A Chinese university is dumping intellectual freedom from its charter yet China hopes to be the world’s top AI power. Is there a contradiction here?
If humans are just animals, then factory farm methods should work with people as well as pigs.
The big advances in AI have mostly been in free societies. Totalitarian states are grabbing AI but can they advance it if they cannot allow the creativity that comes with freedom?
How does that play out in Hong Kong’s struggle with China:
George Orwell identified two characteristics of a totalitarian state that offer insight into its central intellectual weaknesses…
First, successful modern technological cultures depend on a high level of individual freedom of thought, as the digital revolution demonstrates. He wrote: “Modern literature is essentially an individual thing. It is either the truthful expression of what one man thinks and feels, or it is nothing.” But he adds, “As I say, we take this notion for granted, and yet as soon as one puts it into words one realizes how literature is menaced. For this is the age of the totalitarian state, which does not and probably cannot allow the individual any freedom what ever.”
Whereas Shanghai University is onside with no freedom of thought, international human rights day (December 8, 2019) brought 800,000 Hongkongers onto the streets again. One observer told us, “I love this vid. Hong Kong people never lack creative ideas to express their feelings and thoughts”
Denyse O’Leary, “Can a Totalitarian State Advance AI?: China vs. Hong Kong provides a test case” at Mind Matters News
Indeed. In the vids, they are wearing plastic pig’s heads to frustrate the mass surveillance equipment. In one classic street drama, a man pretending to be a security official (with “1984” blazoned on his shirt) is interviewing Pig 1, Pig 2, etc., to general hilarity.
Unlike the poor Uyghurs, the Hongkongers are tech savvy. It just is not as clear who will win in the end.
See also: Weighing the costs of China’s high tech power: Western nations like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada must weigh Beijing’s demands carefully
Follow UD News at Twitter!
“Intellectual freedom” has nothing to do with measurable practical creativity. War has always been the main driving force of invention and innovation. A powerful and goal-directed state can organize research and development better than a loose state.
Even in art, “letting it all hang out” gives us ductaped bananas, and tyrannical warring monarchs gave us Rembrandt and Bach.
What is being done to the Uyghurs in China is every bit as abhorrent as what was done to Native Americans in the Christian-run boarding-schools in North America. But how does it follow from naturalism being right that totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones? How does one measure creativity?
I entirely agree that a society which permits and encourages the development of new ideas should be better than one which suppresses them. On the other hand, in the Second World War Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union produced tank and aircraft designs that were every bit as good – and, in some cases better – than those produced by the Allied powers so it may not be that simple.
Seversky
If naturalism is true, then ideas would come from luck or determinism so it should be the same either way. Maybe the measure is the success of new products.
Those societies encouraged innovation in military technology and methods for the benefit of the nation, but not as much with private enterprise.
Pollista @ 1
““Intellectual freedom” has nothing to do with measurable practical creativity. War has always been the main driving force of invention and innovation.”
In China, one of the most totalitarian states in the world today, it is better to be a good communist than a good engineer. There is no creativity and innovation in China, which is why they steal intellectual property. China has no innovation and must rely on the creativity that does exist in the free world.
Most people will never invent anything and those who do must have the freedom to pursue innovation. Innovation is a distinctly human trait and unique to only a small percentage of people. If people are not unique and can simply be replaced by other people, then you should be able to write a novel and paint a masterpiece.
The United States has been one of the leading nations in innovation. Name a totalitarian state that either currently exists, or existed, which has created anywhere near what the United States has created. Where is the equivalent of Thomas Edison, Madam C. J. Walker, George Washington Carver?
Naturalistic and/or materialistic processes cannot create new functional information. Period! It takes an immaterial mind to create new information, Period! The sheer inability of the materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution to create any new functional information is the main and primary point of contention between ID and Darwinism.
Thus it directly follows that any society based on the metaphysics of Naturalism and/or Darwinian Materialism, as totalitarian states inevitably are, will have markedly less creativity than democracies which are based on Christian principles,,,
Thus to repeat, since Naturalistic and/or materialistic processes cannot create new functional information, then it directly follows that any society based on the metaphysics of Naturalism and/or Darwinian Materialism, as totalitarian states inevitably are, will have far less creativity than modern democratic societies that are based on Christian Metaphysics.
And indeed this is so. First and foremost, modern science itself was born out of Christianity,,,
Secondly, several studies have now shown that Communism/Totalitarianism stifles innovation
Thus Seversky, as he did in the second post on this thread, can wax poetic all he wants about how he thinks communism is no worse than America in terms of innovation, but, as is usual for Seversky, his love affair with atheism has completely blinded him to the hideous failings of his preferred atheistic worldview when it is, and has been, applied to societies at large
BA77
As the summary points out, it was a rare and fruitful collaboration between Protestantism and Catholicism that produced the results – so a Christian innovation. Partly due to “creative tension” between the two but overall a good development. Atheism was not a significant contributing factor.
Silver Asiatic, I agree totally. And, given the historical suspicion that Catholics and Protestants often have towards each other, an excellent point that should be repeated often.
BA77 and SA, the Romans might disagree with you on who invented representational government.
Nobody claimed that ancient representational government did not exist. The claim was that Christianity, (more specific still, via the American revolution), “broke down autocratic barriers, giving rise to modern liberal societies.”
i.e.
Relevant quotes:
BA77
I assume you are referring to the revolution that gave voice to far less than 50% of the population. Women need not apply. Asian immigrants need not apply. Indigenous peoples need not apply. Black people need not apply. Non property owners need not apply.
The founding fathers did not provide representational government. Representational government was the result of people seizing what they thought they deserved, not because of anything the founding fathers gave them.
^^^^ S.A. do you want to handle the glaring flaws in this one?
BA77
And what glaring errors would these be? Please enlighten us.
Alexander Dumas was writing literary classics in France while his racial compatriots were being whipped and traded as cattle in the country you claim was instrumental in representational government.
Let’s face it, the US in its early years did more to restrict representational democracy than most other western countries. The revolution was more about white land owners gaining and maintaining power, and not paying taxes, than it was about equality.
The USA was set up as a (Constitutional) Republic and not a democracy. A Republic is defined as “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” And that is exactly what Ed George has described and it still fits the definition of a representative government.
Ba77
I can’t post for a couple of days. Please feel free to answer him. I know that you’ve got more than enough to do the job. Thanks
ET @ 13
The House of Representatives was meant to be the only part of the process that was democratic in nature, since they were the ones directly elected by those who could legally vote in each state. The House was created to represent the people, but the Senate was created to represent the states through selection of the state governments. It was a good balance and should return to what was.
Ed George, if all you see are the negatives, I suggest you place yourself in that time and remove modern bias. John Paul Jones was born in Scotland and could not captain a British Naval ship. He was limited to be a merchant captain, since he was not born in England to the right family. He became father of the American Navy.
You call them rich land owners, but no one in the country was money rich. For a long time prior to war with Britain, the colonists had wanted to mint coins and print paper currency. The British refused and it resulted in trade of goods over using currency. The land owners were called land rich and cash poor.
The French Revolution brought true democracy and it’s now called The Terror. True democracy has always proved to be short lived and rather bloody. The United States became a beacon to the world, but the French served to strengthen the royals hold.
Where are the Madam C. J. Walkers of the world? She became the first self made female millionaire in the history of the world and it took her being in the United States to make it happen. Tesla chose the United States over any other country for a reason. The Chinese who helped build the railroads new their odds were low, but they were leaving a land of war and famine behind.
EG, cut the cultural marxist undermining of critical civilisational advancements, please. The tactic is well known: taint critical contributors and contributions [e.g. the breakthrough US DoI, 1776 and doubtless roots in Dutch DoI 1581 and Duplessis-Mornay’s Vindiciae etc], poisoning minds and polarising attitudes; thus also opening up the notion that those with a cloak of invulnerability can get away with saying or doing anything. That first creates chaos then leads to a totalitarian imposition in a new order that has forgotten the roots of genuine liberty under just law. And BTW, we are witnessing a major case in point in our headlines at present. Kangaroo courts following Star Chamber tactics and backed by partisan media lynch mobs operating on guilt by accusation are precisely why there is a polarisation spiral threatening to break out of all control just now. The USA in particular has for some years descended into a Bleeding Kansas-lite, 4th generation warfare civil war, with agit prop, media trumpeted street theatre and guilt by accusation lynch mobs with a rising incidence of lawfare. I can only conclude that cultural marxist political messianism feels within grasp of unlimited power and is trying to crush what it sees as doomed opposition rooted in the derided hinterlands populated by the deplorables. Peasant uprisings are the natural result, and resemblance between the US and UK are not coincidental. Where, so far, it has been votes not pitchforks or AR-15s. So far. KF
PS: FYI, Archbishop of Canterbury, Samuel Langton’s work on Magna Carta is a key step towards just, limited government and recognition of liberty, building on many roots but we must not neglect Alfred of the West Saxons and his epochal Book of Dooms (which literally begins from the Decalogue, Mosaic civil law, the Ac 15 council of the church regarding gentile converts and the Golden Rule as taught in the Sermon on the Mount) and Justinian’s Institutes in Corpus Juris Civilis. Between those three we have deep roots of parliamentary representational government, independent judiciary and primacy of justice, as well as the framework of law that dominates the world: British-derived common law and the partly Christianised synthesis of Roman Law (often by way of Code Napoleon).
I add, that until we had printing, low cost bills, newspapers and places for reasonably free discussion, backed by printing the Bible in the vernacular and increasing literacy, democratisation and linked reforms were not feasible given the dependency on wealthy, warrior class derived relatively educated power elites and their retainers and clerks. That means, latish 1600’s, precisely when we saw the Glorious Revolution and Locke. From this, across the following two centuries we had democratisation with the principles of rights and reform under consensus built on the Judaeo-Christian, biblical framework.
It is equally clear that radical revolutions stemming from the French example predictably end up with reigns of terror led by misanthropes who routinely resort to mass judicial murder or even don’t bother with the sham courts.
In that context, the ongoing abortion holocaust — 800+ millions in 40+ years and growing at 1 million more a week, the US share being 63 million — and its enabling by the radicals of our time are the key tell. Lawfare backed mass slaughter of the utterly innocent and defenceless, backed by media agit prop and ruthless lawfare. This is the sign of intent towards Christians who take the Bible and gospel ethics seriously and other deplorables.
Unless and until there is a serious facing of this central evil leading to acknowledgement of guilt of holocaust and turning in repentance and reformation, there is no hope of sound reformation. Where, only a manipulated, naive person would take protestations about “rights” and demands to push ever increasingly bizarre radical agendas and demands at face value.
Blood guilt is the most tainting, most corrupting of influences and that is what we are dealing with.
So, no, get down off that high horse and get to repenting.
F/N: Let us clip and annotate a key part of The Great Charter of the Liberties (1215) as written by Archbishop of Caterbury Samuel Langton and imposed at sword-point at Runnymede, i.e. points 39 and 40 in Blackstone’s numbering:
KF
BobRyan and Kairosfocus at 15, 16, 17 and 18 offered very good responses to Ed George’s fallacious claims thus far.
But if I may add to their very good responses thus far,
Ed George observes that,
And indeed the founding of America was far from morally perfect. None-the-less, the founding of America was based on the morally perfect principles that find their roots in Christianity. Perhaps the most foundational of all Christian principles being the principle of the equality of all men before God,,, i.e “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”,,,
And indeed, America has gone through some very painful and bloody growing pains trying to live up to that specific objective moral principle.
And yet herein lies the critical and fatal flaw within Ed George’s ‘moral reasoning’.
Ed George is a Darwinian atheist who has no objective moral basis to appeal to!
Yet, although Ed is devoid of any coherent moral foundation, Ed George himself blatantly acts as if it is ‘self-evidently true’ that we should all intuitively, and unquestionably, know the objective moral principle that all men are create equal,,,,
,,, Although Ed George himself, (a Darwinian atheist), acts as if it it ‘self-evidently true’ that objective morality must exist, Ed George, within his Darwinian worldview, simply has no objective moral foundation that he can appeal to in order for him to justify his complaint about inequality at America’s founding..
Indeed Darwinian evolution itself is based on differences, i.e. based on inequalities. It is most certainly not based on the equality of all souls before the eyes of God.
There simply is no such thing as equality among persons within Darwinian atheism. In fact, the full title of Darwin’s book is,,,
When presented with the preceding fact, Darwinian atheists often try to claim that Charles Darwin was not a racist in his personal life. And that may very well be so. But “so what?”, none-the-less, Darwin himself understood perfectly well that his theory was inherently and violently racist in its implications.
After writing that particular sentence, and understanding the true implications of his theory, I have no idea why Charles Darwin, (supposedly a strong supporter of equal rights in his personal life), did not immediately reject his theory as being self-evidently false.
The world has paid dearly for Darwin’s inconsistency in his personal life when compared to the overt racism inherent in Darwin’s theory itself:
Besides Darwin’s theory being inherently and overtly racist, Charles Darwin himself also maintained that his theory was inherently sexist. i.e. Women were considered to be biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin’s theory:
And again, when presented with the preceding fact, Darwinists will often point out that Darwin himself treated women with great respect during his lifetime, Yet, that does not detract one bit from the fact that Darwin’s theory itself is inherently racist and sexist in its implications.
That Darwin himself, did not, and indeed could not, consistently live his personal life as if if his theory was actually true, (directly contrary to what Darwinists try to imply about Darwin’s personal life somehow trumping the racist and sexist implications of his theory), is proof that his theory cannot possibly be a true reflection of reality as it really is, but that his theory instead MUST BE based on a delusional view of reality:
The fact that Darwinian atheism MUST BE based on a delusional view of reality is best illustrated by the fact that Darwin’s theory, (when stripped down to its reductive materialistic foundation), denies the objective existence of ‘persons’, which is, by far, the most certain thing anyone can possibly know about reality. i.e. Descartes “I Think, therefore I am!”. There simply is no such thing as a ‘person’ and/or personhood within Darwinian materialism. Thus, since there are no ‘persons’, then, of course, it directly follows that there never can truly be equality among ‘persons’ within Darwinian theory:
And yet, although the reductive materialism of Darwinian atheism explicitly denies the objective reality of ‘persons’, Darwinists themselves act as if they really exist as real persons. Indeed, it is completely impossible for them to live their lives as is they were not real persons.
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Thus in conclusion, the critical and fatal flaw in Ed’s ‘moral reasoning’ is that Ed George, (again a Darwinian atheist), is appealing to objective moral laws. Yet there simply are no objective morals, (nor person’s), within Ed’s worldview. As Van Till pointed out, Ed needs God to even be able to argue against God in the first place.
In short, Ed’s moral argument against the founding fathers of America self-refutes his entire Darwinian worldview, Ed’s ‘moral argument’ would be a comical farce were it not for the unmitigated horror that his atheistic worldview entails.
The unmitigated horror that atheistic Totalitarian regimes have unleashed on man is hard to exaggerate or to even imagine.
Verse:
Quick quiz for Ed George:
1) Who/what was the driving force and bore the highest cost behind the end of slavery?
2) Who/what was the driving force behind universal suffrage?
3) Compare/contrast the results of a) allowing native societies to segregate and live under their own laws/rules (e.g. Native Americans) and b) requiring native societies to integrate certain precepts of Judeo-Christian Western European rules/belief systems (e.g. Asian Indians).
Re: Creativity and Totalitarianism
What most people (and every parent!) knows instinctively and through experience is that a) rewarded behavior increases and b) punished behavior decreases. You will always get creativity when the person being creative feels rewarded by the creative act itself and is not punished for it (e.g. Rembrandt, Bach). You will get more creative behavior when the behavior is rewarded above/beyond the act itself. This is why free market capitalist societies are more creative – money! Totalitarian states can be just as creative, as long as they are free market property rights respecting (or at least reward the creator). Nazi Germany is a decent example – while the Fascist regime directed the work of German companies in many cases, the companies still operated on a for-profit basis, and skilled workers were compensated accordingly.
China’s challenge is the same as that of the old U.S.S.R., however – while they have certainly implemented a number of free market reforms, their economy is still primarily communist, with workers compensation not directly related to their productivity, creativity, or skill. As the U.S.S.R. eventually found out, if you don’t reward behavior, “pride in your work” eventually fails to be sufficient reward in and of itself, and productivity (and concomitant creativity) drops off precipitously. Why come up with a new idea if the government is just going to take it and you get nothing? And coming up with new ideas is discouraged anyway, as the government trains youth in “follow orders and be a good citizen” mentality.
It’s not complicated – reward what you want more of, punish what you don’t. It’s the reason economies that are capitalist, free market, property rights and rule of law based are the most successful and creative. Socialism and communism stomp on several of those precepts.
KF
You have a nice way with hyperbole.
Only six people who signed the DOI (a non-binding document) also signed the constitution (a binding document). There is nothing in the constitution about equality. Although it does specifically state that blacks are only worth a fraction of what a white land owner is worth. I know the argument that this was included to appease southern states so that they could have more representation. A compromise, by the way, that was only required because the founding fathers did not believe that all humans were equal. Natives didn’t get the vote until 1924. Blacks didn’t get the vote until 1870, although this was actively repressed in several states well into the 1960s. Chinese Immigrants could not vote until 1943. Jews in Maryland could not vote until 1828. Women could not vote until 1920. And none of these rights were the result of the government simply deciding that it was the right thing to do. These all had to be fought for.
To suggest that universal equality was the goal of the people who drafted the constitution is simply turning a blind eye to reality. But I understand why some would be upset at someone who brings this up. To acknowledge reality would be to acknowledge that progressive ideas often advance civilization in a positive way. I’m sure that conservatives of the day criticized these changes as being enacted through the false colour of law. Much like the arguments used against LGBQ laws.
Ed George has a distorted view of history, He states,
And yet the facts of history are far different,,,
notes:
The modern world arose out of a century and half process in England and to a lesser extent in Holland. Starting with Henry VIII gradually morphing over time, the common man became free. This was due to religious wars amongst Protestants mainly in England which gradually led to less power for the king and more for parliament. While parliament was controlled by wealthy land owners this conflict trickled down to more freedom for the average person. They then could reap the benefits of their labor. Then this led to the Industrial revolution.
This led to even more freedom in some of the British colonies as Pennsylvania became known as the “poor man’s” country. About 80,000 poor Germans migrated to Pennsylvania and became prosperous. This then led to one innovation after the other as prosperity accelerated in the United States and Western Europe.
If one just looks at history most innovation took place in free governments.
My guess is that if Henry.VIII had four sons by Catherine and 10 grandsons, the modern world might have evolve but much later. Just look at the development of Latin America vs English North America.
The most powerful man in the world in Henry’s time was Catherine’s nephew, Charles the Fifth of Spain and the Hapsburgs. The English colonies would not have been free and the modern world would have looked very different.
EG, you continue the error. FYI, the US Constitution BUILDS ON AND SEEKS TO DELIVER THE NEW GOVERNMENT envisioned in para 2, DOI (and reflecting a line of thought deriving from nation under God, Government with consent also under God that secures blessings of liberty); indeed, it was a second and more successful attempt after the 1778 Articles of Confederation. Moreover, you reflect the now patently nihilistic positivist view on law, both the DOI and the Const in that context are based on the laws of nature and of nature’s God, our creator. That is, they turn on the understanding that first duties of responsible reason obtain for individual and society alike which set the framework of laws we did not invent nor can we amend, that establish justice and regulate laws and Constitutions. Things that start with inescapable duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to justice etc. BTW, you cite a falsity as a fact, the reckoning of the non-free population at a fractional level for representatives was advocated by ANTI-slavery northerners so they would not be overwhelmed by slave-holders. Along the way you fail to reckon with the struggle of reformation, demanding a backward imposition of your preferences [and onward agenda] in an unhistoric radical way that fails to deal with the necessary compromises that make genuine, peaceful progress rather than radical, misanthropic reigns of terror as we saw again and again starting with the French revolution. Notice, how 30 years ago the assured ironclad course of history failed, after 60 million were murdered behind the Iron curtain. One effect of that radicalism is that you cut off the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of precisely said history. That dooms us to relive the same blunders and pay the same coin over and over again. And that is as good an explanation of the current resort to star chamber as any. More can be said, this is enough to point out the main errors and overlooked, hard bought lessons. KF
I suggest Ed George read Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. It’s the speech that made him president. He discusses slavery in detail.
Also I like to see where progressive ideas led to the modern world in any way.
Ed George:
And yet reality says that goal was eventually achieved. Back when the US was starting out I am glad not everyone could vote. The Republic was a great idea. And it worked.
BA re 22
Outstanding! Also don’t forget Dredd Scott and the progressive fascist Woodrow Wilson
Vivid
I meant to say WW was a racist. Hell he showed “Birth of the Nation” in the Whitehouse.
Vivid
The Founding Fathers were, to varying degrees, racist by modern (progressive) standards. Why else would those attitudes have been embodied in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
All men being created equal is a wonderful ideal but one to which the Founding Fathers and their successors only paid lip service. The fact that women, African-Americans and Native Americans were denied some measure of equality for so long is an indication that an influential number of white Americans did not endorse all the ideals set out in their own Declaration of Independence.
And is Dinesh D’Souza really arguing that the Democratic Party of the 21st century is ideologically indistinguishable from that of Southern slave-owners of the 19th century or that Trump’s Republican Party is pursuing an agenda as radical or progressive as the abolitionist policy was at the time of the Party’s formation?
“All men being created equal is a wonderful ideal but one to which the Founding Fathers and their successors only paid lip service”
Some paid lip service and some lived up to that ideal. You might want to acquaint yourself with Manasseh Cutler and the passage of the Northwest Ordinance passed two years before the Constitution. As to the present day last I looked the progressive Democratic Party is still the party of nullification among other things.
Vivid
“The Founding Fathers were, to varying degrees, racist by modern (progressive) standards”
That’s not saying much since by modern progressive standards anyone who is a religious white male non progressive is a racist. Any female who is in that same category is a racist. Any non religious white conservative non progressive white male or female is a racist. Any African American that is not a progressive is a traitor to their race. If a person is not a racist means your a racist , etc,etc, blah blah blah.
Vivid
Madam C. J. Walker was the first generation of her family to be born free. She was born into poverty and became the first female self-made millionaire in the history of the world. The United States, despite it’s problems, is the only place this could have happened. There is no equivalent anywhere else.
It’s been said by many that the United States was formed as a Christian nation. It was not formed as Christian, but Judaeo-Christian. There has never been any other country to include the Jewish root of Christianity and it serves as a reminder of the various sects of Christianity that there is common ground.
In Europe, Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries, but that did not happen here. There have been a few cases, but nothing to the extent of Europe. Here, differences are openly debated and discussed.
Seversky,
Pardon, but kindly re-read what you cited, taking off manipulative rhetorical blinkers that ignore the foundational creation-anchored ontological view that is in the US DoI, our creation as inherently equally human:
Persons, here, is natural persons, i.e. people.
As I noted above to EG, “BTW, you cite a falsity as a fact, the reckoning of the non-free population at a fractional level for representatives was advocated by ANTI-slavery northerners so they would not be overwhelmed by slave-holders.”
It is a rhetorical misinterpretation to infer or assert that equality of ontological personhood as human is rejected in the text. A difficult compromise is being struck, to try to avert a catastrophe, why union was so important to founders and framers.
Recall, for many centuries, the multitude of German states had been part of the Holy Roman Empire, complete with an electoral college that chose the succession. In the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation (itself a reaction to papal abuses and excesses), a fundamental divide had emerged, ending up in the 30 years war and a death toll of about a million per year. More broadly, you could see the conflicts between French and British since the Norman-French conquest of 1066, similar conflicts in Italy and more, with the contrast of the Swiss Federation and the Dutch Republic.
The framers were determined that the united States would avert such, if at all possible — though in the end, this failed and failed over bleeding Kansas [i.e. confinement towards eradication vs extension of slavery ending up with rival governments], leading to emerging civil strife that flared into the bloodiest, most directly ruinous war in US history when Southern States refused to accept a Republican President, setting out on breaking the union.
A very familiar pattern since c 2000.
Further to this, we need to ask why something so patent is being routinely misunderstood, wrenched and used divisively and dismissively. The answer, partly, is simple ignorance of relevant history. That is being manipulated by those who hope to profit politically from polarisation, i.e. divide in order to rule by being the manager of the conflicts. It is further compounded by the cultural marxist project of simplistically reducing the past to oppression to be dismissed in favour of an evergreen utopian radicalism that ignores hard bought, bloody lessons of history. As well, there is intent to suppress the influence of ethical theism and the vision that we are responsibly, rationally free, morally governed creatures under built in creation rooted law that is inescapably part of our nature. That built-in endowment that grants us unalienable rights, starting with life, liberty and fulfillment of our sense of purpose under God [i.e. pursuit of happiness].
It is in this context that the force of Paul’s epistle to Philemon c 61 AD takes impact as he argues about an escaped slave, Onesimus, and draws out fundamental principles of godly, liberating transformation that should have been heeded:
We see here, ontological undermining of the entire system of slavery and suppression in breach of the fundamental unity of humanity. Without, rising up in futile bloody revolt that would only end in defeat, mass slaughter and mass enslavement. Recall, 6,000 crosses lining the Appian Way and what would happen in only a few years with the first Judaean uprising under the Zealots. Of course, the church would then face waves of persecution, but that was also seen as unjust oppression.
We need to do some re-thinking.
KF
Seversky, (an atheistic materialist for whom free will, personhood, and morality are merely illusions), bemoans the slavery of other people.
Yet without free will, how is Seversky anything more than a slave himself?
Without personhood, how is Seversky anything more than a meat robot?
Without morality, how can the meat robot of Seversky bemoan the plight of other meat robots as somehow being worse than his own plight?
Bottom line, if Seversky truly wants to bemoan slavery, he would do very well to first reject his own materialistic philosophy for which there is no other option but slavery.
No where has this completely insane, ‘slave’, materialistic philosophy played out more forcefully in society than in the claim from atheistic secularists that gay persons are ‘born that way’, i.e. that they are forever ‘slaves’ to their sexual desires. and that Christian counselors who seek to help gay persons overcome their same sex attraction are, of all things, ‘evil’ for even trying to do so. And yet, on the other hand, these same atheistic secularists claim that gender identity is fluid and is merely a matter of a person’s choice and that society should therefore respect their ‘choice’ to be a different gender. Unquestionably accept that ‘choice’ to the point of insanely allowing high school boys to shower in girls locker rooms and even allowing grown men to compete in women’s sports..
To put it mildly, and as Dr. Jordan Peterson pointed out, this position is completely insane
Moreover, the denial of biological reality is also destructive to the transgender individuals as well
Moreover, completely contrary to atheistic secularists’ claim that gay or transgender persons are ‘born that way’, and that they therefore are ‘slaves’ to their sexual desires, the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that people are ‘born that way’:
Thus, it is simply another lie from atheistic secularists that gay people are forever slaves to their sexual desires, i.e. that they are ‘born that way’
For proof I offer the following testimonies of gay people who were supposedly irredeemably ‘born that way’ but somehow managed to find freedom through Christ,
Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians
Further note, there is a fairly profound confusion in the gay community between personal identity and a person’s sexual desire.
Verse:
Merry Christmas, a King is born!
BobR
I had never heard that before.
I’ve always seen it as America was an Anglo-Protestant nation.
Judiasm played a role in the ethos and roots of the American Revolution, as did Masonry.
The American founders were anti-Catholic, generally, although they were more tolerant since they had shared being persecuted by the Anglicans when they left England. There was never any love for the Spanish Catholics who first explored America. English military power won the day.
There is one common view that I am respectful of:
1. America. Protestant-Christian. Conservative. Prosperous, Anti-Progressive Moral. Beneficent.
versus
2. Progressivism, Secularism, Globalism, Atheism.
I can’t quite totally line up with view #1 there.
At the very least, the Revolution was a progressive movement itself, fighting for individual liberty against the conservatism of the Crown. We contributed to the French Revolution also which was a strong progressive movement.
As for modern-America being a bastion of goodness and beneficence – I think that was true for a certain period of history.
Today: America is the biggest promoter of Abortion, gay marriage, pornography, usury, birth control, and monopolistic-capitalism, and consumerism in the world.
I’d consider it more of an evil empire than anything. And it’s mostly a progressive, secularist nation.
We could look at the support that America gives to repressive governments like China as an example, also.
We might say “ok, but it’s still better than the rest”. I don’t agree with that. I think Eastern European countries are turning against the American hegemony and are trying to build Christian-based civilizations.
Vivid
It does seem that way. Although the term “white” itself is polarizing. With more and more intermarriage of races that term should be less descriptive, I’d hope.
@BA77
‘Yet without free will, how is Seversky anything more than a slave himself? Without personhood, how is Seversky anything more than a meat robot?’
Ah, that kind of conceptual thinking is far too abstruse for atheists to take on board. It’s never happened has it ? Not on here.
VB
Non-progressive does not mean racist. You can believe that welfare is bad, that universal health care is bad, that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry or serve in the military, that abortion should be banned, and oppose affirmative action without being a racist. However, if you believe that inter-racial marriages shouldn’t be allowed, that immigration should be dominated by white Christians, then you are a racist. It’s really quite simple.
Getting back to the founding fathers and the constitution, anyone who believes that they intended for all humans, regardless of sex and race, haven’t read the constitution or a history book. KF’s “under false colour of law” is the same argument that was used against granting blacks, Chinese and women the vote, on legalizing inter-racial marriage, etc. The big question is, who decides what is constitutionally protected and what is “under false colour of law”?
“Non-progressive does not mean racist. You can believe that welfare is bad, that universal health care is bad, that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry or serve in the military, that abortion should be banned, and oppose affirmative action without being a racist.”
Are you serious? Everyone of these positions are vilified by the progressive left and anyone who holds them are labeled racists.
Merry Christmas
Vivid
Ed George
Judaism is racist?
You’re really stretching it here. Same with opposition to welfare.
It was very different from colony to colony and the Church of England was well established in some colonies. . Pennsylvania was the most tolerant of all as all religions were accepted. Catholic Mass was openly celebrated in Philadelphia during the 1750’s though the community was small. This acceptance of diverse viewpoints led Philadelphia to be the most vibrant city in the Western Hemisphere. In the 18th century.
While the constitution did not allow the establishment of a religion, it did not prevent the new states from doing so and some did.
Ed George
I suggest you read Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech for a history of slavery in the US.
Many of the states outlawed slavery in a very short time after the war.
SA, it is probably more accurate to point to the hebraic roots of the Christian tradition. Don’t forget that Alfred’s Book of Dooms, a root of Common Law, literally starts with the Decalogue and civil law from the Pentateuch. Paul of Tarsus, of course literally embodied the Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, athens and Rome, and it is not insignificant that the superscription over Jesus’ head on the cross was written in three languages. KF
PS: The late C18 Crown and Parliament were Enlightenment influenced. The US DoI harks back to the Reformation era, double covenant vision of nationhood and Government with the people’s consent, under God, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Locke had significant influence too, thus roots to Duplessis-Mornay’s Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. There is also a direct line to the Dutch DoI, 1581 which has some surprising parallels. That points to Calvinism.
KF
Yes, but I think we normally say that Christianity is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is the king and Messiah of the Jews. Therefore His Kingdom (the Church) is the new Jerusalem.
Whatever we call “Judiasm” following that is not a root of Christianity but rather a new religion opposed to the Christian faith.
Yes. I’d consider that revolutionary movement as progressive – contra traditionalism. It actually gave the roots to secularism which is the current American ethos.
Yes. The Puritans were English Calvinists, and the Huguenots were French Calvinists. The French eventually lost but they contributed to the intellectual foundation.
F/N: Cooper Union Speech: http://www.abrahamlincolnonlin.....cooper.htm (too long to clip in toto) — it is indeed historically pivotal and corrective. KF
PS: By 1784 – 7, accor to the speech, slavery was being banned in Territories of the US (and was retained in territories hived off from Southern States in which it was already present). The foreshadowings of the Civil War were there already.
SA, I am not so sure that post 70 – 135 AD, Rabbinic Judaism is a novel religion, though it clearly reflects certain sects and not others. Clearly, that includes that Messianic Judaism which included Jews convinced that Jesus was Messiah (such as James the Just) was in abeyance more or less until our time, where it has clearly re-emerged. However, my main point is that Western Civilisation as we know it reflects a synthesis of the heritage of the three cities and so also the river valley civilisations of the Fertile Crescent though of course we are in an apostate and in some cases militantly anti-Christian phase in much of North America and Western Europe. Indeed, that cultural divide is a key part of the current toxic polarisation in the USA; now at bleeding Kansas lite civil war and spinning out of control through agit prop, media amplified street theatre, social and mass media lynch mobs and ruthlessly nihilistic lawfare. Where, we must not overlook the corrupting influence of the blood guilt of 63 million of our living posterity. Our civilisation is in grave danger, and needs to go back to its roots to seek reformation. Paul at Mars Hill c 50 AD and things onward from that would be an excellent place to begin. KF
Jerry
True. It remained that way for 100 years or so into the mid 19th century. It was a place of intellectual leadership and innovation.
Unfortunately, around the mid 1800s the Catholic population started growing too large for the comfort of some, and there were violent attacks against Catholics for a while. The Know Nothing party started (in part) in Philadelphia around that time, and tried to formalize anti-Catholic sentiment in the American political landscape.
Things settled down through the mid 1900s, although the Catholic population grew and was divided into ethnic neighborhoods.
One theorist claims that integration of southern blacks who migrated to Philadelphia into the middle of Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the mid-1960s was a deliberate scheme (by the city fathers) to break up the Catholic neighborhoods. Whether that was deliberate or not, Catholic neighborhoods in Philadelphia were largely destroyed as people left for the suburbs.
The traditional Catholic high-birthrates all dropped off at that time so it didn’t make that much difference anyway.
KF
Yes, it was a group of various sects with little agreement on leadership or direction. It remains as such today. The Talmud, for example, is entirely novel and post-Christian era. In all cases, there is no Temple, no Sacrifice, and therefore no Priesthood. It became a religion of the synagogue. Judiasm is newer than Christianity. There is virtually nothing in common between Hasidic, Conservative and Liberal. The one common element is that they are all opposed to and reject Jesus Christ, Son of God – the divine Logos. As I see it, Judiasm is not that much different from Islam.
Yes, agreed. But I think this moral decay and cultural divide is part of the American Empire, at least as it stands today. The civil war resolved this division and there was a great benefit, however high the cost. Today, it looks to me like there’s a quiet revolution away from Christian standards.
True. At Mars Hill, St. Paul appealed to the common intellectual heritage- natural theology. He was able to build a foundation.
SA, I note, during the Exile and for many years thereafter, the Temple did not exist, nor was there a Tabernacle. Likely, the Synagogue movement came from that time and was clearly present alongside the Temple in Jesus’ day. While there likely was no major written record of traditions [I do not consider the Dead Sea Scrolls to mark a mainstream tradition in the sectarian documents], even the debates and parties present in the Gospels clearly document a strong oral tradition passed down in acknowledged chains to and through men like Gamaliel. So, reduction to writing and additional writings would not be external and so divergent that we see a new religion. What we see is yes, a hardening against Jesus and his Apostles. Something Paul notes and deeply regrets in unmistakable terms. So, it is reasonable to see a Judaeo-Christian worldview with strong common elements and points of significant division that has too often ended in polarisation; sometimes in violence and oppression. Such, we must turn from, all the while standing by convictions of truth. In the same regard, at Mars Hill and in Ep Romans, Paul laid out lines of synthesis, pointing to the implanted evidence of God, who is there and is not silent. Given the chaos and nihilism on the march, we need to re-think and turn back from apostasy. KF
If
If these writings were directed by God, yes. But the Talmud is not divine revelation. It’s human text. They haven’t had a prophet from God or a temple in 2000 years. During the Exile they waited for God to direct them. Clearly there are contradictory Jewish sects now. These did not exist previously. It’s a new religion in the sense that there are conflicting ideas. Some jewish theologians teach that belief in God is not necessary to practice Judiasm. It is enough to adhere to tradition. This is a post Christian religion.
SA, it is clear from Jesus’ interactions that there were significant problems with the oral tradition and some of its proponents. He still spoke of the leadership as sitting in Moses’ seat even though he was forced to speak woes upon them; similar to the attitudes of the prophets. Likewise, within the Christian tradition, much has gone wrong across 2,000 years — some of it utterly awful and sometimes apostate. Yes, doubtless some Jewish leaders have gone into atheism or agnosticism . . . the same can be said for some theologians and pastors and more. The basic legitimacy of the root in Abraham and in Moses and the prophets has not changed. I suggest, we must critique or correct as needed (just as I would say with the Orthodox/ Catholic/ Protestant and onward divides), and yes I have seen some things that need such; but that does not imply that we can write off, root and branch. KF
During the time of Jesus, Rabbi Yeshua, there were numerous movements (sects could also be used here). The Essenes were very strict in following Torah and spent much of their time studying. They chose to live in poverty and performing water purification rituals. It is believed that John the Baptist was one of them.
The Pharisees were the keepers of the law and can be considered the Rabbis of their day. They were the only major movement to survive the destruction of the 2nd temple and developed the rabbinic movement. Jesus was a keeper of the law and would have been part of this movement early on, which is why they tested him on matters of the law.
The Sadducees were drawn from important families, such as high ranking military officials. They pursued wealth and higher social standing. Not all believed in God, but those who did took on the view that God was far removed from man and the soul did not live on after death. Their focus was on temple worship alone and took the financial offerings for various Roman projects.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two largest movement at the time of Jesus. They greatly disliked each other, in much the same way the Reform and Orthodox dislike each other today for much the same reasons. The Pharisees and Essenes believed in Oral Torah, but the Sadducees had long turned their backs on the tradition.
The Sanhedrin was comprised of 80 elders and had been intended to represent the 12 tribes in government. By the time Jesus comes around, the Sadducees had taken control of the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees held very few seats and unable to govern anything. Any ruling given, such as sending a Rabbi to the Roman governor, would have come from the Sadducees.
There was no unified voice in Israel at the time and all the people could not be spoken for by any one movement. The Sadducees did not have a problem with crucifixion, but the Pharisees had the opposite view. The law is clear and the only death penalty allowed is stoning, which required all involved to be certain of guilt. It was not an act taken lightly and rarely carried out.
The Orthodox are directly descended from the Pharisees and follow both written and oral Torah. The Jewish people today do not speak in one voice any more than they spoke with one voice over 2000 years ago. There are vast differences between the movements today, just as there was at the time of Jesus. Not one movement under orthodox believes God is not necessary, since the laws come from God.
Genesis 17:7
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
When God made his covenant with the Abraham, there was no end date given. It was always and forever. Not once was there any provision given. There are several times throughout the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) that refers to an everlasting covenant. Judges 2:1 is one of those passages, which states in part, “I will never break My covenant with you.”
Bob R
Yes, the covenant fulfilled in the Messiah, the King of the Jews. The covenant is for those faithful to God – to those who follow the true Messiah. Those who reject the Son of God are not inheritors. They are with the pagans and deists.
As above, the children of Abraham are those in the Church of Jesus Christ. The followers of Jesus are the chosen people. The people who call themselves “Jews” today are not a part of the covenant.
God is not interested in what DNA you have, or what country you live in.
Jesus said nothing about the geographic territory of Israel. It means nothing. In God there is no Jew or Greek.
Jesus rejected the idea that you become a child of Abraham by virtue of your genetic birth right.
Many Christians think that modern Israel and the modern day Jewish religion (whatever it may be) is somehow a necessary part of Christian belief.
Many actually think that the people who rejected Christ are the chosen people and are the possessors of a promise.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise. He is the Messiah. The Jewish religion is that which rejected Jesus. They are waiting for some other Messiah – not the one that God sent. They inherit the sorrows and pains that come from a mistaken belief. They’re not the chosen people. Those who follow Jesus, and enter into His Church, the sheepfold, are the inheritors of the promise. They are the Chosen People. They are the new Jerusalem. It is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It does not depend on genetics, DNA or a patch of land in the middle East.
Bob R
It’s not direct descendants from the pre-Christian Jews. Orthodox Judaism is scattered among conflicting sects. It’s a modern religion. It’s a man-made construct.
Silver Asiatic @ 56
Which verse(s) gives an end date for God’s covenant with the Israelites, which includes the tribe of Judah? Not once does God tell them his covenant ends with the coming of Messiah. God tells them several times over that it is an everlasting covenant.
A gentile man asked Jesus about circumcision. We know he was a gentile, since no Jewish man would ever ask about something that has already happened. Jesus did not say it was no longer needed, but instead told him if he followed one law, then he must follow all of the laws. The man was asking more about if there was a need to convert, but Judaism has never required anyone to convert to live as a righteous gentile.
The laws apply to the Jews, not the gentiles. It is the laws of Noah that apply to gentiles. Jesus himself said he did not come to end the laws. Where are the passages stating the laws come to an end for the Jewish people? Where are the passages that says God’s covenant with the Israelites has an expiration date? It was God that promised a rebirth of Israel as a nation and it is only through miraculous means that the country has survived.
Silver Asiatic
Below are just a few examples of God’s covenant with Israel. Not once does it say until the Messiah comes and then the covenant ends for Israel. Not once does it say gentiles will replace the chosen.
Jeremiah 32:40
“I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.
Numbers 18:19
“All the offerings of the holy gifts, which the sons of Israel offer to the LORD, I have given to you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a perpetual allotment It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD to you and your descendants with you.”
2 Samuel 23:5
“Truly is not my house so with God? For He has made an everlasting covenant with me, Ordered in all things, and secured; For all my salvation and all my desire, Will He not indeed make it grow?
1 Chronicles 16:17
He also confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Psalms 105:10
Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Ezekiel 16:60
“Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.
Silver Asiatic
If the Tanakh stating several times over an everlasting covenant with Israel isn’t good enough for you, then how about Matthew from what Christians refer to as the New Testament? Last time I checked, heaven and earth are still around and have not disappeared.
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
BobRyan
The covenant is fulfilled in the Messiah, the King of the Jews. There is no end date – it is an eternal covenant. People who rejected Jesus have nothing to do with it.
Bob
He did not say laws, but Law. The Law (love of God and love of neighbor) does not pass away. But God abolished the ritual laws. St. Paul teaches it. God no longer desires sacrifices of bulls and calves. Jesus is the true sacrifice. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the new. There is no longer Jew or Greek. All are one in Christ (for those who believe). Those who reject Christ (modern day Jews) are in darkness.
SA
My daughter converted to Judaism early this year. I haven’t lost a second’s sleep over it.
Silver Asiatic@ 62
Did God specifically abolish the requirement to stone to death disrespectful children or adulterers? If He did, then did he also cancel his injunction against homosexual relationships or women speaking in church?
Why should there ever have been a need for a New Covenant in the first place? The God of Christianity should not have made any mistakes that needed rectifying.
Given the need for a New Covenant, why did this ultimate Lawgiver not rescind the outrageously unjust policy of punishing the descendants of the original offenders in perpetuity?
Ed George @ 63
Congratulations. It’s a fascinating religion that has survived despite everything man has thrown at them.
Silver Asiatic @ 62
I suggest you brush up on a little bit of Judaism. The Torah is the law. No one with any understanding of Judaism, today or 2000 years ago, would ever call the Torah the laws. When the passage refers to not abolishing them, it is in direct reference to both Torah and everything the prophets wrote.
Silver Asiatic
Ezekiel 37
11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
This is a direct reference to the rebirth of Israel, which did occur in 1947. There has been no rebirth of any other nation in all of recorded history.
Isaiah 66
8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Sev,
an excellent place to begin re-thinking is here:
Now, apply judicious a fortiori logic.
DV, more later.
KF
PS: When a drunk gets in a car and mows down a mom and dad, crippling children, that is going to have long term consequences on the innocent. Responsibility carries sobering weight. More can be said, but that’s a beginning to think about freedom and also about how we all ratify abuse of freedom by our own abuse.
Ed George
Ok, but I will hope that she will gain understanding of Jesus, the Messiah and someday enter the true Church.
Has she told you why she turned away from your atheism to belief that there is a God?
SA
Firstly, I am not an atheist. Agnostic would be the best description. Secondly, she was Christian before converting, as are my wife and two other children.
Bob
Thanks Bob. What I respect most about it is that it is not a proselytizing religion. I attended a service with my daughter earlier in the fall and I was surprised to see the rabbi announce the events they had planned for Pride week.
Ed G
Just wondering – at one time in her life she believed that Jesus is the Son of God, Savior – resurrected from the dead, second person of the Trinity. Did she say why she no longer believes that, and what role (if any) she gives to Jesus and His Gospel?
Often, Jews dismiss the teaching and life of Jesus as almost entirely false – or at least they have strong opposition to it. From the time of Jesus’ life itself, Jews rejected Him. At the time of Jesus’ resurrection, rabbis paid the Roman guards to lie and say that disciples came during the night and stole the body of Jesus.
BebR
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll brush up on that.
I’ll suggest to you, in turn, that you look into the Judaizers – or the heresy of Judaizing, which was condemned from the earliest Christian centuries (as the Ebionites).
Judaizing Christians today believe that the ritual, Sabbath and dietary (Kosher) laws are binding.
This makes perfect sense because they suffer from the sola scriptura heresy itself, and if you’re going to use a private interpretation of the Bible-alone, and reject the teaching of the Church founded by Christ, then why not keep all the Kosher Laws, like the Jews supposedly do?
As above, sola scriptura teaches you that if you read something in the Bible, then you have the infallible power to interpret it correctly. This is easily falsified by the number of sola-scriptura Christians who disagree on all matters of doctrine.
Quoting snippets of Scripture, outside of the authority of the Church established by Christ (that Church which gave us the Bible in the first place) is an exercise that leads to error and confusion.
Thus we have Christians today who think that Jesus did not abolish the Kosher rituals and practices. They are in as much error and falsehood as the Jews and Muslims (other Judaizers) are.
Seversky
Jesus taught the disciples what the disciplinary norms would be for the new covenant that God gave through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The stoning of adulterers and homosexuals was abolished when Jesus was called to judge the woman caught in adultery. So, the Early Church did not stone adulterers or homosexuals. Adultery and homosexual activity (fornication) however remain condemned as serious sins that end in eternal damnation for those who do not repent and atone for them.
Women speaking in Church is a disciplinary norm, still forbidden in many ways (women cannot be ordained as priests or deacons). But Church liturgical disciplines were permitted some variation – and Jesus taught the apostles this. So, the apostles established local churches with different norms. St. Paul’s injunction against women preaching is retained today.
The old covenant was a preparation. Humanity goes through a process of growth – personal development in knowledge and social development, as one generation hands down wisdom to the next. The people of the old covenant lived in preparation for the Kingdom of the Messiah. Now, we have 2000 more years of wisdom so we continue to develop our moral and spiritual awareness. As we mature, God grants us different regulations.
An example of how the Old Covenant was preparation for the new is when the Israelites had to stay in the desert for 40 years before entering the promised land. This was a time of purification and preparation. They were still corrupted by paganism, and the desert purified their souls through repentance and struggle.
The time of the Jews to Christ is the same. Purification and struggle. Then the New Covenant.
However, we still have purification and struggle as we prepare for Jesus’ Second Coming, and for our own Judgement when our short life on earth is over.
So, God created human life as an adventure that progresses and develops.
God loves his people – every one of us. So, He makes mistakes by trusting and caring about us, even when we don’t care about Him. That’s what love is all about. We trust the person – even when it hurts.
Well, He did rescind it through Baptism, which removes Original Sin.
We inherit the effects of evil that our parents did.
We also inherit the effects of the good they did.
Adam and Eve gave us a condition of sinfulness in the world.
They also gave us life, and they are the parents of Mary and Joseph also – and thus made the Savior’s life possible.
So, we received good from our first parents, along with the suffering from the evil they did.
With Redemption, the sacrament of Baptism removes the effects of Original Sin.
EG
It’s interesting and we might be surprised, thinking that Judaism would be opposed to gay marriage. However, on the contrary, it was Jews who really supported and promoted (some argue they were the primary cause of) the legalization of gay marriage.
The United States is the most significant promoter of gay marriage worldwide, and this all originates from Jewish influence in American government, media and academics.
As stated by Jewish leaders themselves, Jews gave us gay marriage.
How Jews Brought America to the Tipping Point on Marriage Equality: Lessons for the Next Social Justice Issues
SA
Didn’t ask. Don’t really care.
But, if I had to guess, I think it had something to do with her previous religion constantly saying that the person she fell in love with not being allowed into heaven.
EG
It’s an interesting way to present it.
“Falling in love with someone” is one of those things that is sacred in our culture, the truth of which cannot be questioned – sort of the way romance novels teach us.
SA
I am interested how you come to this conclusion (in bold above). 21 o the 30 countries that have legalized SSM did so before the US. The first in 2000 and the US didn’t do it until 2015.
Perverts “fall in love” with children too. Since when is “being in love” a license to do whatever the hell you want?
#DontBeStupid
EG
I was speaking in present tense. Past legislation is irrelevant.
The UN is a global promoter. USA has biggest influence there.
More importantly, 85% of the U.S. fortune 500 promotes gay marriage worldwide and usually makes denmands for compliance on lbgt rights.
The USA is by far the most influential country for this.
Thanks SA. I just wasn’t sure of the context you were basing your conclusion on. Yes, the US is influential, but so are the combined influence of the countries that legalized SSM before the US did. I would argue that the biggest argument for the legalization of SSM in most countries has been the insupportable arguments used against it.
As homosexuals are only a small fraction of the population, support for SSM had to be obtained by a very large number of heterosexuals, people who only a decade earlier would have opposed it. In my mind this has been one of the best recent examples of the old adage that the measure of a society is based on how it treats its weakest members.
Silver Asiatic @ 73
The Tanach can be spelled another way and still be correct, which is TaNaKh. It stands for Torah, which is the Law and contains the laws. Nevi’im, which is the Prophets. Ketuvim, which is the writings. Matthew is quite clear in the reference to the Torah, which is the Law, and Nevi’im, which is the Prophets. At the time, the Ketuvim was not included in most synagogues. Had the Ketuvim been included, Jesus would have also mentioned the writings.
The rules for adding any book to the Tanakh is twofold. One is it must be believed to have been divinely inspired. Two is the original must have been written in Hebrew, which is why the Maccabees is not included. It was not written in Hebrew first. There has been argument regarding being divinely inspired, but it does not matter.
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Ed George @ 71
You’re welcome and there’s a reason Judaism does not have a history of proselytizing and forced conversions. Before the laws were given to Moses, 7 laws had been given to Noah. To be a righteous gentile, from a Jewish perspective, one must live by the Noahide laws. They are chosen to be a light unto all nations by teaching the 7 laws to gentiles.
The condemnation of homosexuality is not against homosexuals directly, but that actions of homosexuals. All sin comes from acting out in a way not in accordance with God and God sees all sin as the same. There is no greater or lesser sin. Judaism has a forgiving God, which is also seen in Christianity.
The death penalty was rarely used and the act of stoning was not taken lightly. It was not left to any one person, but all people and all must agree death is warranted. If even a single person doubted the penalty, it could not be carried out. It was the original jurors. It should shed some light on the verse of letting him without sin cast the first stone.
Bob R
Yes, but you’re talking about the rules made by a people who could not recognize the divinity of Christ. They do not know what a divinely inspired text is. They have no authority in these matters. There is no reason for Christians to follow the teachings of the rabbis who rejected Christ. They have not been listening to the voice of God and He ceased giving them divine revelation.
SA:
Strawman.
KF
PS: I have a moment, so I clip Westminster Confession:
Where, we may read:
You will see through this that the key points in the Westminster summary are aptly confirmed, much as I have been able to confirm the clauses of the Nicene Creed.
This does not mean that teachers, analyses, books and disciplines of study etc are not useful, but it does mean that they are in the end under requirement to line up with the plumbline of scripture. As Isa 8:20 sums up, “To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
PPS: I further note, from the closing words of Peter’s theological will:
Where, from Ac 20, we see:
Also in 2 Cor 4, we read:
These are the very opposite of a free for all idiosyncratic infer what you will, as you will approach. There is a clear and simple core that — as it cuts across pre-existing worldviews and cultural agendas — men are often demonically blind and hostile to. Not, that it is unclear but that it requires repentance and gradual renewal to access.
On the other hand, some things are hard to understand and the unstable and unlearned wrench. Where, even from church leadership some pervert and lead astray.
So, we see a need for sound interpretation, study and developing knowledge. (And as for, oh you have been taught enough, that is almost not worth mentioning, save to dismiss.)
At Bible study and lay sermon level, I laid out approaches here some years ago, as a Christian student leader.
KF @ 85
Ok, agreed. I was not correct with that.
Where we disagree is that a subjectivist, individualist view of the scripture can yield authoritative teachings.
SA, again, your perception of my view or that of responsible exegetes, is mistaken. That starts with the text. In Isa 8:20, the scripture is seen as having its own discernible voice so that one may speak/fail to speak according to it. In Jn 8 & 10, the oral teaching that would be recorded as scripture is a speaking of truth [= that which accurately describes reality] which we may or may not accurately understand, and scripture cannot be broken. The failure in “because I speak the truth, you do not understand” is stark and reflects a commitment to a crooked yardstick which makes one artificially blind to and polarised against truth. If one may wrench scripture, one may also cut a straight furrow with it. Where, the text itself is objective, language is objective, logic is objective, there is sound history that gives reliable circumstantial context and background, the text set in context of the wider book and corpus is there [as opposed to prooftext out of context misreading] and more. This leads to historico-grammatico-contextual interpretation that reckons with genre etc. These, are objective and reckon appropriately with the history of the text from Moses to John and how it has been carried forward in a chain of custody and exegesis since then. These are responsible and significantly objective, not an idiosyncratic process of eisegesis and arbitrariness or whimsy. In that context, much of the work of the Spirit is to lead us to deal with our warping sins, assumptions, attitudes and more. Part of that is indeed the democracy of the dead, in the texts they have left as legacy — cf. C S Lewis on reading old books. Part is the practice of living community informed by historic community, e.g. the Westminster Confession as referenced, coming from men dead 300 years or so now. None of this (and much more) in the remotest degree could fairly be said to be the opinion that “a subjectivist, individualist view of the scripture can yield authoritative teachings.” What is well warranted is what is authoritative, which brings up the challenge of first duties and principles of reason in general, then of handling the scriptures in particular. KF