What is different between REAL CHRISTIANITY & a CULT that thinks it's "Christian"?

[LittleNipper]

Very low tier response.

God's existence remains a rigorously debated and contested subject in Oxford's philosophy department. You can scrutinize the theology and merits of a particular religion with good arguments, but disinterested handwaving just makes you an intellectual luddite.

But it is still being debated and that is GOOD! Speaking of Oxford University, you may wish to hear the following:

 

[Gozaburo]

But it is still being debated and that is GOOD! Speaking of Oxford University, you may wish to hear the following:

John Lennox is an alright apologetics debater. He flirts with transcendental argumentation by questioning the possibility of rationality and reason, but I don't really care for how he articulates it. The fine tuning argument is a really bad argument, even if it sounds convincing. That said, he absolutely eviscerates midwits like Richard Dawkins and other slum tier debate atheists.

 

[Revelation]

I feel there has to be something to it, because I find it ludicrous to believe that the universe stops ****ing with you just because you died.

true. too many people here think they are done and over with, i don't feel that way.

so here you go with additional proof on that....



...Hamish, i hope your not caught in this guys Ignorant scene. the time for Preparation is NOW. this is Easter week, plan on getting down to a real Bible church on Good Friday and Easter. talk to other believers who have their Life together better than this confused atheist in the Cartoon.

see you all Forever.


.

 

[Gozaburo]

I don't really care about you coming here and pretending to speak on behalf of others. I can make my arguments and you can make yours. I don't really need to hear about your friends argument unless they're here to defend it.

Objective truth are collection of things that we know to be true. That's why the word truth is in there.

Not trying to speak on the behalf of others, I'm just point out that 'objective truth exists' is a claim with heavy philosophical baggage that becomes very difficult to defend without a divine intellect.

Observation and rationality. Philosophical reasoning sounds like day dreaming.

Just to be clear and avoid semantic issues: I'd characterize rationality as an attempt to say 'how it works' and philosophical reasoning as an attempt to describe 'why it works'.

Some people think the latter is totally unnecessary, but I'd point out you can never be certain about the former without justifying it with the latter. I'd imagine you agree if you think 'objective truth' is obtainable.

What is uncreated? Do you mean destroyed? And are these world views or just questions about the nature of space time?

By uncreated or created I mean is the universe a cosmic accident, or is it created by a transcendent rational intelligence (God).

These are all foundational questions about a particular worldview. Everyone has answers to them. My point is that, for example, if we can reason or determine that knowledge is possible, then that invalidates all worldviews which claim knowledge is not possible.

 

[Master Debator]

Not trying to speak on the behalf of others, I'm just point out that 'objective truth exists' is a claim with heavy philosophical baggage that becomes very difficult to defend without a divine intellect.

What philosophical baggage?

Just to be clear and avoid semantic issues: I'd characterize rationality as an attempt to say 'how it works' and philosophical reasoning as an attempt to describe 'why it works'.

Well see, the why of things is your baggage. What does your imagination have to do with me?

Some people think the latter is totally unnecessary, but I'd point out you can never be certain about the former without justifying it with the latter. I'd imagine you agree if you think 'objective truth' is obtainable.

Why can't I be certain exactly? Why does your argument seem to rest on you speaking for me rather than me speaking for myself?

By uncreated or created I mean is the universe a cosmic accident, or is it created by a transcendent rational intelligence (God).

Framing the emergence of the known universe as an accident is still starting from the premise of intent. Does there even need to be any? I don't see why.

These are all foundational questions about a particular worldview.

Foundational to you. Not to me.

Everyone has answers to them. My point is that, for example, if we can reason or determine that knowledge is possible, then that invalidates all worldviews which claim knowledge is not possible.

Everyone has answers to what? Science has answers about the universe up to a point and then we admit ignorance and are okay with it.

 

[Gozaburo]

What philosophical baggage?

If you're going to claim objective truth, you begin getting into the weeds of epistemic justification as a grounds for truth claims, which I think is very difficult (maybe impossible) to defend from an agnostic/atheist position.

Well see, the why of things is your baggage. What does your imagination have to do with me?

If you can't justify why we should believe in a particular thing, then you're never going to establish objective facts.

Why can't I be certain exactly? Why does your argument seem to rest on you speaking for me rather than me speaking for myself?

I'm not trying to speak for you, I'm just pointing out logical necessity. How do you defend 'objective truth' without justifying how knowledge is possible at all?

Framing the emergence of the known universe as an accident is still starting from the premise of intent. Does there even need to be any? I don't see why.

I guess it is, poor wording on my part perhaps. What I mean is: is the universe created as the result of chaotic circumstance, or intentional rational design.

Foundational to you. Not to me.

Well, no. You (and everyone else) has answers to these questions which are either assumed or reasoned. No one doesn't have first principles.

Everyone has answers to what? Science has answers about the universe up to a point and then we admit ignorance and are okay with it.

This seems to suggest you only thing facts are deduced from science / the empirical method? Is that the case?

 

[Daisy]

"Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:19

Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up: Only John records these words spoken by Jesus. The Jews thought that he was speaking of the temple of Herod. At Jesus’ trial, his opposers quoted and distorted his words. (Mt 26:61; 27:40; Mr 14:58) As shown at Joh 2:21, Jesus was using figurative speech; he was comparing his anticipated death and resurrection to the demolition and reconstruction of the temple. Although Jesus said: “I will raise it up,” the Scriptures clearly show that it was God who resurrected him. (Ac 10:40; Ro 8:11; Heb 13:20)

After being put to death and on the third day resurrected (Mt 16:21; Lu 24:7, 21, 46), Jesus was given another body, not one made with hands like the temple in Jerusalem, but a spirit body made by his Father (Ac 2:24; 1Pe 3:18). In the Scriptures, the figurative use of a temple being applied to people is not unusual. The Messiah was foretold to be “the chief cornerstone” (Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16, 17; Ac 4:10, 11), and Paul and Peter used similar comparisons regarding Jesus and his followers at 1Co 3:16, 17; 6:19; Eph 2:20; and 1Pe 2:6, 7.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/43/2#s=19&study=discover

 

[Master Debator]

If you're going to claim objective truth, you begin getting into the weeds of epistemic justification as a grounds for truth claims, which I think is very difficult (maybe impossible) to defend from an agnostic/atheist position.

What? You're the one getting into the weeds about shit. Proof is in the pudding so to speak. If we didn't know some things about how electrons operate for instance we couldn't turn the lights on. I have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

If you can't justify why we should believe in a particular thing, then you're never going to establish objective facts.

I'm not telling you to believe in electricity. I don't really care what you believe in.

I'm not trying to speak for you, I'm just pointing out logical necessity. How do you defend 'objective truth' without justifying how knowledge is possible at all?

Why do I have to justify how knowledge is possible at all? Why do you think that's my job? And to be clear I'm assuming you mean justify in the sense of why things are the way they are as opposed to how. To me, the justification for knowing a thing or two about the nature of electrons comes in the form of being able to turn the lights on. And I don't mean flicking the switch. Its in demonstrated capability.

I guess it is, poor wording on my part perhaps. What I mean is: is the universe created as the result of chaotic circumstance, or intentional rational design.

You're pigeonholing yourself into only seeing those two options. We don't know anything about the nature of the universe beyond a certain point. Embrace the ignorance.

Well, no. You (and everyone else) has answers to these questions which are either assumed or reasoned. No one doesn't have first principles.

What questions? I don't even know what questions you're referring to and already you know my answers? How does that work exactly?

This seems to suggest you only thing facts are deduced from science / the empirical method? Is that the case?

Yes. What else would facts be deduced from?

 

[Daisy]

"No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.” John 10:17

Because of his love for Jehovah, Jesus wanted to do all he could to sanctify and vindicate Jehovah’s name. “I surrender my life,” Jesus said. (John 10:17, 18) Yes, he was even willing to die for Jehovah’s name. The first two perfect humans, Adam and Eve, turned their back on Jehovah and sided with Satan. In contrast, Jesus was willing to come to the earth and prove his love for Jehovah. Jesus did this by living a life of perfect integrity. (Heb. 4:15; 5:7-10) He maintained his integrity during his life, right down to his death on a torture stake. (Heb. 12:2) In this way, he proved his love for Jehovah and His name.

By his life course, Jesus proved beyond any doubt that Satan is the liar, not Jehovah! (John 8:44) Jesus knew Jehovah better than anyone else who had ever lived. If there was any truth to Satan’s accusations against Jehovah, Jesus would have known about it. But Jesus remained firm in defending Jehovah’s reputation, or name. Even when it appeared that Jehovah had abandoned him, Jesus was willing to die rather than turn his back on his loving Father.—Matt. 27:46.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2021363#h=1:0-16:0

 

[Gozaburo]

What? You're the one getting into the weeds about shit. Proof is in the pudding so to speak. If we didn't know some things about how electrons operate for instance we couldn't turn the lights on. I have no idea what the **** you're talking about

Do you understanding that describing how electrons operate when observed is a totally different order of claim from saying you know that is the case?

Why do I have to justify how knowledge is possible at all? Why do you think that's my job? And to be clear I'm assuming you mean justify in the sense of why things are the way they are as opposed to how. To me, the justification for knowing a thing or two about the nature of electrons comes in the form of being able to turn the lights on. And I don't mean flicking the switch. Its in demonstrated capability.

You don't have to. It is a valid position to abandon the possibility of knowledge, I just think it's a difficult position to defend.

If your claim is that knowledge is only possible for observations in the present (if such a thing even exists), then I'd be curious to know how you'd know about conditions in the past, or how they might operate in the future, since you can't observe either.

You're pigeonholing yourself into only seeing those two options. We don't know anything about the nature of the universe beyond a certain point. Embrace the ignorance.

What would be the other option outside of those two?

What questions? I don't even know what questions you're referring to and already you know my answers? How does that work exactly?

I already provided a non-exhaustive list of examples:

A few examples would be stuff like: is reality created or uncreated? Is it eternal or does it have a beginning in time? Is knowledge possible or impossible? Is there an external world or not? etc.

Yes. What else would facts be deduced from?

Well earlier you said we could deduce facts from human reasoning, which is not necessarily always empirical in nature. The empirical method itself depends on this when we look at something like the principal of induction, which assumes uniformity in nature, an abstract concept.

All of science is undergirded by our ability to reason inductively and assume that the future will represent the past, but this is not something we can demonstrate empirically.

 

[Master Debator]

Do you understanding that describing how electrons operate when observed is a totally different order of claim from saying you know that is the case?

I think I get to tell you what I mean by what I say and you get to do the same for what you're saying and right now I don't know what the **** you're even talking about.

You don't have to. It is a valid position to abandon the possibility of knowledge, I just think it's a difficult position to defend.

I'm always open to knowledge but if you're claiming to have some then it's your job to prove it. What knowledge do you have exactly that I dont?

If your claim is that knowledge is only possible for observations in the present (if such a thing even exists), then I'd be curious to know how you'd know about conditions in the past, or how they might operate in the future, since you can't observe either.

Knowledge provides the power of predictability. Understanding some things about the nature of motion and space and time allows us to shoot rockets at a moon that's going to be in different position in space by the time our rocket gets there. As I said, proof is in the pudding or the doing.

What would be the other option outside of those two?

Who knows. Thats kind of the point of ignorance.

I already provided a non-exhaustive list of examples:

Who's claiming to have those answers?

Well earlier you said we could deduce facts from human reasoning, which is not necessarily always empirical in nature. The empirical method itself depends on this when we look at something like the principal of induction, which assumes uniformity in nature, an abstract concept.

What? Who's this we? I don't even know what you're talking about.

All of science is undergirded by our ability to reason inductively and assume that the future will represent the past, but this is not something we can demonstrate empirically.

The future represents the future and the past represents the past. Again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Gozaburo]

I don't know what the **** you're even talking about.

Yes that has become clear.

I'm always open to knowledge but if you're claiming to have some then it's your job to prove it. What knowledge do you have exactly that I dont?

I'm talking about the possibility of knowledge whatsoever. You seem to indicate that knowledge can only come from empirically derived facts. I think that's absurd, given the problem of induction I referred to in my last post.

Knowledge provides the power of predictability. Understanding some things about the nature of motion and space and time allows us to shoot rockets at a moon that's going to be in different position in space by the time our rocket gets there. As I said, proof is in the pudding or the doing.

Predictability is by definition not knowledge, unless you're predicting with 100% certainty.

Who knows. Thats kind of the point of ignorance.

It's just a thought experiment. On the subject of creation, what could be an alternative to something either being either created or not created? Seems like a binary to me.

Who's claiming to have those answers?

Everybody who has a worldview assumes them. They may not have answers for them, but they operate as-if one side of the binary is true.

What? Who's this we? I don't even know what you're talking about.

'We' is anyone who participates in the scientific method or empirical reasoning.

The future represents the future and the past represents the past. Again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

All scientific thought is predicated on the belief in uniformity in nature. If we assert the laws of gravity as an empirical fact, we're saying "We've made observations in the past about how gravity works and believe that gravity will work in the same way in the future." and then additional scientific laws are built on top of that foundational assumption.

Of course, we cannot observe the past directly, so this is not actually a 'fact' which is built on purely empirical grounds. Its foundation is a rational assumption.

 

[Master Debator]

Yes that has become clear.

Who is not being clear is you.

I'm talking about the possibility of knowledge whatsoever. You seem to indicate that knowledge can only come from empirically derived facts. I think that's absurd, given the problem of induction I referred to in my last post.

What problem of induction? I saw you reference it but I have no idea what your problem with induction is.

Predictability is by definition not knowledge, unless you're predicting with 100% certainty.

Why is that the standard? Who decided that?

It's just a thought experiment. On the subject of creation, what could be an alternative to something either being either created or not created? Seems like a binary to me.

Im not denying you your right to thought experiments but thought experiements are not claims of knowledge, they're hypotheses. They are questions that you should try to answer if they concern you.

Everybody who has a worldview assumes them. They may not have answers for them, but they operate as-if one side of the binary is true.

Now you're just assuming other people's positions for the sake of your argument. I don't even know what may not have answers to them but they operate as if one side of the binary is true, even means. In what way do you imagine I operate because of some assumption of a finite or infinite universe?

'We' is anyone who participates in the scientific method or empirical reasoning.

How about you stick to speaking for yourself and explain to me what problem you have with induction.

All scientific thought is predicated on the belief in uniformity in nature.

Says who other than you right now?

If we assert the laws of gravity as an empirical fact, we're saying "We've made observations in the past about how gravity works and believe that gravity will work in the same way in the future." and then additional scientific laws are built on top of that foundational assumption.

And when we find cases where gravity defies what we think we understand about it we adjust our understanding.

Of course, we cannot observe the past directly, so this is not actually a 'fact' which is built on purely empirical grounds. Its foundation is a rational assumption.

We can observe the past directly. You do it every time you look up at the night sky.

 

[Gozaburo]

What problem of induction? I saw you reference it but I have no idea what your problem with induction is.

Assuming that the future will represent the past. This is not an empirically knowable fact.

Why is that the standard? Who decided that?

Who decided that predictability does not have an equivalent definition to knowledge?

Im not denying you your right to thought experiments but thought experiements are not claims of knowledge, they're hypotheses. They are questions that you should try to answer if they concern you.

These are questions everyone assumes one way or another. They have to in order to have a worldview... which is why they're called first principles.

Now you're just assuming other people's positions for the sake of your argument. I don't even know what may not have answers to them but they operate as if one side of the binary is true, even means. In what way do you imagine I operate because of some assumption of a finite or infinite universe?

Not really sure what you mean. None of the questions were about the finitude of the universe.

Says who other than you right now?

Says everybody lmao.

And when we find cases where gravity defies what we think we understand about it we adjust our understanding.

Well sure that might be the case if some other force is acting on it. What I'm saying is that we assume gravity - barring any external force - will stay the same, but that is an assumption based in confidence of observation i.e. faith.

We can observe the past directly. You do it every time you look up at the night sky.

No. These observations, while offering a glimpse into the past, are still interpreted through our present frameworks and assumptions about physical laws remaining consistent across time and space.

 

[Master Debator]

Assuming that the future will represent the past. This is not an empirically knowable fact.

Did I ever say it was? I think you've inferred that from me making a simple distinction between objective facts and make believe. I never claimed predictions of the future were objective facts. I believe the more we know about a thing the more we are likely to accurately predict outcomes involving that thing but predictions are inherently probabilistic.

Who decided that predictability does not have an equivalent definition to knowledge?

What? My question was rhetorical. I know that you're the one who said predictability by definition was not knowledge unless made with 100 % certainty. That's your standard. That's not my standard of knowledge.

These are questions everyone assumes one way or another. They have to in order to have a worldview... which is why they're called first principles.

Funny because ita the first I'm hearing of it.

Not really sure what you mean. None of the questions were about the finitude of the universe.

No.... ? This ain't you?

A few examples would be stuff like: is reality created or uncreated? Is it eternal or does it have a beginning in time? Is knowledge possible or impossible? Is there an external world or not? etc.

Sure looks like you.....

Says everybody lmao.

I didn't. Do I not count as part of everybody?

Well sure that might be the case if some other force is acting on it. What I'm saying is that we assume gravity - barring any external force - will stay the same, but that is an assumption based in confidence of observation i.e. faith.

Scientific confidence is born out of objective observations. We believe things about gravity because of our observations but that confidence is expressed in probability that science doesn't shy away from. It is this elasticity to change that keeps it from being the perpetual failure that religion is as it tries to wrestle certainty from what may be an inherently uncertain universe.

No. These observations, while offering a glimpse into the past, are still interpreted through our present frameworks and assumptions about physical laws remaining consistent across time and space.

Again, whos doing so? I listen to Sean Carroll pretty frequently and he makes it pretty clear that to him the universe is a lot bigger than what we observe that things could be drastically different in the places we can't observe. That's a pretty prominent physicist admitting to ignorance about the things we can't observe or have yet to observe.

 

[Gozaburo]

Did I ever say it was? I think you've inferred that from me making a simple distinction between objective facts and make believe. I never claimed predictions of the future were objective facts. I believe the more we know about a thing the more we are likely to accurately predict outcomes involving that thing but predictions are inherently probabilistic.

You claimed to only believe in empirically deducible evidences and now you're claiming that is not the case. Which is it?

What? My question was rhetorical. I know that you're the one who said predictability by definition was not knowledge unless made with 100 % certainty. That's your standard. That's not my standard of knowledge.

Well we seem to be having a hard time nailing down how it is you even go about knowing something, so I'd say my confusion is justified.

Funny because ita the first I'm hearing of it.

Probably because you've never engaged in higher order thinking about the assumptions you make on first principles.

Sure looks like you.....

'Eternal' in a temporal sense is not the same as 'infinite' in a spatial sense, which is what I took your 'infinite universe' to mean.

I didn't. Do I not count as part of everybody?

I mean if you'd like to tell the scientific community that inductive reasoning isn't the bedrock of the scientific method then you can feel free to do that. You may get laughed at.

