Is the world...

[2ndRateMind]

I'm sorry, but I don't think God is OK with any heresies that come against His written word. God is not OK with our sin, but yet forgives us when we repent of our wrong doings. I know when I do wrong the Holy Spirit is always quick to correct me as I see it as a matter of the conscience being convicted of my sin, but also a matter of the condition of ones heart.

Interesting. I see the still, small voice of my conscience as being the way the Holy Spirit talks to me, and tells me when I am mistaken or in error, so we are not entirely disagreeing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Free]

It is so sad Christianity is being left behind, when what is needed in the 21st century is a 21st century religion.

In what way(s), exactly, is Christianity being left behind? What would a "21st century religion" look like?

Unless we all, and rapidly, upgrade the teaching, doctrine and dogma of conventional Christianity, I predict, at best a schism, but more likely the gradual collapse of the faith into irrelevance and obscurity.

There are those far more intelligent than you and I put together that thought that a long time ago. And, yet, here we are.

 

[2ndRateMind]

In what way(s), exactly, is Christianity being left behind? What would a "21st century religion" look like?


There are those far more intelligent than you and I put together that thought that a long time ago. And, yet, here we are.

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that lay people, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was designed to control. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into modern times.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Finally, I would like to the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries), world view, rather than the hotch potch of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

We are, indeed, still here. My worry is that without these kind of radical reforms, we soon (next couple of centuries) won't be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ah I see. The argument from personal incredulity. Fortunately, science has never, does not now, and will never, depend on it. And so, we continue to make scientific progress.

LOL
I could also accuse YOU of an argument from personal incredulity since NOTHING has been proven by science except that perhaps, 98% certainty, everything came about all at once.

And I did not offer any personal opinion. I stated that science knows nothing solidly acceptable for the evolution of the human body. I offered the eye as an example. You didn't reply as to your understanding of the development of the eye.
Telling me my argument is from personal incredulity is just a way of not answering.

Do you wish to have a serious conversation or not?

How would you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

It is so sad Christianity is being left behind, when what is needed in the 21st century is a 21st century religion. Unless we all, and rapidly, upgrade the teaching, doctrine and dogma of conventional Christianity, I predict, at best a schism, but more likely the gradual collapse of the faith into irrelevance and obscurity. And that would be a shocking waste of Jesus' sacrifice, which is probably the noblest act of perfect love in all of history. Just because we prefer the ancient and familiar and discredited to the new and exciting and justified.

Best wishes, 2RM.

How would you suggest that we upgrade the doctrine (which means teaching) and dogma of conventional Christianity?


What IS the new and exciting and justified??

 

[GodsGrace]

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that lay people, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was designed to control. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into modern times.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Finally, I would like to the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries), world view, rather than the hotch potch of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

We are, indeed, still here. My worry is that without these kind of radical reforms, we soon (next couple of centuries) won't be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Great post.
But later...

 

[GodsGrace]

God's Kingdom on Earth seems like Heaven to me. I certainly find plenty to do here, what with the cosmic battle between good and evil and all that.

The point was, the question in the OP: Is the world perfect because it's imperfect?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Heaven is not here. It doesn't even exist in the Kingdom of God.
And I'd say No...the world is not perfect because it is imperfect.
If something is imperfect, then it's imperfect.
No philosophy needed...

 

[Free]

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that lay people, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was designed to control. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

I haven't seen this to be an issue.

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church.

Which is great, unless the Bible clearly states that men and women are to have different roles within the church. But that is another discussion, which is already ongoing in another thread.

An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good.

Depending on exactly what you mean, I would agree. No one should be discriminated against for any reason. However, if you mean acceptance and celebration of a homosexual lifestyle, gay marriage, homosexual clergy, etc., then I would disagree. That is not progress, that is regress.

The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into modern times.

It all depends on what you mean by "progressive movement." Much of what is termed "progressive" refers to certain beliefs regarding morality which are antagonistic and contradictory to Christianity. That is why it is regressive. God determines the standard.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

Whether or not absolute poverty can be eradicated remains to be seen. But how do you know that Christians aren't very active in such areas? Consistently, Christians do more to help those in need than any other group.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'.

But that would be contradictory to what the Bible teaches.

Mat 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (ESV)

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (ESV)

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

Act 4:11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (ESV)

Etc. There are numerous passages throughout the NT which either implicitly or explicitly state that salvation is found only through belief in Christ and all that that entails. The way is indeed exclusive and narrow.

In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Where does the Bible show that Jesus thought that God was "the loving Father or all mankind"?

Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (ESV)

In a very general sense, because he created man initially and is sovereign over all, we could say that God is the Father of all mankind. But in the NT sense, it is quite clear that only those who believe in Jesus for their salvation are actually children of God.

Finally, I would like to the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries), world view, rather than the hotch potch of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Christianity is philosophically rigorous. What "new facts and discoveries" does Christianity need to take into account and be upgraded for? What "hotch potch" (I think you mean "hodgepodge") of "obsolete ideas and ideologies are we currently presented with" in Christianity?

To change what the Bible says, simply on the basis of modern ideology, is to go against Scripture. This suggests that you hold a low view of Scripture, that it really isn't the inspired and authoritative words of God. The Bible itself warns adding or subtracting from what God has revealed. If God created humans for a specific purpose, or purposes, then he, better than anyone else, knows what is necessary for human flourishing

We absolutely cannot just willy-nilly go about changing either what the Bible says or change our understanding of what it says because some things go against modern ideas and ideologies.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them

Yes. Christians must adhere to the truth and proclaim it at all costs. Fear of man rather than fear of God is a massive problem in the Western church. Christians must do more to stand up against things such as abortion and euthanasia. Christians, particularly in the west, need to go back to a biblical understanding of humility, the sinfulness of sin, and justification. There also needs to be much more outspokenness against the evils of false gospels, like the so-called prosperity gospel.

There could be a number of other things, but lastly, especially in the U.S., more Christian leaders need to denounce the ungodly marriage of Christianity with politics. Indeed, there are even some on these forums whose beliefs practically equate their version of Christianity with Republicanism.

We are, indeed, still here. My worry is that without these kind of radical reforms, we soon (next couple of centuries) won't be.


Best wishes, 2RM.

On the contrary, Christianity has survived, in part, precisely because it rejects progressive and modern ideologies, remaining true to the faith as originally taught and passed on through the Bible. Those churches which are dying out are those one who do conform to the pattern of this world, embrace progressive ideology, and reject sin and its consequences. To become more like the world, to try and become "relevant," is to become pointless and obsolete.

 

[jaybo]

One change I would like to see is the realisation by the church authorities that lay people, at least in the developed world, are no longer the ignorant peasants and serfs the religion was designed to control. A recognition, maybe, that we are endowed with intellects, discriminatory powers and critical faculties because God intends for us to use them, even (perhaps especially) on scripture.

Another is the necessary social progress to put women on an equal footing with men, and see them better represented in leadership roles throughout the church. An end to the institutional discrimination against homosexuals would also be good. The religion should be leading this progressive movement, not being reluctantly dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, by secular society, into modern times.

I would like to see the religion more active around what seem to me to be the two major global issues facing humanity in our time: how to eradicate absolute poverty while still remaining comfortably within the Earth's ecological carrying capacity.

I would like to see a more inclusive religion, that encompasses the whole of humanity within it's remit, even those of other faiths and none. I would like to see it end it's insistence, for example, that one has to be a Christian to receive heavenly reward. I really think we have to decide whether we mean 'the family of man' to be a real objective to strive for, or just a trite, complacent, inaccurate description of an exclusive club of people 'who think like me'. In other words, we have to decide whether we think God, as Jesus did, to be the loving Father of all mankind, or just Christians, the born again, the elect, or some other sub group of the faith.

Finally, I would like to the development and promotion of a philosopically rigorous, (but upgradeable in the light of new facts and discoveries), world view, rather than the hotch potch of obsolete ideas and ideologies we are currently presented with.

Doubtless you can think of other improvements the religion could make. You are welcome to suggest them.

We are, indeed, still here. My worry is that without these kind of radical reforms, we soon (next couple of centuries) won't be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

This is a great post, one of the best I have ever read. Thanks very much for sharing these thoughts!

 

[for_his_glory]

Interesting. I see the still, small voice of my conscience as being the way the Holy Spirit talks to me, and tells me when I am mistaken or in error, so we are not entirely disagreeing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree with this. More than likely that small voice is the Holy Spirit, but those who are not Christ own may not recognize that voice, but reject it.

