• Contemporary Political Ideologies Sargent Pdf To Word Online
• Political Ideologies Pdf
• Political Ideologies Meaning

In this post, I want to address some of the contemporary political, social and values-based issues often raised by today’s conservative “Christians,” that are frequently the direct opposite of the teachings attributed to Jesus, including such hot-button issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, preserving the Founders’ cherished separation of church and state, the imagined “war on Christmas” (and “war on Christianity” in general) and others. We will examine why Christians take a non-Biblical view that is almost completely opposite of Jesus, and how this came to be.Is Morality Declining?A number of those who have written to me assert that, even if I am right, it is dangerous to undermine the literal belief in Christianity because it offers moral stability.

They claim that, as a literal belief in Christianity has declined, that modern society has become more immoral.In many respects, we are actually a more just and moral society than at any time in our history or the history of the world. We no longer practice slavery.

We no longer practice child labor or the horrible oppression of assembly lines as they were known a hundred years ago. We protect working people. We protect women and minorities. We encourage those who are disabled to have greater equality of access to opportunities and to participate in the mainstream of everyday life.

There is more charity and kindness and giving than ever in history.While there are clearly some problems that exist, and some of them are new, they are not caused by removing the superficial, trivial symbols from ancient mythologies such as mandating very banal prayers in schools or posting the Ten Commandments. They are caused by a move toward a more impersonal society that results from the urban congestion of mega-cities that did not exist 200 years ago, before the Industrial Revolution. In those days, the infrastructure, communications systems and technology to produce food on farms and keep it fresh for delivery to cities simply did not exist. While a few mega-cities did exist in ancient times (Rome, London, Paris, Beijing), the resources needed to sustain large cities caused that to be a rare, aberrant phenomenon. In 1800 when Thomas Jefferson was President, the largest city in the United States was New York with 60,000 people; second was Philadelphia with 30,000. Today those would be considered small towns. The people who produced goods were personally acquainted with the people who consumed them, their neighbors.

The burgeoning crush of congestion and the alienation of those who produce from the strangers that consume creates indifference, which requires regulatory protection. Media and communications allow the rapid spread of new ideas and images (not all of them good) which does more to upset traditional values than outdated mythologies or removing superficial symbols such as a bland, non-sectarian prayer that no one paid attention to anyway.Along the same lines, many have written me to attest as to how Christianity has improved the quality of their lives. In many cases, I have no doubt but what their brand of Christianity works for them, just as others’ brands of Christianity do for them. Buddhism works for others. Judaism for others, and Hinduism, Islam, and so on. Yet not all the details of their factual claims are specifically or actually true. The point is that these are tools to help us steer away from counterproductive wallowing in purely selfish, base desires.

If they work to make our lives better, it is not necessarily because they are literally true, but because they provide a sense of values, virtues and purposefulness, as well as an organizational framework within which to express them. In other cases, religion has not led to improved quality of life, but rather to persecution, violence, international strife, etc.Is Religion Necessary for Morality?Some claim that it is not possible to have morality apart from religious authority. Such people perpetuate the simplistic myth of morality by externally-imposed fiat — that unless there is an all-powerful authority figure standing over us, threatening to punish us for doing wrong, we will have no reason to be moral.To say that morality is based on “God” because he has the POWER is to say that morality is based on power. Because god is the biggest, baddest dude in the universe, morality is nothing more than a cosmic game of “might makes right.”Cowering in fearful obeisance to dominating bullies is not morality.The only true morality is that which springs from internalizing self-actualized compassion, the self-driven compulsion to be kind and loving because it makes the world we are a part of a more harmonious place for everyone. It is morality we adhere to even when no one, including imaginary sky gods, is watching.When parents use the “Big Santa is watching” threat to try to coerce “moral” behavior in children, does that prove anything factually about the existence of Santa? Who Do You Trust?

Church Leaders or Politicians?Jesus taught in his seminal public discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, that religious exercises such as prayer and worship should be personal and private. On prayer, Jesus did not suggest, he commanded in Matthew 6:5-6 “thou shalt not” pray in public. Not even in the synagogues or street corners! How can anyone who calls themselves “Christians” lobby for public prayers? Have they even read the Bible that they proclaim to be the Word of God?And Jesus clearly delineated between religious authority and the secular, non-religious authority of the government.

