Unity.

Hammster said:

Like not killing the unborn?

Click to expand...

No, that would be a moral. (And not a universal one across times and cultures)

Morals are the rules that a culture arrives at to promote values. Values themselves are more basic to us.

Hammster said:

Then there’s no point in discussing anything with you, since you could be wrong.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. We evaluate ideas based on their merit, not the fallibility of the individual presenting those ideas.

Hammster said:

You’ve missed the point. Everyone can say what they think unity means. I’m just doing the same.

Click to expand...

I didn't see a point or explanation made. Please elaborate.

Redac said:

I actually have a copy of his book Living Buddha, Living Christ that I borrowed a while back. I really ought to get around to reading it.

Click to expand...

I don't presume to speak for Master Thitch Nhat Hanh in some of my views, just FWIW. He is far more congenial towards Christianity, though not without some criticism of individual Christian attitudes at times.

Redac said:

Indeed. I'm not married to the sort of strict separation between them that I think Hume had, but obviously there's a distinction to be made there.



I'd agree it's a good heuristic, and for Christians at least it should point toward love of God and love of neighbor. I just find it kind of vapid when the golden rule is thrown out sometimes by people who haven't thought too hard about it, as if the rule in isolation is the end-all of moral thought. Honestly I think I'm probably projecting past interactions with others onto you and inferring things you aren't really stating or implying. I apologize for that.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Is that lecture online somewhere? If it is, would you happen to have a link to it? I'd be quite interested in checking it out.

Click to expand...

"The Self as a Work in Progress". It's at the Institute for Buddhist Studies. Keep in mind it's been archived so the original quality may not be available:

Gordon Bermant – Institute of Buddhist Studies Podcast

It culminated an exploration I did into a theme I took from Bonhoeffer, on his so-called "religionless Christianity". My conclusion is that Protestant Evangelicalism is increasingly not going to be found a compelling worldview, and the Evangelical tradition started by Luther is increasingly untenable and incoherent in the contemporary world (and American popular Evangelicalism, even more so, to an nth degree). My conclusion is that it was time to look elsewhere for life direction. As Dr. Gordon Bermant points out in his lecture, there are alot of philosophical challenges in contemporary culture that end in dead ends.

Christian nationalism as a term is a little nebulous -- it can range from, say, supporting certain policies because you think those best reflect Christian teaching, all the way to clerical fascists like Codreanu and his Iron Guard.

Click to expand...

In the American context, it refers to groups like MAGA. They rally around a defense of a perceived cultural Christianity under threat. The type of people outraged by "Happy Holidays", rather than specifically holding to any kind of firm doctrinal or confessional identity. Some might even be unchurched.

I'd somewhat agree about Fundamentalism, insofar as it's a reaction to some of the increasingly liberal theology that permeated a lot of Protestantism in the latter 19th century. That's not to say it's nihilistic in its outlook, of course.

Click to expand...

I believe it is nihilistic, existentially, whatever it's supposed intellectual content. It's oriented away from a life-sustaining ethic. It's not surprising that related movements have spawned suicide cults grounded in bizarre logic. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I wonder whether the fact/value separation is in itself enough for the sort of Western nihilism you've described. My feeling is that it would have to come along with some of the other byproducts of liberalism (the Enlightenment kind), like the focus on the primacy of individual reason, the conception of man as a naturally free actor who ought not be constrained by unchosen duties and obligations, the erosion of the idea of moral authority, etc.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that just grew out of Christianity, at least as I see it. Perhaps not inevitable but there's a strong impulse there. It was there in seed form even before the Reformation.

I also wonder how all this compares to the situation in places where Christianity was never really dominant, particularly in China or other parts of East Asia that were heavily influenced by Buddhism. I know a bit more about Japan than other places in this regard, but I wonder about China specifically because of their recent history.

Click to expand...

The dominant social ideology of East Asia is probably Confucianism more than Buddhism. Both tend to be complimentary rather than strictly antagonistic, however. Neither one conceives of the self in western terms, as an autonomous, free actor without natural obligations.

South Korea is probably the most "Christianized" country in the region (about 1 in 4 are Christians) but it's still heavily dominated by Confucianism.

Hammster said:

A member sent this to me. “This is a time when the USA needs to be striving for unity, not divisiveness.”

Biden has called for unity. What are we to unify around, and why?

Click to expand...

Biden can't explain or identify a realistic unity. All he can do is express a sentiment. Once he tries to explain what he means, all hopes of unity are gone. This is repetitive political rhetoric. The best politicians accomplish is compromise - both willing and unwilling - but political unity is a farce. One party overrides another, by whatever means it chooses to use.

What is the unity to be created in a nation that bases its existence in part on freedom of religion? When have religions ever been unified? They will never be unified.

The so-called "Golden Rule" from the Bible is explained as being the Tanakh - the Old Covenant Scriptures. So this is the Judeo-Christian standard for the saying. Modifications or similarities in other religions or philosophies have a different standard and explanation for the saying, so no true unity in this saying.

When have people who determine their own ethics and values, or legislate their concepts of the same, ever created unity? They haven't and they won't.

It's been stated in this thread that we need a war to unify us. Maybe an earlier war unified the US to a large degree, but the more recent wars certainly didn't.

It's been stated in this thread that Christianity had unity issues already in Acts. Very true. The divide is up to 30k-50k denominations now from estimates I've seen. We can read through the theological discussions in this forum and see the "unity" in "Christians." No unity here. We might find some, but maybe only in specific discussion points.

My answer to the question: Good question. I've no answer that I think has a hope of unified agreement. All we've been doing is trying to get along in some semblance of peace. Biblically I recall the reality of some widespread theoretical unity as being in truth a peace where there is no peace.

If someone has the answer I'm open to considering (like the philosophies seekers). But I'm not seeing answers. And the philosophies seekers are really just seeking answers like the rest of us. Even in Christ we're still seeking more & more of the Truth and none I know of here (in time) have the answers that I think will work to unify.

As a Christian I think the only possible unity is out in front of us somewhere per this statement:

NKJ 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

This is unity in righteousness. Unity based in absolute standard. The Biblical Golden Rule in operation.

Until then there's just too much lawlessness, too much of it posing as and even falsely thinking it's good. Until then there's just one political theory after another, and one US administration after another - 2-4 years of this - 2-4 years of that... It's all just wearying.

Hammster said:

he’s going to actually have to do something to unify us.

Click to expand...

And he's actually going to have to specify what the unity is for and how he proposes to achieve it.

Good summary. Illusion.

Hammster said:

That’s not relevant to this thread.

Click to expand...

What most voters in the country want isn't relevant to the type of unity we should expect them to agree to?

natitude said:

The Left basically wants to remove any and all consequences of sexual intercourse.

Click to expand...

Yeah, imagine not wanting to punish women who decide to have sex. That would be terrible.

And I don't know the answer to these two questions, but let me ask: How many women seeking an abortion are doing so only because certain federal safety nets aren't in place?

Click to expand...

If it is even 1, wouldn't it be worth spending as much money as it took to prevent the murder of an unborn baby? Why all the backtracking when there's actually a way to accomplish the goal of reducing abortions? Again, goes back to the point that this is really just about shaming women who are doing sex wrong.

Hammster said:

It’s defensible.

Click to expand...

Posts in this thread provide copious evidence of the opposite.

Those who believe that Democrats and Republicans or mankind in general will ever fully unite in true unity are delusional. Only Jesus Christ will bring true and lasting unity when He returns and separates the sheep from the goats. Until then, we will continue to see division.

2 Corinthians 6:14 - Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Hammster said:

Here’s the point of the thread, and then I’ll ask for it to be closed.

I think it can be shown that this idea of unity is an illusion. First, if Biden wanted unity, he would have started this message on January 20, 2016. Second, he wouldn’t have issued so many executive orders the first few days. And third, he would have given a cohesive definition of what he meant by unity.

None of these things happened, yet so many fawned over this notion of unity, even though (as this thread has shown) there’s no consensus over what we should unify over, or why.

So the point is that we shouldn’t kid ourselves that there will be unity just because. If Biden wants to lead us to unity, he’s going to actually have to do something to unify us.

Click to expand...

Just remember that if you're not willing to share, you may wind up not getting anything at all.

Hammster said:

A member sent this to me. “This is a time when the USA needs to be striving for unity, not divisiveness.”

Biden has called for unity. What are we to unify around, and why?

Click to expand...

First, what is the cause of disunity?

Is it not jealosy, envy, disrespect for law,

baseless hate, unrighteous dealings,

gossip, slander and other sorts negative

actions.

It is not required to be a Christian to take

part of the wisdom in James 4 and James 5, why not the whole works 1-5?

The Talmud tells that the cause of the destruction of the second Temple was,

disunity and a baseless hate.

If there had been unity they would have
merited God's protection.

To see not how it is, but how it should be.

One, in mind, soul and spirit.

Though we are different and unique each in our own way.

The end goal is to make this world a dwelling place fit for the King.

What has it to do with me?

I do not live in America even, makes no difference.

The spirit of God that hovered over the deep/waters is the spirit of the Messiah,

And there is no change in the holy One, blessed be He.

Robban said:

First, what is the cause of disunity?

Click to expand...

Different thinking is the disunity. The cause of different thinking is manifold, but at root it's the fallen condition of heart, and belief vs. disbelief in YHWH among some, and the belief in Jesus as Messiah among others.

Who and what is our authority? Where do we derive our standards? How do we expect unity when we have differing authorities? What is God's purpose for national borders and different languages? When nations with mostly single cultures cannot find true unity in mind, soul, and spirit, what makes a nation comprised of many cultures think it will find such unity?

GDL said:

Different thinking is the disunity. The cause of different thinking is manifold, but at root it's the fallen condition of heart, and belief vs. disbelief in YHWH among some, and the belief in Jesus as Messiah among others.

Who and what is our authority? Where do we derive our standards? How do we expect unity when we have differing authorities? What is God's purpose for national borders and different languages? When nations with mostly single cultures cannot find true unity in mind, soul, and spirit, what makes a nation comprised of many cultures think it will find such unity?

Click to expand...

It is up to every nation to establish a law

whereby every citizen of that nation is equal under said law.

The alternative is chaos and confusion.