|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 12, 2018 16:02:01 GMT -5
" Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." ~ Albert Einstein Whereas the quote above could easily be dismissed as the 'progress-denying' sentiment of a disgruntled anti-GMO activist, the fact is that it came from a scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and accomplishment. Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable existential consequences of the so-called " technological imperative"--whatever can be done, will be done. Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive technology's feverish pace, infusing a certain arbitrary cruelty and disequilibrium into everything it touches. Lee, surely you do not honestly think just because Albert Einstein made that statement that he would have wanted to go back from these days of the scientific method of determining reality and return to any Judeo-Christian way?
You are right in that the world is seeing a crisis between national and global identity.
But we damn well need to wake up and realize that trying to retreat to our warm little cave of of tribalism is NOT an option anymore!
We are far too intermingled in too many ways, -by economics, -by trade, -by communication; -to ever again think that we are all so different from one another that we can go it alone.It was nationalism that brought on both world wars. Our global needs don't change -- but nationalism changes the spirit of cooperation to one of just fighting to take from each other, and fighting over it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 16:06:13 GMT -5
Lee, surely you do not honestly think just because Albert Einstein made that statement that he would have wanted to go back from these days of the scientific method of determining reality and return to any Judeo-Christian way?
You are right in that the world is seeing a crisis between national and global identity.
But we damn well need to wake up and realize that trying to retreat to our warm little cave of of tribalism is NOT an option anymore!
We are far too intermingled in too many ways, -by economics, -by trade, -by communication; -to ever again think that we are all so different from one another that we can go it alone. It was nationalism that brought on both world wars. Our global needs don't change -- but nationalism changes the spirit of cooperation to one of just fighting to take from each other, and fighting over it. actually it was nationalism for the first world war and national socialism for the second world war....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 12, 2018 16:10:38 GMT -5
It was nationalism that brought on both world wars. Our global needs don't change -- but nationalism changes the spirit of cooperation to one of just fighting to take from each other, and fighting over it. actually it was nationalism for the first world war and national socialism for the second world war.... Of course. Nationalism is always socialism among the nationalists. As in benefits for WASPs and none for outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 12, 2018 20:50:26 GMT -5
NO, it does not. At least not according to the Jesus in the bible in which you believe.
What about the "good Samaritan?"
So Jesus was addressing the self righteous. "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." The self righteous come in two models. One, those who dont give a damn about others and are profanely vane in their self centric ideas about their goodness or their salvation. Type two, they don't give a damn about others but they have enough of a conscience that they don't want to be identified as those who don't give a damn about others. So they assign other people to do tasks they're unwilling to do and rather apart from a comprehensive inquiry and study of whether said tasks will eradicate evil. The important thing to the type two self righteous perosn is to vicariously live by an image of a works-perfect individual while demonizing anyone who falls short or dares to challenge their imagined perfect behavior model. As is often true of some people, Lee, -you seem to see only two views of anything; -people, -situations, -causes, -results; whatever.
But life is never just black or white.
BTW, -Are you saying that "Jesus" didn't know what he was talking about when he told of the "good Samaritan?"
Do you believe that there are no true "good Samaritans?
Do you believe that there are only the two examples that you gave?
Or are you using the second example as an excuse to not ever be a "good Samaritan?"
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 12, 2018 23:34:01 GMT -5
It was nationalism that brought on both world wars. Our global needs don't change -- but nationalism changes the spirit of cooperation to one of just fighting to take from each other, and fighting over it. actually it was nationalism for the first world war and national socialism for the second world war.... Whatever the current in flavour label Wally, it all comes back to greedy mongrels best known as fascists.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2018 2:03:33 GMT -5
Revelation story... fiction on Hallucinogenic drugs. Try reading the Book of Enoch. It's not even understandable but it is quite the story of someone's 'trip' Author Lee Harmon, ex truther, tmb member, jewist enthusiast, agnostic ... Made sense of it. He's published in book form. What is the name of his book?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 12:35:26 GMT -5
His book is titled John's gospel, 'The Way it Happened'.
I can mail his book for your reading pleasure if you'll mail it back.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 12:39:00 GMT -5
So Jesus was addressing the self righteous. "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." The self righteous come in two models. One, those who dont give a damn about others and are profanely vane in their self centric ideas about their goodness or their salvation. Type two, they don't give a damn about others but they have enough of a conscience that they don't want to be identified as those who don't give a damn about others. So they assign other people to do tasks they're unwilling to do and rather apart from a comprehensive inquiry and study of whether said tasks will eradicate evil. The important thing to the type two self righteous perosn is to vicariously live by an image of a works-perfect individual while demonizing anyone who falls short or dares to challenge their imagined perfect behavior model. As is often true of some people, Lee, -you seem to see only two views of anything; -people, -situations, -causes, -results; whatever.
But life is never just black or white.
BTW, -Are you saying that "Jesus" didn't know what he was talking about when he told of the "good Samaritan?"
Do you believe that there are no true "good Samaritans?
Do you believe that there are only the two examples that you gave?
Or are you using the second example as an excuse to not ever be a "good Samaritan?"
I'm a good Samaritan. I work hard at my job which in any economy, constitutes one form of giving. I also go out of my way to give to the disadvantaged. My best friend is an idoit mom of four children. I love them and give them some money from time to time. She's a welfare mom and while my money goes sometimes to her buying Christmas junk for her kids I love her anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 12:43:04 GMT -5
actually it was nationalism for the first world war and national socialism for the second world war.... Of course. Nationalism is always socialism among the nationalists. As in benefits for WASPs and none for outsiders. If Jesus was first revealed to the black race instead of the white race such that the whites were labeling the blacks as BASP'S today would you yet be Bob the antichrist or Bob the yet alienated from Christ? I expect you would be.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 12:46:34 GMT -5
" Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." ~ Albert Einstein Whereas the quote above could easily be dismissed as the 'progress-denying' sentiment of a disgruntled anti-GMO activist, the fact is that it came from a scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and accomplishment. Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable existential consequences of the so-called " technological imperative"--whatever can be done, will be done. Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive technology's feverish pace, infusing a certain arbitrary cruelty and disequilibrium into everything it touches. Lee, surely you do not honestly think just because Albert Einstein made that statement that he would have wanted to go back from these days of the scientific method of determining reality and return to any Judeo-Christian way?
You are right in that the world is seeing a crisis between national and global identity.
But we damn well need to wake up and realize that trying to retreat to our warm little cave of of tribalism is NOT an option anymore!
We are far too intermingled in too many ways, -by economics, -by trade, -by communication; -to ever again think that we are all so different from one another that we can go it alone.Necessity does not birth righteousness automatically. One aspect of the wisdom of God's grace is the realization that if Satan offers you bad choice one and bad choice two you can opt to choose neither.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 13:14:38 GMT -5
" Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." ~ Albert Einstein Whereas the quote above could easily be dismissed as the 'progress-denying' sentiment of a disgruntled anti-GMO activist, the fact is that it came from a scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and accomplishment. Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable existential consequences of the so-called "technological imperative"--whatever can be done, will be done. Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive technology's feverish pace, infusing a certain arbitrary cruelty and disequilibrium into everything it touches. Lee, are you by any chance the same bloke that wrote Revelations? It wasn't the Revelations but the Revelation. John did not accrue frequent flier miles for his crazy visions but he had one Revelation that in theory, could be resolved into a coherent interpretation. To me, his book figures the prototypes of good and evil that continue to express themselves in our modern world today. I was getting gas yesterday and noticing the disfavor the newpaper has fallen into today, I had a surrendipitous discussion with the attendant about the influence of technology in in our lives. We both conceded it's ubiquitous influence but he suggested it wasn't tryranical but elective, citing the role of consumerism in furthering the next step into techocracism. I couldn't disagree with him. "The mark of the beast I said. Neither could buy or sell without it."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 13, 2018 15:01:08 GMT -5
I have read the entire Book of Enoch. Lee have you read it? If not I suggest you read it and then come back and tell me it's the work of a sane person or someone that suffered from audio and visual hallucinations. It reads like a really 'interesting' acid trip.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 15:13:56 GMT -5
I regard my religious ex father in law, self supposing -elect and prophet, as being both crazy and sane at once.
I'm not a stranger to the tension between the sane and insane, as secular and religious people alike challenge the boundary between the sane and insane as it relates to a quest for the truth.
I have not read the book of Enoch. If I were to, I would grade it according to it's relevance.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 13, 2018 15:34:57 GMT -5
Of course. Nationalism is always socialism among the nationalists. As in benefits for WASPs and none for outsiders. If Jesus was first revealed to the black race instead of the white race such that the whites were labeling the blacks as BASP'S today would you yet be Bob the antichrist or Bob the yet alienated from Christ? I expect you would be. What do you mean my BASP?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 15:44:49 GMT -5
You're not so unclever.
Black Anglo saxon Protestant or it's equivalent.
I reject the concept salvation has been categorically, racially motivated.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 13, 2018 16:00:40 GMT -5
You're not so unclever. Black Anglo saxon Protestant or it's equivalent. I reject the concept salvation has been categorically, racially motivated. WASP has nothing at all to do with salvation. Neither would/could BASP have anything to do with salvation. I wasn't even talking about salvation. I was talking about the present US hard right movement, and their society/social nationalist agenda is solidly WASP -- no contrivance on my part. I'm just an observer.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 13, 2018 16:18:56 GMT -5
That's you're conception.
In the scheme of evolutionary religion I'm postulating monotheism first touched the Jews and after their revelation of Jesus, monotheism for all, which means coherancy in government and personal integrity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2018 22:48:54 GMT -5
As is often true of some people, Lee, -you seem to see only two views of anything; -people, -situations, -causes, -results; whatever.
But life is never just black or white.
BTW, -Are you saying that "Jesus" didn't know what he was talking about when he told of the "good Samaritan?"
Do you believe that there are no true "good Samaritans?
Do you believe that there are only the two examples that you gave?
Or are you using the second example as an excuse to not ever be a "good Samaritan?"
I'm a good Samaritan. I work hard at my job which in any economy, constitutes one form of giving. I also go out of my way to give to the disadvantaged. My best friend is an idoit mom of four children. I love them and give them some money from time to time. She's a welfare mom and while my money goes sometimes to her buying Christmas junk for her kids I love her anyways. So, Lee, You work hard at your job so you consider THAT a form of "giving?" First time for everything I guess. That is the first time I have heard that excuse.
This "idoit mom of four children," she is you BEST FRIEND? Then in no way does that make you even close to the "good Samaritan!" The "good Samaritan" did not KNOW who he was helping!
Just because your friend is a welfare mom shouldn't she be allowed to buy her children some Christmas gifts?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 13, 2018 23:02:06 GMT -5
That's you're conception. In the scheme of evolutionary religion I'm postulating monotheism first touched the Jews and after their revelation of Jesus, monotheism for all, which means coherancy in government and personal integrity. Make this one the hypothesis for your next dissertation.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 13, 2018 23:16:20 GMT -5
I'm a good Samaritan. I work hard at my job which in any economy, constitutes one form of giving. I also go out of my way to give to the disadvantaged. My best friend is an idoit mom of four children. I love them and give them some money from time to time. She's a welfare mom and while my money goes sometimes to her buying Christmas junk for her kids I love her anyways. So, Lee, You work hard at your job so you consider THAT a form of "giving?" First time for everything I guess. That is the first time I have heard that excuse.
This "idoit mom of four children," she is you BEST FRIEND? Then in no way does that make you even close to the "good Samaritan!" The "good Samaritan" did not KNOW who he was helping!
Just because your friend is a welfare mom shouldn't be allowed to buy her children some Christmas gifts?But how does one shame the poor if one can't make their kids display their poverty to their neighborhood playmates?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 13, 2018 23:31:56 GMT -5
Lee, surely you do not honestly think just because Albert Einstein made that statement that he would have wanted to go back from these days of the scientific method of determining reality and return to any Judeo-Christian way?
You are right in that the world is seeing a crisis between national and global identity.
But we damn well need to wake up and realize that trying to retreat to our warm little cave of of tribalism is NOT an option anymore!
We are far too intermingled in too many ways, -by economics, -by trade, -by communication; -to ever again think that we are all so different from one another that we can go it alone. Necessity does not birth righteousness automatically. One aspect of the wisdom of God's grace is the realization that if Satan offers you bad choice one and bad choice two you can opt to choose neither. Please explain this: "Necessity does not birth righteousness automatically." In terms that are understandable.
As far as the rest you said, that only happens if one wants to believe in a god and devil that are warring over you, -a pawn, -in their chess game.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 14, 2018 1:38:55 GMT -5
Lee, are you by any chance the same bloke that wrote Revelations? It wasn't the Revelations but the Revelation. John did not accrue frequent flier miles for his crazy visions but he had one Revelation that in theory, could be resolved into a coherent interpretation. To me, his book figures the prototypes of good and evil that continue to express themselves in our modern world today. I was getting gas yesterday and noticing the disfavor the newpaper has fallen into today, I had a surrendipitous discussion with the attendant about the influence of technology in in our lives. We both conceded it's ubiquitous influence but he suggested it wasn't tryranical but elective, citing the role of consumerism in furthering the next step into techocracism. I couldn't disagree with him. "The mark of the beast I said. Neither could buy or sell without it." Indeed John's book of Revelation does represent the "prototypes of good and evil" - the same as found in many of the "sacred" books of the many deities both past & present that humans have created.
Techocracism? -as the "mark of the beast?"
That is a new one for the the "mark of the beast." I remember when some people were getting all hyped up about the " barcode" when it was first used.
Multitudes in of symbols have been heralded the past as the "mark of the beast."
PS: I am glad that you two have it settled. It is such a relief to finally have it identified.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 14, 2018 14:00:42 GMT -5
That's you're conception. In the scheme of evolutionary religion I'm postulating monotheism first touched the Jews and after their revelation of Jesus, monotheism for all, which means coherancy in government and personal integrity. Make this one the hypothesis for your next dissertation. Well it was the monotheism concept was what attracted Constantine to Christianity after all... At the time Rome was ruled why 3 people and he wanted to rule it by himself. When there is only 'one god', then there can only be 'one ruler' right Christianity fit his agenda at the time.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 14, 2018 16:14:12 GMT -5
Make this one the hypothesis for your next dissertation. Well it was the monotheism concept was what attracted Constantine to Christianity after all... At the time Rome was ruled why 3 people and he wanted to rule it by himself. When there is only 'one god', then there can only be 'one ruler' right Christianity fit his agenda at the time. I have read that the Roman Empire morphed into the Roman Church and did so deliberately to ensure its survival. If that is the case then we still have the RE with us today. I find aspects of this theory plausible but as it happened a long time ago there is a lot of supposition as to what actually happened. All we can look at is the results we have today of those actions yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 15, 2018 18:20:43 GMT -5
Well it was the monotheism concept was what attracted Constantine to Christianity after all... At the time Rome was ruled why 3 people and he wanted to rule it by himself. When there is only 'one god', then there can only be 'one ruler' right Christianity fit his agenda at the time. I have read that the Roman Empire morphed into the Roman Church and did so deliberately to ensure its survival. If that is the case then we still have the RE with us today. I find aspects of this theory plausible but as it happened a long time ago there is a lot of supposition as to what actually happened. All we can look at is the results we have today of those actions yesterday. True. But he did manage to get rid of the other two and became the sole ruler of Rome I believe, so it's possible the story is true. He is also labelled the first Christian Emperor. Constantine I, was a Roman Emperor who ruled between 306 and 337 AD. Born on the territory now known as Niš (Serbian Cyrillic: Ниш, located in Serbia), he was the son of Flavius Valerius Constantius, a Roman Army officer of Illyrian origins. His mother Helena was Greek. His father became Caesar, the deputy emperor in the west, in 293 AD. Constantine was sent east, where he rose through the ranks to become a military tribune under Emperors Diocletian and Galerius. In 305, Constantius raised himself to the rank of Augustus, senior western emperor, and Constantine was recalled west to campaign under his father in Britannia (Britain). Constantine was acclaimed as emperor by the army at Eboracum (modern-day York) after his father's death in 306 AD. He emerged victorious in a series of civil wars against Emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become sole ruler of both west and east by 324 AD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Nov 15, 2018 21:38:05 GMT -5
No, I've not heard what you expressed...but... I did hear that after a tour on South America conv. rounds, that when he returned he saved every penny he could and sent it to SA. He became extremely frugal. I always assumed he sent it to workers, but do not know for sure...now that you mention it, he could have been sending it to organizations for helping children. A younger companion of his told me that when Lloyd's shoe soles wore out, he would re-sole them himself with used tire threads. Also that he rarely paid for any gas for the car--stayed in the car, which forced the younger companion to pay for it after gassing up. With all due respect, Lloyd was one of a kind! Never met anyone else like him in my life. He was in charge of Mississippi when we moved there in 1958 and oversaw the construction of the conv. facilities. My family was around him a LOT. Perhaps Christopher J. has heard something related to this? It wasn't South America that turned Lloyd frugal; he was always extremely frugal, maybe more so than anyone I've ever known. I never had the experience of him staying in the car to get out of paying for gas, but we didn't drive any more than was absolutely necessary. I can't say in general where Lloyd sent money, but I know he spent practically nothing on himself and sent almost everything he received away to others. I do know of one occasion when he sent a large quantity (for that day and age) to help with hurricane relief in the Caribbean. I do know that other senior brothers in Texas in that same time frame were contributing to various funds/organizations to help children in very poor countries, so it wouldn't surprise me that Lloyd was doing the same. Most of the workers I knew well through the years had the practice of sending away any extra funds, both to workers and friends overseas and to charitable organizations. But in the fields where I worked, it was very low key and personal, i.e., each person as they felt moved, without organizational decisions on where it should be sent and without publicizing their contributions. There may be exceptions to that; it was not my experience.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2018 20:42:51 GMT -5
Well it was the monotheism concept was what attracted Constantine to Christianity after all... At the time Rome was ruled why 3 people and he wanted to rule it by himself. When there is only 'one god', then there can only be 'one ruler' right Christianity fit his agenda at the time. I have read that the Roman Empire morphed into the Roman Church and did so deliberately to ensure its survival. If that is the case then we still have the RE with us today. I find aspects of this theory plausible but as it happened a long time ago there is a lot of supposition as to what actually happened. All we can look at is the results we have today of those actions yesterday. If the RE existed to this day and possibly some part into tomorrow is that a bad thing? Can God use amoral entities to advance or provide a platform for HIS moral, and existential purposes?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2018 20:46:03 GMT -5
Necessity does not birth righteousness automatically. One aspect of the wisdom of God's grace is the realization that if Satan offers you bad choice one and bad choice two you can opt to choose neither. Please explain this: "Necessity does not birth righteousness automatically." In terms that are understandable.
As far as the rest you said, that only happens if one wants to believe in a god and devil that are warring over you, -a pawn, -in their chess game. Religious or not, most of us agree the world regularly offers bad choice one and bad choice two. What failed? A proper candidate? An adequate idea or solution, to the prolems humanity faces? Or is mankind a failure of sorts? Tradition Christendom suggest he is.
|
|