down" language came from your post in the line that prompted the response that you respond to in the next paragraph. SMH.)

Once again you resort to absolute truth claims that there is no way possible that God and Christainity could represent stability and good things for society. The facts are there. Christain beliefs and values have been shown to offer stability and order for families and society.

Good grief, Steve. As before, I reject your rediculous claim that people like me (non-believers) would rather descend society into chaos than accept your god or religion (your actual claim a post or two back). The topic is how Christianity benefits or harms society.

At the very leasy we could say that some of these Christain ideas align with secular ones and that secular commentators have acknowledged their worth as good social principles and values to order society with.

The evidence shows that humans are naturally predisposed to belief. We have a God shaped hold in our cognition. If its not belief in God then it will be belief in some other metaphysical idea that gives meaning and morality. These are the facts and not your personal opinion which can be biased already due to that priori belief.

Actually studies show that just about everyone naturally and intuitively believe in God or some sort of god or metaphysics of disembodied souls or spiurtits of some sort. But its often redirected to other sorts of beliefs in modern times. But around 80% of society believed in the Christain God only around 60 years ago.

Even more before this. Its been a gradual indoctrination away from God thanks to secular ideology taking over. But this has not resulted in non belief but belief in all sorts of other metaphysical ideas which shows that belief in God is natural and universal and hard to expunge from human cognition.

Ok then we should be able to do some research and see if it does come down to cold hard facts sbout costs and benefits. I mean we can take any simple belief difference. The modern secular ideology claims there is no innate male and female and they are interchangable. Thus there is no fixed roles for parents and families.

Yet the science clearly shows that this is not the case and male and female are innate sexes and are needed for parents for healthy children. Yet secular ideology still believes in the blank slate social constructivist theoy of humans. How is this not based on a belief which denies the science. Look at trans ideology. It claims a male can become a female and yet the science is absolutely clear.

Yet the belief overpowers the science and persist. Thats just two examples. I can show you many where secular ideology believes in anti science and objective reality ideas and yet still push these are the only truth of reality. That's classic belief and not reality.

Just because some Christain values and beliefs are also supported by secular society doesn't devalue them as part of the Christain worldview. But there are many that secular society rejects as mentioned with just a couple above. Abortion is another, SSM, promiscious sex, homosexuality ect.

A bunch more assertions about "everybody believes something" and then wander into your culture war hang-ups. How does this make your "case"?

In fact even some of the agreed values are still rejected by secular ideologues like the truth principles most western nations were built on and are in our Declarations like being made in Gods image. Up until 5 minutes ago secular society also believed in the values for marriage and abortion and objective morality. The sacredness of sex within marriage.

When exactly did your country declare itself independent of foreign monarchs? Come back to me with your "our Declarations" stuff when you do.

 

[stevevw]

Well, I hope you are not disappointed in what Trump will do for you. What's the most important thing, do you think?

If Trump fails it will be a disappointment for the US. I would have thought all Americans would have hoped Trump does well and make America better. That would be the fair and neutral thing to do as its not about which side but that things get better. Anyone who wants to undermine TRumps administration is wishing bad stuff on themselves.

 

[BCP1928]

If Trump fails it will be a disappointment for the US. I would have thought all Americans would have hoped Trump does well and make America better. That would be the fair and neutral thing to do as its not about which side but that things get better. Anyone who wants to undermine TRumps administration is wishing bad stuff on themselves.

Yes, but the question was, how do you think he will make things better?

 

[stevevw]

First, you non-sequitored a comment about the US elections into existence from nowhere.

Actually it seems you have jumped come from nowhere into a discussion I was having with someone else. Thats OK so long as you know the context. It was very relevant as I listed a bunch of things that the Left has done that has made society worse. The poster said this was false so I used the example of the election as to how US voters rejected the very things I listed to support what I said. It was direct evidence so valid.

Neither the thread, nor the sub-forum are about US politics, or even politics in general.

As I said it was the perfect evidence to refute the posters claim. But it wasn't about politics itself but using a political result.

Second, you are not an American, so calling something "the election" is quite confusing and lacks context. (There were other elections going on in the same period, and who knows, there might be an election that happened recently in Antepodia.)

Ah I did mention Trump to the poster. Perhaps you missed it. I don't have to be an American to know the election results in the US and what the issues were. It was all over the news here. Afterall we are Americas little brother. When the US sneezes we get a cold lol.

