Political Science

[don]

Re: Political Science

I am the ontime classmate of the grandson of a world-renown televangelist (one of the first, I believe) who seems to be on the calling list of every presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

In our discussions over the years, it's clear to me that he sees no inconsistency between the lavish salaries and lifestyles afforded to his grandfather, uncle and other family members and the teachings of Christ (by way of Luther and Calvin). He is convinced that his family's wealth is evidence of his unconditional election arising out of God's irresistable grace.

When I pointed out numerous passages from the Gospels such as Matthew 19:16-30 where Jesus counsels the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he countered that Jesus also said that "What is impossible with men is possible with God" and it was only through God's grace that his family were able to amass such wealth. He added that since the largest share of that wealth goes to evangelism, it is yet more evidence of God's working his will through his family and that so long as the family continues on this righteous path, then God will continue to provide them the wealth necessary for them to carry on.

worked for them . . .

[shiny!]

Re: Political Science

I am the ontime classmate of the grandson of a world-renown televangelist (one of the first, I believe) who seems to be on the calling list of every presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

In our discussions over the years, it's clear to me that he sees no inconsistency between the lavish salaries and lifestyles afforded to his grandfather, uncle and other family members and the teachings of Christ (by way of Luther and Calvin). He is convinced that his family's wealth is evidence of his unconditional election arising out of God's irresistable grace.

When I pointed out numerous passages from the Gospels such as Matthew 19:16-30 where Jesus counsels the rich man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he countered that Jesus also said that "What is impossible with men is possible with God" and it was only through God's grace that his family were able to amass such wealth. He added that since the largest share of that wealth goes to evangelism, it is yet more evidence of God's working his will through his family and that so long as the family continues on this righteous path, then God will continue to provide them the wealth necessary for them to carry on.

Oy vey! As ridiculous and disturbing as it is, this kind of rationalizing isn't exclusive to Christianity.

I used to belong to a New Age religious/yoga cult that believed and behaved much the same as your televangelist family (in my defense I was very young when I joined, thinking it was a legitimate group). Over the years the charismatic leader focused more and more on making money. The money flowed to him at the top, of course, which he amassed for himself and bestowed upon his inner circle. We peons were told to earn and contribute as much as possible so the group could "spread the teachings (keep the money flowing upward) for humanity". Boiler rooms, telemarketing scams, gemstone investment fraud, money laundering, drug running and worse...

Most of the people far from the center worked honestly and didn't know that stuff was going on. Those near the hub actively supported the fraud (sociopaths) or rationalized and minimized it (enablers).

Even though the leader has died the cult is still around, trying to present a public image of holiness and legitimacy. But their numbers are dwindling and they're wracked with internal lawsuits, like jackals fighting over a rotting corpse.

May the realm of justice come.

[reggie]

Re: Political Science

Oy vey! As ridiculous and disturbing as it is, this kind of rationalizing isn't exclusive to Christianity.

I used to belong to a New Age religious/yoga cult that believed and behaved much the same as your televangelist family (in my defense I was very young when I joined, thinking it was a legitimate group). Over the years the charismatic leader focused more and more on making money. The money flowed to him at the top, of course, which he amassed for himself and bestowed upon his inner circle. We peons were told to earn and contribute as much as possible so the group could "spread the teachings (keep the money flowing upward) for humanity". Boiler rooms, telemarketing scams, gemstone investment fraud, money laundering, drug running and worse...

Most of the people far from the center worked honestly and didn't know that stuff was going on. Those near the hub actively supported the fraud (sociopaths) or rationalized and minimized it (enablers).

Even though the leader has died the cult is still around, trying to present a public image of holiness and legitimacy. But their numbers are dwindling and they're wracked with internal lawsuits, like jackals fighting over a rotting corpse.

May the realm of justice come.

Ever investigate who was protecting the leader of this cult?

[reggie]

Re: Political Science

And here is relevant input from Herman Weyl, a German mathematical physicist...
http://www.weylmann.com/

Weyl on God -- Posted on Friday, January 14 2011

Hermann Weyl spent much of his life examining the interconnections between mathematics, science, religion and philosophy, and many of his thoughts are summarized in three lectures he prepared in 1931-32. These lectures were subsequently incorporated into his The Open World (reprinted in Mind and Nature: Selected Writings on Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics). He begins with A mathematician steps before you, speaks about metaphysics, and does not hesitate to use the name of God. That is an unusual practice nowadays. The mathematician, according to the ideas of the modern public, is occupied with very dry and special problems, he carries out increasingly complicated calculations and more and more intricate geometrical constructions, but he has nothing to do with those decisions in spiritual matters which are really essential for man. In other times this was different. Weyl goes on to talk about how natural philosophy (what we today call science) in the times of Aristotle, Plato, Bruno and Kepler was shaped if not controlled by religious thought and beliefs; science, then, was not to tally rational, but heavily (though not exclusively) mythological. Weyl then speaks about the Copernican revolution, which removed the Earth from the center of the universe and set the stage for the Age of Enlightenment some centuries later, though [through] the act of redemption by the Son of God, crucifixion and resurrection are no longer the unique cardinal point in the history of the world, but a hasty performance in a little corner of the universe repeating itself from star to star: this blasphemy displays perhaps in the most pregnant manner the precarious aspect which a theory removing the Earth from the center of the world bears for religion. Battles between science and religion were fought constantly, with many scientists (notably Giordano Bruno) coming up on the short end. But inevitably, rational science began its ascent, though initially it was still couched in religion (Kepler: ?The science of space is unique and eternal and is reflected out of the spirit of God. The fact that man may partake of it is one of the reasons why man is called the image of God?). Weyl ultimately brings us to the era of Einstein's relativity theory, which Weyl sees akin to the "finger of God in Nature" to "those of us who are Christians and not heathens," writing that The world is not a chaos, but a cosmos harmoniously ordered by inviolable mathematical laws. Weyl goes on to say Thus the mere postulation of the external world does not really explain what it was supposed to explain, namely, the fact that I, as a perceiving and acting being, find myself placed in such a world; the question of its reality is inseparably connected with the question of the reason for its lawful mathematical harmony. But this ultimate foundation for the ratio governing the world, we can find only in God; it is one side of the Divine Being. Thus the ultimate answer lies beyond all knowledge, in God alone; flowing down from him, consciousness, ignorant of its own origin, seizes upon itself in analytic self-penetration, suspended between subject and object, between meaning and being. Many scientists today unabashedly describe themselves as atheists. In The Open World, Weyl makes it clear that he was not one of them. To me personally, it provides hope that one day science and religion will be spoken of as one. Finally, Weyl finishes his book with this: Many people think that modern science is far removed from God. I find, on the contrary, that it is much more difficult today for the knowing person to approach God from history, from the spiritual side of the world, and from morals; for there we encounter the suffering and evil in the world which it is difficult to bring into harmony with an all-merciful and all-mighty God. In this domain we have evidently not yet succeeded in raising the veil with which our human nature covers the essence of things. But in our knowledge of physical nature we have penetrated so far that we can obtain a vision of the flawless harmony which is in conformity with sublime reason. Here is neither suffering nor evil nor deficiency, but perfection only. In this week of horror in Tucson and countless other heartless places on this planet, Weyl's words provide hope that God-given reason may still guide us witless humans.

[shiny!]

Re: Political Science

Ever investigate who was protecting the leader of this cult?

Oh, yeah. It was run like a little mafia. They had and still have a lot of politicians in bed with them: governors, senators, judges, state police and attorney general offices, state Democratic machines, even Republicans if it made a good photo opportunity. All were wined, dined and infiltrated. There are other forums that exist to expose their crimes. PM me if you want a link.

[reggie]

Re: Political Science

Oh, yeah. It was run like a little mafia. They had and still have a lot of politicians in bed with them: governors, senators, judges, state police and attorney general offices, state Democratic machines, even Republicans if it made a good photo opportunity. All were wined, dined and infiltrated. There are other forums that exist to expose their crimes. PM me if you want a link.

I'm going to bet that the leader of this cult was/is a relative of a high ranking military official or intelligence operative. I'll PM you for more, but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know (here) if I'd win this bet.

[charliebrown]

Re: Political Science

When science finally asecnds the mountain of truth it will find religion patiently waiting for it. - Jastrow.

All of this arguing about how old the earth is and did a supernatural being have a hand in it. How does it help us? What does it matter?
So much of the arguing seems to be those who want no god so they have no one to ultimately answer to, or those leaders trying to build their power base. We have a duty to help those in need. That will lead to a fulfilling life regardless of how old the earth is.

As a scientist I am curious though, how it all came to be.

[reggie]

Re: Political Science

When science finally descends the mountain of truth it will find religion patiently waiting for it. - Jastrow.

All of this arguing about how old the earth is and did a supernatural being have a hand in it. How does it help us? What does it matter?
So much of the arguing seems to be those who want no god so they have no one to ultimately answer to, or those leaders trying to build their power base. We have a duty to help those in need. That will lead to a fulfilling life regardless of how old the earth is.

As a scientist I am curious though, how it all came to be.

I think Thomas Kuhn got it right, showing how science, as a social endeavor, follows a path marked not by an even continuity of small steps, but by great leaps forward interspersed with plateaus. Now, these great leaps have given us the sciences such as Quantum Mechanics and Cybernetics, where the big questions aren't asked and outcomes are based upon probabilistic theory and statistics.

I think Greg Chaitim (IBM) has got it right in this video, we're largely failing to ask the big questions anymore, or ignoring the failability of our own systems, instead pursuing that which supports the development and societal deployment of "technological toys" (my words)

And by the way, Ian Hutchinson (MIT Physicist) has got an excellent book (as well as some blog articles and video presentations) out on the matter of Science's attempt to "Monopolize Knowledge". You can start at:
http://biologos.org/blog/monopolizin...-and-scientism

[shiny!]

Re: Political Science

I'm going to bet that the leader of this cult was/is a relative of a high ranking military official or intelligence operative. I'll PM you for more, but I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know (here) if I'd win this bet.

What a smart bunny!

Yogi Bhajan was an Indian Customs official who immigrated to the US and formed a cult called 3HO (Happy Healthy Holy Organization). I can't say with certainty that he was an intelligence operative, but James Jesus Angleton's wife and two daughters were among his earliest followers. Make of it what you will.

[reggie]

Re: Political Science

What a smart bunny!

Yogi Bhajan was an Indian Customs official who immigrated to the US and formed a cult called 3HO (Happy Healthy Holy Organization). I can't say with certainty that he was an intelligence operative, but James Jesus Angleton's wife and two daughters were among his earliest followers. Make of it what you will.

Yup, same drill as Jim Jones and a host of other creeps intel agencies deploy as deep cover to ponerize society through a host of obnoxious and illegal activities...

James Jesus Angleton (December 9, 1917 – May 12, 1987) was chief of the CIA's counterintelligence (CI) staff from 1954 to 1975. His official position within the organization was "Associate Deputy Director of Operations for Counterintelligence (ADDOCI)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jesus_Angleton

[Woodsman]

Re: Political Science

Ponerize? Sorry, what's that?

[DSpencer]

Re: Political Science

Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.

But why do you choose to believe this particular faith? Why not Buddhism or Hinduism or Judaism, etc? Would I be going out on a limb to guess that you were raised in a Christian environment? That your parents were Christian?

I have talked to devout followers of several religions and they all believe that their faith in particular has some unique feature that makes it the only plausible religion. That somehow their religious texts are more compelling or that something in their life is proof of their correct faith. Yet by "coincidence" in the vast majority of cases, it happens to be the same religion they were taught as a child by their parents. Many of the rest adopt the religion of their significant other.

I consider myself agnostic and find it hard to accept the beliefs of hardcore religious people as well as hardcore atheists. There simply isn't a compelling answer available for the most fundamental of questions about how the universe started and why we exist. Contrary to what some in this thread suggest, I have no desire to reject a God so that I can live by my own rules. On the contrary it would be quite comforting to believe in the possibility of everlasting peace and joy. Who wouldn't like to believe that? I simply and quite desperately want to know the truth because it seems rather important. Unfortunately, I expect to never know.

[BadJuju]

Re: Political Science

Present archeological, scientific proof that the Resurrection never happened.

Since the Bible is the one making the argument that it happened, then the burden of proof is on it. And there isn't any. It is a book of lies and fairy tales.

[Raz]

Re: Political Science

Since the Bible is the one making the argument that it happened, then the burden of proof is on it. And there isn't any. It is a book of lies and fairy tales.

Upon what facts do you make such an assertion?

[charliebrown]

Re: Political Science

Ouch Juju ...

There are extra biblical records of Jesus. Some people consider these fake, others do not. These people were not kind to Jesus but do confirm that he existed,
and some of the biblical narrative is true. Josephus is one, Tacitus is another and there are a few others.

The philosophy of history in the anceint world is different than today. Today the main thrust of history is accuracy, who, what, when, recording like a camera would. Ancient history focuses more on the why. It was 'OK' to distort the facts if it explains why and why this event is significant. I believe Josephus described the same event for different audiences and changed some of the historical facts, but that was considered acceptable in the ancient world, the message was what was important.

I am a believer in Jesus being the physical manifestation of God. I have a thesistic mind set. So when something wonderful happens to me I try to explain it with God's providence. I suppose if I had an agnostic or atesistic mind set, I would say it was chance etc. The writers of the biblical text where also of a thesitic bent. If something happened to them they attributed to God's providence, and not random chance etc.

Take the miracle of turning the Nile to blood. Today skeptics say that a volcano erupted and filled the river with ash. That may be true and I will not deny that, but the fact that it happened when it was needed, ... was that the finger of God or the finger of chance?

I have had something wonderful happen in my life that was extreemely low probability occur within a day of a strange angel seeing lady who told me "As proof of an angel watching over you, something unexplainable will happen to you tomorrow". Yes it could be chance albiet very low, but why the day after a chance encounter with an angel seeing lady? The finger of chance or the finger of God ???

I do not besmirch you Juju. I believed as a child, lost my faith for many years after I was re-edjucated by science at the university, then refound my faith on 9/11/2001. Out of evil, God can make good ... Please be careful when you insult people's holy book. I am sorry if any members of my faith have treated you
poorly.