Posted on Mar 19, 2021
How My Christian Faith Fell Apart | A Case Study of DECONSTRUCTION
580
21
15
5
5
0
Atheism
Religion
Christianity
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
The oldest and simplest justification for government is as protector: protecting citizens from violence.
As English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote in his book Leviathan, he describes a world of unrelenting insecurity without a government to provide the safety of law and order, protecting citizens from each other and from foreign foes. The idea of government as protector requires taxes to fund, train and equip an army and a police force; to build courts and jails; and to elect or appoint the officials to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break.
The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that citizens cannot provide individually for themselves. The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing. Government will continue to protect citizens from violence and from the worst vicissitudes of life. Government will continue to provide public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a well-functioning society
Lying to the public and the press
The president’s duty to faithfully execute his office plays a critical role in the constitutional scheme. Going beyond requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” Const., Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5, the Clause 8 constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the presidential office limits the president’s discretion in how to perform his official functions.
“Faithfully” was contemporaneously defined, in part, as: “Honestly, without fraud, trick, or ambiguity.” One component recurrently included in the “faithful execution” provisions of “statutes and other legal documents” was that the official be “honest.” As the authors summarized: “The oath or command of faithful execution to an office holder came to convey an affirmative duty to act … honestly … in the best interest of the public.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, the language, history, purpose and widespread contemporaneous usage of “faithfully execute” one’s office show that the constitutional duty to “faithfully execute the office of the President” includes a duty to act honestly. Since the duty of “faithful execution” applies unconditionally to the office of the president, it applies to performing all the president’s official functions. Since communicating to the public is one of the president’s official functions, the honesty duty likewise applies to virtually all such communications.
Trump’s “repeatedly making false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud” were not to defend the national interest. To the contrary, his statements attacked the central pillar of American democracy: implementing the results of fair elections. Trump’s dishonesty was not to serve the national interest, but his personal and political self-interest in overturning the election’s results.
Furthermore, Trump had to have known that a pandemic would cause an economic recession or new Great Depression and therein it would reduce his odds of being reelected.
Far from the First Amendment giving any president the right to speak dishonestly to the American people, the Constitution itself imposes on the president a unique duty of honesty in carrying out his official functions. By repeatedly and falsely asserting to the American people that there had been widespread fraud and Covid-19 was not as dangerous as medical scientists were saying, Trump violated his constitutional duty of honesty.
Too many citizens do not understand what is meant by the duty of a president or other public officials to “faithfully execute.” Too many unassertive citizens lack the ethical courage in order to do their duty to insure justice is done, notwithstanding no law has been written making it a crime of accessory to a pandemic.
This crime of being an accessory to a pandemic (second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter) is a new incident such that our law makers never thought they needed to make a law to punish people who spread unscientific lies or refuting the advice of peer reviewed medical science.
Resolution to prosecute Donald Trump and other public officials for being accessories to a pandemic
WHEREAS Trump was briefed at least by January 30, 2020 that Covid-19 was very contagious and deadly similar to smallpox and the plague,
WHEREAS Trump told Americans 22 times the Corona virus would go away,
WHEREAS in September 2020 Trump pressured the CDC to downplay the threat of Covid-19 and the CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield did not resign,
WHEREAS Trump in February 2020 accused Democrats of “politicizing” the corona virus during a campaign rally claiming that the outbreak is “their new hoax,” accusing the press of being in “hysteria mode”, and downplaying the severity by comparing the number of fatalities during an average flu season,
WHEREAS Trump received a vaccination against Covid and he kept it a secret,
WHEREAS the former US Commander and Chief, Trump had the duty to protect US persons from all enemies (aka deadly threats), and one such enemy was Covid-19, a deadly and extremely contagious disease which even if the victim does not die, it can allegedly result at times in serious negative outcomes to a person’s long term health,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED we demand Trump and other US public officials be prosecuted by the US Court of jurisdiction and/or the international Criminal Court for gross negligence and reckless disregard for human life and health due to making false and unscientific statements about Covid-19.
As English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote in his book Leviathan, he describes a world of unrelenting insecurity without a government to provide the safety of law and order, protecting citizens from each other and from foreign foes. The idea of government as protector requires taxes to fund, train and equip an army and a police force; to build courts and jails; and to elect or appoint the officials to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break.
The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that citizens cannot provide individually for themselves. The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing. Government will continue to protect citizens from violence and from the worst vicissitudes of life. Government will continue to provide public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a well-functioning society
Lying to the public and the press
The president’s duty to faithfully execute his office plays a critical role in the constitutional scheme. Going beyond requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” Const., Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5, the Clause 8 constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the presidential office limits the president’s discretion in how to perform his official functions.
“Faithfully” was contemporaneously defined, in part, as: “Honestly, without fraud, trick, or ambiguity.” One component recurrently included in the “faithful execution” provisions of “statutes and other legal documents” was that the official be “honest.” As the authors summarized: “The oath or command of faithful execution to an office holder came to convey an affirmative duty to act … honestly … in the best interest of the public.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, the language, history, purpose and widespread contemporaneous usage of “faithfully execute” one’s office show that the constitutional duty to “faithfully execute the office of the President” includes a duty to act honestly. Since the duty of “faithful execution” applies unconditionally to the office of the president, it applies to performing all the president’s official functions. Since communicating to the public is one of the president’s official functions, the honesty duty likewise applies to virtually all such communications.
Trump’s “repeatedly making false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud” were not to defend the national interest. To the contrary, his statements attacked the central pillar of American democracy: implementing the results of fair elections. Trump’s dishonesty was not to serve the national interest, but his personal and political self-interest in overturning the election’s results.
Furthermore, Trump had to have known that a pandemic would cause an economic recession or new Great Depression and therein it would reduce his odds of being reelected.
Far from the First Amendment giving any president the right to speak dishonestly to the American people, the Constitution itself imposes on the president a unique duty of honesty in carrying out his official functions. By repeatedly and falsely asserting to the American people that there had been widespread fraud and Covid-19 was not as dangerous as medical scientists were saying, Trump violated his constitutional duty of honesty.
Too many citizens do not understand what is meant by the duty of a president or other public officials to “faithfully execute.” Too many unassertive citizens lack the ethical courage in order to do their duty to insure justice is done, notwithstanding no law has been written making it a crime of accessory to a pandemic.
This crime of being an accessory to a pandemic (second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter) is a new incident such that our law makers never thought they needed to make a law to punish people who spread unscientific lies or refuting the advice of peer reviewed medical science.
Resolution to prosecute Donald Trump and other public officials for being accessories to a pandemic
WHEREAS Trump was briefed at least by January 30, 2020 that Covid-19 was very contagious and deadly similar to smallpox and the plague,
WHEREAS Trump told Americans 22 times the Corona virus would go away,
WHEREAS in September 2020 Trump pressured the CDC to downplay the threat of Covid-19 and the CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield did not resign,
WHEREAS Trump in February 2020 accused Democrats of “politicizing” the corona virus during a campaign rally claiming that the outbreak is “their new hoax,” accusing the press of being in “hysteria mode”, and downplaying the severity by comparing the number of fatalities during an average flu season,
WHEREAS Trump received a vaccination against Covid and he kept it a secret,
WHEREAS the former US Commander and Chief, Trump had the duty to protect US persons from all enemies (aka deadly threats), and one such enemy was Covid-19, a deadly and extremely contagious disease which even if the victim does not die, it can allegedly result at times in serious negative outcomes to a person’s long term health,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED we demand Trump and other US public officials be prosecuted by the US Court of jurisdiction and/or the international Criminal Court for gross negligence and reckless disregard for human life and health due to making false and unscientific statements about Covid-19.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Trying to Eff the Ineffable always leads to problems. (Apologies to Neil Gaiman for the out of context paraphrase.)
The problem with this person's approach is that she is trying to understand that which is beyond her. It is like a Private in the trenches second guessing the Pentagon's war strategy.
Now, I will say that she made very reasoned and logical decisions and conclusions. And her path is her own, and I wish her the best of luck on her path. But when we abandon faith and spiritual belief in pursuit of earthly logic, it should never be surprising that faith crumbles. We mere mortals are never meant to understand - nor even ABLE to understand God's plans or designs.
And yes, I understand that it is "easy for me to say that" as a person of faith, and that it is merely words, etc. I also understand that in terms of debate, it is the ULTIMATE cop out - I don't have to provide proof or logic, because we mere mortals cannot understand the proof or logic. I got it. And I understand why this makes a "debate" over religion utterly unwinnable. But....
That is why it is called FAITH in the first place.
The problem with this person's approach is that she is trying to understand that which is beyond her. It is like a Private in the trenches second guessing the Pentagon's war strategy.
Now, I will say that she made very reasoned and logical decisions and conclusions. And her path is her own, and I wish her the best of luck on her path. But when we abandon faith and spiritual belief in pursuit of earthly logic, it should never be surprising that faith crumbles. We mere mortals are never meant to understand - nor even ABLE to understand God's plans or designs.
And yes, I understand that it is "easy for me to say that" as a person of faith, and that it is merely words, etc. I also understand that in terms of debate, it is the ULTIMATE cop out - I don't have to provide proof or logic, because we mere mortals cannot understand the proof or logic. I got it. And I understand why this makes a "debate" over religion utterly unwinnable. But....
That is why it is called FAITH in the first place.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Casey O'Mally - Where do you come up with this stuff about what I believe in? There are any number of things that I do not understand that I accept as true because the scientific community has presented evidence to support it. It does not depend on me.
Second, if you can point out something that I believe in based on faith, I'll stop believing in it until evidence is available.
I don't have "faith" that the light will come on, I base my expectation on the evidence of flipping the switch thousands of times and having light. I don't have faith that every ballot was counted correctly, I'm fairly sure, based on past evidence, that there were errors. I am convinced, based on the evidence, that Trump lost the election. None of that is based on "faith".
Third, I've never said that there is no afterlife, I have stated that we have no evidence of an afterlife, and until I'm presented with such, I'm not going to accept that claim. Plus, the "reports" of visions of the afterlife always correspond with the religious views of the person reportedly dying and coming back. You're familiar with those of the Christian sects, but are you aware of the others? For example, that of Black Elk, Oglala Lakota, who was taken to the council of the six grandfathers? Or that of Don Talayesva, Hopi, experience with Two-Hearts (witches) and normal people on the path to death? Are you familiar with the experiments on near death experiences? They have all failed. And since the science has failed to confirm either an afterlife or no afterlife, I'll refuse to believe in either until there is evidence one way or another.
You have faith that Jesus and God exists, and will provide either heaven or hell at the end. A Hindu has a different faith. Both cannot be correct.
Second, if you can point out something that I believe in based on faith, I'll stop believing in it until evidence is available.
I don't have "faith" that the light will come on, I base my expectation on the evidence of flipping the switch thousands of times and having light. I don't have faith that every ballot was counted correctly, I'm fairly sure, based on past evidence, that there were errors. I am convinced, based on the evidence, that Trump lost the election. None of that is based on "faith".
Third, I've never said that there is no afterlife, I have stated that we have no evidence of an afterlife, and until I'm presented with such, I'm not going to accept that claim. Plus, the "reports" of visions of the afterlife always correspond with the religious views of the person reportedly dying and coming back. You're familiar with those of the Christian sects, but are you aware of the others? For example, that of Black Elk, Oglala Lakota, who was taken to the council of the six grandfathers? Or that of Don Talayesva, Hopi, experience with Two-Hearts (witches) and normal people on the path to death? Are you familiar with the experiments on near death experiences? They have all failed. And since the science has failed to confirm either an afterlife or no afterlife, I'll refuse to believe in either until there is evidence one way or another.
You have faith that Jesus and God exists, and will provide either heaven or hell at the end. A Hindu has a different faith. Both cannot be correct.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Capt Gregory Prickett - Sir,
You DO have faith that the light will come on. That faith is founded upon your countless experiences of the past, where such faith was rewarded and bore fruit. And such faith ignores, or explains away, the instances when the light did NOT come on.
Religious faith is ALSO based on personal experiences. I have, personally, experienced God's grace. I have, personally, experienced an otherwise unexplainable calm that allowed me to deal with personal hardship. I have, personally, experienced getting shot at point blank range (approximately 2 feet) and having the bullet hit NOTHING vital, walking out of the hospital only a couple days later with no surgeries or treatment beyond treatment for pain. Oh.. and ONE bag of saline. You can call that what you want. I personally call it an (exceptionally small) miracle. There is no way I can rationally explain being shot at point blank range and still having the ability to walk to a nearby house and ask for a 911 call, let alone the tenants actually making the call, me maintaining consciousness and coherence to be able to provide coherent and relevant information to both the police and the ambulance. There is no way I can rationally explain being shot at point blank range and having the bullet hit my shoulder, less than 2" away from missing me entirely. And it was my right shoulder, not my left, so it can't even be explained by "he was aiming for my heart and shot high." God wasn't ready for me to die yet, so I didn't.
My wife and I live comfortably, but we are still paycheck to paycheck. When we have extra money, we tend to donate it. When we got hit with an unexpected vet bill and were wondering how to pay for both the vet bill and an unexpectedly high electric bill, she got a $500 tip on one of her pizza deliveries. There are so MANY variables that go into that - her working that shift, getting that specific run, those people having the money to be able to do that - and choosing to put that money into a tip. It boggles and belies rational explanation.
Those are just two simple and recent examples. Out of MANY.
Finally, regarding the afterlife, it *is* possible that re-incarnation/samsara, heaven, hell, the Summerland, Valhalla, the Spirit World, and many others CAN co-exist. There are some philosophers that argue that we, each of us, gets the afterlife we believe we deserve. Those of us who have the Judeo-Christian concept of Heaven or hell go to one or the other based on how we feel we have lived our lives. Those who believe in re-incarnation will be re-incarnated based on their particular beliefs (be it karma and ascending/descending life forms or other re-incarnation philosophies). Those vikings who die in battle go to Valhalla. Etc.
I do not necessarily ascribe to such thinking, but the possibility exists and has been discussed.
You DO have faith that the light will come on. That faith is founded upon your countless experiences of the past, where such faith was rewarded and bore fruit. And such faith ignores, or explains away, the instances when the light did NOT come on.
Religious faith is ALSO based on personal experiences. I have, personally, experienced God's grace. I have, personally, experienced an otherwise unexplainable calm that allowed me to deal with personal hardship. I have, personally, experienced getting shot at point blank range (approximately 2 feet) and having the bullet hit NOTHING vital, walking out of the hospital only a couple days later with no surgeries or treatment beyond treatment for pain. Oh.. and ONE bag of saline. You can call that what you want. I personally call it an (exceptionally small) miracle. There is no way I can rationally explain being shot at point blank range and still having the ability to walk to a nearby house and ask for a 911 call, let alone the tenants actually making the call, me maintaining consciousness and coherence to be able to provide coherent and relevant information to both the police and the ambulance. There is no way I can rationally explain being shot at point blank range and having the bullet hit my shoulder, less than 2" away from missing me entirely. And it was my right shoulder, not my left, so it can't even be explained by "he was aiming for my heart and shot high." God wasn't ready for me to die yet, so I didn't.
My wife and I live comfortably, but we are still paycheck to paycheck. When we have extra money, we tend to donate it. When we got hit with an unexpected vet bill and were wondering how to pay for both the vet bill and an unexpectedly high electric bill, she got a $500 tip on one of her pizza deliveries. There are so MANY variables that go into that - her working that shift, getting that specific run, those people having the money to be able to do that - and choosing to put that money into a tip. It boggles and belies rational explanation.
Those are just two simple and recent examples. Out of MANY.
Finally, regarding the afterlife, it *is* possible that re-incarnation/samsara, heaven, hell, the Summerland, Valhalla, the Spirit World, and many others CAN co-exist. There are some philosophers that argue that we, each of us, gets the afterlife we believe we deserve. Those of us who have the Judeo-Christian concept of Heaven or hell go to one or the other based on how we feel we have lived our lives. Those who believe in re-incarnation will be re-incarnated based on their particular beliefs (be it karma and ascending/descending life forms or other re-incarnation philosophies). Those vikings who die in battle go to Valhalla. Etc.
I do not necessarily ascribe to such thinking, but the possibility exists and has been discussed.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Casey O'Mally - Again, that's not faith, at least not as defined, where faith is the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". That, by the way, is also the biblical definition, where "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
I have evidence or proof that the light turns on when the switch is operated. The rest of your statement is just word salad, trying to justify to yourself why faith is useful.
I have evidence or proof that the light turns on when the switch is operated. The rest of your statement is just word salad, trying to justify to yourself why faith is useful.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
You have evidence that PREVIOUSLY the light had turned on when the switch was operated. You have no assurance that it will turn on THIS time - until it does or does not.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Legends, Fictions, and the Manuscripts that Illustrate Christ's Story
September 22, 2011, The Getty Center Illuminated manuscripts from the Middle Ages are significant for the literary texts they preserve. But they are also imp...
The Harrowing of Hell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=274s
Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99PN3NVNgyU&t=274s
Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Professor Bart D. Ehrman - YouTube
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google