The text below was the part I quoted with the election claim. I can now respond to it properly.

1. No entity called "the Left" participated in the recent US election. If you mean "the Democrats" then say that. The US Democratic Party isn't really a "Left" party anyway, either by US or international standards.

Oh yes it is. Thats what politics has come down to now. A polaized on the Left and Right

They do not call themselves "Left" and the most leftward wing (the progressive faction) is close, but not quite Leftists. Actual US Leftists *HATE* the Democratic party. (Even in a US context, the Democratic Party is a center/center-left party.)

The Dems have become more radical. The fringe has come to the center. We seen that with Kamala and Waltz. Everyone knows this and thats why they lost. Do I have to list examples of their radical positions on stuff.

2. The Democrats were not "wiped out" in the November election. Not even close. Yes they lost the US presidency to Trump (without a popular/raw vote majority), but everywhere else things are messy and rather balanced. The Democrats lost seats in the US Senate (net 4), but *gained* seats in the US House of Representatives (not enough for control, but it is extremely narrow). In state legislative elections, Democrats gained in some states and lost seats in others. This was not a wave election of any sort. My over all impression of the rather messy results is that the Republicans in the states came out slightly ahead, and their narrow wins nationally gave them control in Washington.

Are you kidding. Even the Leftist media acknowledged it was a big loss.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections. The race to take over the party has begun.

Martin O'Malley and Ken Martin have both jumped in the race for DNC chair, while others are exploring runs.

www.cbsnews.com

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

'This is a realignment': Shattered Democrats grapple with Harris' loss

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

www.nbcnews.com

3. It's not clear *what* the American people were voting for. Some people who are open to voting for either party or not voting at all were clearly worked up by the same culture war things that animate you and others by economic populism, but overall the understanding of voter motivation is extremely confused. (One sign of this is that the Democratic pundit/election professional class can't seem to put together coherent picture of why they didn't do better.)

Thats because they have not reached the point where they can be honest with themselves. It shows how far and deep the ideological overreach has influenced their thinking. An example of this was Bidens mental state. Up until the debate the Dems made out that Biden was as sharp as a tack. But goit exposed during the debate.

That level of self deception has infiltrated their thinking. They became detached from reality, from what the American people and even their own voters were thinking. Its like a massive groupthink. Another sign was the relentless attacking and abuse of power against political rivals. This was obvious to see for everyone except the Dems. So now they have to self reflect and be honest. Some are beginning to do so.

4. I'm not going to get into a general discussion on the RW war on American culture. If you think the 2024 US election signifies they are winning, then you are clearly confused on the topic.

No I agree. I wasn't aiming to. Like I said I only mentioned the election as evidence that people had rejected the very things I was using as examples before I even mentioned politics. I didn't need to use politics. I was referring to the indendent evidence for supporting what I said.

The political results was another piece of evidence for how opposing Christain beliefs can cause damage to society and that the Right which is usually conservative and Christain has a different set of beliefs, principles and values which clash with the progressive Left and Dems.

Like ZI said if we are going to show that Christainity is better for society then I think we also have to talk about the opposing positions and whether they are justified in their claims that Christainity and conservatism is bad for society as it appeared from what the Left and its media kept claiming. I think from memory they kept citing Project 25 as some Christain conspiracy. Which shows how they detest anything Christain.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually it seems you have jumped come from nowhere into a discussion I was having with someone else. Thats OK so long as you know the context. It was very relevant as I listed a bunch of things that the Left has done that has made society worse. The poster said this was false so I used the example of the election as to how US voters rejected the very things I listed to support what I said. It was direct evidence so valid.

As I said it was the perfect evidence to refute the posters claim. But it wasn't about politics itself but using a political result.

Ah I did mention Trump to the poster. Perhaps you missed it. I don't have to be an American to know the election results in the US and what the issues were. It was all over the news here. Afterall we are Americas little brother. When the US sneezes we get a cold lol.

Oh yes it is. Thats what politics has come down to now. A polaized on the Left and Right

The Dems have become more radical. The fringe has come to the center. We seen that with Kamala and Waltz. Everyone knows this and thats why they lost. Do I have to list examples of their radical positions on stuff.

Are you kidding. Even the Leftist media acknowledged it was a big loss.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections. The race to take over the party has begun.

Martin O'Malley and Ken Martin have both jumped in the race for DNC chair, while others are exploring runs.

www.cbsnews.com

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

'This is a realignment': Shattered Democrats grapple with Harris' loss

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

www.nbcnews.com

Thats because they have not reached the point where they can be honest with themselves. It shows how far and deep the ideological overreach has influenced their thinking. An example of this was Bidens mental state. Up until the debate the Dems made out that Biden was as sharp as a tack. But goit exposed during the debate.

That level of self deception has infiltrated their thinking. They became detached from reality, from what the American people and even their own voters were thinking. Its like a massive groupthink. Another sign was the relentless attacking and abuse of power against political rivals. This was obvious to see for everyone except the Dems. So now they have to self reflect and be honest. Some are beginning to do so.

No I agree. I wasn't aiming to. Like I said I only mentioned the election as evidence that people had rejected the very things I was using as examples before I even mentioned politics. I didn't need to use politics. I was referring to the indendent evidence for supporting what I said.

The political results was another piece of evidence for how opposing Christain beliefs can cause damage to society and that the Right which is usually conservative and Christain has a different set of beliefs, principles and values which clash with the progressive Left and Dems.

Like ZI said if we are going to show that Christainity is better for society then I think we also have to talk about the opposing positions and whether they are justified in their claims that Christainity and conservatism is bad for society as it appeared from what the Left and its media kept claiming. I think from memory they kept citing Project 25 as some Christain conspiracy. Which shows how they detest anything Christain.

Project 2025 is the Christian agenda. It's not a conspiracy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually it seems you have jumped come from nowhere into a discussion I was having with someone else. Thats OK so long as you know the context. It was very relevant as I listed a bunch of things that the Left has done that has made society worse. The poster said this was false so I used the example of the election as to how US voters rejected the very things I listed to support what I said. It was direct evidence so valid.

Except that there was only one post (the one you were replying to) injected into our conversation. (I replied to You replying to BCP who was replying to you replying to me.) Your intervening post was filled with all of that "woke" nonsense.

As I said it was the perfect evidence to refute the posters claim. But it wasn't about politics itself but using a political result.

Ah I did mention Trump to the poster. Perhaps you missed it. I don't have to be an American to know the election results in the US and what the issues were. It was all over the news here. Afterall we are Americas little brother. When the US sneezes we get a cold lol.

You wish.

Oh yes it is. Thats what politics has come down to now. A polaized on the Left and Right

The Dems have become more radical. The fringe has come to the center. We seen that with Kamala and Waltz. Everyone knows this and thats why they lost. Do I have to list examples of their radical positions on stuff.

Your knowledge of US politics is quite questionable if you think that. We don't need your "list" the posts are already too long. (For starters in the next bit you mention "leftist media" and then link two TV networks owned by megacorporations. (Not "leftist media")

Are you kidding. Even the Leftist media acknowledged it was a big loss.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections.

Democrats suffered devastating losses in 2024 elections. The race to take over the party has begun.

Martin O'Malley and Ken Martin have both jumped in the race for DNC chair, while others are exploring runs.

www.cbsnews.com

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

'This is a realignment': Shattered Democrats grapple with Harris' loss

Democrats were stunned at the magnitude of Harris' loss to Trump and pointed fingers at everything from immigration policy to Biden to the need to throw out the old guard.

www.nbcnews.com

If you knew more about US politics, you'd know the Democrats *always* over react.

Thats because they have not reached the point where they can be honest with themselves. It shows how far and deep the ideological overreach has influenced their thinking. An example of this was Bidens mental state. Up until the debate the Dems made out that Biden was as sharp as a tack. But goit exposed during the debate.

That level of self deception has infiltrated their thinking. They became detached from reality, from what the American people and even their own voters were thinking. Its like a massive groupthink. Another sign was the relentless attacking and abuse of power against political rivals. This was obvious to see for everyone except the Dems. So now they have to self reflect and be honest. Some are beginning to do so.

Like I said, the Democrats and their political analysts can't agree what the issues were. It would seem you agree.

No I agree.

Good then this post can end.

I wasn't aiming to. Like I said I only mentioned the election as evidence that people had rejected the very things I was using as examples before I even mentioned politics. I didn't need to use politics. I was referring to the indendent evidence for supporting what I said.

The political results was another piece of evidence for how opposing Christain beliefs can cause damage to society and that the Right which is usually conservative and Christain has a different set of beliefs, principles and values which clash with the progressive Left and Dems.

Like ZI said if we are going to show that Christainity is better for society then I think we also have to talk about the opposing positions and whether they are justified in their claims that Christainity and conservatism is bad for society as it appeared from what the Left and its media kept claiming. I think from memory they kept citing Project 25 as some Christain conspiracy. Which shows how they detest anything Christain.

 

[stevevw]

Project 2025 is the Christian agenda. It's not a conspiracy.

Its not a Christain agenda. Its a bunch of Christains behind a particular political application of Christain values as they see them. The values are Christain but the politics is not.

Many of the values and of project 25 most Christains would agree. This idea that its some boogyman out to destroy democracy is another Left sided conspiracy they have been promoting like the Right are Nazis and fascists and all that.

 

[stevevw]

Except that there was only one post (the one you were replying to) injected into our conversation. (I replied to You replying to BCP who was replying to you replying to me.) Your intervening post was filled with all of that "woke" nonsense.

Whatever, it was relevant to what BCP said to refute him quickly instead of going into the details. The Woke and all that is relevant because it conflicts with Christain values which are claimed to underpin a better society.

If someone on the Left wants to denonce Christainity as being good for society and use ideas like project 21 then Christains should have the right to question the validity of the Lefts claim.

You wish.

Oh don't be like that. The US and Australia has always had a good relationship.

Your knowledge of US politics is quite questionable if you think that. We don't need your "list" the posts are already too long. (For starters in the next bit you mention "leftist media" and then link two TV networks owned by megacorporations. (Not "leftist media")

I get my knowledge for the US, from the same people the US uses. CBS is a Left leaning media outlet. Everyone knows how bias the Left media was.

Of the 20 major news outlets studied 18 were left of center include CBS evening news.

https://www.college.ucla.edu/report/vol6_media-bias.pdf

But it doesn't matter because my only point is to highlight that there is a definite divide on some important issues between each side on what makes a better society. So there's a clear difference on specific issues relation to abortion, marriage, religious and speech freedoms ect which can be measured as to which beliefs stack up and will actually make society better.

If you knew more about US politics, you'd know the Democrats *always* over react.

Maybe sometimes its good to get an outside perspective because maybe the 'over reacting' is more than oh their just over reacting never mind them they are like that all the time.

I think it went beyond over reacting and into dangerous territory. You can't just put that down to over reacting. It seems a cop out.

Anyway I don't care for my point is that the Left stand for a different and conflicting ideology to Christains. So we need to look at each sides ideology and see if would make society better.

Like I said, the Democrats and their political analysts can't agree what the issues were. It would seem you agree.

Good then this post can end.

Yes I agree.

 

[BCP1928]

Steve has give us the answer to the OP question. Christianity is better for the world if Christians can take credit retroactively for any changes for the better, and denounce Christians who opposed those changes as not True Scotsmen. Merry Christmans, Steve.

 

[Lukaris]

The proclamation of God to the world and the response of those of good will in the world:

Luke 2:6-16


The response of those possessed by evil persuasion:

Matthew 2:1-18

 

[stevevw]

Steve has give us the answer to the OP question. Christianity is better for the world if Christians can take credit retroactively for any changes for the better, and denounce Christians who opposed those changes as not True Scotsmen. Merry Christmans, Steve.

Ha ha, Merry Christmas. Another logical fallacy even on Christmas day. You can't help yourself lol.

 

[RoBo1988]

Today I watched the final episode of Family Guy Season 22, which explores whether the presence of religion is beneficial to the world. Actually, I don't think I should be serious about a cartoon, but when I think about it, I do doubt the positive impact of Christianity in today's world, and my textbooks are telling me that Christianity hindered human progress during the Renaissance, and I would like to see more debate on that

Since I am not good at English, I decided to simply write down the two questions I asked to make it easier for you to understand：
1 What role does Christianity play in the world today.2 Does Christianity hinder social progress?

1. God's presence in the world is a check and balance, restraining the desires of man.
Psalm 51:5
Jeremiah 17:9
2. God's wisdom is superior to man's finite wisdom. Man always has a desire to rule over their fellow man.
Genesis 3:5
Genesis 11:4
Man may think that we have the right answer for society, but left to themselves, results can be disasterous.
Judges 21:25
Proverbs 14:12-16
Yes, there are, and have been abuses by those called to be God's shepherds, as well as his flock. However, it does not show that His Word, and His presence is a hinderance to "progress"