 

[2ndRateMind]

My dear friend Free. I am going to reply to your interesting contribution piecemeal, over the next few days, so that everyone gets the chance to respond to the aspects that interest them.

Whether or not absolute poverty can be eradicated remains to be seen. But how do you know that Christians aren't very active in such areas? Consistently, Christians do more to help those in need than any other group.

Sure, absolute poverty can be eradicated. For the first time in history, we have the resources to do that, if we so choose. A few years ago, pre Covid, I did some back of an envelope calculations based on numbers by Credit Suisse. It seems that there is enough wealth in the world to allow everyone (man, woman and child) a net worth of $33000, aproximately, and an annual income of $27000, approximately. So, multiply by four for the just allowance due to the conventional nuclear family. It is perfectly possible to live on these figures; I get by, alone but quite contentedly, on somewhat less.

Instead we have a situation where around one third of the world's population live on $2 per day, or less. These people can barely afford to eat, sometimes not even that, let alone pay for health care, or to educate their children. Meanwhile, in the developed world, we have 13.1 million millionaires, of whom 7.4 million claim to be Christian.

Now, I know Christians do a lot to alleviate this suffering, and I applaud that, but clearly a lot more needs to be done. And I think if we truly loved our neighbour as ourselves, as Jesus commanded us to do, we would see a far more equitable distribution of the world's wealth. And I would look to a 21st century Christianity to be foremost in fostering that redistribution.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

PS. That figure I gave for the number of millionaires turns out the be out of date. It seems there are currently 47 million millionaires in the world. 2RM.

 

[Free]

My dear friend Free. I am going to reply to your interesting contribution piecemeal, over the next few days, so that everyone gets the chance to respond to the aspects that interest them.

Fair enough.

Sure, absolute poverty can be eradicated. For the first time in history, we have the resources to do that, if we so choose. A few years ago, pre Covid, I did some back of an envelope calculations based on numbers by Credit Suisse. It seems that there is enough wealth in the world to allow everyone (man, woman and child) a net worth of $33000, aproximately, and an annual income of $27000, approximately. So, multiply by four for the just allowance due to the conventional nuclear family. It is perfectly possible to live on this; I get by, quite contentedly, on somewhat less.

I think your numbers are seriously mistaken. Everything I can find in searching the Internet, is that for everyone to be able to live like the average American, which may or may not be close to your numbers, it would the resources of around 5 earths, which also happens to agree with a passing comment one of my profs made a few years ago. Even if your numbers are somewhat less, there is no way the difference can make up for an additional 4 earths.

More importantly, and to the point I was thinking, human behavour simply will not allow for that to happen. Ever. It would take every millionaire, billionaire, and wannabe to give up what they have. It would also take a fundamental restructuring of society and social norms. It would take every single person, of different religious, political, economic, and ideological beliefs to agree. None of those things are ever going to happen, not willingly anyway.

Two of the main issues are bad economic policy on the part of the West and both corrupt and inept governments elsewhere who allow their people to face hardship either purposely or through negligence. Different religious beliefs would also be a major sticking point. It would require Hindus to give up the caste system, for example. As for Islam, well, there is a fair bit to discuss there when we're all viewed as kafir. Politically, getting communist regimes to agree with democratic countries, will never happen. Or, it might, but due to the authoritarian nature, the leader and those to whom he chooses, will receive most of the benefit while their people continue to struggle. Of course, that would happen in western countries as well, since we run on a system of merit, and the leaders at the top always get more than everyone else. The problem is that everyone is self-important and thinks they deserve as much or more than their neighbour.

Instead we have a situation where around one third of the world's population live on $2 per day, or less. These people can barely afford to eat, sometimes not even that, let alone pay for health care, or to educate their children. Meanwhile, in the developed world, we have 13.1 million millionaires, of whom 7.4 million claim to be Christian.

Jesus said, "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me" (Mark 14:7, ESV). The Christian mission isn't to necessarily eradicate poverty, but to provide for those who need it.

Now, I know Christians do a lot to alleviate this suffering, and I applaud that, but clearly a lot more needs to be done. And I think if we truly loved our neighbour as ourselves, as Jesus commanded us to do, we would see a far more equitable distribution of the world's wealth. And I would look to a 21st century Christianity to be foremost in fostering that redistribution.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, no, for the reasons above. It would take either the entire population of the world or a vast majority of the population being Christian, and truly Christian, not just in name only. But then we would be forcing something on the rest, which is un-Christian.

Such equality will never happen because human nature is what it is--corrupt at the core.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Fair enough.


I think your numbers are seriously mistaken. Everything I can find in searching the Internet, is that for everyone to be able to live like the average American, which may or may not be close to your numbers, it would the resources of around 5 earths, which also happens to agree with a passing comment one of my profs made a few years ago. Even if your numbers are somewhat less, there is no way the difference can make up for an additional 4 earths.

My figures are considerably less. On searching I find the average American net worth to be $748,000 (median, $121,000) Average income $74,000. But I agree that even if the world's wealth were distributed equally (which I don't advocate) we would still need to find ways 'to remain comfortably within the earth's ecological carrying capacity'.

More importantly, and to the point I was thinking, human behavour simply will not allow for that to happen. Ever. It would take every millionaire, billionaire, and wannabe to give up what they have. It would also take a fundamental restructuring of society and social norms. It would take every single person, of different religious, political, economic, and ideological beliefs to agree. None of those things are ever going to happen, not willingly anyway.

Two of the main issues are bad economic policy on the part of the West and both corrupt and inept governments elsewhere who allow their people to face hardship either purposely or through negligence.

So, it's a big job. I don't pretend it isn't.

Different religious beliefs would also be a major sticking point. It would require Hindus to give up the caste system, for example. As for Islam, well, there is a fair bit to discuss there when we're all viewed as kafir.

Which is one of the reasons I would like to see 21st century Christianity expand it's remit to those of other faiths, and none.

Politically, getting communist regimes to agree with democratic countries, will never happen. Or, it might, but due to the authoritarian nature, the leader and those to whom he chooses, will receive most of the benefit while their people continue to struggle. Of course, that would happen in western countries as well, since we run on a system of merit, and the leaders at the top always get more than everyone else. The problem is that everyone is self-important and thinks they deserve as much or more than their neighbour.

So, things need to change. God, and a fit for purpose religion, could accomplish that.

Jesus said, "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me" (Mark 14:7, ESV). The Christian mission isn't to necessarily eradicate poverty, but to provide for those who need it.

As usual, context is everthing, when construing the gospels. Jesus was talking to His disciples, in their time and place. And He was quite right; His disciples always would have the poor with them, during their lifetimes. But we needn't, during ours.

Well, no, for the reasons above. It would take either the entire population of the world or a vast majority of the population being Christian, and truly Christian, not just in name only. But then we would be forcing something on the rest, which is un-Christian.

Nowhere have I mentioned forcing anyone to do anything. I have not even mentioned the obvious solution, which would be an ethical global tax regime. This all has to be voluntary, done because, as my school padre once paraphrased the two great commandments, we 'love God, and love each other'.

Such equality will never happen because human nature is what it is--corrupt at the core.

In my happy experience, I have not found that so. Seems to me most people, most of the time, are reasonably decent folks, who just need, occasionally, a little appropriate guidance to do the right thing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Free]

My figures are considerably less. On searching I find the average American net worth to be $748,000 (median, $121,000) Average income $74,000. But I agree that even if the world's wealth were distributed equally (which I don't advocate) we would still need to find ways 'to remain comfortably within the earth's ecological carrying capacity'.

The median income in the U.S. in 2020 was $67,521. If, based on that number, it would take the resources of five earths for everyone to live like that, than one earth could only provide about $13,504 income for everyone.

So, it's a big job. I don't pretend it isn't.

Which is one of the reasons I would like to see 21st century Christianity expand it's remit to those of other faiths, and none.

What exactly do you mean by "expand its remit"? To give money or simply expand its influence and authority?

So, things need to change. God, and a fit for purpose religion, could accomplish that.

There are far fewer Christians in the world than stats suggest. It would take everyone or very close to nearly everyone, to be true Christians for something like that to happen. Then there would be the risk of politicizing Christianity, and that has always been disastrous.

As usual, context is everthing, when construing the gospels. Jesus was talking to His disciples, in their time and place. And He was quite right; His disciples always would have the poor with them, during their lifetimes. But we needn't, during ours.

While we need to do what we can to help, getting rid of poverty is literally an impossible task, simply due to human nature.

Nowhere have I mentioned forcing anyone to do anything.

I never suggested you did. That is my argument because that is the only way it could ultimately happen, again, because of human nature.

I have not even mentioned the obvious solution, which would be an ethical global tax regime. This all has to be voluntary, done because, as my school padre once paraphrased the two great commandments, we 'love God, and love each other'.

This is bad economic policy, just as the handing out of money by the West is bad economic policy. It ends up shutting down industry in those countries to whom it is given and then they become perpetually reliant on the handouts. Often that money and aid doesn't even get to the people it is meant to help anyway, due to corrupt and inept governments.

The best way to get people out of poverty is to provide them with work and pay them for it. It literally takes people with lots of money to invest that into businesses that employ others. To try and make it equitable ruins industry, innovation, and the economy. Not to mention that a "voluntary" tax could, and likely would, be changed into a non-voluntary tax.

In my happy experience, I have not found that so. Seems to me most people, most of the time, are reasonably decent folks, who just need, occasionally, a little appropriate guidance to do the right thing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It may depend where you live. Anywhere where Christianity has at one time dominated, its influence is continually felt. But that doesn't mean that most people in those areas would be willing to part with their money.

 

[2ndRateMind]

The median income in the U.S. in 2020 was $67,521. If, based on that number, it would take the resources of five earths for everyone to live like that, than one earth could only provide about $13,504 income for everyone.

Hmmm. I'd be content to compromise on that figure. It's a heck of a lot better than $2 per day! And would provide everyone the capacity to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families, and provide them with at least primary health care and education.

What exactly do you mean by "expand its remit"? To give money or simply expand its influence and authority?

Just influence.

There are far fewer Christians in the world than stats suggest. It would take everyone or very close to nearly everyone, to be true Christians for something like that to happen. Then there would be the risk of politicizing Christianity, and that has always been disastrous.

Not at all sure I like this phrase 'true' Christians. Fact is, we are all on our pilgrimage through life, at different stages, and travelling at different speeds. As for politicising Christianity, yes. There is that risk. But Jesus Himself was a canny political operator, with some radical things to say that made Him enemies among some powerful vested interests. Had He abstained from politics, He wouldn't have survived even as long as He did. I think we need to accept the political sphere is part of ordinary life, and we just have to learn to navigate it as best we can.

While we need to do what we can to help, getting rid of poverty is literally an impossible task, simply due to human nature.

Everything is impossible if you start out with the attitude that it's impossible.

I never suggested you did. That is my argument because that is the only way it could ultimately happen, again, because of human nature.


This is bad economic policy, just as the handing out of money by the West is bad economic policy. It ends up shutting down industry in those countries to whom it is given and then they become perpetually reliant on the handouts. Often that money and aid doesn't even get to the people it is meant to help anyway, due to corrupt and inept governments.

I agree with this. So, we need to be a bit more clever than in the past.

Not to mention that a "voluntary" tax could, and likely would, be changed into a non-voluntary tax.

I didn't phrase that very well. While an ethical global tax regime is the obvious solution, I reject it because, ultimately, any tax regime needs to be enforced. And the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth must be voluntary, or it is not Heaven.

The best way to get people out of poverty is to provide them with work and pay them for it. It literally takes people with lots of money to invest that into businesses that employ others

I agree, except that it doesn't necesarily require a whole lot of capital to start and build a business. Here is a link to one of my favourite charities. The support one gives is in the form of a loan, rather than a donation. Furthermore, I see no reason why businesses need one owner with, say, $1,000,000, rather than 1000 owners with a stake of $1,000 each. Particlarly in this crowd-funding day and age.

. To try and make it equitable ruins industry, innovation, and the economy.

To make it equal would do just that. To make it equitable, on the other hand, is an ethical imperative.

It may depend where you live. Anywhere where Christianity has at one time dominated, its influence is continually felt. But that doesn't mean that most people in those areas would be willing to part with their money.

I live in England, which, as everyone knows, is God's own nation! And it's people, bless them, are continually parting with their money to help others out.

I've said all I want to say on this topic, for now. I propose to move on to the next of your objections

Best wishes, 2RM.

.

 

[2ndRateMind]

In a very general sense, because he created man initially and is sovereign over all, we could say that God is the Father of all mankind. But in the NT sense, it is quite clear that only those who believe in Jesus for their salvation are actually children of God.

I would have thought the idea that God is the 'loving Father of all mankind' to be uncontentious. The New Testament is littered with references by Jesus to 'your Heavenly Father'. Two examples will suffice.
Luke 11:2 KJV The Lord's Prayer. Our Father, which art in Heaven.
Matthew 5:48 KJV The Beattitudes. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus did not seem to be worried one jot about who heard or read or recited His words, leading me to think they apply to everyone, not just Christians.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Human Nature: What the motivation theories have to say.

McGregor's theory X: (1950s and 60s AD)

Theory X is based on assumptions regarding the typical worker. This management style assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented. In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income. Management believes employees' work is based on their own self-interest. Managers who believe employees operate in this manner are more likely to use rewards or punishments as motivation.

McGregor's theory Y: (1950s and 60s AD)

Theory Y managers assume employees are internally motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better themselves without a direct reward in return. These managers view their employees as one of the most valuable assets to the company, driving the internal workings of the corporation. Employees additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not need close supervision to create a quality product.

Maslow's theory Z: (1969 AD)

Humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow, upon whose work McGregor drew for Theories X and Y, went on to propose his own model of workplace motivation, Theory Z. Unlike Theories X and Y, Theory Z recognizes a transcendent dimension to work and worker motivation. An optimal managerial style would help cultivate worker creativity, insight, meaning and moral excellence.

My impression is that conservatives tend to theory X; liberals to theory Y or Z. I am a liberal. However, in Jesus' time, long before all this theorising, the only option available was theory X.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I stated that science knows nothing solidly acceptable for the evolution of the human body. I offered the eye as an example. You didn't reply as to your understanding of the development of the eye.
...
How would you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

I think, if you really are interested in this, not just objecting because evolution does not fit your Biblically-derived preconceptions, your best resource is Richard Dawkins. Start with 'the Selfish Gene', and take it from there. Once you've read, at least the majority of his books, you may like to tackle Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' and 'The Descent of Man'.

How would you suggest that we upgrade the doctrine (which means teaching) and dogma of conventional Christianity?

I'm gradually explaining that.

What IS the new and exciting and justified??

Pretty much, whatever new developments the evidence supports. The philosopher Karl Popper might answer, whatever advances in our thinking are consistent with reality and not so far disproven.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Depending on exactly what you mean, I would agree. No one should be discriminated against for any reason.

I really don't want to get into a debate about homosexuality. I've discussed it many times on other forums, and it does nothing but generate heat, not light.

However, if you mean acceptance and celebration of a homosexual lifestyle, gay marriage, homosexual clergy, etc., then I would disagree.

But here you describe exactly the kind of institutional discrimination I want to see an end to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think, if you really are interested in this, not just objecting because evolution does not fit your Biblically-derived preconceptions, your best resource is Richard Dawkins. Start with 'the Selfish Gene', and take it from there. Once you've read, at least the majority of his books, you may like to tackle Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' and 'The Descent of Man'.

How do you know that I don't believe in evolution due to my biblically derived preconceptions?
Are you aware that scientists also don't accept Darwin's theory of evolution?

I really have no desire to read Richard Dawkins. I've read one of his books and I have no desire to read any others.
Why do you believe HIM and not other scientists that disagree whole-heartedly with him?
Why make HIM be your hero?

I'm gradually explaining that.

Pretty much, whatever new developments the evidence supports. The philosopher Karl Popper might answer, whatever advances in our thinking are consistent with reality and not so far disproven.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't see any new developments to change my mind.
In fact, science is continually changing, but it seems to me that God remains the same.
I don't believe His nature has changed at all since the beginning of time.

And that is interesting too. Before the big bang there was no TIME.
Which is why science cannot get beyond that micro-second before the big bang.

Also, I don't quite understand if I'm speaking to a Christian that would like to see science accepted 100% - even what it's not sure about - or an atheist that is against all things about God.