It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Secular Human agenda": a grand deception

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Suppose that Jesus Christ is true when He says "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me will live even though he dies. Do you believe?" Wouldn't you want to know this? If everlasting life, and the resurrection from the dead were true, wouldn't you want to believe?

Thousands of witnesses at a time have testified to the great signs, portents, wonders, and miracles He has done throughout recorded history up to the present; the power of His living Word such that men would follow him upon command, and indeed still speaks to us today, where we are; profound teaching in truth and love; His Passion and glorious triumph over death itself; the miracles during Pentecost; these are just a few of the reasons, more numerous than the Books record, that the first believers would rather die then renounce their faith, or deny their testimony, by which they came to faith. It's no secret that people encounter the Risen Christ in their lives even today!

If you take the time to sincerely search out the scriptures, to examine the history of Israel, to better understand their rich religious inheritance, what you will find is the collective testimony of a people about the God of their deliverance, and the great things that God had done for them, first for the Jews, and then through Christ to the Gentiles! It is truly the greatest story ever told, and yet it is only dimly seen! You will read the stories of how He has revealed Himself in History, by law, with wisdom and prophecy, and with great signs and wonders. You will learn of His age old covenant to His people to deliver them; His unfailing faithfulness, and of His plan for our final salvation, and eternal life through the Messiah, a Holy King of the line of King David—Jesus Christ!

You would learn of the alienation man suffers from God because of the curse of eden, about our need for atonement, and Christs victory at Gethsemene, about forgiveness for our sins; you would learn about the blessed hope offered to us by God through Jesus the Christ, Emmanuel, and His powerful fulfillment of the messianic prophecies written of old, and the good news that God did not create us to be a cursed people under the power of death and sin, but for abundant life and friendship with Him! Praise be to God for His great love even for sinners! For God the Father has sent His Son Jesus, the Paschal Lamb without blemish, to take upon Himself the curse of sin and death upon the altar of the cross so that we could be forgiven, to share in the hope of His glorious resurrection from the dead, and everlasting Kingdom!

To be able to more able to appreciate this inheritance it is important that we turn our hearts to these stories with curiosity and wonder, with sincerity in seeking truth, as if searching for something of great value!

It is unfortunate that these days the learned are taught to dismiss these sort of things outright, and disbelieve the miraculous, as if it were a fact that miracles can not happen. This popular world view seems to arise from a post-modern secular culture that is more concerned with pleasure and profits than with prudence and virtue; with science and technology, instead of God's power, and the love He has for His creation.

The mechanisms by which this world view is propagated are what can only be described as a cross roads where the natural sciences, liberal media, popular press, and popular culture intersects with the love of money that is seemingly inextricably entwined with modern capitalism.



This comes as no surprise and only confirms that Christ is true, that the spirit of the world is hostile to the Spirit of God, and His people, as it is a creation under the curse of the original sin: the power of evil, death, and suffering.

A broad range of the human experience testifies as to the existence of evil, and our innate reaction of revulsion to it, and the need for justice; the grief and mourning by which we respond to death, the sorrowful experience of suffering, guilt and shame, and our need for forgiveness, are felt the world throughout. Similarly questions about the immortality of the human soul, eternal paradise, and God point to what can only be described as a collective yearning for healing, abundant joy, redemption, salvation, forgiveness, and perfection; for the triumph of life over death, good over evil, love over violence, and light over darkness; yearnings to be a part of that triumph!

It seems questions about the meaning of life, of purpose and identity, about the existence and nature of the Divine, are inscribed upon our hearts. We all ask the question “what is the life worth living,” and whether we realize it, so to do we pursue.

A world view is a schema by which we understand the world around us, and our place in it. A persons world view contains particular beliefs and values that direct us in this experience called life. The way we look at the world, how we order our life, and for what reasons. Certain fundamental beliefs that comprise a world view might include our own personal answers to questions like: what is the good life? Does God exist and what does He require of us? By what principles is it by which we make value decisions and why? What is right and what is wrong?

There is a popular worldview which has emerged from the 20th century that offers us broad answers to these questions. This worldview as a whole might be called secular humanism. It tells us a story about the world. It tells the story that God doesn't exist; that nothing supernatural exists; that ultimately there is no right or wrong, and when it comes to value judgments, “different strokes for different folks”; that identifies the Human Person as a product of evolution; a story that renders the Human Person as nothing other than a pleasure seeking materialistic consumer to be preyed upon, or exploited.

Suffice to say that the ideas inherent in this worldview constitute a radical departure from the virtues, values, and lessons of our cultural inheritance, and can undoubtedly be traced to advances in technology, and what the world calls knowledge, or gnosis, that have only exponentially increased in occurrence over the past few centuries. How it is that we know, what it means to know, as somehow indistinguishable from belief, and other questions of epistemology are being the scope of this discourse. With the good, has come the bad, and the ugly.

Religious faith, and its accompanying virtues are not the only values that are being crowded out amongst the thorns of secular and consumer culture. The philosophies of the empires past from whom Western civilization owes it cultural, aesthetic, and intellectual inheritance, cherished notions of truth and justice, concepts of beauty and that which is transcendent and sublime. These values are being forgotten as a result of the modern worldview propagated in secular culture, one that seems to value money and power at any cost.

The question of why the modern culture teaches us to spit these good things out, meaning questions and discussion about God, religion, or anything controversial really, before they can even be tasted was keenly answered when St. Paul wrote that “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”


edit on 4-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The worldview propagated by the secular culture-in liberal media, pop-culture, press, and the public education system, is a mirage of smoke and mirrors; a strong delusion that steers us collectively, from discovering the truth about God, the Lord Jesus Christ and our need for His redemption; His purpose for us and our identity. It threatens not just the basis of our society, but our very identity as Persons. This may seem difficult to believe, but let us examine the facts.

The idea called relativism, is at the core of this worldview. It is one of the ideas that is prevalent in today's zeitgeist. Relativism is the idea that metaphysical truth is a matter of personal opinion, as if truth and virtue are arbitrary, changing, or subjective. This idea has us all living in our own little Universe essentially. The implicit rejection of metaphysical truth, and values that accompany relativism, is inextricably entwined with the dissolution of time honored principles and ideas about the human person. These principles form a firm foundation upon which the nation stands. If a nations morals have become corrupt, how can it stand?

Another such idea at the heart of this worldview is scientific naturalism and its implicit rejection of anything metaphysical or Divine. Another danger implicit in accepting the popular principle of relativism is that it threatens to undermine truth itself, and dissolve the common bonds of duty to ones neighbors by which society exists at all. The natural sciences have construed a synthesis of the natural uncreated man, evolution, and a survival of the fittest mentality that accompanies the natural order of animals. Along with relativism, this worldview of scientific naturalism is at the root of the transformation to a materialistic consumer culture made possible by the industrial, scientific, and technological revolutions. Christ Jesus taught “behold I send you out as sheep amongst wolves, therefore be shrewd as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

The novelty of technology, 'consumer goods', convenience, speed, and the knowledge by which these things are possible became an obsession, an addiction even, and so we gladly accepted these tethers, for we are taught they are progress, and liberation, and so they seem. These things, in part, are reason for the triumph of corporate 'persons', and the greed of capitalism, over the time honored, self-evident, and well established principles of Human dignity that once guided the values of the West, and governed our interactions.

The adversities caused by these rapid changes in how we perceive ourselves as a people, how we understand the world around us to be, and our place in it, are exasperated when we abandon our cultural inheritance. When we have forgotten those time honored ideas and lessons about who we are as a people, about life, about the Universe and our place in it, we are severed from our roots, and left without foundation. The void left by rejecting notions of an eternal God, truth, and virtue is inescapable. The disengendered person is without identity, context, or purpose apart from their Creator, and as such they are left with only the inevitable vanity and confusion common under the curse of sin and death, and vulnerable to a cursed existence of anomy, exploitation, and degradation by ravenous predators.

We risk forgetting our true identity and purpose when we accept the technicolor robes the world offers to clothe our nakedness. Only by understanding our origins, as Created for paradise, perfection, and friendship with God, do we recognize what is plain and distinct: that we do yearn for these sublime things: for God, and for His joy; His purpose, and our identity in Him; that we are a people in a world that is under the curse of sin and death; that we are in need of salvation, forgiveness, healing.


If one considers the popular saying “to each their own”, and the relativism implicit therein, or “different strokes for different folks,” it is clear that what is being suggested is that there are no objective normative values or laws that can be agreed upon as true, right, and binding.

The implication of relativism, which forms an intersect with the worldview of the natural sciences, materialism, and consumer culture, is that there is no right or wrong. That relativism is an absurdity should be self evident, for it is a contradiction. Furthermore our experience shows that sin and evil do exist, as does guilt and justice. This insidious idea of relativism is dangerous not just for our minds, but for our very souls! If we accept that there is no right or wrong then there is no sin; if there is no sin there is no need for forgiveness and redemption, and as such the good news of salvation through the Passion and resurrection of Christ is without meaning.

Another danger implicit in accepting the popular principle of relativism is that it threatens to undermine truth itself, and dissolve the common bonds of duty to ones neighbors by which society exists at all. This duty to ones neighbor, and intrinsic rights, are described in the foremost philosophies of Western political thought, and in the chartering documents, conventions, treaties, and constitutions of the nations and empires it has inspired. We accept these values as agreeable and good: to respect the life, liberty, property, and right to pursue happiness, of one another. It's kind of like the golden rule. That anyone who ought look can recognize and agree that these principles are sound and valid is what is meant that they are self-evident. The intrinsic value of these principles, that they are recognizable and agreeable as good, is what is meant, that they are true.

The normative values that establish the foundation of western civilization are meaningless for those whom accept relativism as agreeable, and good. Western politics have accepted as a matter of law that normative values do exist, as do true principles, and just laws with proportional punishments. If there were no normative values that people could agree upon as good and true, then arbitrary notions of crime would bring into question by what authority criminal justice could be derived and executed.

Suffice to say the notion of relativism, as commonly understood, is flawed intrinsically. Yet why is relativism so appealing as an idea? Why is it so pervasive in the postmodern American worldview? Perhaps the reason is because the idea is true, agreeable, and useful, in some sense. Perhaps the roots are deeper; in need of further digging. We must be vigalent so as to discern what is true, as the cup with the poison requires the sweetest mask.

One way that relativism proves true and useful for communicating, is when it is used as a descriptive value. For example, if two people are describing what is objectively the same thing from different perspectives. Both descriptions may fundamentally differ, but by no means does it necessarily make either untrue. It would not be said however, that the description of either perspective is mere opinion, but rather a matter resolved by point of view. What the two people are describing is relative to each persons perspective. Why? By definition each perspective is their own. You couldn't say one perspective is right and the other wrong, unless one is looking at a beach ball and describing an elephant. In this circumstance it is appropriate to say “to each their own.”



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
The conflation that occurs when using the word relativism, is that it is often used as if it were a prescriptive value, while at the same time retaining its descriptive meaning. Whereas relativism is useful to describe differing perspectives of how some thing is, does not mean that it is necessarily useful to describe how some thing ought to be. This distinction is important. It also does not in any way support the notion that truth is arbitrary, or unknowable, which the idea it is so often used to suggest.

For example: the fact that two people may describe the same thing differently does not necessarily make either description untrue. Again take the different colors of the beach call for instance. It also does not necessarily make either description true. Two people could be -objectively- describing a murder scene, yet one could be lying while the other ones memory is faulty. Neither does the testimony of either person, nor their personal view on the subject, affect the prescriptive normative value, that it is the law, which says thou shall not murder, and that this law is self-evident as good and just.

When these two people disagree about who was standing where at the murder scene, is it true to say that both descriptions are mere opinion, and that neither is true? Suppose you are a third person, and you confirm one of these two descriptions of events as what you also witnessed. Could it then be said that one testimony is wrong, and that the other, corroborated by the two, is right, or will “to each their own” suffice and we will somehow hide the dissonance that we are simultaneously being asked to ?

Suppose the killer is a sociopath with different normative values than 'the rest of the world', and finds nothing unacceptable about murder. Do his anomalous normative values in anyway make murder an act that is acceptable? Could it be said “different strokes for different folks?” No. Why? Well, the killer is a threat to society, and for safety of self and others alone is perhaps reason enough to lock the killer up, but that aside no! Because there exists an self-evident value common amongst men, that it is not lawful to murder.

In the psyche these two ideas, of moral relativism and scientific naturalism, both combine to form a dangerous compound. Inextricably connected to scientific naturalism is industry, technology, and avenues of public and higher education. The effect on the member of society is called consumerism, and it is one of the ways contemporary western society answers the questions what is the good life, what is our purpose, and what is our identity. Together they form an interlinking singularity at which point it is possible to begin to discern just how interpolated these ideas and institutions are.

The natural conclusions of moral relativism and scientific naturalism is that the person is, like all creatures, here to provide for our biological imperatives, and most of all to reproduce. Advances in pharmacology in the second half of the 20th century birthed the pill, and our purpose shifted as a society, or was it thrust on us? Sexuality changed from conjugal union for reproduction and the rearing of children, to sex for pleasures sake alone.

The incessant cravings requisite to compel the continuation of demand and growth for consumer goods in turn devolved the human person to a pleasure seeking thing to be preyed upon. In order to propel demand and growth a steady supply of resources is necessary. The advent of the corporation as a person, combined with the profit first mentality of industry and business, has effectively asserted the rights of corporations as superseding those of human persons.

With advances of science, industry, and technology it became clear that automated systems far surpass the productivity of human hands alone. From these lifeless corporations—and machines—a disturbing reality emerged, that automatons had become more valuable then people, as far as price per productivity. Thusly the human person was again denigrated, this time to become a human resource-something to be used.

One of the conclusions of the modern synthesis, (derived from the work of Charles Darwin, Huxley, and co), which is among the schemas that comprise a worldview of scientific naturalism, is that survival is a competition for scarcity, and that in the world of animals the principle survival of the fittest is rule #1. The expression survival of the fittest is attributed to 19th century scholar Herbert Spencer, who was not just a biologist and anthropologist, but also a sociologist, he was talking about society when he coined it. This integration of knowledge is important to note, as Spencer's acceptance of the idea that we are no different from the other creatures biologically speaking, was justification enough to accept survival of the fittest as the guiding principle for Western capitalism and socialization. Why did/does the industrialized consumer apparatus, and all that it entails including marketing, advertising and such, so readily accept this strange wedding of scientific naturalism? One possible answer is not only telling, but disturbing to say the least.

Severed from the original state contemporary man is thrust into a brave new world where the hunt is money, property, and whatever other values the engines of socialization are privy to at that time. When the transition was made from a barter, craft, and agricultural society, to a modern industrial economy, an exchange was made. It was an exchange of the field for the modern day super market; of manpower, blood and sweat, for oil, steel, and silicone; an exchange of the farm for the city. The corporations that sprung up from the toil and genius of the industrial barrens and entrepreneurs of the 19th and 20th centuries were a new sort of animal entirely from the relatively docile mercantilism that preceded it.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Beginning with the idea that man is no different than the animal one reaches the conclusion that the free-market is not much different then the law of the jungle. Entrepreneurs, businessmen, industrialists, are vying for money to keep their corporations alive, not just alive but constantly growing and adapting to the environment. These corporations, if without sound principle, are ravenous, and the consumer is their prey. Corporations are competing for expendable income, and in order to accomplish this they will go to great lengths, and even doing things that are morally questionable. Consequently science focuses it's energies wherever curiosity meets investment for research and development.

It is no surprise that a large portion of scientific research is done privately, whether it's consumer goods or military hardware in question, it is mostly private corporations leading the advancement of technological knowledge and capability, and most of these organizations are operating on a for profit basis, and have a vested interest in particular ways. There may be a significant chunk of research work that is privately funded by grants, institutions of higher learning, and government (with the public purse), but I would venture to estimate the bulk of technological growth is fueled by businesses trying to make money.

Biological evolution and the modern synthesis, and the allegedly sound principle of survival of the fittest, do compliment Capitalism, as well as any “free market” socioeconomic counterparts, but not necessarily in a good way. Good as judged by those principles we espouse and accept as sound.

Society becomes a constant struggle amongst corporate 'persons' fighting to survive, and all that entails, the citizenry fighting for value, worth, and a means to survive, the struggle for the scarcity of political representation, by both citizens and corporations, and the dynamics between these groups (citizens, government, and business). In order to survive a corporation must provide something that “consumers” need or something that consumers want.

With the drastic increases in efficiency that coupled the industrial, scientific, and technological revolutions, it begins to take significantly less people to accomplish the same amount of work. This can seem a godsend, but it is not without consequence. If you have 100 people in a micro-society working to meet the needs of 100 people, and some technological breakthrough enables this same work to be accomplished with 10 people, there is a disparity between that societies productivity and it's needs. Because there 90 unemployed workers, yet the needs of all 100 people are met, the society will shift the focus of that societies excess productivity to things other than needs. It is important to point out that this is a simplification and doesn't account for imports/exports.

A cash society is not different than a token economy. People need token to acquire those things they want and/or need. Typically this requires work. If the societies needs are met by 10 people, then there are now 90 people out of work. In order to sustain the model it is necessary to find these unemployed people work, but the societies needs are met with just 10 people. So the excess productivity of that society, in the form of banks, corporations, natural resources, labor resources, etc, inevitably shift to thing the society doesn't need. Some of this divested economic muscle will be put to good use in the production of luxuries, which are highly desired commodities that are not necessary for basic survival, but are good. The point is that once the societies needs and craving for luxury is satisfied, in terms of productivity, it will inevitably begin producing junk for no reason other than to give people jobs. Because of this a significant portion of the labor resource is wasted. It may not be intuitive at first how, but from this churning dynamic between creating demand, producing supply, and maximizing profits, the modern idea of the person as a consumer emerges.

One would think it a difficult thing to convince a man to exert his energy to procure something that he really doesn't need and, if he were honest with himself, something he really doesn't even want. It may be striking to recognize that this is all to often what the consumer is compelled, or compulsed, to do. How this is achieved is through sophisticated targeted advertising, marketing, and packaging techniques. There is extensive psychological and linguistic research that suggests people are more suggestible than they thought. The very nature of sowing seeds of demand amongst the consumer base, and the level of sophistication implemented to manipulate how we will spend our money as consumers, makes it a craft of the most cunning sort. Modern corporations prey upon the persons basic biological impulses and reactions to change our decision making processes. There is irony in manipulating the more primitive impulses of man, those that govern his actions apart from society (e.g. in the original position), in order to justify and perpetuate the dissonance created between the natural man and the consumer/laborer necessary to sustain a consumer society. This observation suggests that western civilization values consumer culture, and accepts what it entails, as an ends good in and of itself. Has this proven to be the case?

It is from an imaginary natural state from which the first principles of contemporary western political philosophy are derived. Philosophers like John Rawls, John Locke, and others imagined what life would be like if there were no governing authority. In this state it was reasoned that respect for their God given dignity is proper, and that one shouldn't impede upon the rights of another to life, liberty, property, and happiness. It was reasoned that these proto-mores of the family-clan-society, at the very least, ought govern interactions amongst mankind in the absence of governing authority, and that they are the glue-the common bond-by which an orderly society can exist at all. If it were not for what Locke called 'the deviant few', criminals in other words, and felons in particular, it may not be necessary for government at all, except for pragmatism and utility. The need for agreed upon notions of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, crime and punishment only arises from the self-evident injustices caused by marauders, thieves, killers, and the likes.

Practical application of these principles include the idea that it is not ok to enslave a people, to rob or pillage, or violate their God given dignity by exploitation, extortion, or blackmail. The man who exists in the natural state is dependent upon God and his own hands, and he reaps what he sows.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The man in contemporary consumer culture is no longer dependent upon his own ventures so much, as the natural man, to til, sow, and plow, and instead his survival continges upon job opportunity, supply chains, political decision making, and free-market 'forces', all of which are beyond his control. While the appeal of consumer culture, of industry and technology, are plainly manifest, what had originally masqueraded as liberation, convenience, efficiency, and progress, may in actuality have left the disengendered 'natural man' in a worse position than he was at first. For the majority of uneducated and unskilled workers this is the position he finds himself in within the constructs an oftentimes impersonal and uncaring socioeconomic system-the ruthless dog eat dog free market paradigm, and what it calls progress. This is not to speak in absolutes.

If contemporary western culture had unfolded in a manner agreeable to the principles upon which is it founded, with utility, and without consequence, then this grievance would be unnecessary. These principles chiefly involve the idea of mankind as dignified, as an ends in and of himself, and not merely means by which another can accomplish their own ends, without agreement, reciprocity, and regard for this dignity. It is no secret that the constructs of contemporary western socioeconomic and political systems have left many disgruntled, yet a sullied lot in life is hardly the most pressing concern!

The military industries brainchildren hold the future hostage. The power to destroy each other, even unwittingly and by accident, so completely and utterly, in the form of weapons of mass destruction, gives cause for pause; the usurpation of our inheritance as earths stewards in the form of the profit motivated international corporations that have done great harm to the world we have been entrusted with, the world on which the continuity of the human species—any future generations the LORD permit— continge. Recent examples unfortunately abound, and their impact is incalculable and unknowable in immensity, for both now and for the future: Chernobyl & Fukushima Daichi, Bhopal Dow Chemical, oil spills like deepwater horizon, or new industrial 'breakthroughs' like fracking that press forward for profits in spite of all reason, evidence, and protest. What will the effects be of ambitious corporations like Monsanto, who may have good intentions at heart, but conspire against the people, and against the land.

The adverse consequences of this prevailing paradigm are not limited to environmental disasters, or that some of these socioeconomic and political machinations threaten the existence of life as we know it. If these were not reason enough to demand change in our society, to shift the prevailing zeitgeist, how we spend our tax dollars, or to consider prudence and principle in how we order the constructs by which society arises, there are many other examples of disorder, destruction, decay, and suffering to the people, as well as to their interests, caused inadvertently or intentionally, as a result of the ideas and practices of private interests and corporations for money, and for power.

A cobra effect is when something that was intended to be a solution, creates more problems than it solves. The cobra effect resulting from the increased efficiency that accompanied the industrial and technological revolution was excess labor resource. This idle productivity in turn eventually made it possible for a higher standard of living, as judged by an index of certain vital goods, commodities, luxuries; it would seem that increased leisure exponentially accelerates the rate at which future breakthroughs and increases in efficiency come.

The effects of increased leisure in the collective labor force of a society allows for shifts in priorities, to accommodate changes in demand for skilled work, make invention and research possible, and so are conducive to sustaining a smooth evolution of scientific and technological know-how and capability. A high efficiency economy acts as a buffer against stagnation, as far as technological 'progress' is concerned. It is the contention of this author that the accompanying gross increase in leisure has many unintended causal consequences including alcohol & substance abuse, mental disease like depression; social and intrapersonal effects like anomy and anti-social behavior; could help explain what seems to be increasingly frequent violent counter cultural events like school shootings; and can be used to understand anomalous data points when comparing college education, job opportunities, and unemployment rates among graduates.

The greatest harm that the rapid industrialization of society has caused is the disengenderment of ourselves from our identities, and our rich cultural inheritance. The result of this is a generation of youth that suffer from the various maladies consequent the sudden departure of society from its established foundation of values and principles. They suffer from a lack of identity. There are as many examples as there are social experiments these private interests and corporations have hoisted upon the people in the name of progress, efficiency, and profits.

In the context of today's interconnected socioeconomic and political environment it comes as no surprise that the effects of free-market capitalism, and it's lust for more power and money, are not limited to the United States, but felt the world throughout. The foremost example that comes to mind is the apparent disregard for human dignity by “first world” corporations toward the impoverished working classes of “developing countries”.

War profiteering, slavery, usury, religious and political persecution, inhumane wages, living and working conditions that don't reflect respect for the idea of the human being as dignified in and of themselves, as a God given right-examples abound! These aforementioned human rights are the basis of western society and thought, at least in theory, and it is the alleged respect for these higher, more sublime ideals by which the West derives its supposed moral high ground. Is it fitting for a nation that supposedly cherishes human rights, religious and political freedom, and human dignity to ally themselves so closely to other nations that do not share these values, even as a matter of policy?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Take China for example. Communist China is considered by many to be the foremost violator conerning human rights the world throughout: severe religious and political persecution, compulsory population control laws, sex slave trafficking, etc. If you were to compare the ideals and practices of China with those the United States allegedly profess, you would find a stark contrast, or so you would think based on coverage by our press, and yet for some reason China is our greatest trading partner. How can this discrepancy be reconciled? If our CIA were to identify and outline for us according to their best intelligence who the biggest violators of these standards that govern human interactions are, the world throughout, what would we find? I think we would find that more often than not, it is the private sector, corporations and such, that are guilty, but we are all implicit, some more than others.

There may be some brilliant plan for the betterment of foreign states that diverge from our 'free-market' principles and practices, or to bring them in conformity and compliance to accepted international standards, of rights or labor laws for example, but realistically speaking to so closely do business with nations, and at the same time possess knowledge or evidences of violations of these standards we profess to hold dear by these same nations, is nothing short of hypocrisy. Even if long term outlooks were favorable to western style free-markets in those countries, as a matter of principle shouldn't we raise the bar, challenging these allies to more readily recognize standards of human dignity the world throughout. The inevitable question as to “why” we ally economically so closely with those we call guilty of crimes against humanity is simply answered: “For the love of money is the root of every sort of evil.”

It used to be a crime punishable by death to corrupt the morals of the youth. Socrates found guilty of the charge was compelled to drink bitter hemlock. As is so often the case with a notion so perfect and good as justice or prudence in the hands of mortal creatures amidst the entropy of the world, it falls apart.

While describing free-markets, politics, industry, and society since the industrial revolution it becomes clear that there are recurring themes and threads that emerge, patterns if you will. By recognizing these patterns we can then begin to extrapolate lessons about them. One such trend is the concentration of wealth and power amongst successful barrens and magnates over time. The largest and most profitable corporations in the world are conglomerates with diversified holdings that compliment, balance, and offset one another. It is not surprising that an ambitious manufacturer might retain diverse holdings according to the goals and interests of that company. A perfect example is General Electric: General Electric has a portfolio ranging from utilities, to petroleum, to telecommunications and newspapers, to military manufacturing.

While not applicable only to GE, but as a principle in general, the boon of news papers might prove useful for swaying public opinion about a military contract bid, a local oil pipeline, or anything that suits their interests. This is a shrewd business strategy, but because corporations exist in communities consisting of people with families, etc, and people are ends in and of themselves, whereas corporations are not necessarily, and that these people have a vested interest as citizens of the republic, and a right to know facts accurately as possible, pertaining to matters that concern their locality. If a fracking company finds gas, then buys the local newspapers and radio stations, and those radio stations report lies about the safety of fracking, for example, in order to sway the opinion of the public, so as to watch their bottom line, is this not a crime against the people and a betrayal of the public trust, against the ethos of care and responsibility of corporations for the communities they are permitted to exist within, and whom they are dependent upon? Instances of such conflicts of interest, in the public trust, are all too common now, and have become as status quo for big business.

No longer are they days, it seems, that public prosecutors protect and defend the interests of the people against corporate conspiracy, monopolies, or trusts. Why? Perhaps because international business is one of the core interlocking societal institutions that form the power structure of those who rule the earth.

The research of this author suggests the big players include international finance, what President Eisenhower called the military industrial complex, telecommunications, press & media, ivory tower academia think tanks, research institutes, and “NGO's,” or non-governmental organizations in order words. The interweaving relationship's amongst these players suggest they all have, as a sort of least common denominator, some common interest. Two such mutually beneficial factors stand out: the continuance of free-market society, which necessitates market growth, and consequently emerging market opportunities, and more fundamentally—profits. It has been reported that these interconnected international interests casually collaborate in coordination to achieve these ends. The collusion of these different players happens on many scales, but foremost of all seem to be NGO steering groups like Bilderberg, CFR, and the Trilateral Commission, whose members sit in many positions of influence, acclaim, wealth, and power. Where is the public prosecutor to defend the interests of the sovereign states, of the people, against the (oftentimes) competing interests of such international corporations?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
That is a gigantic wall of text that ultimately I got a bit bored of reading. I think I caught the jist of it overall, but it was infused with soo much dogmatic lecturing that I eventually started tuning out. Next time, try to explain the point without 4 paragraphs before and after about your personal faith...unless your of course using ATS as your personal creative writing. I would recommend a personal blog for that though.

ok, so some things to consider. Your most likely living in a secular society...clearly this didn't do anything to dampen your religious growth...that's not in spite of the odds, that's by design. If you were Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc..you would have the same potential for growth in that religion in a secular society.

Secular society simply removes religion from government..focuses on the sciences and the reality. its up to the individual to grow themselves spiritually in whatever means they see fit. Spiritual aspects is a personal venture, not a government mandate. If you require a government to push your religion, then your religion is false. It stands on its own merits individually, or not at all.

As far as humanism is concerned, there is no belief in nothing supernatural, rather, it simply is a focus on the humanity and life aspects of what we have here.
here is the -actual- definition of humanism

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

It is focusing on the starving, the poor, the other issues involving humanity with practical solution and alternatives...no "lets pray for them" solution verses a more direct "lets go help them with food/blankets/meds/etc".
Not seeing the issue here.
Governments should 100% be secular humanists. Individually, you have your choice on how to connect.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, your opinion, but I would wonder why..and would request if you try to explain, to keep it under a thousand words....
Lots of words tends to simply sew confusion, lies, and misrepresentations...short and to the point forces you to be honest and direct.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrphilosophias
Suppose that Jesus Christ is true


Why suppose something like that? there are so many religions and gods over the years, its pretty obvious that people make stuff up.

If a god walked the earth only 2000 years ago why didnt a single contemporary historian write about him?
Its all hearsay written by other people after the supposed death of Jesus. Thats pretty odd concidering such a creature would draw huge masses of people wherever he travelled.

The character also has the exact same traits many other mythical characters had. Odin, Krishna, Dionysus, Horus etc. Wouldnt it be likely that Jesus at best was just a guy preaching, and to make a grand tale, people typically attribute cool magical traits to the hero? In this case the creators just borrowed from those other myths (born of virgin, did miracles, had diciples or followers, died and came back, born on dec 25 etc).
And off course everything happened in the past, but then it went away? Nothing noteworthy happened since? Magic and god action at every turn, a long long time ago.. but not so much anymore.

Beats me why someone would actually believe this stuff as real and true. Seems very likely to be made up.. dont need it anyway.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mrphilosophias

I am sorry. I must admit, i laughed a bit at this.

You make a huge assumption about the authenticity of the bible, as it is written. What if Jesus, or, whomever his name was, was a secular human rights folk hero against a harsh dystopian religeous regime? One who lamented the abuses of the Pharsees and Saducees, as they ignored their own "laws", yet forced the people to abide by them, aquireing vast sums of money and property in the process. See his reaction to the money changers, and how quickly those same money changers plotted to kill him after that episode. Sounds a bit like today, yah?

The NT, as it is written, requires that the narrative, within the OT has never changed. That the message, has always been the same. We know it has changed. This means any, and all claims to authority, via the OT, are null and void. They simply become unbacked claims, and deliberate falsehoods as they are told.

You just need to see it yourself.

Prove that there are no contradictions in the bible, like going to skeptics annotated, or simaler. Read all of their points. Now, set off to disprove all of their points by following dueteronomy 18. Eventually, with that exercise, you will find because of technicalities, you have to throw out every author.

It is OK. You will find out just how much you really did believe.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I appreciate the constructive criticism, but why don't you guys read the whole thing next time? It's a 10 page discourse, the first two pages pertain to God, religion, and Christ, and the remaining 8 pages help explain responses like yours. :-)




It is unfortunate that these days the learned are taught to dismiss these sort of things outright, and disbelieve the miraculous, as if it were a fact that miracles can not happen. This popular world view seems to arise from a post-modern secular culture that is more concerned with pleasure and profits than with prudence and virtue; with science and technology, instead of God's power, and the love He has for His creation. The mechanisms by which this world view is propagated are what can only be described as a cross roads where the natural sciences, liberal media, popular press, and popular culture intersects with the love of money that is seemingly inextricably entwined with modern capitalism. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


The discourse hinges on this point. The religious connotation of the introduction in a way is as much a tool of evangelization, as it is a way to test my theory that there exists a secular human agenda that wants to discount discussion about anything miraculous, metaphysical, or divine, as folly, backwards, antiquated.
edit on 5-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mrphilosophias

Do not take this the wrong way. You put in great effort in your writing. I am sure you spent hours, reading and rereading it. But, here is the truth. I, and others you are writing to, do not need to read it. We know you are incorrect, as some of us, like me, have already been there. The Bible has no authority. It is a fable, or, if you would prefer, a collection of Jewish creation mythology.

Any spiritual truths in it, would be by coincidence only.

You may have certain spiritual truths correct. Everyone learns spirituality differently. But to anchor them to the views of an totalitarian malevolent tribal war God named YHWH, with a penchant to order the chosen people to genocide entire tribes over race, ie, you, does not help your cause.

If the OT was written today, would you accept it as truth? Careful how you answer. If Moses were alive today, how would he react to my post? Understanding, or calling upon YHWH, and his followers, to murder me?
edit on 7-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
everything is a coincidence. If you don't want to read it, just move along-nothing to see here.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
not too studied up on biblical archaeology are we?



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
ok, so some things to consider. Your most likely living in a secular society...clearly this didn't do anything to dampen your religious growth...that's not in spite of the odds, that's by design. If you were Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc..you would have the same potential for growth in that religion in a secular society.


You have a good point here.


originally posted by: SaturnFX
Secular society simply removes religion from government..focuses on the sciences and the reality. its up to the individual to grow themselves spiritually in whatever means they see fit. Spiritual aspects is a personal venture, not a government mandate. If you require a government to push your religion, then your religion is false. It stands on its own merits individually, or not at all.


I am not suggesting mandated religion. What I am suggesting is there is a conspiracy that sets itself against all that is good. This is a common enemy, for both philosophy and religion. What is either but the pursuit of truth? What I am suggesting is one characteristic of this conspiracy is that it is inextricably entwined with postmodern secular culture, as well as its institutions like the press, media, pop culture, acadamia, etc. To say that the Government, which in actuality is nothing more than "the people" by definition, has no vested interest in the preservation of moral fiber and time tested principles, is a lie. Dont believe me? Want proof of this? Go take a look at what the people who laid the foundation of our political apparatus here in the US had to say about virtue and the preservation of the republic. Read Two Treatise of Government. Thomas Jefferson didn't plagiarize John Locke for nothing you know. That both Jefferson and Locke came to the same notion of inalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and happiness, is no coincidence, and only emphasize the point that these ideas are self-evident.

In addition to this point I would like to reiterate the pragmatic approach I offered in the discourse:



The military industries brainchildren hold the future hostage. The power to destroy each other, even unwittingly and by accident, so completely and utterly, in the form of weapons of mass destruction, gives cause for pause; the usurpation of our inheritance as earths stewards in the form of the profit motivated international corporations that have done great harm to the world we have been entrusted with, the world on which the continuity of the human species—any future generations the LORD permit— continge. Recent examples unfortunately abound, and their impact is incalculable and unknowable in immensity, for both now and for the future: Chernobyl & Fukushima Daichi, Bhopal Dow Chemical, oil spills like deepwater horizon, or new industrial 'breakthroughs' like fracking that press forward for profits in spite of all reason, evidence, and protest. What will the effects be of ambitious corporations like Monsanto, who may have good intentions at heart, but conspire against the people, and against the land.


The fruits of naturalism, are profound and far reaching correct? As our knowledge and technological capability has advanced, so has the magnitude and potential for unintended consequences. Hopefully we can also agree here. That the love of money in the form of our particular breed of capitalism, which BoA called a "plutocracy", has corrupted our Government, and systems of representation, this is also true?

Have you ever seen hacking a democracy?




originally posted by: SaturnFX
As far as humanism is concerned, there is no belief in nothing supernatural, rather, it simply is a focus on the humanity and life aspects of what we have here.
here is the -actual- definition of humanism

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

It is focusing on the starving, the poor, the other issues involving humanity with practical solution and alternatives...no "lets pray for them" solution verses a more direct "lets go help them with food/blankets/meds/etc".
Not seeing the issue here.
Governments should 100% be secular humanists. Individually, you have your choice on how to connect.


I will reply to this later. It requires a more in depth response.

edit on 9-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrphilosophias
You do realize that human rights are derived from God given Human dignity right?

No, I do not realize that at all, actually, I deny such thinking.
If it was given to humanity by a deity, then absolutely nothing we could do could prevent human rights from being universally and forever accepted. it would be like trying to reverse gravity through arguing with it.

Human rights came from the philosophical discussions and growth of people in society considering what they want for themselves and by extension, others within the society.

God allows people to kill innocent people, plagues, floods, slavery, etc etc etc...it is mankind who has decided enough is enough, its time to set forth some basic principles we as citizens of this earth want...and will enforce these principles through war and death if need be by any whom try to deny this.

____
Going a bit back in your statements, I also have issue with the idea of a "good" and "moral" society. Some may find it moral to burn a witch, someone may find it good to kill a hooker and clean up the streets..these are subjective measurements that can vary as widely and as often as there are people in a society.
so, the measurements are useless for society...a good society can be considered Saudi Arabia, where the women are hidden and beaten, etc..a moral society may be north korea where you could possibly get executed for...hell, not showing enough enthusiasm for your leaders...

Principles is what society needs, principles of life and laws that protect these common society principles.

and principles is quite simple. every person should be protected and allowed liberties amongst themselves while encouraged to contribute to the greater society in elevating the society and eventually species higher up and more secure. sort of like an advanced biological motivation.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: mrphilosophias[/post]
You do realize that human rights are derived from God given Human dignity right?