Jesus makes it explicitly clear in Matt 22:21 and Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25 that we should render to the government (Caesar) that which is the government’s (Caesar’s), and separately to God that which is God’s. In this way, we can see that Jefferson’s vision of a “wall of separation between church and state,” an expression he was the first to use while writing a letter explaining this concept to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in 1802.Would Jesus Be Liberal or Conservative?Labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” and especially partisan identities such as Democrat or Republican did not exist at the time Jesus lived on this earth. Carefully thought out political and economic philosophies such as capitalism or socialism had not been contemplated. So clearly no party or ideology can unequivocally claim Jesus as an adherent. However, if one considers the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, and compares them to modern philosophies, he would clearly fall into the liberal camp.Look at some of these specific teachings:On rich and poor: “Sell all your possess and give to the poor.” (Mark 10:21).

Please note that, after comments are submitted, they do not show up right away, as they have to be approved for public display and I am not always online. If I am online and see the comment, I can respond quickly. If not, it may take hours before I even see it!In the present case, however, I am sorry to say that I do not know what happened, but your earlier comment was not received at all.

My suggestion before hitting the “submit” button on this or any other site is to copy the contents of the comment before submitting ( especially if it is long or if particular effort went into composing it), so that if it does get misdirected into the depths of Cyberspace, it can be restored by a simple paste. But thank you anyway for the kind words. Sivapuranam lyrics in tamil with meaning.

Hello.Just want to know the following:1. I notice that this blog was updated in 2011 so I just want to know if any of the positions have changed since then before I waste time raising flares at fires that have already been watered down.2. Your interpretations of the Bible, are they your own alone or do you share them with some other scholars (reputable) I am just curious because when I saw the verses you posted to defend some of the positions you hold I googled the verses and couldnt really identify any scholar who concludes that 1 cor 7:36 ref to a boy and girl having sex, most hold it ref to the father refusing for her daughter to get married in any contex. (this is just an example – I checked all verses and couldnt find another authority that seems to agree with you) if these are just your opinions its also ok you can also just highlight your credentials (i’m a scientist and I believe in peer reviewed work)3. Is there any particular reason for which you changed your religious inclinations – your blog says your were once a christian so just want to know what led to the change – i’m tired of reading blogs of bitter people that attach systems they were once part of with no actual reason for doing so, so I want to know your reasons so I know how much of what you write I can ascribe to emotion and how much to actual debate.4. I like the way to write and thank your for placing your thoughts and opinions for the world to see and for the questions it raises in all our minds in these contemporary times. Thank you for your questions, Maano.To respond to your specific inuires:1.

My views have not significantly changed since I began this blog in 2011.WordPress graciously allows writers to edit/update existing blogs, so to whatever extent my views have modified, or my ability to express those views effectively has evolved, they are reflected in the current content.2. I have cited chapter and verse from the Bible. I have consulted multiple translations and, especially as noted in other comments, I have relied extensively on eminently qualified theological scholars with advanced degrees.

I am comfortable with the content on this site and the qualifications of sources cited in the main articles and/or the comments.3. I changed my religious inclinations to reflect the evidence I was exposed to, directly and through qualified experts, as described in greater detail in some of my other pages on this site (index in upper right corner). While there is much good in most Christian denominations, so there is also much good in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Pagan nature religions as well as the ancient mythologies of the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Incas and Mayans (“mythology” being the term we use to describe religions that are past their sell-by date). That does not make any of them factually true, and I see no more reason to accept the myths and legends of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic legacy of Abraham as being literally factual than any of the other mythologies.4. Thank you for your kind words. Wendell — your article is interesting.

A different take somewhat from mine, but thoughtful and insightful. I appreciate your insight, comments, and research regarding the Bible. However, I think your comment about Premarital Sex and I Corinthians 7:36 is weak and unsupported. It comes across as an eager and quick attempt to suggest the Bible condones sex before marriage. A stronger argument would be a reference of other verses, or suggest that Paul is spewing a blanket opinion that the cure for sexual immortality is marriage, as if all sex within marriage is moral and just.It’s been said the KJV is one of the only versions that does not “water” this verse down.

Here it is:1 Corinthians 7:36-38 KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.Where does sex happen in this verse so that the woman does not become a virgin before marriage? Paul consistently preaches that singleness is best (which he suggests in this verse) and that those who have uncontrollable passion/lust should get married.

Suggesting that Paul has a change of heart in this verse, and condones pre-marital sex does not make sense.In the very same chapter of 1 Cor 7, Paul suggests his blanket “marriage” approach to avoid fornication:1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.The greek word for “virgin” is used in other places of the Bible. After looking at other versions it seems this is talking in reference to a FATHER giving away his virgin daughter.See the NASB version:1 Corinthians 7:36-38 NASAB:But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.It seems clear to me that this verse is either talking about how a father should act in regards to giving away his virgin daughter, or that old women can get married too 🙂I appreciate your blog and I hope this helps make it better.Best,Dan. Dan, your interpretation is one possible interpretation, but the one I provided also fits the text and is a valid option for consideration.

I do understand that the word “virgin” is often translated in some passages of newer versions, such as the New American Standard Bible you cite, as “young woman.”The New International Version, which is a fairly recent translation and considered one of the most professional editions yet using the latest in translation technologies and resources, also translates the word as “version” in this passage. Further, the reference to old women does not reflect the feeling of the text.

There is no way one can reasonably stretch the reference to mean the right of the elderly to marry, which has not been a point of controversy. The NIV translates the reference to age as “getting along in years,” which in an age when men became adults at 13 and women at 12, and according to the Talmud, could then marry, a young woman who got to be in her late teens or early twenties and was still a “spinster,” would be seen as “getting along in years” according the traditions of that time regarding marriage, especially in an era of shorter life spans.You seem to be looking at the passage through the prism of a more recent tradition of neo-Puritan prudery.

One must consider that, while Paul (author of the passage) is surely no friend to the Law of Moses, it did reflect conventions regarding sexual morality that he would be familiar with. And according to the Old Testament Law of Moses, in Exodus 22:16, in a chapter that details the penalties for minor offenses, the penalty for a man seducing a virgin is that he must marry her and, if her father refuses to grant permission, he must remit a monetary payment the equivalent of a marriage present for a virgin. In a chapter filled with specific penalties, no other penalty for fornication is specified, whereas the crime of adultery — the violation of vows made — is elsewhere repeatedly accompanied by a mandatory death penalty.I grant that there is sufficient ambiguity in the passage such that it is possible to argue a case for your interpretation, but I believe the evidence (in the context of additional translations and the traditions of the times) for what I have provided.I have, however, edited the text to add the reference to the Old Testament verse in Exodus. If my Avatar is really of such concern to you, I will just briefly explain that it does not represent the goat. It was inspired by the Faun character from the C.S.

Lewis fantasy metaphor. In any case, I’m quite certain that there are many “Christians,” especially those from the Pauline tradition, (but who fail to recognize the basis stated by Jesus for differentiating between sheep and goats), who would be quite confident in their suspicion that I will, indeed, be numbered among the goats.Hint — when someone gets too worked up over Avatars, they are not engaging at a very substantive level. I have briefly addressed the inspiration behind my Avatar and will not entertain further discussion of something so insignificant. I think that maybe some of your political views have affected your judgment as far as biblical interpretation.

You’re views about Paul VS Yashua issues are spot on. In this department you do well but when you try and push modern liberal agendas such as abortion and say that Jesus would have been a liberal is silly and way off from the truth of the matter. Abortion is murder plain and simple do you honestly think Jesus would have condoned the innocent slaughter of a living fetus? Two important stages in the development of a fetus: Day 1; fertilization: all human chromosomes are present and unique human life begins. Day 22; heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

Contemporary Political Ideologies Sargent Pdf To Word Online

Do you see anything in these numbers that might be biblically significant (like Aleph and Tav)? Your comment about Mark 10:21 is way out of context.

First of all He was speaking directly to this man as can clearly be seen from two passages. Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? The key word here is “I”. What must I do? The other is Mark 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

This was intended for this man because “he” had great possessions. But it was not the possessions that got in the way of his salvation as Yashua goes on to explain it the following verses Mark 10:23 and Mark 10:24: Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Here it sounds like Jesus is saying something similar to what you are alluding to but the disciples didn’t understand Him so he clarified it in 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! Here we see that it is “them that trust in riches” as opposed to trusting in God that can’t enter.

Then in Mark 10:25 He explains how hard it is for those that “Trust in riches” as opposed to trusting in God to enter. Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Here he is not saying that a rich man can’t enter the kingdom of God, He is saying that a man that puts faith in worldly things or outer things can’t enter into the inner world of the kingdom.

This can also be seen in the words camel or Gimel the foot which indicates travel or walking and the word eye or Ayin. Here it seen to mean covetousness or looking upon outer things and not inner things as seen by the Waw or the needle the connecting agent to the “rich man” or the man concerned with worldly riches and not Spiritual riches.Now lets look at the idea of selling everything and following Him.

What is one doing when they do that? Aren’t they essentially trying to buy their way into the kingdom of God? This is shown in Mark 10:26 -29 I will paraphrase to save space; in 26 they were amazed because they thought they had done all these things so they ask “Who then can be saved? In 27 He tells them with men it is impossible. This means that you could sell everything give it to the poor and still not enter into the kingdom because it is impossible for man to buy his way in or do any outward thing that will grant him entrance into the kingdom within. One has to have a connection with God which is the inner voice not an outward thing. Then in 28 Peter still not grasping what is being said says; Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

And Yashua then says, in 10:29 Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s. He says this because even though they had essentially left everything they were still holding on to something. They had not left all connections to the outer world of darkness for the inner world of the Spirit and the Kingdom. It could be a million things like fear of the unknown or not trusting in God enough? But there was something’s they had not turned over to Him.Finally your statement about praying in public is out of context also.

To begin with Mat 5:5 reads, Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. So this was just a mistake on your part which is just an error but to be correct the real verse is in Mat 6:5 Here He is talking about praying so that others can see you. It is boasting and prideful it is for show to people in the outer world. It is not truthful prayer to God. But does that mean we can’t pray in public? In Mat 6:6 we see that he says to enter into our closet shut the door and pray in secrete. This closet is not an outer closet.

It is the closet of our own house. It is the inner chamber of the soul and to enter in there and commune with the inner God or our being. To shut the door to the outer world and enter the inner world. Now lets look at Mat 5:14-16 14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.

15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. Does this sound like the light should be hidden?

Then another example of this is Mark 10:13-16. 13 And they were bringing to him children, that he might touch them, and the disciples were rebuking those bringing them, 14 and Jesus having seen, was much displeased, and he said to them, `Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the reign of God; 15 verily I say to you, whoever may not receive the reign of God, as a child — he may not enter into it; 16 and having taken them in his arms, having put his hands upon them, he was blessing them.

Was this in public? Of course it was, as a matter of fact almost everything that Yashua did was in public. Finally to the idea of separation of church and state. I don’t believe we should have a Christian nation but rather a nation under God as expressed in the notion that Israel was a nation given to God. Did not God bless that nation when they were obedient? But turned the blessing away when they left their precepts and love for Him?

Why is it wrong to have a nation dedicated to these precepts? It is not wrong but right to model our country after and under God! Consider the opposite. 18 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.Thank you.Charles McCullough. I occasionally make changes to my online articles (and sometimes the book on which they are based) when readers point out errors.

In the present case, I stand by my positions that I have stated accurately and directly the content of the Biblical passages and perspectives which are referred to in my articles.Your conclusions about abortion and how Jesus would feel about it are purely your own speculative guess. Your views are not supported, at all, by fact or Scripture.

Political Ideologies Pdf

My own view, which I think is more consistent with Jesus’ ministry (but, since he never addressed the subject, is also my own speculative conclusion), is that Jesus would feel most concern for a troubled young woman, fully sentient, than a pre-sentient fetal tissue. The FACT, Charles, is that the Bible is silent on the subject of abortion. And since abortion was known and practiced in Biblical times, such silence seems to render the inescapable conclusion that the Bible writers intended that issue to be left to personal discretion depending on personal situations and needs.In any case, abortion is an emotion-charged issue that incites strong feelings, and it is not my intent to make this page about abortion. If you wish to pursue the matter, there is an excellent website on many facets about abortion that was prepared by a close affiliate of mine. There are various pages on various dimensions of the issue, including the biology, the legal issues, the moral issues and the Biblical aspects.

Political Ideologies Meaning

I provided research assistance in the preparation of much of the material for the Bible page. I refer you again (I also include the reference in the body of my article) to this site and request that more extensive discussion of the religious aspects of abortion be addressed there:Your biological timeline is not consistent with medical science, and your conclusions about the numerological aspects of Biblical significance appear to be contrived and highly suspect. The idea that anything in pregnancy occurs on “Day # such and such” is as ridiculous as saying every woman’s monthly cycle is the same number of days from month to month or from woman to woman. There are averages and guidelines, but nothing nearly as precise as you imagine.As for the idea of abortion being murder, or when a human “life” becomes a human “person,” I think the discussion on the moral aspects is quite insightful and I respectfully direct you (or anyone else) to it:As for the economic aspects of this article, I have presented and responded to what the Bible clearly says. Your convoluted attempt to try to explain why it really means something else is not persuasive, and smacks of trying to justify a predetermined conclusion.Please make future submissions more concise if you wish to have them included. Much of what you said was more of a distraction from your point than an illumination of it. It is not necessary to include full recitations of Scriptural passages.

I have numerous translations of the Bible, as I’m sure most readers here also do. In the future, lengthy submissions will either not be included in the thread or will be edited.