Scientific confidence is born out of objective observations. We believe things about gravity because of our observations but that confidence is expressed in probability that science doesn't shy away from. It is this elasticity to change that keeps it from being the perpetual failure that religion is as it tries to wrestle certainty from what may be an inherently uncertain universe.

I'm not sure how chaotic physical laws are a defeater for a religious worldview.

And like I've said, 'objective observations' is a claim which is first of all kind of incoherent (objective to who?) and second, includes a hefty amount of metaphysical baggage. You haven't really demonstrated why your (or anyone's) observations are objective.

Again, whos doing so? I listen to Sean Carroll pretty frequently and he makes it pretty clear that to him the universe is a lot bigger than what we observe that things could be drastically different in the places we can't observe. That's a pretty prominent physicist admitting to ignorance about the things we can't observe or have yet to observe.

Why are we talking about possible laws we haven't seen in possible places we don't know exist? I'm referring to the laws we do observe.

If the past cannot be observed, then empirical evidence alone isn't sufficient because the scientific method relies uniformity in nature to reach conclusions. Research David Hume's (an atheist) problem of induction to understand this, but here's a summary:

Induction is the practice of believing any regularity we observe will continue. So, the sun will come up tomorrow, because it always has, objects will fall towards the earth, etc. The only way to justify believing the future will be like the past, is that in the past, it's worked like that. That's circular reasoning. The empirical tradition does not permit viscous circular reasoning. So, although Hume thinks induction works, he admits there is no logical reason it should. Why does past experience give any ability to reason about the future?

 

[dairyair]

The young lady in the following video knows what it's about. And so, before defining CHRISTIANITY, I suggest you sincerely watch this video, and I believe that you will understand why I believe as I do:
The main thrust of this video concerns the Mormonism/LDS/CHURCH of CHRIST of the LATTER DAY SAINTS; however, the Witnesses are mentioned, as well as, a few others. They ultimately fall into the same deception ----- "WE GO TO THE "CORRECT" CHURCH. All the others are evil, wrong, apostate, and going to this specific "church" puts one on the "CORRECT" road to GOD."

I think the only difference between a religion and a cult by definition, is the size of the group.

Other than that, they are pretty much identical.

And every religious group thinks they group is the only group that is the true religion. Be it RC, Protestant, Baptist, Judaism, Islam.
It matters not. All other religions are false religions. To each person within their own religion.

 

[dairyair]

A "real" Christian is one who understands God's underlying Message throughout the Bible, His Word of peace, forgiveness, brotherly love, and compassion.

Anything that does not break that Word is not a sin. Despite any stories fallible men of the times may have written. The Message of the NT remains.

Anyone that does not recognize that Word is denying God's Will...only He is to judge.

Have you read the OT?
There's no such thing in those books about forgiveness, peace, love.

It's obey or be killed as the general message to the Hebrew clans.


The NT is not written by god at all. It has several authors trying to figure out how to get non Jewish people into a religion.

 

[dairyair]

Then I'd suggest the study the Bible. As forgiveness is as meaningful a part of true Christianity as any. It appears that hate, which has no place in Christianity is running rampant among those who don't like Trump.

One often gets what one dishes out.
Why would a bunch of so called Xtians put their belief into a man that was so flawed. According to Xtian living.

 

[dairyair]

Don't get caught up in comparison and one up-man ship, everyone has a unique relation with God and it's not defined by so-called Christian norms nor popular opinion.

True.

There's no 1 true god. But 8 billion individual gods. Each creates one in their own mind.

 

[ataraxia]

I cant even begin to express how wrong you are and I am honestly shocked that this idea is still circulating. Medieval monks created everything the modern world is constructed on and the Classical World ethics are so alien to us you would relish in the horror. Consider that there was not a single major abolitionist in the Classical period and that up to 1/3 of the population at the time was slaves. 2 million people died in the gladiatorial games over the time period of Rome. Aren't you happy that we have baseball and football instead of arabs being crushed by elephants in arenas? Romans practiced infanticide and the sodomizing of boys with no moral issue. And no, they were not close to modern science at all.

