There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
You can absolutely choose to have faith in anyone or anything.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
but peer pressure fosters a burgeoning relationship with God for the vast majority of the students.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
Suffice it to say I trust that God’s in control, and the changes we observe in nature — whatever they may be — are according to God’s plan.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
You don’t really need money to marry. Life is short.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren’t exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don’t have much money so I would likely need to help some of them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. She also has a lot of medical debt (and will likely continue to grow it) as a result of her condition, and a lot of student loan debt, all of which would be significantly harder to get forgiven if my income were to be considered hers. So financially it doesn’t make sense to get married here. And I am ok with that. I don’t care what the state has to say about us, nor do I care what the church says. We’re together and that’s what I care about.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
Wiktionary’s definition of “freedom” is better than M-W’s, which is typical. M-W’s not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it’s antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
That’s correct, and I’m glad you’re familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
Don’t be misled by the terms “negative” and “positive”. They don’t indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called “rights”. They’re only called “negative” and “positive” on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you’re forced to have your eyes open or closed. It’s somewhat disingenuous to use the word “forced”. It’s just a product of living in reality.
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
And [peer pressure to pray] is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it’s a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
[To trust that God’s in control] is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God’s will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they’re in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it’s the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth’s current climate is God’s will because it’s Earth’s current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God’s will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there’s somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface
It’s not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn’t a form of control by some other being.
But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
To be honest I don’t think that is a choice either. I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We’ve released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
let alone changing the entire planet.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we’ve done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy.
A republic is a type of democracy.
Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture.
I don’t seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem.
There effectively is no such tyranny in a majority, and effectively by definition. And to the degree that there occasionally is, it is far better to have a government with a tendency towards tyranny of the majority than towards tyranny of the majority.
I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
so I’m not going to get into it here.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods
You advocate for school prayer
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government.
That’s because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they’re going against “established dogma”.
The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions.
Just because something isn’t in the bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
I don’t want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You can’t have one without the other.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
[Re: “But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.”] You can’t have one without the other.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You’re free to join any church you’d like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That’s our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You’re so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you’re really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
Those aren’t just a bunch of archaic random words; they’re instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times?
We haven’t. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
Our country has a history of poorly following the constitution, but the law is the law, and the law says we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve.
You’re so fixated on this.
As are you it seems.
If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan.
It’s not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
Just saying something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence.
“The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn’t exist!”
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don’t) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don’t mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.
Being a servant is antithetical to freedom, at least the common definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
There are two main types of freedom, positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to choose between a number of options, negative freedom is the freedom from the demands/influence/laws/rules of someone/something.
For example, imagine you are stranded on some planet 100 light years away. Nobody is around, it is just you on a barren but oxygen rich desert planet. Nobody around is telling you what to do, that is negative freedom. The less somebody tells you what to do the more negative freedom you have.
An example of positive freedom would be being able to choose between numerous transportation options, car, bike, walking, train, boat, plane, etc. The more options available to you the more free you are.
I understand you may hold a different view of freedom than this, but can you at least see how being forced to worship either god or satan is antithetical to freedom in my view?
I think you are confusing trust and faith. At least how I define it.
And that is coercion, antithetical to freedom.
This is naive in both of our worldviews. In my worldview it is naive because we are responsible for the problem, and only we are capable of fixing it. Nobody will come save us from destroying ourselves other than us. And to push that responsibility onto a fictional, nonexistent being is akin to an easily preventable species wide suicide.
And even within your own it is naive because god assigned us as stewards of the land and we are royally fucking up that job. It’s our job to fix the problem no matter which way you cut it.
Unfortunately in our case at least we will. Like I said earlier we will be getting married in Costa Rica once we do, and the plane tickets and hotel fees for that aren’t exactly cheap. And I would like my family to be there but they don’t have much money so I would likely need to help some of them out with it.
We would get married here, but it would basically instantly mean that she would loose her disability aid. She also has a lot of medical debt (and will likely continue to grow it) as a result of her condition, and a lot of student loan debt, all of which would be significantly harder to get forgiven if my income were to be considered hers. So financially it doesn’t make sense to get married here. And I am ok with that. I don’t care what the state has to say about us, nor do I care what the church says. We’re together and that’s what I care about.
Wiktionary’s definition of “freedom” is better than M-W’s, which is typical. M-W’s not a very good dictionary. No offense to Mr. Webster. Their primary definition substantiates your point that it’s antithetical to servitude. In a facile sense, this is true. The fact that freedom from sin is granted by voluntary servitude to God is a little complex, and seemingly contradictory on the surface, yet perfectly true.
That’s correct, and I’m glad you’re familiar with the distinction. American rights, as used by the founders and in the Bill of Rights, are all negative rights. In later years, people began to forget that, and we see the encroachment of positive rights such as the “right” to vote, etc.
Don’t be misled by the terms “negative” and “positive”. They don’t indicate sentiment. Negative rights are legitimate natural rights, whereas positive rights are social privileges illegitimately called “rights”. They’re only called “negative” and “positive” on technical grounds.
Freedom from sin is a negative right; a natural right, granted by slavery to God.
Paradise! At least it would be until I got hungry.
Yes, sure. But that view is overly simplistic. You’re forced to the same way you’re forced to either be awake or asleep; the same way you’re forced to have your eyes open or closed. It’s somewhat disingenuous to use the word “forced”. It’s just a product of living in reality.
Hmm, maybe. But you can choose to trust just as you can choose to have faith. Free will is a powerful thing.
We have a moral responsibility to persuade children as best we can to foster a relationship with God. Their freedom not to do that is a matter of fact. Nobody can physically force someone else to pray. It’s impossible. God gave us that freedom expressly so that we come to Him as a choice rooted in faith. The fact that we have that freedom is not an excuse to deny God, though. To the contrary, it’s a reason to praise Him and love Him. And persuading children to pray cannot be antithetical to freedom, because freedom is a gift from God for the purpose of giving us that opportunity.
To suppose we’re responsible for “the problem” is shockingly arrogant, considering your appreciation for the great outdoors. We’re tiny and insignificant. To suppose we’re capable of “fixing” it is equally arrogant. We’re barely capable of anything at all, let alone changing the entire planet.
We can know God’s will by observing the state of the universe. We know the books of the Bible are canonical because they’re in the Bible. We can know our own true sex by looking in the mirror. We can know that Western civilization is essentially good because it’s the basis of our way of life. And we can know that Earth’s current climate is God’s will because it’s Earth’s current climate. Everything that happens is aligned with God’s will.
As for your assertion that this view is naive according to my worldview, there’s somewhat of a dispute among Christians between dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28) and stewardship (not scriptural). The principle of Dominion is that we are given this Earth as a temporary home, to do with as we see fit. The principle of stewardship is basically the environmentalist religion disguised as Christianity, that we are somehow all-knowing and all-powerful, as if we ourselves are gods, and that we must therefore pretend we have the collectivist duty to treat this temporary home as if it was a permanent home, and pretend that we can somehow save it. Needless to say, I side with dominion.
I find it interesting that what you believe to be a better version of the definition of freedom still says nothing about serving god, and still backs up what I say about how obeying god and serving god are anti-thetical to freedom.
It’s not just the surface. To be a servant is to be controlled, and to be controlled is to lack freedom.
An increase in the people’s control over the government is a good thing. You seem to be implying it is not.
Not really. I can choose when to sleep and when to blink my eyes. And yet you believe I am a servant (of satan), therefore controlled, therefore not free. Sleep and blinking on the other hand isn’t a form of control by some other being.
To be honest I don’t think that is a choice either. I don’t think there is any good argument out there to prove that we have free will, even under a theistic world view.
Or in other words, to brainwash children into believing falsehoods. That’s an immoral thing to do and thus not a moral responsibility.
That kind of misses the entire point, that social pressure of this kind on children is a bad thing. I haven’t claimed it is a physical force.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that humans are responsible for climate change. I can provide you with sources if you like.
We’ve released a mind mindbogglingly huge quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and it has the effect of trapping heat from the sun which warms the planet. To fix the issue we need to reverse course on our emissions, which is absolutely within our capability.
After the 1940s, after all the nuclear experiments we’ve done up until the 90s, we have forever changed the entire planet because now there are radio active molecules basically everywhere on the entire surface of the earth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/how-nuclear-testing-transformed-science/607174/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
You cannot have control over something without also having responsibility. Therefore even within your own world view we ought to fix this problem.
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
It’s a much better dictionary in general. I’m not going to cherry-pick dictionaries to back up a point I’m trying to make. I’m sure there are Christian dictionaries out there that could do that. But Wiktionary’s pretty great just on general grounds.
As for the nature of freedom, it’s really not contradicted by these definitions. The only way to achieve freedom from sin is to submit oneself to serve God. The aspect of that arrangement which is freedom from sin is represented well by the definitions.
First off, I was not implying that positive rights are “bad”. I was trying to say that they’re not legitimate rights in the traditional American sense, which had always been negative rights. I wasn’t saying anything is “good” or “bad”, just that they’re not traditional American rights.
As for your idea that an increase in the people’s control of the government is a good thing, I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s the whole reason why the US was established as a republic, if we can keep it, instead of a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a disastrous problem. Many people would gladly vote away our freedoms, and indeed you yourself are part of the effort to eliminate the Christian foundation of our culture. Our republic enforces our freedom to worship God and do His will whether we like it or not, and that’s a very good thing.
I think you missed my point on this. I meant it’s binary. A light-bulb is either on or off. There’s no third state possible. You’re like a light-bulb acknowledging it’s not on, but also denying that it’s off, instead insisting there’s some third option. I’m telling you that as a light-bulb you must be either on or off.
This is arguably the single biggest topic in the history of philosophy, so I’m not going to get into it here. There have been many well-written books on the topic penned by minds far superior to ours both. Suffice it to say that yes, there are good arguments out there, and if you really want to get into it, you can easily devote fifty years to studying the topic.
Your premise is incorrect. I do not advocate for brainwashing children into believing falsehoods. You have rejected truth, and you are convinced that Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, is somehow actually not the truth. You have been seduced by the Devil, and you are continually convinced by him to deny the truth.
I’m sorry. I used the word “physical”, and it was a bad choice of words. I meant it’s impossible to force anyone else to pray, physically or otherwise. You can force someone to shut up, bow their head, and close their eyes, but that’s about the extent of it.
Nearly 100% of the scientists who insist that’s true are funded by the government. There have been quite a few cases of rogue scientists questioning that established dogma, only to be silenced and to lose their government funding. The governments have a vested interest in spreading the lie that humans are responsible for the climate because it gives them an excuse to expand their power and pass arbitrary powerful laws controlling people. If you were to provide me with those sources (which no, you don’t need to spend time on), we’d find that nearly 100% of them involved government funding. Follow the money.
Imagine finding out that most ants believe their ancestors created the moon, and that they’re all responsible for keeping it up in the sky. I’m familiar with the theory of global warming, and that is what it sounds like. There’s nothing in the Bible about carbon emissions. But you know what is in the Bible? Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
We cannot “fix” a “problem” that God wants. It is hubris to pretend we could, and disrespectful to God to pretend we should.
Neither of these definitions mention god, sin, or serving god though.
A republic is a type of democracy.
I don’t seek to prevent anybody from practicing their religion, nor do I vote to do so. I do however vote to maintain the separation between church and state which is something else entirely.
The 1st amedment explicitly states otherwise, that our government shall not enforce religion.
There effectively is no such tyranny in a majority, and effectively by definition. And to the degree that there occasionally is, it is far better to have a government with a tendency towards tyranny of the majority than towards tyranny of the majority.
And a light bulb doesn’t serve anybody which makes it a bad comparison.
I am aware, so I will also not get into it here. Just know going forward I don’t really see free will as something that makes sense.
You advocate for school prayer
That’s because nearly all of the research done on the climate is funded by the government. This is kind of like being surprised that the water in a puddle is shaped exactly to fit the hole that the puddle is in.
They get kicked out because they make shit up and mislead the public, not because they’re going against “established dogma”.
Not really. National security is the excuse the government uses for this purpose, not the environment.
Just because something isn’t in the bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Did you ever think that maybe god wants us to fix the problem? Have you considered that you might be going against god’s will when you say we should do nothing to prevent further damage to the environment/god’s creation? It seems pretty straightforward to me that if god exists and created us and this planet, that such a god would want us to take good care of the planet.
I don’t want the Senate to declare that the Pope has legal authority over Americans any more than you do.
But freedom of religion is not freedom from religion. In America, we have the former. Not the latter.
You are either with God or against God. The US is one nation under God.
It’s a good comparison because I’m trying to make a point about possible states. When you reject God, you embrace Satan, because there are only two possible states. Just like a light-bulb.
You don’t need to understand something in order to accept that it’s true, or that it exists.
Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you live in a state of perpetual prayer, you will know what God wants from you personally. You will learn that His will often goes against your own, and that it sometimes makes no sense to you.
You can’t have one without the other.
And the states you are comparing are inherently a bad comparison because the state of a light bulb is in no way representative of serving, which is an active action.
You know what I meant. The evidence for free will is lacking, therefore I do not believe it exists.
That doesn’t answer my question. How do you know that god doesn’t want humans to solve climate change on our own? “Just pray for an answer” doesn’t tell me anything about the methodology of how you came to your current conclusion of “no”.
Did god personally tell you that the answer was no? Is it just a feeling you have? Was it some “sign”?
Then how did we always have one without the other until recent times? You’re free to join any church you’d like, regardless of affiliation, provided that you worship the Lord our God. That’s our freedom of religion. If you deny God, you embrace Satan, and until fairly recently that would have meant you’d be locked away in a mental asylum.
You’re so fixated on this. If you insist, yes, a light-bulb “serves” its master, where its master is its owner who flips the light-switch on and off. But you’re really missing the point here.
We have two possible states, in which we cling to God or Satan. There is no third option. Satan will insist that neither he nor God exists, and you can choose to believe that lie at your eternal peril.
The evidence is within you every time you choose to reject God. Indeed every time you type a character in reply to me, you evidence free will.
The entire premise requires us to arrogantly suppose we could possibly control the whole planet, which is contrary to everything God tells us.
James 4:10
Those aren’t just a bunch of archaic random words; they’re instructions for how we are to live. And they are entirely applicable to the climate agenda. When we are humble, we put our trust in God, not ourselves.
We haven’t. We have always had both. It has always been the law that you are allowed to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all. And it has always been the law that there is a separation between church and state, a prohibition on government to be religious.
Our country has a history of poorly following the constitution, but the law is the law, and the law says we have the freedom to believe or disbelieve.
As are you it seems.
A light bulb has no agency to server anything.
It’s not just the states I take issue with though. And the states you list are a false dichotomy as evidence by the sports analogy from earlier.
Just saying something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence.
“The complete lack of life in the universe outside of our planet is evidence that god doesn’t exist!”
One can say that and be entirely wrong.
God gave us dominion, what is dominion if not complete control? And again, we definitely have the power to do so because there is mountains of scientific evidence showing that humans are responsible for climate change.
That’s all assuming you know god’s plan which is heretical. Unless you know his plans (you don’t) then you should assume the worst case, that god intends for us to deal with the problem on our own.
Responsibility for our own actions should be the default. I don’t mean to be glib but of all people I would have hoped a conservative would understand that.