The Failure of Progressivism

Cultural stereotypes, mainly.

I did state that it is a major problem, not the only one. I haven't heard of any unarmed tatted up white chicks being shot by police. Have you?

I figured that this topic was more appropriate for the direction that you and I are heading in this ongoing series of arguments. Putting Jesus aside for the moment....I DID look into Marxism. I looked into Karl Marx himself, as well as several notable figures that had arisen since Marx died.For now, lets see what Wikipedia says about each of them,. keeping in mind that this whole Left vs Right discussion will have propoganda on either side of the divide. OK, thats about what I figured that Marxism was. It does not take a genius to understand that whole philosophy. I will argue, as does Hyro, that that entire system is antithetical to the system that we have here in the United States. I further argue that Marx himself has been quoted as saying that he wants to dethrone "God" and to replace Capitalism. Of course, you well know that I would staunchly oppose both objectives, and if that makes me a "rightwing nut, so be it. I do approve of some liberally derived policies such as social security, medicare, and Obamacare. I am quite obviously opposed to throwing God away, as Marx indirectly suggested.

quote:

---

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.[242]

---

I also am firmly opposed to the idea that Socialism is on the path towards Communism. Do you think that it is?

Phat, Marxism is not socialism is not liberalism. These terms are NOT synonymous.Jesus was almost certainly a socialist but he also thought he was going to be an earthly king on earth so I'm not sure how that would have worked out.

Lets leave Jesus out of this topic. We obviously disagree as toi His nature and whether or not He was bigger than the character in the book. (He Was and IS)Lets discuss Saul Alinsky
Lets discuss why Britain is such a pacifist regarding the invasion of Radical Islam.

Given that the book is all there is, what's in there is all you get. Anything else you are making up.But it's pretty bloody obvious that the guy is not a self-centred, every-man-for-himself, grab what you can, capitalist. 'Scuse me?

I disagree. The book was a written response to human encounters with God...not an origin of human mythos[/b]. But then again, why would I expect anyone of you to agree with me?I cant convince you that I am not making it up any more than I can convince you that they were not making it up. Perhaps God Himself will try to convince you some day, but at that point you will become fully responsible for you r decisions.Which leads us into other argumens. jars Socratic teachers and critical thinkers convinced him that religion was relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute. You also fall for that deception. I dunno if we can blame Marx of Alinsky for that one, however. I think that where we disagree is in the area of critical thought processes, and if so, I wont blame you for being as you are.

Phat you really gotta stop making stupid shit up.The evidence, all of the evidence convinced me that religion was relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute.Arian Christianity was different than Roman Christianity.
Christianity is different than Judaism.
Judaism is different that Islam.
Shall I go on yet again?
Taoism is different than Confucianism.
Buddhism is different than Hinduism.
Greek Theology is different than Roman Theology or Celtic Theology or Norse Theology.And NO ONE has even provided any evidence of any essential absolute.It is evidence, evidence available to everyone of any faith that convinced me and no one of any faith has ever presented evidence or reasoned argument to refute my position.You really need to stop posting made up shit as though it were anything but your made up shit.Edited by jar, : one - "e"Edited by jar, : that ----> than

So what? It doesn't change the absolute fact that everything you believe in comes from that book. Whatever...the book is still the book and it's all you have. You are totally screwed up. You don't know which way is up anymore.

So how do you know that its God? How do you know whether or not you even know God? And I realize you will reason your way out of this. You will say several things.
1) Phat, the fact is that I am a believer. I belong to an established club. (In other words, you said the prayers, believed the rituals, etc.) But tell me...when you pray with the people, or by yourself, how do you know that you are talking to God, whethere He is the Creator of all seen and unseen beyond all cultural refereence and mythos, and that you are able to converse with Him due to the humanity of Jesus? Or do you honestly say that you dont know? Because I do.Now I am under no illusion that I fully know GOD> I believe that through Jesus Christ I have the right God. I suppose that in the strict definition of the word "know" that I have no external independent evidence, though as a believer I feel that the fruit in the lives of others is confirmation. You may well argue that this only proves groupthink and confirmation bias, but you have never actually seen the supernatural (or what you would call an unexplained event.) and if you have, you approached it logically, rationally, and critically, throwing it away if it remained unexplained. And yes, I am assuming a lot and saying things about you that I dont fully know. But thats how I roll...I wont simply let you framee a topic...I too have input.Anyway, to sum it up--I feel that by claiming not to know, you are shortchanging yourself.You will of course counter that by "making up" the God we market, we are lying to ourselves. But I can honestly say that I do not knowingly make up God. He made me.

Then you should know that I'm not a Marxist. You're the one who's worried about class conflict, not me. You can stop arguing about Marx. You can forget about Marx. Marx has nothing to do with me. No.No more than coffee is on the path towards heroin.

Phat, reread that post. Where does ANYTHING in your post have to do with providing any evidence of any essential absolute?Yet that is the quote from my post you claim to address.And what about all that I posted and you ignored?

quote:

---

The evidence, all of the evidence convinced me that religion was relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute.

​

Arian Christianity was different than Roman Christianity.
Christianity is different than Judaism.
Judaism is different than Islam.
Shall I go on yet again?
Taoism is different than Confucianism.
Buddhism is different than Hinduism.
Greek Theology is different than Roman Theology or Celtic Theology or Norse Theology.

​

... {the one line you cherry picked} ...

​

It is evidence, evidence available to everyone of any faith that convinced me and no one of any faith has ever presented evidence or reasoned argument to refute my position.

---

I was replying to your direct assertion of why I believe what I believe and I pointed out that you were simply misrepresenting once again my position. And now in your latest post you once again ignore the facts I present and post yet another example of your belief rather than support what you claim to be addressing or the bulk of what I posted.Can you see a continuing pattern in your posts Phat?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I was just arguing about why you are not a believer. Based on your own criteria, there is no way that you would ever believe without evidence.What mystifies me is why you claim to be a believeer. About all that you believe in is the club rules and guidelines. You have no God in which to believe. Unless I can get you to admit that you believe without evidence. It is not on us to prove anything to you. It is on you to claim why you are a believer when there is no evidence.Thats what you try and do...to challenege anyone of any faith to refute your position. But your position...and you...stand alone.I will admit that I believe without objective eevidence (all I have is internal) and have no problem with it. It works for me and I work for Him.(or try to do so)Im just challenging what the whole definition of being a believer actually is. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Two Documentaries which I watched made a fairly solid case for why Wessztern culture(Judeeo Christian Heritage) is being challenged, overturned, changed, and diluted through relativism and through teachings which disagree with the core values which arguably made us who we are today.
Values such as the family, the church, and the courts.

Think Phat; really try it. You might like it.Haven't I and a whole herd of folk repeatedly said that belief is ALWAYS without evidence.But what you are replying to is in fact evidence and evidence must ALWAYS trump belief.I was replying to your direct assertion of why I say what I say and I pointed out that you were simply misrepresenting once again my position. What began this exchange was your silly assertion about why I hold the positions I express. And it is because there actually is evidence to support those positions; no belief is needed or necessary or relevant.

quote:

---

The evidence, all of the evidence convinced me that religion was relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute.

​

Arian Christianity was different than Roman Christianity.
Christianity is different than Judaism.
Judaism is different than Islam.
Shall I go on yet again?
Taoism is different than Confucianism.
Buddhism is different than Hinduism.
Greek Theology is different than Roman Theology or Celtic Theology or Norse Theology.

​

... {the one line you cherry picked} ...

​

It is evidence, evidence available to everyone of any faith that convinced me and no one of any faith has ever presented evidence or reasoned argument to refute my position.

---

Those are ALL facts Phat. Facts that support the conclusion that ALL religion is relative to culture and that there is no essential absolute.Yes I am a believer. Yes there is NO evidence to support my beliefs. Yes, what I believe is unreasonable, unsupportable and illogical.But you keep making statements as demonstrated in this exchange where you demonstrate that you cannot address anything that anyone posts. All you can do is spout dogma.No one doubts that you believe what you believe but as in this exchange, when you are confronted with the evidence that does refute your stated position ether throw you position away or present evidence or reasoned arguments to support your position.Edited by jar, : add the assertion from Phat that started this exchange.Edited by jar, : fixed grammur