2024-03-28, 23:15 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Ice Storm of "Biblical" Proportions?  (Read 6283 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« on: 2007-12-12, 16:42 »

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3987688&page=1

They're calling it a storm of "biblical" proportions.  I find this rather interesting since the bible and religion are playing a rather significant role in US presidential politics at the moment.  It makes me wonder if maybe a stark choice is going to be put before the American people - a conservative, Christian candidate on the right, and a not so godly, liberal candidate on the left.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint all liberals as secularists or anti-God (though I think Hillary is a devil), nor all conservatives as bible-thumping believers, but I consider the times.  Say I'm right about biblical prophecy, and there's a showdown of (literally in this case) biblical proportions on the horizon.  Wouldn't it seem fitting for people to be forced into choosing what direction they want their country to go in?  I mean, no more wishy-washy "I believe in God, but separation of church and state" kind of politics, but someone who says "I represent those who want a Christian nation" vs someone who holds the opposing view?  If you believe the bible, this kind of stark choice has been put to the Israelites in the past many times, where God has said "Follow me, or this will happen".  Well, historically the "this will happen" part has happened - Judah was scattered around the world, and as Jesus said when speaking of the temple to his disciples, not one stone was left unturned - the temple was destroyed.  Jesus says He is the way to eternal life, take it or leave it - there's no middle ground, you must choose.  If this election, after the party primaries, turns into a contest between Huckabee and Hillary...  Well let's just say I can't think of two more complete opposites to run against each other.  We'll have to wait and see of course, but if that transpires it will be interesting no doubt, and no one can say that they're "just the same" this time around (that would be Giuliani vs Clinton).  Perhaps the nation will be given a clear cut choice - do you want God, or not?

So what does all this have to do with an ice storm?  It just got me thinking how cold people have been toward God, and faith, in this age of consumerism, Christmas profits, and the sacrificing of Baby Jesus on the altar of Capitalism.  So many people are so selfish, mean spirited, and apathetic anymore it seems.  In the Old Testament, God appeared to the Jews as a pillar of fire, a column of smoke, a burning bush - all nice warm toasty things, never a bucket of ice or a snowman, or what have you.  Perhaps it's a sign of the times, when people have grown so cold toward each other, so lacking in love, and compassion, and general goodwill.  Maybe it's a slap in the face for the religious-like fanaticism of the global warming environmentalists, God saying "I'm still the Lord - here's a nice non-sequitur for you".  Maybe a storm is just a storm, though I seldom see things that way myself.  I hate the cold.  I also hate ice storms.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
~Va^^pyrA~
 

Beta Tester
Spider Mastermind
*********
Posts: 484

Do These Fangs Make My Butt Look Big?

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2007-12-12, 22:50 »

I mean, no more wishy-washy "I believe in God, but separation of church and state" kind of politics, but someone who says "I represent those who want a Christian nation" vs someone who holds the opposing view?

I don't find that to be "wishy-washy" in the least. Politicians are entitled to have their own personal views, just like everyone else in the nation. That is exactly why there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Upholding that code is a core value of the American government and thus something that all politicians should believe in regardless of their own personal views. Giving one religion any kind of political power bodes poorly for differing beliefs, and often times even infringes upon personal rights that don't even concern the supernatural.

Then again, perhaps it's difficult for people that believe in a universal theocracy to be truly productive members of a democracy (or even a republic for that matter).
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2007-12-13, 01:06 »

The history of the US government is quite the opposite though.  The founders, despite arguments that have been made to the contrary, were not deists but very much Christians.  To quote Benjamin Franklin,

