Test: If naturalists are right, totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 22, 2019

Academic Freedom, Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019-07-21-8-18-sign-on-Ipad-1597x1198.jpg — *In a photo taken last August, a masked Hongkonger uses a tablet to quietly broadcast a message for freedom while standing outside Tai Po train station* *The message reads “How can you be silent in front such absurd government?”*

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!

Comments

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.BobRyan_{December 27, 2019
December
12
Dec
27
27
2019
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

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.BobRyan_{December 27, 2019
December
12
Dec
27
27
2019
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Bob R
The Orthodox are directly descended from the Pharisees and follow both written and oral Torah.
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.
While adhering to traditional beliefs, the movement is a modern phenomenon. It arose as a result of the breakdown of the autonomous Jewish community since the 18th century, and was much shaped by a conscious struggle against the pressures of secularization and rival alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism
Silver Asiatic_{December 27, 2019
December
12
Dec
27
27
2019
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Bob R
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.
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.
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.”
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.Silver Asiatic_{December 27, 2019
December
12
Dec
27
27
2019
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

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."BobRyan_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

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.BobRyan_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

If
So, reduction to writing and additional writings would not be external and so divergent that we see a new religion.
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.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

KF
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True. At Mars Hill, St. Paul appealed to the common intellectual heritage- natural theology. He was able to build a foundation.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Jerry
This acceptance of diverse viewpoints led Philadelphia to be the most vibrant city in the Western Hemisphere. In the 18th century.
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.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

F/N: Cooper Union Speech: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/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.kairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

KF
it is probably more accurate to point to the hebraic roots of the Christian tradition
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.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Locke had significant influence too, thus roots to Duplessis-Mornay’s Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.
Yes. I'd consider that revolutionary movement as progressive - contra traditionalism. It actually gave the roots to secularism which is the current American ethos.
There is also a direct line to the Dutch DoI, 1581 which has some surprising parallels. That points to Calvinism.
Yes. The Puritans were English Calvinists, and the Huguenots were French Calvinists. The French eventually lost but they contributed to the intellectual foundation.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

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.kairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

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.jerry_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

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
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.jerry_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Ed George
However, if you believe that inter-racial marriages shouldn’t be allowed … then you are a racist.
Judaism is racist?
You can ... oppose affirmative action without being a racist.
You're really stretching it here. Same with opposition to welfare.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

“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 Vividvividbleau_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

VB
That’s not saying much since by modern progressive standards anyone who is a religious white male non progressive is a racist.
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”?Ed George_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

@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.Axel_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Vivid
That’s not saying much since by modern progressive standards anyone who is a religious white male non progressive is a racist.
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.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

BobR
It was not formed as Christian, but Judaeo-Christian …
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.Silver Asiatic_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Further note, there is a fairly profound confusion in the gay community between personal identity and a person's sexual desire.
Caitlyn Jenner and the Ironic Flaw of the Gay Agenda Excerpt: The great irony of the "gay agenda"—if that's what you want to call it—is that it actually cheapens the very people it is proposing to protect. When people obnoxiously promote their sexuality, exalt their sexuality and wholly focus on their sexuality, then what they are saying is that they are first and foremost a sexual being. But the truth is they are so much more than that. As any married couple will tell you, while sex is indeed an important part of a healthy marriage, it is a relatively small part of a much greater, beautiful whole. The fact that so much of the gay debate devolves into applauding someone's sexual bent as the most important part of themselves—is in fact WHO THEY ARE—does an immense disservice to the truth. You are not a sexual being. You are a human being. You are a spiritual being. You are an emotional being. You are a relational being. A creative being. Sex is a small part of who we all are, not the biggest part. http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/behind-the-lens/50053-caitlyn-jenner-and-the-ironic-flaw-of-the-gay-agenda Vacating Freud: Recovering Soul Identity in Light of the Gospel by Terrell Clemmons - 2017 Excerpt: According to Dr. Rosaria Butterfield, who specialized in Queer Theory as a lesbian English professor at Syracuse University, the idea that one's identity is tied to sexual desires is a product of the Freudian paradigm, which has thoroughly permeated our culture. In her first book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith, she detailed the inner landscape of her conversion to Christianity in her thirties, an experience she described as a mix of an alien abduction and a train wreck. In her second book, Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ, she proposes a more biblically faithful concept of identity as it relates to the Christian and sexuality.,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo36/vacating-freud.php Pete Buttigieg doesn't get to make up his own Christianity - April 2019 Except: Mr. Buttigieg, has it ever occurred to you, that the “Mike Pences of the world” don’t have a problem with “who you are,” but rather we just disagree with what you do? We believe human identity is much more than the sum total of someone’s sexual inclinations. In fact, the “creator” whom you so boldly reference makes this pretty clear. There is no place in His entire biblical narrative where He defines us by our desires. All of us, however, are known by our choices. We are made in His image, we have moral awareness and moral culpability. We can and should choose to not do some things we may be inclined to do. God help us if we don’t. One’s appetite for porn, polyamory, and any other heterosexual or homosexual act does not define you. Your decision as to whether or not you satiate such an appetite does. You see, Mr. Mayor, this is a matter of your proclivities, not your personhood. What you don’t seem to understand is that when it comes to your personal peccadillos, most all of the “Mike Pences of the world” really don’t want to know. Your sexual appetites are your business. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/14/pete-buttigieg-doesnt-get-to-make-up-his-own-chris/
Verse:
John 8 34 Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Merry Christmas, a King is born!
for KING & COUNTRY - "Little Drummer Boy" | Live from CMA Country Christmas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPcA4bQjWFw
bornagain77_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

