This website provides a unique perspective on the vexed topic or the never-ending and essentially unresolvable conflict between secularism and conventional exoteric religiosity which is the ONLY kind of religiosity that is now globally resurgent.
http://firmstand.org/index.html

There is absolutely nothing scientific about denying our Maker, Designer and Law Maker. Science without God is a fools paradise.

.

Dear Pablo (the author),

.
You wrote :

« … this resurgence of religious matters in public discussion in the West is often related to a particular religion: Islam. Western societies are struggling to accommodate the worldview and lifestyle of millions of new citizens who having immigrated, refuse to give up their culture and become secular »

That is incorrect. Neither Muslims nor immigrants of any other religious belief or affiliation “refuse to give up their culture and become secular” when settling in Australia.

They do not "refuse" simply because nobody asks them to do what you suggest.

There is no such requirement under any of our state, territory or federal laws.

The following article on the federal government website explains :

« Secularism may refer to a world-view which stands in opposition to a religious or spiritual orientation. In political theory, it refers to the principle of separating the institutions of politics from the institutions of religion. The latter sense is particularly relevant to a discussion of how the law deals with religious tradition. Secularism in this sense has been conventionally interpreted as meaning that mechanisms of the state must stand aloof from religious debates or support for particular religious traditions »

Here is the link :

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000RP11#one

.

Democracy isn't meant to be secular. It's meant to represent the people by having the people have a say in their government. The point of secular status and Seperation between church and state, is to ensure that the government doesn't force a religion on the people. This is a choice that many governments have made to ensure that religion is not manipulated to be a force for tyranny. Not a standard to remove religion from the people. But the people, they may have their religion or their lack of religion.

Recusing secularism from religious beliefs and practices is not the job of democracy. If and when that becomes the job of a government power to remove religion from the people, then that government has turned the premise of having a separation of church and state to avoid tyranny, into a cause for tyranny. This should only be done if there is an active danger from a specific religion. It should never be for the cause against all religions least secularism is tyrannical in it's being.

Religion won't go away because there is more to the world then is acknowledged through secular positions. (Those that realize this no longer are counted as secular, but are part of another religious group, or on their own spiritual journey that deters away from secularism).

(continued)

(Continued)

I have watched different anti-religious persuasions come and go. Many thinking, like the author, that religion was on it's way out and just needed a push to get there. I've watched religion be argued as brain washing, ironically becoming it's own mantra to "brainwash" the people into thinking this against religion. I've seen religion be accused of being child abuse. Not about abuse from church leaders. But that teaching the religious perspectives to their children that the parents have is a form of child abuse. This is so wrong that it destroy the reason for child abuse laws and awareness to screen and remove actual dangers to the children. Both demonizing religion and harming the seriousness of actual child abuse.

I've seen all religion scoffed as cults. One of the points in Daffy Duck's article that has merit is the presentation of religions (minority religions or otherwise) as a cult and to be shunned. The met it of the position of religion is a cult and should be shunned has no more merit then that religion is child abuse. It twists people's opinions to turn from religion as a whole. It is manipulative instead of actually looking specifically at religious groups and seeing the dangers that one group does or another, calls them all cults as if they are all the same danger. Lastly through all of this I've watched the manipulative narrative against religion umbrella all religions together. Instead of seeing the issues of one philosophy and behaviors (one religion), all religions are grouped together in a way that the harms of one philosophy are made the responsibility of those that neither act nor believe in that way.

If anything democracy needs rescuing from manipulative anti-religious movements that in the name of secularism, (or even in no specific name except the banner against religions), bring about a restrictive and oppressive pinning of the religious people, that should only be reserved for criminals and those that are actually dangerous to the society around them.

In the end of the article, Pablo acknowledges that religion has a place in society. A small concession, after seeing that religion is becoming part of the social enviornment again, to say that religion is allowed and has it's place in secular society. None the less it is a concession I hope to see more of from society as a whole. That religion is allowed to be here instead of actively trying to stamp it out.

Even Stalin loosened the strings on religion when the Nazi Germans invaded as he was desperately happy to enlist the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism into the war effort, but once the war was over he tightened the strings again.

Towards the end of the article, the author is flattering Christianity because he finds himself in a similar position: let us not be deluded by his expressions of "love" and reconciliation, and let us pray that we continue to have a Muslim minority in Australia (remaining a minority of course), for all other religions are in the author's second firing line.

I think it's time to have a good hard look at religions.
- Since we support the right to 'Freedom of Religion' we should look at them in depth.

We should start with an overview of all religions outlining each belief system.
Their beliefs AND aspirations.

For each religion what aspects are benevolent and which aspects are malevolent?
We can use secular ethics to figure it out.

Which promote acts of a criminal nature against established national laws?

What do religions agree on and what do they disagree on?
Will there be a likely clash of religions?

Compile all the info up in a small book 'Religions for Dummies' and then get back to me.

To Armchair Critic.

What are "secular ethics?"

I agree that an indepth approach to religion should be done. Each religion considered it's own investigation, and to investigate one, should mean to investigate it it well. Instead I see religion in the same line as politics. The topic that is brought up rarely, and usually only to those who already agree with your beliefs. Outside of that and the topic gets heated. Not a good topic among strangers or on the job site.

One thought on investigating a religion. If you have two groups pooling their insights and observations you might have a better snapshot of an "in-depth investigation." The first group would be from those within the religion. These would be the experts of their own subject. They don't have to actually be experts but their insight from inside the religion is worth it for any accurate investigation. The second group would be those outside of the religion. This group is the one to see if there is any truth from the first group, or if what they hear matches what they see from that group.

It's worth noting that many comparative religion books are written about other beliefs from someone who does not belong to them. These books don't get it right on their short discription of each religion. How could they? They aren't part of the religion and usually try to fit a discription into a small paragraph. Possibly two paragraph description.

On that note though I should ask again. What are secular ethics? If secular ethics is a thing then secular thinking and philosophies should be just as investigated. I know that many of those are not worth considering, but they are common without much thought going into them. Becomes the "it's just the way the world works" excuse instead of acknowledging that the lack of ethics in real life that are the common in the UN-investigated secular world of business, politics, entertainment and about everything else.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Bring on an investigation of religion. I encourage you to not wait for some one else to do it for you either. But also while doing this have a thought on secular positions and ethics. (Not just your views, but secular views and secular ethics as a whole as well). A much needed investigation on secular beliefs, aspirations and dangers should be done. Regardless if freedom of religion is the topic or not.

'Compile all the info up in a small book 'Religions for Dummies' and then get back to me.'

and then there are the secular deniers who are anti science, anti commonsense and amoral simply because they are dishonest enough to deny their Creator. No wonder they produced, Mao, Stalin and now murder countless babies. What are sick deluded ideology secularism is. Certainly cousins to Isis.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

What are "secular ethics?"

Well you kind of got me there;
I didn't watch the whole 5 and a half hour video.
- But let me assure you it most certainly is a thing.

Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics
http://youtu.be/vZvTXFxPwb0

Maybe it's best I explain what it means to me.

In my mind, I suppose I sum it up by saying:

Religion holds no moral authority over 'ethics in it's own right'

To me it's this kind of idea that you already have a conscience and know the difference between right and wrong and understand to treat others the way you'd like to be treated and that there's a right and wrong way to go about doing things;
And that you don't need religion to teach you this.

That actions have consequences
That ends don't justify the means
That there's 3 truths yours, mine and the real truth...
To have wisdom and see the bigger picture

I don't know exactly.
But I could use his knowledge to pick apart the religions and decide which beliefs hold merit and are morally correct and which ones aren't.

It's a kind of idea that you can know the difference between right and wrong withing needing to be religiously oriented.

Hey runner,

I don't deny whom you refer to as Creator.
Denial would put me in the "I know" category;
And for me all things being equal those who 'deny' are much the same as those whom 'agree'.
They 'KNOW'.
I sit opposite those who 'Know'.
My official position is 'I don't know'.

"Bring on an investigation of religion. I encourage you to not wait for some one else to do it for you either. But also while doing this have a thought on secular positions and ethics."

It can't be a job for just me, then it would just be my opinion, as you say.
We need a group of people looking at each religion and giving it fair criticism from the outside perspective, and then a group of people who are in support of the religion who can answer the criticisms and can speak for it from their side.

There's no point doing it unless we do it properly and fairly.
The aim is to learn something.

If I was to do so I'd probably start by looking at each religion.

For Islam I'd start here.
What The West Needs To Know About Islam | William J. Federer
http://youtu.be/-YpJjRzQDIM

Then I'd watch this one:
Sheikh Imran Hosein - Beyond September 11
http://youtu.be/DeQ_wfUBjws
http://youtu.be/4mx3EUU5ZuQ

It's going to give you a bit of a background to what Muslims believe about Malhama (AKA Armageddon, Apocalypse or End Times for Christians) and the role of Israel and the Zionists

From here I suppose we should go look at Judaism and find out what thats all about.

Moshiach and the Future Redemption - By Rabbi Simon Jacobson
http://youtu.be/ERQTZ3TIfDA

Now I haven't gotten right into Judaism yet, fell asleep watching the above video;
There seems to be this benevolent side of Judaism;
But then there seems to be this other malevolent side
Where 'Jews are Gods chosen people' and believe its their right to rule over non-Jews (Goyim) and that they serve as cattle solely for Jews benefit.

I suppose you should then watch this:
The Jerusalem Conspiracy
http://youtu.be/syUSQEUpTTQ

And then finally we could go and see what Christians have to say about it all.
There seems to be a schism within Christianity, those who support Israel unconditionally, and those who oppose Zionism.

For a Christian perspective that opposes Zionism watch TRUnews
http://www.youtube.com/user/TRUNEWSofficial/videos

You also want to have a look at all the conspiracy things related to Jews and Israel, look at their part in wars, their foreign policies and also have a look at America and their Pro-Israel Neoconservative foreign policies.

Do it fairly, based it on facts;
Not narrative or conjecture;
Not open for arguments.

Take it all in - a sweeping overview -

Then:

Compile all the info up in a small book 'Religions for Dummies' as I said earlier, so we can ALL read it, and ALL have the same info in which to have a sound basis for further constructive discussion;
and then get back to me.

- And someone better hurry up and do it all we're all screwed -

To Armchair Critic.

Looking into the book you put a link for. Found on google a PDF to reference. Haven't read much of it but at least from the table of contents it seems the author is serious about his theory of ethics, with a few chapters later on on tests where universal ethics such as murder and theft are the test of his ethics. (Or at least that's my assumption on the subject matter before reading the chapters). So far though I have a few concerns with the subject matter in the book. Not whether ethical and moral systems can exist without religion, but on his approach as a whole.

On page 9 and 10 of the book, the author goes over some ground rules. Guidelines for himself and the reader I assume. Rule six though is a bit concerning though. On the topic of defining and supporting a system of ethical stances or approaches, having in there a statement acknowledging that it's possible there's no such thing as ethics is a bit troubling. Acknowledging the challenge is one thing but to acknowledge it as potentially ally true to s a bit concerning.

On page 13-19 the author confronts a second challenge. Something he terms as "middle truths." Basically the counter truths that are actually not true at all, but are the examples an ethical system not being what it claims to be, or the rationale for those examples.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I'll look into the book more because it tries to describe an and defend an ethical approach that I'm more familiar with known as relative morality instead of the newer term universal morality. (So far both seem interchangeable, and my concerns for relative morality turning into no morality is my ongoing issue). However as of now the concern is that the author's preference that there is no God, that the rationalizations of God are delusions or something else as well, might just be another "middle truth" something that isn't true but instead is a logical perspective that harms the approach as a whole for finding an ethical standard on observations and experience. With that in mind the approach of his could be just as much a false middle truth, as religion is rationalized away as being a middle truth in his book.

Regardless of the book though, (I'll try to read it if my IPad doesn't die, due to issues recharging it), I do like the idea of looking into religions. I don't know if secular ethics should be the foundation for looking into religion because in most perspectives on secular ethics I've googled there's the strong urge to deny the possibly of God, and therefore would not be a good measure of the religions it investigates, due to already having a conclusion on all of them as false to begin with.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If I can give one suggestion. A group of of investigators would consist of at least one person from each religion and philosophy being investigated. At least one person would be from a secular ethics position, while others would be of religions that will be investigated. All positions would be investigated, as to make it fairer when it is that subjects turn to be investigated (religion or secular) the group would find enough other people in that religion or secular perspective to temporary join the investigation and share what they know of it from an inside the perspective position. This way there will be an equal number of people who do not believe in the religious or secular position being investigated, as there are people that can defend or offer insight on the matter.

Just my thought so that one philosophy doesn't strong arm the other philosophies by tiring out the fewer people that are in the support of what's being investigated. Try to make it fair so that the truth has a better chance of being both investigated and having a chance to be seen.

Sorry for the length, but I'm worried that this may be my last comment for a while if my iPad stops works and can't recharge.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

It must've been well over a year now I watched the first part of that video.
Your comments on it remind me it did get kind-of heavy going.
The type of stuff you need to be in the right mood to take it all in.

I remember there was a few times where I questioned his line of thought and wasn't entirely sure where he was going with it.

Some people think that 'ethics' and 'good morals' etc only comes from scripture.
For me I think for every religious based ethic, there's a non-religious counterpart.
For example:

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
That's the religious version, yet there's nothing about God or sin in there.
The non-religious counterpart to that statement is 'Treat others how you'd like to be treated'

"He who is without sin shall cast the first stone"
That's the religious version,
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
That's the non-religious counterpart.

So you see being a good person isn't necessarily reliant on religion.
You don't need to be a Christian to learn the same ethics and to be a good person.
(Though the Christians themselves would disagree)
The counter argument to that statement is that plenty of people claiming to be Christian aren't necessarily good people.
(Though they would consider themselves so)

There's other non-religious things too;

'Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't affect others in an adverse manner.'

That's my version of JS Mills 'Harm principle'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

I could now argue it's ethically wrong for Muslims to throw homosexuals off the top of buildings.
That doesn't necessarily mean I support gays or the imposition of their views onto the rest of us, but I know murdering them is wrong.

I don't know what the difference between morals and ethics are, and maybe there is no technical difference, but for me 'morals' are like 'guidelines for conduct and behavior' where 'ethics' are more like 'rules for conduct and behaviour'.

[Cont.]
Someone might argue they treated someone 'fairly'.
But they might mistaken 'fairly' for 'decently'.
They've got morals.

But 'Fairness' actually means 'What you do for one you do for the other'
Ethics is rules.

"However as of now the concern is that the author's preference that there is no God, that the rationalizations of God are delusions or something else as well, might just be another "middle truth" something that isn't true but instead is a logical perspective that harms the approach as a whole for finding an ethical standard on observations and experience."

Your argument is valid, and holds merit.
As previously mentioned to runner, my official position is 'I don't know'.
I'm not going to say God exists and I'm not going to say God doesn't exist.

On the whole though, the 'bigger picture',
I feel like on some level it would be a good thing to have a good look at the religions;
However I do feel that there might be some danger in doing so.
It might be like opening Pandora's box.

I had another comment which I wrote yesterday with a heap of links which followed on from the few links on religions I posted previously but I accidentally deleted it.

If anyone is following my comments and links and wants me to write them out and post them again I will.

Israeli and US Neoconservative foreign policy;
Zionist Plan for the Middle East
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
Modern War on Terror Started in 1979 at Jerusalem Conference.
Wesley Clark '7 wars in 5 years'

Links to Kabbalah within Freemasonry (and Hollywood);
'Albert Pikes 3 World Wars'

Clash of religions:

* I'm not sure if the person Muslims call 'Dajjal' is the same person Jews call 'Moshiach'.

Global Geopolitics
How do religious ideology play into modern geopolitics?
Is UN 2030 agendas and One World Government ideology in any way aligned with other religious views of ruling over mankind?

To Armchair Critic.

I don't know where I conveyed that a person can't have ethics unless they are religous, or unless they are Christian. However, secularism isn't a philosophy any more then atheism or agnostic is an active philosophy. They describe an absence of belief in God or at least that they are unsure about God, gods, or other wise spiritual things.

There are many forms of ethics, and morals that don't have a view on God, nor are attributed as coming from God. I think Confucianism is a secular type of ethics (though I could be wrong). With that in mind when I asked for what are secular ethics, I'm not asking if they can exist, but more so about what they are. The book you referenced about universal ethics seems to be on the line of developing and testing one's own ethics, more then it is about an active standard of ethics. It however does have a strong sense of rejecting religions, and counting that rejection as a default position to go off of from.

My views on God and religion isn't just about ethics. And I think finding God is important for reasons outside of ethical grounding, as well as to help a person strive with good ethical values.

I hope this clears up the position I'm presenting. Basically, I would say any standard to measure the other ethical standards and world views would also be the ones investigated to see the aspirations, beliefs, and dangers that lie within them. This would include secular models as well, so long as they are actually identified.

There may well be secular ethics, but what is missing is a serious incentive to follow them... unless of course one is religious without recognising it.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,
"I don't know where I conveyed that a person can't have ethics unless they are religous, or unless they are Christian."

Sometimes I generalise regards the feeling I'm getting from all forum members combined when I'm on a rant and forget that I'm addressing my reply to a single forum member rather than the entire group.
- Sorry If I said or implied that incorrectly.

I don't know how many are still following this thread;
Or if anyone has actually looked at my links...

But if you had, now I've got a real doozy for you all.

WW3, Iran, & the Two Moshiachs w/ Christopher Jon Bjerknes
http://youtu.be/HtOmWImPcDM

This is a fairly informative video;
But more importantly I want you to compare what Sheikh Imran Hosein said in the 'Beyond September 11' video I posted earlier with what is said in this video with the link above.

The question you want to ask yourself is if there's any correlation between what the Muslims say and what these guys said.

Ethics is just one small piece of making the world a better place.
If you want some kind of explanation as to why everything in the world is turning upside down and is drastically needing of ethics in the first place, then watch or look up all the links I've shown, especially the last one.

I implore you not to believe me.
You have to instead want to look up and find out for yourselves.

- You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink -

And remember everyone I'm an agnostic, I've got no dog in this fight.
I'm just trying to figure out where the 'believers' might be taking us.

Hey Yuyutsu,
I've heard you speak about your beliefs before but I'm not sure what religion it is?
Feel free to give us a rundown, and why it works for you.

To ArmChair Critic.

This might be a new idea or an old one you've come in contact with. But for me, my perspective on Christianity is more then a foothold for ethics. It is for finding God. With Jesus saying He is the way, and no one can come to the Father (to God) except through Jesus, then that is a very important aspect of Christianity. One of the most important aspects of Christianity. Because God is worth finding and we all need Him (for at least a few reasons that I can see).

There are two reasons that I think are commonly addressed when Christianity is approached, sometimes they are addressed by nonbelievers first, because these two reasons are what they stand against. One reason is that Christianity promises an afterlife, and that if you're not saved and believe in Jesus, then you aren't going to heaven, but instead are going to hell. The other reason I see brought up is that without God we can't be moral. It's worth stressing that these are two commonly addressed and argued points for and against Christianity, but they are not the only reasons to search for God. There have been several conversations I've tried online about Christian subjects, that instead get routed to one of these two points to argue against from an atheist, or a nonbeliever of some other kind (usually is a self proclaimed atheist). With this in mind I would stress that in any investigation of religion, there needs to be a presence in the investigation that comes from a that religion. For Christianity a Christian should be the starting standard to investigate the faith from to remind them what is important in that Christian's journey of faith. It's a starting place and a reminder along the way of the invesitigation.

(Continued)

(Continued)

With that said, one point I want to address is the second common subject matter in conversations about Christianity. The ethics that I see; both in the Christian world and the non-Christian world. Because this is one of the reasons we need God.

From what I've seen most of the world revolves around a sense of ethics for handling a situation until they are in that situation themselves. Then after that it's a toss up whether the person will actually follow through on their ethics they would demand on others and do it themselves, or if they will make excuses, that this situation is "complicated." The first observation is that ethically, people are weak to hold to their own voiced morals. We need God on this merit because we are often weak and fail into a trap of doing the wrong thing because we don't think we have a choice, even though we see it's wrong and is not agreeing with our ethics.

Even if a person doesn't believe in God, this should be a visible observation that often, we need either a better model of ethics, or need outside help to rein us in. People aren't that good at being ethical on their own so we need help. (That reasoning is also in support for laws and culture to support individuals so that they have a foundation outside of themselves to keep them grounded and ethical. It's for our benefit that laws are made and our actions aren't dependent only on our individual ethical standards).

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the better model of ethics, here is what I mean. It is easy to rationalize breaking an ethical precept depending on the situation, but this is often because the ethics don't hold a foundation for each other. Ethical models usually are about many seperate rules, instead of a foundation that one rule is a support beam for another. In Christianity, there are many precepts that take in our weaknesses as well as ether support another rule, or strengthens and remind us by saying the rule in a different manner. A better model of ethics would be one where the ethical code is supported by it's other precepts so that breaking them is less a temptation. You would be going against more then one ethical rule at that point.

For example. One thing in the bible is a verse that says "as iron strengthens armor, one man strengthens another." This alone can address strengthening each other against the harms and difficulties of the world, as well as note our weakness to deal with it on our own. However when the verse is paired with the verses to correct each-other, forgive each-other, and to edify one another, then this verse of iron strengthening iron is a support brace for the other elements of ethical precepts. From what I've read and studied in the bible, there are many ethical supports for other ethical positions. Helping us stay grounded in better following them. The criticism I hear is that these would be circular thinking, but the fault in that criticism is that people need support in their ethics and holding onto them. These are good things that other ethical models should not ignore. When it comes to ethics and following through, people are weak.

"People aren't that good at being ethical on their own so we need help."

You make a valid point, people are very often their own worst enemies.

"Even if a person doesn't believe in God, this should be a visible observation that often, we need either a better model of ethics, or need outside help to rein us in."

Yes, a lot of us do need help to prevent from making bad choices;
- And a lot don't have any kind of support mechanisms and its a downward spiral for them.

I may be a fence sitter, but the reason I'll generally support Christians is because I think some kind of ethical ideology in society is better than none;
But that doesn't mean I'll support them in every situation.
I've been known to hold harsh criticisms as well.
I say it how I see it;
If I think they're in the right I'll support them, if I don't I won't.

How hard can it be not to lie, cheat, steal or deceive?
Whilst I'm guilty of doing all of those things when I was younger;
I don't generally do any of those things anymore;
I honestly can't remember the last time I did.
That's not to say I won't if I situation arises where there's a need to.
- But I'd have to need a pretty good reason.
I'm not perfect however, sometimes I do treat people unfairly if I'm irritable and short-tempered.

I want to finish by sharing another video.
I posted it on another thread as well but it's appropriate here too.
This contains a summary of 3000yr history of Israel and the Middle East including Jesus shown with the help of google maps.

It contains some great history and some interesting bible stories.
Even if you've heard them before there great facts and details in Jake's telling.
(FYI he's a Christian)

Free Speech, the Latest from Gaza & the Good Samaritan
Start at 44:44 or watch the whole thing, it's worth the time.
http://youtu.be/OkS5cFwP6Jw

SANHEDRIN | Prepare to Build Third Temple
http://youtu.be/Pa5R9Q7aekc

This is interesting.
Its clear that some Jews wish to overthrow the UN and rule over mankind from Jerusalem based on their religious texts, and these are the same people that crucified Jesus.

How do you feel about the threat of jail for Anti-Semitism just because you don't want to be ruled over by religious Rabbis in Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem?

Freedom of religion is a double edged sword.
It just means some are free to promote authoritarian views.
If we allow Israel Folau to say what he thinks;
Then under 'equality' we'd have to let the others openly have their religious views as well.

Australia has 25 million stakeholders who are the owners of this nation.
This does not include the UN and does not include foreigners.
I don't want Australia ruled over by foreigners, whomever they may be.
We are the stakeholders of this nation and we should decide our own future ourselves.

http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/118979/sanhedrin-nikki-haley-president/

So there you have it.
New World Order looks like the Jew World Order.
Anti-Semitism legislation globally is a ploy so no nations citizens can speak out about what's being planned.

Anti-Semitic?
This stuff is anti-everyone-else.
Apparently all Christians will die for idol worship under the 7 Noahide Laws.

To ArmChair Critic.

When I was a teen (and younger) I heard my uncle give simular theories of one world government and conspiracies that there is an agenda by powerfuk oeople to weaken the country and the world so that tgey can influence them easier. His theories were not about the Jewish agenda, but about the Rockerfellers and bankers. having a monoply on money and debt that bankers have on the people and tge ability to just make more money out of nothing. As a kid I thought it was just conspircy theories. However, as I'vevgrown up I've seen social movementsvget more crazy, divided, and weakening from the tge things held them together before. It can give credit to many posible conspircy theories.

Regarding the links you've provided against jewish influence, I don't know. That a different take, and I don't know many in the Jewish faith to test the conspericy theory through their character. I will say this though. There seems to be some kind of movement that is leading in a worrisome direction by the leaders in the world and the leaders and movements in many countries around the world. regardless who is to blame if anyone for these things it is a worrisome trend, that makes many conspricy theories sound right. which conspricy theory though, that's something I don't know. possibly multiple scheems battkingbit out through the rich and powerful who have the means to plan and play out these power plays on the world.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Either way though, the second thing to address is what to do next? Here's where one philosophy that seems reasonable, (to fight back and fight the system or the oppressors), and this sounds reasonable on many cultural philosophies to fight back, stand against the bad guys or against the wrongs of the world. And yet counter to this is what Jesus taught. To trust God, even to put your faith in Him and not fear the people. This along side the teaching to obey those who rule over you is a very counter intuitive philosophy, even in the light of if the conspiracy theories we know of are true or not. Worse to make the point even more so Jesus taught this under Roman rule and oppression. The conditions that were likely much worse then most western countries are under.

With this in mind I thank you for giving the links to be aware of, and that way I can watch the world and test them as I observe what is happening. However. If you would like to understand my take on what we should do about the matter, then I have a book to recommend to you. Read Daniel in the bible. It's an old testament book in the setting when Israel was conquered and exiled to Babylon. In the book there are many themes in it from prophesy, obedience, conspiracies from jealous men in the government, and a few more. However the subject matter that I recommend the book for is based on Denial and his three companions reactions and behavior in those conditions. It's my best role model for what Christians should do to when the world keeps getting worse. Don't fight against them, but don't compromise on your faith either. That's the subject matter I see worth reading the book of Daniel for and recommending it to both Christians and nonChristians. To stay true to your values and faith without having to start a rebellion in order to defend our stances.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

There's always been a handful things in the bible that didn't sit well with me.

'Turn the other cheek' is one of them.

If one were to consider themselves 'God's creation', then why would one support turning the other cheek?
If someone wished to harm God's creation, don't you have a right, obligation even to defend God's creation and / or others?

- 'Bad things happen when good people do nothing'

'Unconditional Forgiveness' being equal to unconditionally giving sins a free pass.

If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, "I repent", you shall forgive him"

This kind of seems a bit silly, it seems just as likely the person might be being played for an idiot.

I have a kind of a personal creed:
Stay on top of things;
Make the most of life's opportunities;
Don't allow others to get the best of you.

Thanks for Book of Daniel recommendation, I'll try to motivate myself to take a look; though usually my stance is that I don't wish to be tainted by the bible in the way I see others sometimes lose sense of themselves.

A thought about these global events came to my mind.

Order Out Of Chaos or

So I looked that up.
In Old Latin 'Ordo Ab Chao'

A Latin expression, meaning Order out of Chaos. A motto of the Thirty-third Degree, and having the same allusion as lug e tenebris, which see in this work. The invention of this motto is to be attributed to the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite"

33rd degree Masons, that's interesting.
I think Freemasonry may be based on Kabbalah;
But in any case I know they have Jewish six pointed star on their buildings.

Now what's interesting about this?

Albert Pikes 3 World Wars, written in 1871.
http://safenetforum.org/t/albert-pikes-three-world-war-letter-1871/22051

Here's another reference to Order out of Chaos, within banking as you alluded to.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-15/order-out-chaos-doctrine-runs-world

To ArmChair.

The links you've provided aren't quite like the conspiracy theories I've heard from my uncle. But they are close enough. I would warn you about getting too close to those kinds of theories. There's always enough information out there to make a conspiracy out of, even ones that are ridiculously wrong.

However it's not the information out there or that they are right or wrong that I give this warning. It's the resulting mindset that I see from it. Once you start looking for the connections you can start seeing the connections. Even if those connections aren't really there. Look at it this way. A comedian can look at the world and look at it to angle it as a joke. It can come from practice but more so it can be from a mind set to just look at the world in that way. The same is true for a cooperate businessman can start looking at the world by the costs of it. Be competitive with the market your in so that you offer what everyone else does but not much more. That way you cut costs. The same is true for a police officer and a detective, to look at the world as suspects, because they deal with them all day, or a psychologist looks at the world and looks at the diagnosis of any and all people around him. Even everyday normal stuff can be changed to be something that can be "fixed."

(Continued)

(Continued)

With conspiracy theory goggles. The world is looked at from what is underlying schemes, plots, and harms. The way I grew up and see my uncle when he was talking about politics or world events, versus on the rest of the times, he seemed like two different people. One that is kind, hard working, but a tease. The other very doom and gloom, angry at the world and what the agendas are doing to the people. Goes on to language of "you people" when family wouldn't listen. This mindset can consume a person and eat up all the good attributes they have in their personality. Take that into consideration ArmChair Critic. Especially if it is about things that are out of your control that are a focus to change you.

Just be careful, with your focus. But if it makes it easier I'll share my go to perspective when it comes to world power plays and conspiracy theories. No one is in that much control. Take heart that even with the most manipulative of plans and movements, plans fails and people are overthrown. The dynamic of control is out of even the most powerful person's hands. (Not to be blind of the issues and possible plots, but don't let them be a focus. It's a poisonous focus that can harm the personality and outlook of a person).

As for the bible and some of the philosophies and ethics of the world like "evil exists when good people do nothing." I have thoughts, but I think I'll have to wait till tomorrow. For lack of space to explain. (And lack of time today).

Dear Critic,

«I've heard you speak about your beliefs before but I'm not sure what religion it is?»

I try to follow the Hindu principles.

While having my own criticism of the bible, I find inspiration in the words of Jesus regarding the turning of the other cheek.

One is never slapped unless they had this karma standing against them for previously doing something equivalent to others, so rather than creating new karma and perpetuating the pain, one ought to thank their slapper for helping them to pay off their old karma, even turn the other cheek if we still have more outstanding karma to pay for (as most of us do).

However, it is usually best to thank the slapper only within our heart and turn one's other cheek mentally rather than physically as we rather not encourage the slapper to form violent habits. You quoted: "And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, "I repent", you shall forgive him" - Yes indeed, but it's not always wise to tell them that they are forgiven!

«If someone wished to harm God's creation, don't you have a right, obligation even to defend God's creation and/or others?»

Is there anything besides God's creation? If you took this logic to the extreme, then you would be obliged to kill birds because they prey on fish and the cows because they eat God's creation, grass!

You can never harm God's creation anyway - you can only change its expression (to a degree), say from a pale cheek to a blood-shot cheek: it remains God's creation just the same.

Hinduism teaches that not only are there no other Gods besides God, but that actually there can be nothing whatsoever but God. So in the case of slapping another's cheek, God is the slapper, God is the slapped and God is the act of slapping too - what a joke to think that anyone is hurt!

The slapper's sin, however, is in [mis]conceiving themselves as separate from the slapped, thus from God.

To ArmChair Critic.

Of all the things a person might have against Christian philosophies, turn the other cheek wouldn't be the one I expected. However it is one that has a lot of backing behind it in other places in the bible. "Do not return evil for evil, but conquer evil by doing good." "Love your enemy," even to to the point of showing kindness and blessing those who persecute you.

These are hard things to follow because there are also other philosophies in the world around us that seek to get even, right the wrongs done on you (regardless if there was anything actually wronged done to you), as well as the idea that "evil persists when good people do nothing." That and the general sense that no one wants to be harmed, and to restrain yourself from reacting (or over reacting to make the point clearer) even if the harm is accidental is a point of maturity and self control. The point is that turning the other cheek is an act of restraint in a world of vindictive over reactions and getting even. One other philosophy I've heard that makes sense is "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

(Continued)

(Continued)

Now to the other part of the equation. Can doing good solve the problems of evil being done. For some people the answer is a definitive no. There are sick psychopaths out there that only wish to harm others. Letting them do it will encourage them to do it more or to do it again. Have nothing to do with these individuals, and protect those you love from them. For most everyone else, an act of kindness regardless if they wronged you or not, changes their attitudes towards you or to those you might resemble. And in this way returning good actually can conquer evil, by ending the cycle of harm being done that then gets passed onto another and then another until it stops with a person who doesn't pass it back or in their frustration pass their anger onto someone else. (Like a supervisor's boss yelling at him can lead to the supervisor venting his anger on those he is in charge of).

The three outlooks I've got for turning the other cheek, is that 1) a person's patience can heal the other person from whatever's going on inside them, possibly even save them if you go that far in a Christian reasoning; or 2) it can actually end a string of harm and anger that passes on from one person to the next until it stops from a person who will not pass the harm on; and 3) The person turning the other cheek is trusting God to handle the matter.

There are many different philosophies and ethics out there. But I would say that the vindictive ones are the ones that sound great but actually when looking back cause the most harm. Going to a direction of turning the other cheek and distancing yourself from those who don't come around is a better option of ethics in my opinion.