Quote
God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.
This was delivered at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and simply one example among hundreds of historical writings.  A lot of the establishment clause has been taken out of its context in the last few decades.  If there truly was not supposed to be any mention of any faith in government, why is it physically enshrined in so many government buildings?  All one has to do is read the words of the founders themselves to determine their original intent, which was to keep government out of religion so that there would not be an American version of the Anglican Church - not to erase any free exercise of religion from the public forum.  One may be free to disagree the founders' view, or my view, or anyone else's view, but I think a rewriting of history, as is going on in educational circles at present, is neither helpful nor necessary to any discussion.  If one truly wishes to promote the idea that government should be entirely secular, that is fine.  I just prefer that those promoting secularism be forthright in their intentions.  If it's such a good thing, why all the subversion?  Why be scared of religion if it's such a better idea?  Should ideas not be embraced for their founding principles, or not at all?  I think it is not enough simply for someone to believe something.  They need to know why they believe it, otherwise it is simply blind acceptance.  This applies to faith or any political or social ideology.  If you don't know why you think something, how can any useful discussion of its merits or lack thereof ever be made?  It devolves into "I'm right - you're wrong" entrenched arguing, with neither side really knowing for what they are arguing.

I think there's far too much of this that goes on behind the scenes, and not enough out in the public eye.  As for "wishy-washy", you can't tell me that there are not hordes of politicians who will pander for votes and then engage in behavior opposite of that which they display to those they court when they think it's politically expedient.  The idea that a politician's personal views must exist in a vacuum outside of government, to me, is an absurdity.  How can you separate the person from their character?  The whole person must be examined if they are to represent their constituents, otherwise they are either selling snake oil and have no convictions, or else will govern as half a man with their convictions hamstrung by the specter of political correctness.  If liberalism is good, campaign as a liberal, don't try to pretend you're not, likewise for conservatism, likewise for a religious belief or opposition to it.  Pretending that you can have a religious person in office, and not have religion play a role in their decision making is akin to asking a bear to dinner and complaining about it behaving like a bear once it's at the table, and if the population elects a person whose religious convictions mirror their own, is it not then the responsibility of that elected official to represent the concerns of his or her constituents, including concerns of faith?

Either way, my intent was not to explicitly discuss the role of religion in government, though one can be free to discuss that here, but rather to muse about the possibility of God playing some more direct role in the affairs of the world at present.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
~Va^^pyrA~
 

Beta Tester
Spider Mastermind
*********
Posts: 484

Do These Fangs Make My Butt Look Big?

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2007-12-14, 17:58 »

Either way, my intent was not to explicitly discuss the role of religion in government, though one can be free to discuss that here, but rather to muse about the possibility of God playing some more direct role in the affairs of the world at present.

I understand that. I merely wanted to make my original statement. I can't say I'm keen on turning it into a multi-page discussion however. Heh. That said, I doubt I'll post anymore other than the elaboration below. If you feel inclined to reply to anything specific, I'd be more than happy to hear your viewpoint as your posts are always well thought-out if nothing else. Slipgate - Smile

I would agree with most of your statements in the seconds post. Perhaps I misunderstood exactly what you were getting at initially. Certainly, politicians that use one platform to achieve opposing goals (or even abandon their original platform for one that is simply more popular) are not only wishy-washy but liars and exactly the kind of scum that continually erodes America's government. If however, (and this is what I thought you meant at first) a politician makes his religious beliefs clear yet acts in a politically secular manner, I would not necessarily consider that wishy-washy.

In a perfect world, that's how it should and would work with everyone. Certainly, politicians should make use of any experience they have (whether it be spiritual or academic) to help them come to a decision. That does not mean however, that one should let their own personal views influence policy making. I think that a key element in any politician is their ability to separate personal views from what will be fairest for everyone. And that is not limited to religion by any means.


Now, to give you some idea of where I stand; I'm a particularly spiritual person myself. I don't claim any specific denomination, as I have developed my own beliefs over what has been almost two decades. I personally think that anyone who allows themselves to be told what they believe is inherently just following and not actually choosing. This is a problem that any religion has, as parents often times (unknowingly) force faith upon their children from the very beginning. There is, of course, a fine, and not readily visible line between teaching your offspring your beliefs and effectively brainwashing them while they're young and ripe for influence.

My own views developed, ironically enough, from playing a pagan while I was younger. Being a Wiccan and freaking people out was "cool", but I grew out of it like most teenage girls do. That's not to say that I completely abandoned the ideology though. It, like most paths, promotes harmony with ones self and others. I personally still don't believe in any specific deity, but instead use ones from many different pantheons (you could call me polytheistic, I guess) for the abundance of meaning that they all possess. It's the same for "rituals". Many of them may look to be primitive displays, but it is the symbolism that is important. They act as reminders of why I do the things I do, hopefully giving me some personal value or meaning in day-to-day life. It's really no different than anyone's holiday festivities, except that perhaps I know the meaning behind the tradition and not just the marketing campaign.

I have customized and/or entirely tailor-made every facet of my belief system (though I am hesitant to call it that) because I would feel as though I wasn't doing myself justice otherwise. I understand that such a drastically spiritual life isn't for everyone, yet I can't help but feel that those people who simply grow up only half-knowing the one system that they were told to believe in as a child are missing out on precisely why people once found it to be so important. Ironically, those are typically the people that will defend their religion as the only answer and refuse to recognize merit in anything else. Or conversely, those people that have no guidance (whether it be a god or personal code) and thrive on a selfish existence.


It all really boils down to a general lack of acceptance, regardless of what side you are on. That is why I believe strongly in a separation of church and state, as thought of by todays "revisionist" standards if you will. It has nothing to do with wanting the destruction of any or all religion, but rather to preserve the freedom that people have to exercise whatever faith they prefer. And not only that, but more overtly political freedoms as well. I may be particularly liberal in the majority of my views, but I feel no bias when I say that many of the people who use religion as their sole tool of influence in todays America would be more likely to limit personal freedom than others. This is seemingly because a lot of people have turned their faith into (or have had it turned into) a system of fear and hate. You hear a lot about the "culture war" today, and I think that it is a fairly valid assessment. Stereotypically, you have the superficially religious side wanting to limit freedoms by imposing their personal views upon others for so-called victimless "crimes". Not only is that unfair to the people who would be affected by said limitations, but also unfair for anyone of faith that do not use it as such an instrument, as it makes them look bad by loose association.


I'm fairly sure that, when laid out plainly, just about anyone can agree with what has been said. Believe what you want to believe, but don't expect others to. I know I don't, but I'm always receptive to those who think differently, so long as they are not condescending toward me for disagreeing. And that goes for everything, not just spirituality. A general lack of goodwill toward our fellow man is perhaps the biggest problem that the world suffers from today (or yesterday). It is misfortune that I don't believe will ever go away, especially as people seemingly become more greedy and more selfish every moment that passes.

Anyway, thank you for allotting me with the opportunity to offer up a little insight into myself. It felt a lot less awkward than I initially thought, even if I didn't go very far into specifics. Having it all typed out is, of course, different than verbally speaking of it as I'm accustomed to. Slipgate - Love
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2007-12-14, 23:29 »

I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything you have to say there.  It is a mature and well thought out viewpoint.  To me, the ability to choose what one believes is the most important choice there is.  It is interference with that freedom I am opposed to.  I believe that if one seeks the truth, then eventually they will find it.  I trust that God knows what He's doing a lot better than we do, so anyone really trying to find the truth will have their path lit from above.

Where I find a problem with today's society is that it seems the ability to freely express one's faith in public is diminishing.  It is one thing to protect the freedoms of various groups, but I find that in practice, government is doing a fine job in destroying the rights of all in the name of religious and political tolerance.  The very term "politically correct" has a kind of totalitarian sting to it.  It means "do this OUR way", yet, many of the same people who promote political correct speech do so only when it suits their given purpose and cry censorship when anyone else is given voice.  It is on the same grounds as burning books or maintaining an "approved" reading list for your flock.  The limitation of free expression of any one ideology diminishes all of them.  Granted there are some dangerous and subversive people who will try to suck people in to use them as tools for evil ends, but that's a danger wherever you go.  It is human nature to use and abuse other humans.  That, above all else, is a lesson that all children should be taught - trust must be earned, and motives should be suspected.  All within reason of course, but ignorance more often leads to destruction rather than bliss.

I think what has happened and sparked what is called the "culture war" in sound bites is a backlash against this trend of forced silence.  Historically I have found that government censorship is palatable to whomever group it serves at the moment, and once that group falls under the knife they suddenly realize why it should be objectionable.  Right now many Christian groups are feeling pressured and muzzled, and they're rebelling as a result.  I think this is good so long as it serves to make freedom of speech and expression more free.  The moment they start muzzling those who disagree with them, I will object to that the same as I am objecting to what is happening now.  If there is to be free expression, then as you said, this general lack of goodwill toward men must be overcome.  "Peace on Earth, goodwill to men".  Is that not what is sung this time of year?  I will pray for it at least.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
~Va^^pyrA~
 

Beta Tester
Spider Mastermind
*********
Posts: 484

Do These Fangs Make My Butt Look Big?

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2007-12-18, 02:30 »

If there is to be free expression, then as you said, this general lack of goodwill toward men must be overcome.  "Peace on Earth, goodwill to men".  Is that not what is sung this time of year?  I will pray for it at least.

I must be in the holiday spirit to have made that reference! Gathering with ones family always builds with an exciting anticipation for me. Of course, it's Christmas for them and Yule for me. I don't mind the gesture though. Jesus was (is?) a pretty agreeable guy, after all. Slipgate - Wink
Logged
McDeth
 

Makron
********
Posts: 388

Wildly Inappropriate

« Reply #6 on: 2007-12-18, 04:03 »

I don't have the energy to write out an entire manifesto about power, man, and government so let me keep this short and sweet.

It isn't religion that drives people into committing acts of war against their fellow man, it is power that men seek. I find that leading people under the flag of religion is the most efficient way to rally enough to people to allow a person to gain power. I think faith is a wonderful thing, perhaps even the most precious thing that a human being can have, but I always said that religion can be very dangerous.
Logged

Beer? I'm down.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #7 on: 2007-12-18, 08:26 »

What I think is dangerous isn't religion so much as blind fanaticism.  The Nazis, Soviets, and other fascists killed more people in the 20th century under their brutal regimes than were killed in all religious wars in all of history prior to that point, and all one has to do is look at East Berlin during that time to see how much liberty could be lost.  Yet... it wasn't religion that was driving them, it was, as you said, the lust for power.  I've heard the term "religious fervor" used in describing the fanaticism that propelled Hitler into domination of Germany.  I think what happens, and this is just an opinion and observation of mine and nothing more, is that humans are born with a need for religion in their lives, and what happens is if they don't choose to follow God, something else will become their religion, be it some political ideology, environmentalism, some social "cause", what have you.  Blue collar workers have their unions, corporate types have the company...  I think this is why the first commandment given to Moses was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", and the second was "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them".  If man does indeed need to be religious, and God was trying to keep the wayward Hebrews that he just liberated from Egypt from straying into idolatry (which they did anyway while Moses was up on the mountain) then it would make sense to put these as the most important commandments.  I think it is very easy for people to become caught up "with the crowd" and just do as they do and forget.

If someone does serve a god of some kind, should they not be devoted to that out of love and conscious choice, and should they not understand that choice?  I firmly believe that people need to question what they're told, and understand why they're doing something.  I think it is fine to be fanatical about the right things.  I think it is dangerous to be fanatical about something you have no understanding of, and doubly dangerous to think you're right to do it, and it's even worse to be fanatical about something that you know is harmful to to others and demeans that which is sacred to them.  If someone wants to put up a menorah next to a nativity scene, and add a yule tree next to that, that's fine with me.  Just don't rip them down if you don't believe in them.  Faith is a part of human (and non-human) existence and should be celebrated, not forbidden.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: