Politics or Religion- Religion or Politcs

[Gdjjr]

How are they different? Both require subservience. Both use congregations as tools or enemies.
Both want tithing, though one is voluntary (not counting the shaming of course = coerced) one is coerced with the threat of force or seizing of property or incarceration. Both want their brand of "leadership" which varies from sect to sect, Party to Party. Both believe doing the same thing over and over will give different results.
Government decided through politics is a necessary evil for the evil to succeed. Religion preaches against evil and supports political figures. Our form of government, it was believed, couldn't succeed, as intended, without virtuous men being elected. It's argued this is a Christian Nation- therefore the political types must be virtuous. Right?

I have yet to see (or hear or read about) a politician talking up Liberty. Religion seems to say you have the choice to act as you please- but, beware of the consequences- government says ignorance is no excuse, yet, it mandates official ignorance and makes the consequences obvious. Religion mandates "official" rules not be broken- they vary from sect to sect with maybe the 10 commandments being the exception- the religious say, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". The gov't says render unto gov't that which is gov't's. Politics and Religion have acolytes. Those who don't abide are ostracized- by both.
The religious say we can't make it without God- who varies from sect to sect. Gov't acolytes say we can't make it without x gov't program. Both are fervently believed. Both have zealots in their corner. Both want to be led to a better place. Both believe a higher power has to be in control. Neither applauds or lauds Individual effort. Yet, at the forefront of both are Individuals.
The religious say God will provide in the end. Politics say gov't will provide now. The common denominator is "will provide"- and here we are. The religious have varying beliefs (old and new testaments, torah, qu'ran- etc) the gov't has one belief- more is better.
Which is easier? Which will win? History proves the Individual is the one remembered.

 

[Correll]

How are they different? Both require subservience. Both use congregations as tools or enemies......

There is nothing about supporting some one politically that requires "subservience"?

 

[Gdjjr]

There is nothing about supporting some one politically that requires "subservience"?

LOL- oh yeah- it does. Big Picture my man. Big Picture.

 

[Correll]

There is nothing about supporting some one politically that requires "subservience"?

LOL- oh yeah- it does. Big Picture my man. Big Picture.

No, it does not.

Subservience is the willingness to obey someone unquestioningly.


For example, I support President Trump, politically.


He has never given me an order or even an instruction, and if he did, I may or may not follow it, depending on whether or not I agree with that specific instruction, it's goal, and how much of an problem it would be for me to do.


That is not "unquestioningly".

 

[there4eyeM]

Politics is ideological. Religion is theological.
Anyone who professes a religious (theological) belief puts that above man's (ideological) law since it is necessarily 'from God' (in their thinking). If such a person denies this fact, it is because they wish to deceive either their self or others.

 

[Correll]

There is nothing about supporting some one politically that requires "subservience"?

LOL- oh yeah- it does. Big Picture my man. Big Picture.

I want to tell a story, that shows, what I think is also an issue in our society, ie the LACK of willingness to follow.


A buddy and I were going out to a bar for a few drinks. By a few, mean a lot.


We were walking toward the bar, following our normal path, when I looked up the street towards the traffic and in the glare of the lights, I saw the silhouette of a young woman walking towards us.


Normally we would cross at the cross walk where we were, but I, intrigued by the unclear silhouette, instructed my friend, to go to the NEXT crosswalk and cross there.


He, already tipsy from pre-drinking was like "But WHY? We always cross here, why do you want to go there?"


By this time, the young woman was passing us, and I am being grilled by my stupid drunken friend as to why I wanted to walk up the street instead of crossing here.


My point is, all I asked was that we cross at a different place. He could have just assumed I had a fucking reason and "followed" me, and asked afterwards.


By being an "individual" and NOT assuming I had a fucking reason, he denied me and himself this tiny victory.


My point is, we as a society cannot get anything done, if everyone wants to be the Leader.

 

[Gdjjr]

By being an "individual" and NOT assuming I had a fucking reason, he denied me and himself this tiny victory.


My point is, we as a society cannot get anything done, if everyone wants to be the Leader.

How hard would it have been for you to explain your reason?

Why do you want to lead?

He was, as you say, tipsy- is that reason enough to make you want to lead?

Why did you decide you both had to go where you wanted? Why couldn't you go where you chose to go without his following you?

Do you believe he should have just assumed you were leading?

Victory for one isn't a victory for others. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm reading The Malta Exchange- I have a thread on it The Malta Exchange

The "professional" review can be found here https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07D2BV7LW/?tag=ff0d01-20

As is my wont I mark pages that have interesting, sometimes profound quotes, or just notable sentences or paragraphs-

I ran across this last night, pg 466, near the end of the story and it pertains to this thread.

"A literal blueprint for religion

First, establish a consistent doctrine called the New Testament with select gospels that speak to a universal belief, which was precisely what the bishops had done at Nicaea. Then decree that all other beliefs are heretical, unworthy of consideration, and all who don't believe will be excommunicated. To further enforce dogma, create the notion of sin, adding that if it's not forgiven, the soul will be sent to eternal damnation in flames. Never mind that the Old Testament mentioned nothing of any such place. Just create one in your New Testament, then use it to cement loyalty and obedience.

The fastest way t ensure a constant laity is to proclaim every person is born with sins inherited as punishment for Adam's fall from grace. To purge that 'original sin' a person must submit to baptism, performed only by a priest ordained by the church. A failure to rid that sin dams the soul to to hell. To keep people dependent on the church for their entire lifetime, create more sacraments. Holy communion for children. Confirmation at puberty. Marriage for adults. Last rites on the dead. A womb-to-grave influence over every aspect of a person's life, each milestone dependent solely on adherence to church doctrine. Along the way the sacrament of confession allows a chance to purge oneself of sin and temporarily avoid hell--- that forgiveness, of course, coming from only one source.

The church.

It's easy to see the same principles (not verbatim though) are used by politicians in their careers-

 

[whitehall]

Why is religion and politics mutually exclusive? The Founding Fathers thought freedom of religious expression was so important that they addressed it in the first Amendment to the Constitution. Around 1948 a former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR wrote an astonishing opinion that established the "separation of Church and State" that did not appear in the Constitution. In the ensuing years (mostly) democrat administrations expanded the concept to the point that small municipalities would be threatened with lawsuits that would cripple them financially if they dared to celebrate Christmas on public property, kids could be expelled from school for carrying a Bible and federal judges would order a Korean War monument demolished because a single atheist was offended by the 40 ft. Cross. The hypocrisy is evident in the fact that the elites in Washington D.C. would continue to enjoy a gigantic Christmas tree on public property and say a prayer before political sessions.

 

[Correll]

By being an "individual" and NOT assuming I had a fucking reason, he denied me and himself this tiny victory.


My point is, we as a society cannot get anything done, if everyone wants to be the Leader.

How hard would it have been for you to explain your reason?

Why do you want to lead?

He was, as you say, tipsy- is that reason enough to make you want to lead?

Why did you decide you both had to go where you wanted? Why couldn't you go where you chose to go without his following you?

Do you believe he should have just assumed you were leading?

Victory for one isn't a victory for others. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

1. Impossible, there was no time.

2. Because, as I explained, to check out possibly hot woman.

3. Nope. Had nothing to do with it.

4. Because we were walking together. If I had just went that way, he would have been questioning why I was walking away.

5. Yes. That is exactly what I believe. He should have assumed that if I wanted to do something without explanation, that I had a reason that he could have asked about later.


6. I assure you, my buddy also likes looking at young attractive women. It is a matter we have discussed at length, many times over the years.

 

[Gdjjr]

1. Impossible, there was no time.

2. Because, as I explained, to check out possibly hot woman.

3. Nope. Had nothing to do with it.

4. Because we were walking together. If I had just went that way, he would have been questioning why I was walking away.

5. Yes. That is exactly what I believe. He should have assumed that if I wanted to do something without explanation, that I had a reason that he could have asked about later.


6. I assure you, my buddy also likes looking at young attractive women. It is a matter we have discussed at length, many times over the years.

Anything can be justified- even wrong (according to one) things- assuming is presumptuous as well. Presuming is arrogant in many instances.

Either have the right to choose a path. Neither has the right to believe they know the right path for another.

 

[Correll]

1. Impossible, there was no time.

2. Because, as I explained, to check out possibly hot woman.

3. Nope. Had nothing to do with it.

4. Because we were walking together. If I had just went that way, he would have been questioning why I was walking away.

5. Yes. That is exactly what I believe. He should have assumed that if I wanted to do something without explanation, that I had a reason that he could have asked about later.


6. I assure you, my buddy also likes looking at young attractive women. It is a matter we have discussed at length, many times over the years.

Anything can be justified- even wrong (according to one) things- assuming is presumptuous as well. Presuming is arrogant in many instances.

Either have the right to choose a path. Neither has the right to believe they know the right path for another.

Such lack of trust in your fellow man, ensures that we fail as individuals and as a society.

 

[Gdjjr]

Such lack of trust in your fellow man, ensures that we fail as individuals and as a society.

I trust me and mine-

 

[Correll]

Such lack of trust in your fellow man, ensures that we fail as individuals and as a society.

I trust me and mine-

Fine. Go live in the mountains. BUt don't vote. We don't need random noise screwing up our society any more than it already is.