The central problem of British intellectual life that Tolkien tried to correct was the total admiration for the Classical World when, while good in some aspects, really needed to be destroyed by the 5th century. As much as I admire the founding fathers and their bravery, they got the Roman Republic totally wrong.

So you are claiming that mathematics from Pythagoras to Euclid was not the foundation of modern mathematics? That the political philosophy of democracy/republics did not have its origins in Athens and Rome? That putting aside superstition and supernatural explanations and trying to understand the world on its own terms, the restless spirit of questioning and open enquiry represented by Socrates and Greek philosophy, was not the foundation of western thought? Remember, this distinction between science and philosophy is only a fairly recent distinction- even in Isaac Newton's time, he considered himself a "natural philosopher"- considered a sub-branch of philosophy. Philosophy and the spirit of restless questioning and skepticism of superstition/supernatural explanations did not start with the Bible.

The Greeks not only knew the Earth was round, but even calculated its approximate circumference. After Rome fell, it took many centuries for the Christian world to recoup much of the technological know-how to create the kind of architecture they were engaging in, let alone try to surpass it.

But that culture is is the foundation of the modern west, democracy, and science. Christianity was just an imported middle eastern religion.

I am not sure how having brutal gladiator games changes any of that. Are you saying burning people alive at the stake for heresy and unquestioning blind faith in the infallibility of the Pope was the actual foundation of modern science and western culture instead?

 

[dairyair]

true. reminds me of the George Harrison lyrics "Awaiting on you all"
~~
You don't need no passport
And you don't need no visas
You don't need to designate or to emigrate before you can see Jesus
If you open up your heart
You'll see He's right there
He always was and will be
He'll relieve you of your cares

[Chorus 1]
By chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
Yes, the Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see
By chanting the names of the Lord and you'll be free
Yes, the Lord is awaiting on you all to awaken and see
https://stubhub.prf.hn/click/camref:1100lqTK8/pubref:category/destination:https://www.stubhub.com/_C-259827

Yes, that was Harrison pushing for open borders.

John Lennon tried to 'Imagine' something similar.

Those 2 seem more Xtian than any of today's Xtians who will try to stop an election process if the felon leader isn't elected.

 

[dairyair]

This is a strange post.....you just "did" what you accused them of doing.

Why is that strange?
Are you also doing same thing?

 

[Hawkins]

It all started with a prophecy.
Daniel 12:4
But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.

We are in era where knowledge inceases in no end. As knowlege increases, humans split by opinions. The Bible is composed of 2 major components, namely, the message of salvation and other relevant knowlege (including prophetic passages and progressively revealed mysteriies such as the story of Jesus Himself). A legit denomination is one embracing the message of salvation but deviated in other relevant knowledge. A cult on the other hand, is suspected to deviate in the core message of salvation.

 

[ataraxia]

1)Christianity assumes an ordered world that can be understood--->Scientific endeavor is therefore noble.

2)Eastern religions claim that the world is inherently chaotic---->Attempts to understand it is therefore useless and even subversive

Christianity doesn't even bother with ethics. It just tells you the world is fallen, and the only way you can be saved is to just find the right God to grovel before- so good luck with that- because it seems like just a lottery ticket.

How does that help advance rational discussions of ethics/politics?

The same process happened in Islam where the Ash'arite school said that the world has no natural causalities and that all chaos is due to Allah--->Stopping of science after the Islamic Golden age

What stopped the Islamic Golden Age was when they lay aside the Greek philosophy they had discovered (al-falsafah) and went back to an emphasis on mysticism, blind and unquestioning obedience to revelation, and faith- no different than the Christianity of the time.

Al-Ghazali - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org