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
Jordan Peterson: Gender ideology is ‘completely insane’ - March 23, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “The LGBT lobby is dead set against anything that smacks of conversion therapy, the idea that you could convert someone who has a primarily homosexual identity to someone who has a primarily heterosexual [identity],” he told Trussell. “It’s illegal in Ontario and in many [American] states now to even attempt that. But if there’s complete independence between the biology, the identity, the expression and the sexual preference, then there’s no reason to assume that it can’t be changed.” Bolstering his argument, Peterson mentioned the ultimate conclusion of gender ideology, namely that gender is totally fluid. Some activists teach that a person can be a man one day and a woman the next, or even change sexual identity from minute to minute. “If it’s that fluid, and it’s only dependent on subjective choice, which is what the legislation now insists, then why can’t that argument be used by conservatives to say exactly the same thing about sexual preference?” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jordan-peterson-gender-theory-has-become-unquestionable-doctrine-thats-comp
Moreover, the denial of biological reality is also destructive to the transgender individuals as well
The Transgender Movement and 'Gender Identity' in the Law By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Virtually all people have a biological sex, identifiable at birth and immutable through life, which makes them either male or female. The transgender movement represents a denial of this physical reality. A Mental Disorder The belief that one is, or the desire to be, of a different “gender identity” from one’s biological sex has long been recognized as a mental disorder.[i] Psychiatrist Sander Breiner declares, “[W]hen an adult who is normal in appearance and functioning believes there is something ugly or defective in their appearance . . . there is a psychological problem.”[ii] Another psychiatrist, Rick Fitzgibbons, calls it “a fixed false belief . . . specifically a delusion.”[iii] Psychiatrist Paul McHugh declares, “It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body.”[iv] Those who choose not to live with the “gender identity” that corresponds to their biological sex are known as “transgender” persons. (Note: The tiny number of persons who are “intersexed”—born with a mix of male and female genetic or biological characteristics—are in a separate category and are not considered “transgender.”[v]) After extensive lobbying by transgender activists, the American Psychiatric Association changed the diagnosis of “Gender Identity Disorder” to “Gender Dysphoria” in 2013. It remains on the list of disorders, though, because, “To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis.”[vi] Causes and Treatment of “Gender Dysphoria” While causality is difficult to determine, those who identify as transgender are more likely to have been victims of child sexual abuse or to have a history of trauma, loss, and family disruption.[vii] Susan Bradley, M.D. and Kenneth J. Zucker of the University of Toronto, leading experts in gender dysphoria in children, have declared that “clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.”[viii] Psychiatrists have reported that gender dysphoria often occurs with other mental health problems in adults, and that it “improved in parallel during treatment” for those conditions.[ix] “Gender Reassignment” Surgery Full transition involves hormone treatments, breast surgery (removal or implants), other cosmetic surgery, genital reconstruction, and a change of personal identification. However, not every person seeking to live as the other sex will undergo surgery.[x] These surgical procedures are not always successful and can be extremely painful.[xi] A lifetime of hormone treatments can also have profound physical and psychological consequences.[xii] Psychiatrist Jon Meyer concluded that “surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder and it is clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that do not go away following surgery.”[xiii] High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology.[xiv] https://www.frc.org/transgenderidentity
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':
Born gay or transgender: Little evidence to support innate trait, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 Excerpt: "a report finds scarce scientific evidence to conclude that gay and transgender people are “born that way. The 143-page paper, published this week in The New Atlantis journal, combs through hundreds of studies in search of a causal, biological explanation for sexual orientation and gender identity, but comes up empty. “The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property — that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” says the report, written by a psychiatrist and a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University. “Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex — so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or a ‘woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,”" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/24/born-gay-transgender-lacks-science-evidence/ There’s no evidence that a single ‘gay gene’ exists - Aug. 2019 Excerpt: First reported at a genetics conference in 2018, the study found five genetic variants associated with having a same-sex sexual partner (SN: 10/20/18). But those variants, called SNPs, don’t predict people’s sexual behavior, researchers report in the Aug. 30 Science. “There is no ‘gay gene’ that determines whether someone has same-sex partners,” says Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the University of Helsinki. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists
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,
Such Were Some Of You - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKSFPdyH8x4 “Such Were Some of You” (A Documentary) was inspired by the passage in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that declares that in Jesus’ day there was a population who had been so transformed by their relationship with Him that they were no longer “same-sex attracted” or at the very least, actively homosexual. They had found such a measure of healing from the brokenness and strongholds associated with what we now call homosexuality that they no longer considered themselves homosexual, nor did they act in that way. “Such Were Some of You” features interviews with a “cloud of present-day witnesses” who testify to the same life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. They describe the development of their same-sex attractions, what the gay lifestyle was like, what their conversion process was like, and the various ways that Jesus has brought healing to their broken places. “Such Were Some of You” lays out the facts about healing homosexual confusion and rejoices in the reality that Jesus Christ can heal anyone from anything while providing grace for the journey.
Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians
GUESTS – THE EXTENDED INTERVIEWS - videos - Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who are now Christians http://suchweresomeofyou.org/ David Bennett a gay rights activist has an experience with God - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yehENU4s_Y Former Homosexual Reveals 'Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage' http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/44691-former-homosexual-reveals-unmitigated-disaster-of-gay-marriage?utm_medium=MostPopularArticles_RightColBottom
bornagain77_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

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:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, [--> i.e. population. Of what, people, humans created in God's image thus possessing inherent ontological equality of person] which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
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:
Philemon English Standard Version (ESV) Greeting 1 Paul [--> a Jew], a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy [--> a half-Gentile] our brother [--> a key, creation-anchored view, we are all united in common human descent from the founding human family], To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 2 and Apphia our sister [--> Philemon's wife] and Archippus our fellow soldier [--> likely, son, who was a minister], and the church in your house: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon's Love and Faith 4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.[a] [--> implication, growth in knowledge required, note the implicit compromise struck given a higher issue, here, salvation of humanity in the midst of a world of many wrongs tracing to sinful rebellion . . . go for the root of the weeds first] 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you. Paul's Plea for Onesimus 8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus,[b] whose father I became in my imprisonment. 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me. [--> Onesimus means, useful]) 12 I am sending him back to you [--> runaway and thief returned, under new circumstances], sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent [--> seeks moral growth] in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant[c] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother [--> rhetorical and ontological pivot of the case]—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. [--> points to a common ontological root, a common fall, a common remedy of salvation through a common Saviour] 17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account [--> compensation, covering losses, recall, this was to be read to the church out loud]. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you. Final Greetings 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. [--> Note, c AD 107, a certain Bishop Onesimus is noted of that area, this may be his manumission letter] Footnotes: Philemon 1:6 Or for Christ's service Philemon 1:10 Onesimus means useful (see verse 11) or beneficial (see verse 20) Philemon 1:16 For the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface; twice in this verse English Standard Version (ESV)
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. KFkairosfocus_{December 25, 2019
December
12
Dec
25
25
2019
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

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.BobRyan_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

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.BobRyan_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

“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. Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

“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. Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2019
December
12
Dec
24
24
2019
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply