A Disturbing Situation

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Whitehorse, your analysis is a bit difficult to follow. So are you saying that because ancient Isreal fell out of favor with God because of its societal ills, then it fell apart?

Good question. Yup, that's precisely what happened. It led to slavery, exile and all kinds of situations that they neither desired nor expected.

I must think there are other nations in far, far worse societal conditions than America, such as China, or Iran, or Burma, or Liberia, etc., etc., etc. But none of these nations are being wiped out. Sure, leadership or political change occurs, but the people are still there, chugging along.

Sure-for now. That's why it's so important to look at history. In the current situation, there will always be plenty of godless nations God hasn't dealt with-yet. But He does, in His time, after every opportunity to repent has been cast aside.

Are you asserting that God has held special favor with America for some inexplicable reason?

At this point, inexplicable is a good term for it. But my original thesis is that we are not in favor with God, for all our wickedness and complacency, but we were a godly nation at one time which is why we have our liberties and power. And God will let this nation abuse it until He's had enough. Then, when everyone is cozy and confident in their wealth and power, God will renew their interest in Him. But the price we stand to pay is terrible.

Keep in mind there are other nations that are more "Christian" than America, yet have much, much less in the way of material wealth, resources, power, and influence.

Material wealth, resources, power, and influence can be blessings, true. But they can also become a terrible snare. It depends on which country has them and how it uses them. If they use them to free the opressed, give life and justice, take care of the orphans and widows-then it's a blessing. Use them to pamper their indulgences, and pride will seep into their hearts. At that point these things are no blessing at all.

I guess I really don't get your point from a historical perspective. I mean looking at ancient Isreal is fine, and all, but when looking at world history according to the criteria you seem to be asserting, your ideas just don't seem to hold up. Maybe I just need you to clarify your position a bit more.

Seem is a very wise and excellent choice of words. God brings godless nations into judgment routinely. Sometimes through extreme poverty and other times through extreme riches. Diseases. Oppressive powers. Slavery. In the case of Babylon-total annihilation. Take a check through the prophets-it gives you a pretty good idea how God relates to nations. We're pleased to answer your questions.

 

[Outspoken]

Which question did I not answer?

" if faith is good enough for you, why do you demand proof from another religion? "

 

[Diatrive]

live by your human perceptions of truth, and you will get the gladiators, war and more war, and hate bitter hate, and killing babies when they come out of the womb, cannibalism, human sacrifice, and etc.

Talk about a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Diatrive]

Actually, I pointed this difference out to you at cq, also. But that notwithstanding, how can you see with your soul if you do not have this? Only the Spirit of God can give this. If you have absolute truth, you know it. No one holds a green winter coat in his hand and says, "Is this real? I'm not sure!" (

Wrong! First off, what is green? "green" occurs in your head, the idea of green only occurs in your head, if someone were color blind the coat would appear different to them in their head. Which is the "absolute truth"?

 

[tcampen]

Seem is a very wise and excellent choice of words. God brings godless nations into judgment routinely. Sometimes through extreme poverty and other times through extreme riches. Diseases. Oppressive powers. Slavery. In the case of Babylon-total annihilation. Take a check through the prophets-it gives you a pretty good idea how God relates to nations. We're pleased to answer your questions.

Yes, I understand your point better. However, I could not disagree more. Everytime you see God passing judgement on a nation for it's societal ills, the reast of us look at the details and see what REALLY led to change. I don't see any evidence of supernatural involvement in the fall of the Soviet Union. While complex, the reasons for its demise can be sorted out historically. In fact, I can't think of a single nation's destruction that where the same is not also the case. (Unless you take a literal interpretation of the Bible, or other religious texts, of course.)

Heck, I just don't see any validity to what you're saying, as all the evidence points to real, tangible reasons why nations are destroyed or fall that have nothing to do with anything supernatural. You're position is 100% religious, and not historical.

 

[tcampen]

For the baby that gets pulled partially out of the womb and...

Yes. For that child the situation is most dire indeed.

There is a huge difference between the plight of an individual and the plight of the entire world. The "sky is falling" analogy applies to all people, not just the specific, subjective experience of certain individuals. I think you are incorrectly mixing concepts here. Using your reasoning, anyone who dies in circumstances others would prefer did not occur would be the "sky is falling," including those who die due to drunk drivers, cancer, heart disease, assualt rifles, and swimming pools.

 

[tcampen]

An excellent qustion, Tulc. and I'm glad you asked. The difference between seeking and not seeking is the motive of the heart. Some really do want to find God, and they seek evidence. And I believe God honors this in His time. But otherse want evidence which they routinely deny so that they can dismiss God from their minds. It's all about motive. And that's what God looks at: the heart.

Some have already found God, but others cannot accept that fact simply becasue it differs from their own subjective interpretation of God. Funny how that works.

 

[Havoc]

" if faith is good enough for you, why do you demand proof from another religion? "

I have in fact answered that question, directly and specifically, no less than three times already. I suggest you actually read my answers.

 

[Havoc]

Actually, I pointed this difference out to you at cq, also. But that notwithstanding, how can you see with your soul if you do not have this? Only the Spirit of God can give this. If you have absolute truth, you know it. No one holds a green winter coat in his hand and says, "Is this real? I'm not sure!" (

The concept in your statement has at least two glaring errors in it

1. The coat would be a physical object with hard, substantive, empirical evidence to support it's existence. One could take it to a court of Law or subject it to scientific scrutiny and confirm it's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Your concept of God is not tangible or testable. By equating the two you fall victim to the fallacy of equvocation. A relevant equivocation would be a person who holds an image of Allah in his mind and asks "Is this real?".

2. If you have absolute truth you know it. Unfortunatly you can also "know" things that are completely false. You can also "know" things that are partially true in a subjective perception. You say you "know" your God is the truth. Muslims say they "know" their God is the truth. Jews say they "know" Christ was not the Messiah. Each of these groups "know" they have the absolute truth. Thus we see that "knowing" is not a reliable indicator of truth.

You say only your God can give the ability to "see with the soul". You "know this". I "know" otherwise. You have made a claim of "absolute truth" but I have no reason to believe that your claim is any more reasonable than the thousands of other conflicting claims of absolute truth out there. You don't have absolute truth, you have a belief that you have absolute truth. If you can support your claim I'd be more than happy to consider it.

 

[feral]

As we watch the news each night and see our progress on the war against terrorism, when we see exactly what kind of violent, evil nutcakes are actually out there, we face a problem.

Here we live in a nation that kills unborn children, mistreats the elderly, is filled with corruption and gay agendas and paganism, and we know our nation is being ripened for judgment.

Then there's this portion of the equation: we live in a nation where we win our wars without having to even think about it. And we have an ungrateful country that slams our president every day, complaining about the taxes to fund the effort, a sarcastic quote each night of how many have died "since the end of serious conflict," and we no longer care for our own safety. In fact, we despise and condemn it every day.

Out these two together, and we have a very disturbing problem on our hands.

What are we going to do?

1. Our "war on terror" is a joke. As a nation we have faced less terrorism then nearly every other country. The terrorism we did have is our own fault (not, obviously, the fault of 9/11 victims but the government). We funded Saddam Hussein. We gave over $200 million to Osama binLaden when he was fighting the Soviets. We trained him. Then he used our cash and training to go up against a target that he saw as damaging - us. Since we started this war the agenda has been changed repeatedly. First we were after binLaden, then we were scared of non-existent wmd's, then we wanted to liberate iraq. We've accomplished nothing but ousting a power structure that left room for the next dictator to move in.

2. Watched the news lately...we've got plenty of violent, evil nutcakes, say...Rumsfeld. He can't even give the people a straight answer on the situation in Iraq. I agree though...people like that are a problem.

3. I entirely agree on the mistreatment of the elderly. Our health care program is depriving these people of needed medical treatment. Our nation no longer respects the elderly for their experiences but shuts them into badly managed old age homes to die.

4. I also agree that out system and government is corrupt.

5. "Filled with pagans"? Christianity is the majority religion of the u.s.a. If the small minority that is pagan is able to corrupt an entire system, that isn't saying much for the christian people's ability to do anything.

6. Gay agenda...different issue. But gays are less then 10% of the population and therefore it's pretty pathetic if that eensy minority was able to run circles around everyone else. You're saying that the christian majority was overcome by less then 10% of the population? That's a slap in the face to christian activism, I'd say.

7. I am not ungrateful. As an American I see bush as a threat to this country and the world, as a dangerous rogue without the sense to be president and a potential terrorist threat to other nations. He's responsible for the negative ways in which many other countries see us, and he is likely going to bring more terrorism down on our heads with his foolishness and crazy actions. He's alienating other countries and that is one reason I oppose him. Also, he overstepped the U.N. and became a rogue, which I oppose. I don't see the U.S. as divine and that is where bush and I differ.

8. I care for my safety. I care for my friends who are still in Iraq, running out of water since some missions groups over there are using water supplies for baptismal pools instead of making sure the soldiers have enough. (Lt. Robert Slash told me this in a letter, based in Baghdad still). I worry about my safety and therefore don't oppose a defense budget. I do oppose an offense budget, and since we are instigating conflicts we are in an offensive position.

9. "What are we going to do?" - I for one have signed a petition ousting Bush. I vote. I have been in a few marches. I participate in my ACLU and in other organizations which I see have contributing solution.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

[/size][/font]

Heck, I just don't see any validity to what you're saying, as all the evidence points to real, tangible reasons why nations are destroyed or fall that have nothing to do with anything supernatural. You're position is 100% religious, and not historical.

How do you know? Are you saying God is incapable of using natural means to accomplish His purposes, especially when the entire material world is of His creating?

Some have already found God, but others cannot accept that fact simply becasue it differs from their own subjective interpretation of God. Funny how that works.

This is what is known in the psychology world as a projection.

There is a huge difference between the plight of an individual and the plight of the entire world. The "sky is falling" analogy applies to all people, not just the specific, subjective experience of certain individuals. I think you are incorrectly mixing concepts here. Using your reasoning, anyone who dies in circumstances others would prefer did not occur would be the "sky is falling," including those who die due to drunk drivers, cancer, heart disease, assualt rifles, and swimming pools.

I'm not mixing concepts-you are. Cancer, heart disease, swimming pools-these are not acts of murder. Because abortion is an act of murder, the legality thereof does not change the fact that it is one person deliberately destroying the life of another. It is an act deliberately carried out upon another. So you don't think one life is worth saving. Okay, how many abortions have been carried out?

Enough to populate a small nation. That is a falling sky.

he concept in your statement has at least two glaring errors in it

1. The coat would be a physical object with hard, substantive, empirical evidence to support it's existence. One could take it to a court of Law or subject it to scientific scrutiny and confirm it's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Your concept of God is not tangible or testable. By equating the two you fall victim to the fallacy of equvocation. A relevant equivocation would be a person who holds an image of Allah in his mind and asks "Is this real?".

This is where you're still having problems discerning between perception and reality. How someone perceives green has nothing to do with the color that is being reflected by the object. Just because someone cannot perceive what is reflected doesn't mean it isn't being reflected. The exact color tones that are being absorbed and reflected are exactly the same regardless of who looks at it. Sorry-relativism just doesn't work. People who do not see green as green are diagnosed with color blindness because everyone knows what it is. This is another hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality. Unless you are colorblind, you have never doubted the color of anything you've held in your hands.

2. If you have absolute truth you know it. Unfortunatly you can also "know" things that are completely false. You can also "know" things that are partially true in a subjective perception. You say you "know" your God is the truth. Muslims say they "know" their God is the truth. Jews say they "know" Christ was not the Messiah. Each of these groups "know" they have the absolute truth. Thus we see that "knowing" is not a reliable indicator of truth.

You mean you don't know Jesus was Christ. I know you don't want to accept this, but you only distinguish between reality and perception when it fits in with your perceptions. Anything to deny Christ. I know you have your reasons, but it doesn't.

You say only your God can give the ability to "see with the soul". You "know this". I "know" otherwise. You have made a claim of "absolute truth" but I have no reason to believe that your claim is any more reasonable than the thousands of other conflicting claims of absolute truth out there. You don't have absolute truth, you have a belief that you have absolute truth. If you can support your claim I'd be more than happy to consider it.

You don't know otherwise about my having absolute truth. What you do know is that you do not want me to have it because then there would be a problem with people dipping their spoons into the self-determined potluck of religion and philosophy. There are already so many inconsistencies in this reasoning. Logically, it has been proven ad nauseum to not hold water. But you're sticking with it. You can't say I don't have absolute truth when I do. You still don't know which is right amongst these thousand claims because you don't have this absolute truth by your own admission. So you cannot argue that I do not, because you do not have the truth.

I do, however, laud your honesty.

 

[Outspoken]

I have in fact answered that question, directly and specifically, no less than three times already. I suggest you actually read my answers.

LOL then you've been very unclear, or haven't done it at all, else the following post would have explained it, which it did not. Just answer it again, or are you too lazy?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Havoc, I think what Outspoken is asking (if I may take the liberty) is why, if you're debate-minded and evidence-minded, why you would choose something so unlike your own preferences.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste whitehorse,

you do realize, do you not, that many other traditions also believe that they have the Absolute Truth?

those other traditions can also produce compelling evidence to support their claim.

it is quite a clever tactic, though, to say that becuase the Jews didn't believe in Christ that it actually means that Havoc doesn't

i shall be sure to utilize it when appropriate.. i hope you don't mind

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Vajradhara,

Actually if you look just under Havoc's name, it says, Celtic witch. So that would be an indicator that he does not, as well as the fact that we're debating for different religious beliefs. Not to mention we're already familiar with each other.

Traditions entirely comprises the territory of men, and no higher. I am debating for an eternal God. This transcends humanity.
Just curious-what does namaste mean?

Whitehorse

 

[Havoc]

LOL then you've been very unclear, or haven't done it at all, else the following post would have explained it, which it did not. Just answer it again, or are you too lazy?

Fine then, one more time for the slow readers

I don't demand proof of your beliefs. I do not argue with other peoples claims of belief.

I demand proof of your claim of absolute truth. If your beliefs are absolutly true the mine are absolutely wrong. If you publicly lay claim that mine are absolutely wrong then I have every right to ask for proof of that extraordinary claim. If you attempt to restrict the rights of individuals by purporting your Gods commands are absolutely true then I have every right to demand proof. If you cannot give one shred of substantive evidence to support your claim of absolute truth then I have every right to point that out to people, who might not be aware that you cannot support your claim.

I don't need to provide proof of my beliefs because I am not so stupid as to make a claim of absolute truth I cannot begin to support.

Are we clear now?

 

[Outspoken]

"I demand proof of your claim of absolute truth."

Okay, so your beliefs are not right, got ya

 

[Diatrive]

"I demand proof of your claim of absolute truth."

Okay, so your beliefs are not right, got ya

No, it's just that it is absolutely ridiculous to make a claim of "absolute truth".

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

If you attempt to restrict the rights of individuals by purporting your Gods commands are absolutely true then I have every right to demand proof.

So you're concerned about individual rights, not necessarily about God's authority. So if God Himself restricts your rights, would you fail to follow Him for that reason? Moreover, from whence comes these "rights"? By what authority do you feel you have the right to choose a god or religion? But you do have this philosophical consistency, however, that you both acknowledge choosing your religion, and that this might not be the truth. Again, your willingness to be forthright can only be commended.

 

[Diatrive]

So you're concerned about individual rights,

Wow, thats a shame that you don't.

not necessarily about God's authority.

Well, since "god" has never exerted his authority, that would be pretty dificult. But I deal with individuals every day. No gods, but plenty of people.

So if God Himself restricts your rights, would you fail to follow Him for that reason?

Accepting that the idea of god was true, and he attempted to infringe on my rights. I would fail to follow him like I would fail to follow anyone who restricts my rights.

Moreover, from whence comes these "rights"? By what authority do you feel you have the right to choose a god or religion?

The rights of a human being. I don't see any higher power here making itself known. Until then we are at the top of the ladder.