No, I do not realize that at all, actually, I deny such thinking.


You show yourself ignorant of the philosophical justification for western government at all. Do you want me to prove this point? I refer you to John Locke. One thing I am attempting to show is that philosophy is the love of truth and wisdom, and so is pure and lasting religion. Feeding the poor, acts of mercy and charity, these things are merely fruit of this good seed. The kernel is the idea. I am suggesting the seed of contemporary western culture, unbridled capitalism and naturalism (and the relativism implicit) specifically, in the hearts, souls, and minds, and of the youth especially, produce another kind of fruit entirely. I cite numerous examples. I could cite more.


originally posted by: SaturnFX
If it was given to humanity by a deity, then absolutely nothing we could do could prevent human rights from being universally and forever accepted. it would be like trying to reverse gravity through arguing with it.


Whether we derive human dignity from God, or from observation of the natural law and order, it does not matter for this point. It seems here you are suggesting human rights ought not be respected. Would you clarify your position on this?


originally posted by: SaturnFX
Human rights came from the philosophical discussions and growth of people in society considering what they want for themselves and by extension, others within the society.


An enumeration of how we can derive human rights is the fruits of a very specific set of philosophical discussions. The chartering philosophies of this nation, for example, are not as arbitrarily interpreted. They are a definitive set. This we agree on? The contention of the discourse was that capitalism and naturalism (and the other ideas therein) have eroded the foundation on which these rights are established, and the consequences are not trivial.


originally posted by: SaturnFX
God allows people to kill innocent people, plagues, floods, slavery, etc etc etc...it is mankind who has decided enough is enough, its time to set forth some basic principles we as citizens of this earth want...and will enforce these principles through war and death if need be by any whom try to deny this.


You said you wanted to keep God out of this discussion. You have shifted your position. Questions and answers about the meaning of suffering, death, disease and our yearning for paradise and eternal life, the existence of evil, the concupiscence of man, the love of money, I have quite specifically discussed these things. Why God allows evil to happen was alluded to in the discourse, but as the scriptures also say His ways are as far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth.

War is to nations, what crime is amongst people.

That secular philosophy and religion both arrive at a conclusion of inherent human dignity by different means shows that indeed they are self-evident; that they are true (e.g. sound and valid). You do your endsof ameliorating human suffering, no favors by denying this point. Natural philosophy can only be a dim reflection of that which is higher above. The question of morals, of how things ought to be, is a question which religion, philosophy, and theology, is uniquely equipped to answer.


originally posted by: SaturnFX
Going a bit back in your statements, I also have issue with the idea of a "good" and "moral" society. Some may find it moral to burn a witch, someone may find it good to kill a hooker and clean up the streets..these are subjective measurements that can vary as widely and as often as there are people in a society.


Have you seen the movie Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows? In this movie the antagonist is a dark priest named Lord Blackwood who is hell bent on usurping the rights of the people. His philosophical justification for cout de tat is not expounded upon. Blackwood practices a sort of magic, occult science you could say, as a means to achieve his ends of usurpation. Blackwood practices a morality of lawlessness, and will stop at nothing to accomplish his ends. Would it be within the legitimate authority and duty of government to protect parliament, as it was in the movie? Absolutely. What if the hooker were spreading HIV?


originally posted by: SaturnFX
so, the measurements are useless for society...a good society can be considered Saudi Arabia, where the women are hidden and beaten, etc..a moral society may be north korea where you could possibly get executed for...hell, not showing enough enthusiasm for your leaders...

Principles is what society needs, principles of life and laws that protect these common society principles.

and principles is quite simple. every person should be protected and allowed liberties amongst themselves while encouraged to contribute to the greater society in elevating the society and eventually species higher up and more secure. sort of like an advanced biological motivation.


your examples here are examples of human rights violations, or in other words what human rights are intended to protect against, and as such are considered a sort of evil. This we agree. Why would you then suggest these are good things? I thought we have agreed based upon notions of human rights that these things are not good.

If we have accepted that human rights are a good thing, then these examples are useless. Consider the disparity between communist China's human rights violations, and America's trade policies since the 1970's. How can this be reconciled? Why the disparity? A survival of the fittest mentality, and greed, which is precisely why I have pinned naturalism and unbridled capitalism as the root cause. Again I emphasize these ideas are dangerous.





edit on 9-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2014 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mrphilosophias

You addressed none of my points. Why? The truth is all that matters.

I am well "studied". In fact, study, real study, is how i recognized the truth. See, I bought into the whole Chuck Missler nonsense for 15 years, and listened to Bible tapes on the way to work, both ways, for the majority of my working life. It was, my life, from the moment i was born.

Perhaps, you should read some of my older posts from when i first joined here, defending the faith. You will find, I did not reach my conclusions lightly. It took me months of endless internal debate.

Re read my post above. Start at skeptics annotated. I am a far more spiritual person now, than before.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I did my best to address every point you made. Thanks for noticing.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: mrphilosophias

I must have missed it. I am sorry.

But, I am perplexed. You debunked the obvious contradictions pointed out by hundreds of people on skeptics annotated? All of them? Where? Not even all the apologist sites combined could. They list their responces there too. Some, conflicts, do not have a reply, because they are obvious.

Duet 18 applies.

Prove Abraham existed. What are the ramifications if he did not?
edit on 9-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
survival of the fittest is not moral and secular, why do you think that? empathy and love for a fellow man is human nature, as is with other mammals.







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join