castus

I spank my oldest. There's no shame in it. If anyone wants to throw statistics in my direction about how its less or more probable that they'll be this war or that way, I'd say there are some things unconsidered in that data, and much to be said about the parents who would attempt to justify around physical punishment when it is warranted. As a father, or mother, it is your charge to raise your children effectively, sometimes this means restraint, sometimes spanking, sometimes this means timeouts, and always, reasoning explained to the child. If your child stays within the lines, then good for you. Not all kids are made equal though. I reckon even good parents sometimes have a tough nut at times to crack at times. Yep, I see it both ways.

I think I understand where you are coming from in regards to therapy. However, I know your point is not the case for me. I've almost had a similar suggestion (in essence) but from a former holy roller. He was alluding that my problem was from disobeying God. Both suggestions were/are jumping from a platform blindly. I'm sure there are a ton more suggestions to improve t levels directly or indirectly. At the scale I'd need for these improvements, I doubt it would be enough. It would be like throwing a dart in the dark, and spending a long time doing so. The human body decays. It can be just as simple as that sometimes. As far as the 'school' of psychotherapy goes, I have more reservation for that group than I would the inquisition of long ago. To claim personal happiness as the drivING purpose of life, is a truth statement, not a science. As a Christian, I recognize that life isn't about being happy with creature comforts or self-empowerment, but I'm not so daft to miss the profit of optimizing the body - to better serve for example (like with legit medicine).

Nah Thanks for the advice though. Sometimes the anxiety feels warranted (job, etc). The other times, I feel its something more physiological.

Hmmmmm... please understand, that since you mentioned you were trans, I feel it also necessary to mention this (with courtesy): I'm guessing with the feelings you had, you were attempting to rule out physiological abnormalities before attempting to reduce the feelings/thoughts/desire felt to a matter of the mind, thus a more valid course? And... if this were so, the new identity you were entertaining, or fix, was then simply reasoned as preference? What if it isn't? What if there was a standard held evident in nature, and possibly even understood from nature's God? Truly, I firmly believe things to be held self-evident in relation to things in nature thus preferential remodeling of the body that goes outside of optimization or correction is counter to the essence of living effectively. If you are an atheist, it would be particularly contrary that you would choose to be a trans, as it is counter to the pragmatic essence of atheism; the basic rule of survival of a species - the cultural & reproductive efficiency it demands. If a theist, it would logically be counter to the design intended, and counter to all of the supporting arguments Gods nature sits on. If it is from a view that would make this relative, or subjective, then its own meaning is counter to the claim attempting to justify / stand on - thus incoherent... This is just my .02 cents for you. I imagine you get berated a lot for this, so please have patience. If there is anything I'd want you to really consider, it is that there is a God, who said who you are and not simply who you think you are, who came down in flesh and who meets you where you are, and understands you completely. He thought of you before the world was, and knows the course before you. He is both the Concept and Flesh - a person, who relates to you as both Lord and friend. No matter what the world may think of you, that He is opposition of the world, and the way the world works. That if you wish for communion with Him, all it takes is the recognition how far you fall short, in sin, in all things without Him. That by this repentance, you may draw near to Him, and those who follow him, as a family. If at all in the future you find yourself down a dark path, then talk to him, who is Jesus Christ, open his story (the bible) and learn from Him. Like any great teacher, there is so much to learn, and he makes it pretty simple and has friends to help you. _________ Now, as far as my vitamin levels, diet and exercise goes: these I reckon are fairly optimal, though I should eat more veggies and do a little more cardio I mainly weight lift for exercise and eat my wife's cooking (which is usually pretty healthy).

Well, the test came back very low... at 165 TT :/ Guess I'll be going through the treatment and I guess there's some satisfaction in knowing what's been causing many of my problems.

This is why many of the above arguments fail: God being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent omni-x...., must meet certain qualifications in regards to His legit divinity and thus as THE judge: That he cannot contradict himself. This does not mean he cannot make a thing he cannot move. Rather he could make an 'unmovable object' move, of what we would understand as unmovable - which, our knowledge is inherently limited on anyway. In other words, God could make a lever to move an unmoveable rock (as a n aside, that's kind of a leading example of Christ... or you could make that correlation.... methinks). What we can garner from this principle is that God can only reveal the portion we can understand, this is why: If we could know God entirely, then it would mean that we must be omniscient to accomplish such a fantastic feat, thus, we cannot ever be equal to God to express/ascertain the entire knowledge of him. So the only choice we are left with is an understanding that there must remain a side knowable of God, and a side unknowable. Now after understanding this, we can then dwell on the matter of his nature abstractly: That the Unknowable mind must perceive all things, all times, and all contingencies to satisfy omniscience. Then, if such a mind, being entirely efficient, thus entirely Just, must satisfy any contingency in which a contingency is worthy to be made manifest. In our consideration, it would bring in the matter of the material universe, thus the matter of humanity, thus the matter of the human condition. From this point we could ask, why such a flawed creation, However, this is a leading question all too commonly entertained and sometimes I wonder why it is so repeated. So, instead of asking why such a flawed creation, one should consider, why such a worthy creation (its a logically more consistent question)? Further, if God did indeed create bad, as a byproduct of the good, then why condemn the good with the bad? Well, does not the good deserve existence? Wouldn't an all perceiving mind play out the story of the universe to satisfy the creation of those worthy? Being a Just God, He must create those who are worthy of creation. However, humanity alone is not worthy by itself (which the beginning story of genesis dwells upon... the whole lie about being like God... which led to the logical effect: death; It satisfies a logical statement) Further, the God revealed out of the Bible not only fills the logical component of a divine being the best, but one that engages something beyond many worldviews: the essence of a person who is inviting. Out of all religions, The God out of the Bible actually relates to Himself as a person, vs a concept. This further satisfies an expectation that I could probably dwell on further, but I'll stop for now. questions?

Well, I didn't really feel like elaborating on all of my symptoms, especially to strangers. ;P That and it did occur to me, after looking at some of the discussion boards, that some people may just be convincing themselves possibly a little too much. To go a little more about some health issues I have: I have nontoxic multidodular goitres (about a dozen? lost count). While these were alarming at first, especially when they were growing, they are now just something to be monitored. While this may not have direct correlation to Test hormones (don't know) I wonder if this issue isn't somewhat contributing to fatigue, or, otherwise somehow related and thus causing something like low T. I'm no doctor, so Test therapy will be brought up to my general physician and endo - as to how it relates to my situation. Furthermore, experimenting over a few years, I've noticed a decline in energy even outside of work. Even when I do work, I'm working 3-4 days and off the rest of the week (standard work week). Those days off, and even on vacation time (just finished 3 weeks off a few weeks ago) I still had a silly level of fatigue and etc. I'm not shy to physical labor either, as even if I'm busting my balls working building something, my sleep sucks. Even when I do sleep for a fair amount of time, I still feel 'meh'. Heck I just finished benching today (at 295 lbs currently), but my recovery kinda sucks (in the gym and outside of it). Sometimes my tank runs out fast which is quite a bewildering thing - especially when you're eating/training well. As an aside - Don't mistake either that strength gains means high/normal T, as I have read about recently someone with low T but a great physique. Even some on a forum have a lower range of T (still in normal range) and still gain. So after reading that, it just reinforces the notion that lower T is something a bit subjective to the individual. You may have a normal T, but still feel like crap, and still gain. The doc also confirmed this. There is more I could bring up, but I don't think it should matter at this point. I definitely understand your position (as I'm usually a contrarian - finding the holes in peoples thoughts), especially in this age of 'throw money at the problem'. However, from my standpoint, I'm done trying natural methods to fix my problem and now am resorting to something that seems to have a sure benefit/resolution. The price to pay over T therapy in my position seems worth it - if it comes to it. Perhaps my T levels will be fine, and something else is amiss. Maybe the past 6 months (which have really sucked) was just a season my body will heal through. Maybe not. Right now, all I know is T therapy may be put on the table and I have mixed feeling about committing to it if so. On one hand, I have improved vitality with the cost of injections on the butt and possible cardiovascular issues or, a life that while manageable, is still a life that is significantly less optimal. Sure I could function, but it could be... a progressively meager existence. This particularly sucks when you have young kids to keep up with :/ This is a choice many many men are looking at, and I think will grow as time goes on about the health benefits higher T can yield. I wonder if this is one of the few issues that throwing money at, may generally help men better than the other supposed cures pharmaceuticals offer.

Greetings, Recently I've had some unfortunate symptoms occur for over a few years that are quite irritating but not entirely life altering (still able to soldier on). Some of which include insomnia, brain fog, fatigue, even slight bouts of depression/anxiety. After some investigation on and off on the interwebs, I'm left conclude to go in and check my testosterone levels with an anti aging doc as well as run it by my general doctor. The reason that I'm left looking at this now, is that looking at the flow chart I've gone through, it seems to be a logical course to rule out (unless my panels return with Heman levels of testosterone - which I'm doubtful). What I did not come to realize is just how much of sub culture there is around steroids and testosterone therapy...and how much of an overall lifestyle increase some added testosterone can do. There are some that describe it as (after a few weeks) coming out of a fog. Some describe it as puberty 2.0 with all the vigor, in more ways than one that brings. It's quite a life changing therapy, but one not for the feint of heart, as it involves a variety of considerations such as: weekly, if not bi weekly injections (if done correctly), along with other medications (anti estrogen, hcg - which helps with weigh and testicle shrinkage). Then you have to do blood panels occasionally. After dealing with my symptoms, I'd rather pursue the hormone fix than the neuro chemical path (that just scares me more). I'm 31. and though it seems a bit young for me to looking at this therapy, I'm beginning to question if isn't really a good thing for many ~30+ up males, especially for developed countries. Consider America: we've got tons of office jobs, tons of entertainment, that perpetuate lifestyles counter to the necessary strife our bodies actually need. I work in the IT sector, where I'm sitting at multiple access PCs, monitoring ~10 screens. When I cover overtime, that becomes quite a lot of butt time overall, hence is why I've returned to the Gym after many years - I almost mentally need the counter balance. However, it just isn't enough it seems for my well bing. I still have issues with sleep, particularly if its a hard workout (just another reason to go check my T). I may be an exception, but maybe not. So, going back to the history/science of steroid/testosterone therapy, I was led to a documentary called Bigger, Stronger, Faster. You can watch on youtube for free but the quality sucks. That film covers over so many areas that it left a sour taste in my mouth for medical professionals, particularly the government ones. It seems that there was, and even currently, so many fallacies revolved around steroid/T use that the media, along with politicians looking to peacock their record, championed ways to ban steroids. It was really unethical as even other medical professionals before congress did not want to classify steroids as a controlled substance, however, congress instead listened to the ideologue (which there was no burden of proof he provided behind his claims). Thus was added one more thing to the 'war on drugs'. This also just added another reason why I hate the FDA. There seems to be so many misconceptions around T therapy and steroid use, I'm left wondering it isn't somewhat intentional. The medicinal benefits are huge. I wonder how much of the pharmaceutical scene would be changed if something so simple as more T could potentially nullify the need of other chemicals - how big of a change would it entail? Even going a bit further (though a bit of a conspiracy theory), would a government purposely control higher levels of T as to make a more subservient people to control? Heh I know that one is a bit out there, but, it is quite a prospect to think on imo.

I imagine there are some groups where it's good fun - even with an inherently bad setting/game. I just don't think these groups are as common anymore due to the modern way of 'game balance' and the reasoning to even play. Really, it feels more about maintaining an over abundance of fairness within the setting, or the rules, and it makes the setting artificial (even for a game) thus boring. I'm all for a balanced game, but usually most game theories lack in the simulation department, and focus more on the 'gamey' side, if not partly because of political correctness or just mere selfish passive/aggressive behavior. Heh, when was the last time you played an RPG that gave genders a separate attribute consideration? I've only played a computer game that dared walk into that, and it turned out to be one of the better RPG games IMO (Arcanum). ******** Granted RPGs are not so much about 'winning', but they are about staying consistent within the setting & rules - staying within these confines while being creative. That's winning the enjoyment of others I suppose (like good acting). I guess you could say then, it's probably rewarding to be selfless (even if you're character is selfish) in RPGs - IMO. There's just a serious lack of good reasoning or sense, when it comes to the mode of play/storytelling. Many emulate something (often I think PC style game flow) and it's usually from a person educated from a university level and we all know the propensity coming out of these universities. There may be exceptions along the way. Overall, there's more of a tone that I gauge seems fake and convoluted for something meant to be really enjoyable. But to be a fair, to a person who really likes fake or convoluted, I'm sure it's great fun for them.

Let me think here: In regards to D&D: I've felt the overall theme of gender equality, and unrealistic interpretations related, to be kind of annoying. There is quite an absence of any sort of racism, sexism or other naturally occurring stances one sees in the real world. Even the archetypal male hero is pathetic when measured up. What made Dude'ecles and his steel girder a scary proposition, is now marginalized by a system that balances archtypes beyond expected physics. Granted its done to maintain game mechanics, but the streamlining is nonetheless concerning for these (IMO) impressionable psyches that partake. Really, it seems to me that it's almost a sort of conditioning/programming perhaps? Though 5th edition is quite good, its maintained the 3.0 incremental view in the stats and thus inherent differences among races and classes are less definitive and more focused about working as a team. Even PC games such as Dragon age (which was ok) takes this same concept and runs with it. MMO's are notorious for this sense of 'balance', that no one asks the opposite: could the game be fun if represented with a more realistic weight? Would the realism therein actually compensate for the perceived loss of the demographic no longer catered too? Then the D&D community..... I don't think there's any real surprise that its commonly composed of the left for various reasons brought on by an escapist mentality. I did a poll once on dakkadakka and to no surprise a majority happened to affiliate themselves with the left (I want to say only by 60%/40%). I didn't specify left right too much, so some may have been confused if I remember right. To say the least, there seems a bridge when playing with lefties generally, that unhinges the organic flow, or even a fun unexpected evolution, of a particular scene. Then there are the new modules - we did the whole black tiamat dragon cult (forget the name), dragon queen - end of the world campaign. Oh my that was boring. High fantasy modules in 5th edition, at least that campaign, was bland and railroaded, that I could have cared less about the global impact even if I were a lawful paladin (would have been boring to roleplay without some caveat of sarcasm, or some over the top, suicidal bravado). I recall even modules in general, for a few other systems, to be a bit convoluted and/or hard to follow - as a DM. Really, I was refreshed to read older stories written in the 90s last year for WFRP, as it seemed to contain some very gritty, authentic, very unique plot and story mechanics that are no longer a thing in todays RPG. It also helps that the setting of the culture portrayed was lifted from a late period holy roman empire vibe, so the cultural feeling conveyed was vivid. And that, brings us to Warhammer Fantasy Battle: My once favorite fantasy setting (still is when ignoring the last fluff put out). If you don't know, the game got rebranded to something called Warhammer - Age of Sigmar. The mechanics of the rank and file, point based system got simplified due partly I guess to desperation to get sales driven again, but also I think delusion also. The game is set in a.... Heman universe now. I mean that's the easy way of putting it - with floating parts of a world that blew up. Outside of the ridiculous artistic license now rampant in the game, we have mechanics that are so simple, that competitive play is a laughable gesture. It's no longer about playing 'to win' but playing 'to have fun'. Not only is this notion dumb its a false bifurcation. For example, what if I have fun playing to win (like the premise of any GAME). It's a revision at a fundamental level. A socialist/communist notion for a game. /shrug The company could have tried a few other things - in my armchair general perspective - outside of such drastic measures. It's sad that now, a once great medieval setting has been reduced to a high fantasy, D&D ism - where everything looks tonka tough (fake) - like most fantasy anymore. I'll stop there.

So I am one of those who enjoy wargaming and pen and paper RPG's but over the past year or so, I've come to realize how much of the community flies on the left side. It's now a real irritation, that my appeal for these things has taken a turn and diminished in some ways. Even the design of these games/lore carry some concepts that are so leftist inspired, that it befuddles itself, taking things that wouldn't normally work long in real life, and somehow magically working in these supposedly immersive fictional realms (regardless of magic actually existing within). To say the least, it breaks a sense of consistency and immersion. There's only so much of a 'magic solution' before it's convoluted. I see this trend eventually swallowing its own tail, hopefully. Anyone else notice or experience this trend?

Every Christian believes in determinism in some way, Calvinism just sounds way more exclusive. The truth of the matter boils down to: The mind of the Father must be supreme (to be worthy of God status), which includes information (omniscience), therefore, He is aware of things without our linear constraint of time. However, just because the awareness is there, does not make our choices moot. Consider one of the concepts derived from quantum physics: that an object can exist and not exist in the same space. Consider this same principle in regards to information, and you have a duality that cascades/relates to much of our understanding tied with the supremacy of God: though God may know all, He must be aware of the contrast of not knowing something. Can there ever be a thing external within the totality of God? Nope, but at the same time, there can exist a lever to move an immovable rock God has placed, thus we can deduce that the figurative sense should be particularly recognized when regarding information and the perception of choice The power to choose - particularly- is a perception derived from a relational view - relative to objects (whether the configurations of information, or the configuration of matter in general). This capability cannot go into absurdity, but must logically stem from a side, to an ultimate point of reference in order to really distinguish anything coherent. This again falls in line with the notion aforementioned in regards to duality of information: that we are beings capable of not knowing or knowing (distinguishing) but because of the portion of knowledge given by the Father(mind); that He, by His very nature, must entertain the most efficient course and design therefore, must plot the allotment of information. Another point related to this would call upon the matter of the purpose of creation, which is rooted with the matter of liberty: that God in His most perfect mind created the universe for the fulfillment of His just nature; to give existence to beings that were innocent/worthy; thus, we could almost argue, He was compelled to do so by His very nature. From this notion of innocence existing and the requirement to manifest out of the mind of God, we can draw upon the notion of liberty also existing since innocence requires it .... which of course yields the matter of choice or 'free will'. So there's no real contradiction to have the belief of BOTH determinism in a limited sense and freewill . It's actually more complete this way. So to rehash in a nutshell: The totality of God (the aspect of the Father) is aware of our destiny but the portion of Him (the Son - Jesus Christ) is the only thing that can relate to us in regards to our destiny - which is a conveyance inherently limited - within our limitations - because of the liberty given. God does not violate Himself to accomplish anything, including the liberty He gave/gives us or the matter of completely revealing Himself. He does indeed call out to people (that I think Calvanism dwells on right?), we don't just find Him, like he's somehow lost, or aloof to us (That alone doesn't fill the blank). By His just nature, we are given time to be refined, forgiven or thrown aside - based on what He says, not what we think we are inventing. His persistence and grace given to us isn't really ours to claim; more like borrowed at most. Liberty has been split over the years in a more secular tone than what the founder of the US understood it to be: that it is derived from the Creator, not self-made. The proclamation of it being self-made/self-contained is a real lie in actuality. Think of the fall in the tale of the garden of Eden, then consider the lie of somehow being like God (which, such an offer is really a sales gimmick) - you can imagine that you are, but really, you're just inviting a delusion - and playing that thought virus out to its ultimate course (which happened to be death). Liberty (choice) really is something based in relation to something immovable (God) - which thus pertains to a totality that will never change (all information etc). Something to keep in mind: We are on His time table, in His library, and though we may think the effort put into learning these things make it ours somehow, it is, still really His by design. Yet, because of His most awesome totality, He is completely rational thus respects our limited rationale, therefore relates to us with grace - because we are not Him in totality.

And Context is king. Most believers read through the eyes of someone else, which can be okay to an extent, but when it runs directly counter to the essence of the text, its a foul in practicing the doctrine. Now, regarding this comment by Ancap - " just because they don't believe the same way you do doesn't make them no longer christian". Some believers are capable of false doctrine, some, more on solid ground - being more consistent with the source material. Surely you would agree that some could call themselves Christian and my not really be Christian? That's mentioned in the Bible in a few different ways I believe. And, before i get to civil government and Paul, I'd like to tackle that OT reference too - regarding slavery: The Israelite's were called to be a peculiar people. 'The Law' was to set apart the Israelite's and distinguish them from the peoples in the surrounding lands, which were very very... bad. They were so superstitious it was reviling to a level that many in the modern era probably couldn't fathom (sex worship, child sacrifice, confusing blurred lines about sex in general - at least that's how it seems from the inverse clarifications of the Law). It was sooo bad during this time, that God wiped out entire peoples that, I'd argue, was more out of act, sort of like a mental quarantine - suppressing the 'thought virus' of superstitious ideology (which such essence is still manifested today, even among intellectuals I wager). So, even though Christ is derived from the same personality of the old testament, the Law, is actually written in a context, for a particular people and for a particular time. Oh and the The Law was actually condensed to: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."" Galatians 5:14). The concepts from OT law still has some fine application in civil government but not entirely - it wasn't meant to be. I could elaborate further but I'll stop and bring it back to slavery: do you suppose there is such a thing as good slavery? Hark! What do you call prison What do you call POWs. Or... . There's even slavery after conquest that I'd argue can even be justifiable as well, particularly if the state you're at war with was the offender - in which case recompense is due. Some times that has to translate into hard labor. As a Christian, we are called to forgive yes, but that's something at an individual basis - not a civil government view necessarily. Consider the problem we have particularly with restitution abroad, that it is so common for criminals to pay some artificial price imagined by the state (thus not really balancing out justice the way it really should), than any real consideration for the offender to pay off the debt (and/or to the individual or society)? In this, slavery I'd say is particularly just. Now in regards to Paul, AncapFTW, you forgot the other half to 'Render Caesar', which is pretty important: but Give God what is Gods. Not only is this important, it finishes a logical perspective: some things the state has authority of, and some things it does not. It's power cannot be absolute. Paul even did not condone to absolute obedience either (He even got arrested multiple times for preaching - which I imagine was from him ignoring the law), but he did emphasize respect for the authorities - respect for good government (not necessarily bad government). The 'authority' is not a concept here purely either, but can only be a person in a legitimate role as an authority (agent). Furthermore, Paul was a missionary, and thus it would stand to reason, not all people are called to be missionaries in the same way, or at all in a literal Christian sense. Paul did advocate the people to emulate him, but he was not so daft in that same passage to claim everyone should be an apostle - he actually recognized it therein. Please understand, by no way am I holding a new unique argument, or some new radical stance; this has been around for ages, but the view has been eroded by, well, laziness and I guess... evil. Johnathan Mayhew (1750) wrote a sermon called "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers". One particular part of this work illustrates the problem with taking the extreme dichotomy so many infer with Paul: ..... "I now add farther, that the apostle’s argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary. For, please to observe—that if the end of all civil government, be the good of society; if this be the thing that is aimed at in constituting civil rulers; and if the motive and argument for submission to government, be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority, it follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission, there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about, and the ruin and misery of society effected by it; here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases, should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought to make us withhold from our rulers that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them. If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle’s argument in this passage. Not to discontinue our allegiance, in this case, would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies. It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical prince; but by his grounding his argument for submission wholly upon the good of civil society; it is plain he implicitly authorizes, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness. Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand—Suppose God requires a family of children, to obey their father and not to resist him; and enforces his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought to obey him for their own sakes more than for his: Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children’s throats: Now, in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their ruin? It makes no alteration in argument, whether this parent, properly speaking, loses his reason, or does while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it. This similitude needs no formal application." ..... http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers/ Essentially, yes, obey authorities, but those who are really an authority. I could claim to be an authority but it doesn't make it true. I could hold up a badge, but it doesn't mean anything once confirmed - qualified. That qualification, recognition of the law, is one that eventually reverts back to the basic fundamentals of self-evident things - that government can do certain things, but it cannot legitimately violate its own purpose, and it remain the authority - legitimately. Granted, there is also the compounding problem where the majority of the society may agree with an illegitimate authority, in which case, becoming a martyr may prove to be more effective, and perhaps even the only weapon available. Ultimately though, for the Christian, we are called to act out of love, which means things like wielding the sword - physically, mentally & or spiritually. Really, unlimited obedience to government is counter to God/reason. You can thank Catholics amongst other delusional cultural influences over the ages as to why this rational view is so obscured.

There has been quite an evolution of Christianity, particularly in the US over the past 100+ some years, and more so in modern times: that the Church abroad has morphed into a feminine vibe. Much of the body, the congregations, you will find so many with a passive approach spun by ignorance - rather than by real understanding of their own belief. It seems, there are so many under a false dichotomy in some fashion; making things out to be one or the other in an over simplified fashion. For example, Paul in the new testament advocated for submission to the authorities, but with further consideration of the context of the passages, I don't believe this should be taken so absolutely, or was meant to. Alas, a lot do. Going a bit further on this tangent, the particular problem here revolves around logically qualifying an authority - somehow. If we don't, it digresses into some kind of reducto ad absurdum; where in this case, criminals can claim to be an authority that must obeyed - missionary or otherwise. Then there is the whole difference of killing and murder, which the Catholics really screwed up, and has vexed many unnecessarily. These are just a few things that puzzles many within Christianity, and even outside of it. People in general have not read the Bible in context. This actually goes back for millennia. It's a problem recognized within the Bible (the fallen nature) but no less resolved by just acknowledgement. The problem with this absolutism sets the tone for bad behaviors - what we've been seeing now. So much of the Church service itself, and the newer songs, are done in a light that seems quite counter to what actual Christianity paints. It's effeminate/feminine manifestations proliferate the literature and has digressed into mere fancy tribal music ( God is good, God is great, I want to touch your face God, repeat x10). You really don't see many strong positions made by the leadership that could distinguish local community problems, nor do you see many songs that have some sort of real substance/ impacting meaning, or draw a triumphant/victorious tone; there is more crying/screeching than their is really rejoicing most often. Simply put, the air in the Church is fake, lacking authenticity by so many, and riding on, or fearing, civil government in so many ways. It really is no wonder that so many younger males are not attracted by such an environment. I honestly can't blame them. I'd suspect, even some of the 'fundamentalists' who start their own home Church isn't necessarily devoid of this mood. It is all over the map, and has been so, again, for quite awhile. I recall reading about post civil war history, up to the point of prohibition, and that's where I see where the change may have taken root in US societies, then of course as we know, later reinforced - progressively. It was by instituting national prohibition that provided a clear sign in history, that the country had a fever. Whatever happened to the idea the self-government was eroding, as was the vigor that distinguished US men at this time. The Church was returning to a form of papacy that ended up later, falling the other direction - to where instead of the Church wagging the dog, it eventually started becoming the government. What the Church was renown for doing, widows, orphans, voluntary giving, the government would slowly overtake, but ignored the voluntary aspect, and demand. I'm not sure if the fall of masculinity can be pinned on just one thing, but I do see some correlation here; that when the government is lawless, it's because of men failing to be what God (or if an atheist, merely just intended) intended them to be; that at least, they are made to be decisive, noble and martial. Qualities associated to being masculine. Christianity, if actually read in context, reveals that it is out of love for God and our neighbor to do good for them, and this actually is quite a masculine thing! Though the apostles led a specific role, where their path wasn't meant to be carved for self preservation they still wore a strong bearing - being daring and bold. Often the apostles where beaten, in general, in the face of extreme adversity, and still kept going on. The endurance they had is a testament to the resolve the men, and how the Church should aspire to it, not necessarily as a missionary, but at least emulate as much as possible - having endurance; long suffering. Even Paul I think made strong words against effeminate behavior. Anyway, this illustration of biblical masculinity looks a certain way; that much of our culture, and ironically the Church, is particularly lacking. We are, we will, pay for it.

Isn't the section titled Atheism and Religion? It seemed like the relevant section to post it herein. I guess my purpose in posting is to highlight the excellent Ravi Zacharias and the intellectual views he elaborates upon. If there is any ulterior motive, which is what I would assume you are asking, is that yes, I want to show Christ relevant, and the Way. However, this video isn't about preaching; it's illustrating the growing intellectual intolerance that so many have for Christianity. /shrug

If you're a materialist, you're at an inescapable loss; you'll never truly deal with that fear/dilemma without the promise of some ultimate assurance in life.... after death. Think about it: logically, seeking corporeal self-empowerment via selflessness is circular logic, thus contradictory. To take it further in the right direction, which is actually better: the man who values himself less than others, or the one that values himself equal in greatness? Jesus Christ is really the only teacher on this.

Eh, I apologize: I should have checked a bit more thoroughly before posting; ignorance exposed on my part perhaps. I'm not exactly familiar with the topic all that well. To be honest, some of the comments I glanced through may have brought me to be a bit cynical - hence the snarkiness. I may check out the video later. Thanks.

This video seems like a good start of a series. I perked up when he mentioned the declaration of independence - not many preachers/ministers dare talk about civil government much unfortunately. There's also some other points made that were interesting to hear. "Keeping Watch" Thoughts?

Mmhm. So circumcision doesn't have any utility.....: http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/ /shrug

Though I agree with Nathan Metric mostly, I believe there is an exclusion, or something just not covered here - as to why even be moral if it is only restrained to a materialistic sense of logic / enlightenment? That is, to reason for anything must be beneficial (going by your view), but then for whom? If you reduce this to an individual basis (which makes sense) your left with a self centered view of morality that logically should only exercise morals that sustain ones self (not solely for the benefit of others). You could make the indirect point that you always somehow benefit from some selfless act, but that's something that can be taken into absurdity - particularly if left with a materialistic world view, where your ultimate profit of selflessness won't be felt... because you're dead - so why? The opposite materialistic approach - to the selfish view - would be 'all for the collective'. To express the problem here, I'd like to illustrate things with a reference to the 'liberty' minded fictitious race such as the Borg from star treck. If failing in that knowledge, ants would be a replacement example . Of course I'm being sarcastic, these are not at all something any sane person would want. Put in another way, authentic individual value must be had first before any value can really be placed for a group of people, since groups of people.... are comprised of individuals. If authenticity is absent from individual value in some form, the society will pay for it. Where I'm getting at with pointing this all out: the reason to be moral stems from the idea of a design (the logical conclusion), which alludes to a supreme being. This being must have a certain form that we can logically recognize (reason with), and equally understand that we cannot fully recognize him logically (else we would be equal in totality - which the physical universe cannot handle). From this, contains some of the first fundamentals to be realized along the road as to 'why be moral', which from my understanding, is really inseparable for the moralist, eventually in reasoning (or risk contradiction). Faith is the ultimate allusion for any moralist; it's unavoidable. So the idea of an ultimate reward after death is the cornerstone to the why; the materialist doesn't have this. Being moral for posterity is a shallow reward; the dead don't smile. Sort of a nihilistic response I suppose, lol.

The real question is why feel guilty/shameful? Who's your judge? If it's your gf, you should ask why you are bending to her, or really any particular person. How are they worthy of that? Surely you agree that everyone is imperfect? The question then becomes what is the most satisfying answer in relation to redemption and hope. Ultimately, the dilemma around sex is first really a choice one must make that starts with a truth statement that then identifies behavior from that platform. From the Christian perspective, the sanctity of certain things, such as sex, has bounds for wholesome reasons, as well as to protect you from unseen things (future consequences that may incur). The inverse of this view is pretty scary - Baal worship, child sacrifice/relations etc, sex worship.... If you want to protect yourself, do your self the courtesy of courting as a gentleman worthy of a hand in marriage, not just worthy of hers. That means sticking by principles regardless of her feelings. Sometimes this may mean being a servant, but you cannot do this to absurdity. Good/worthy women will pick up on this. This is probably easier to do when your strongest friendship is with Jesus Christ. Wish I could have had a better handle on things when I was dating. Best wishes, CF

Value is subject to one's definition of the truth. This does not make value absolutely subjective.

The bottom line, between either determinism or free will, is that both require an ultimate reason as to the 'why', or else they logically fall apart pretty fast. Attempting to absolutely confirm a subjective methodology is contradictory - which is what I believe Stefan is attempting without realizing. Any argument for the case of free will cannot be differentiated without an objective truth statement that confirms an ultimate value - first - then or accompanied by, a recognition via testing.... In other words, one cannot promote legitimately something like free will without first recognizing a moral law, thus a moral law giver (a totality of things outside of you at least). The concept of free will isn't even something 'invokable' without first acknowledging some higher unseen thing /purpose, thus at least with that notion alone, your left with the quandary of leaping to a faith lily pad, yet claiming to ride the pursuit of human reasoning alone. Put another way, it's guessing to reason before reason to guess. Within the confines of materialism, its more consistent logically to at least believe in determinism. /shrug Regardless, there is no natural mechanism that could ever validate human reasoning and convey it entirely (100%) to a different mind without it fundamentally breaking the laws that hold the universe together. From this concept we can stand to reason that no matter what one says, there will always be an element that drives us but we can never fully explain the essence of it. A duality really. An example at the the highest level, that I believe is related: the idea of omni* whatever, are labels for values that can never be fully revealed without the receiver being in the process also equal, right? Its complete reveal becomes contradictory, correct? Thus it stands to reason, establishing the view that the acquisition of knowledge alone as 'the way' requires not only the equal hefty gold stamp to authenticate the claim for human reasoning alone, but also, who could even receive the revelation that meaning is derived wholly from material perception? Evidence only goes so far before the pursuit of evidence becomes the complacent guise of skepticism. Again, humanity, by its own inherent limitations, will never be able to fill this cup without magically changing the way the universe works in kind. Please know, that one can indeed be labeled 'reasonable', but it is in reference to a being by nature (not just a something) that is the ultimate representation of reason - from totality. This string of thought also relates to the predicament in which the sciences are inherently limited, thus proportionally require to rely on the concept of faith to actually drive them in reality; it's inexorable. So, what this means Stefan, that at times, what you are really saying to your audience is sorta like a painting - but with the subtle deficit of no ultimate reasoning behind it (incoherent in the end). Like smoke and mirrors or - borrowing from the concept of faith via nature's operation. Or better, a painting in the dark. I'd like to tie this issue with your view on government too - where your overall sense on sound government is great, but as to the the reason to even entertain it, well, I believe that's where things fall short; that the spiritual health is key to a peaceful, prosperous society - that is the ultimate reason to do good that relates to something beyond our mere perception of meaning. I'd further make the argument that this society must understand at least the notion that there must be a being with the nature of supreme totality - thus all powerful, but elusive to us - and yet also the capability that must remain rational to us - the standard we can recognize out of the madness of said totality, and lastly, evident within Nature. Christianity explains this with an amazing view with both substance and essence in mind: as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit; touching on a compounding message of the logical and empirical - to relate on multiple levels. It's evocative emotionally as well intellectually. Consider this, the story of the prodigal son alone for example can turn hearts with little explanation. Free will is quite a thing within a biblical view, as I reckon some believers advocate determinism, while some make the case for free will (but inferring creation as ant farm imo). I believe in the biblical whopper of both - respective of course to the idea of the Godhead and some of their qualities: the nature of God the Father & God the Son Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit. That there is a part of God we can not completely understand - like the design (the conceptual, the Father), that we may commune with Him via His reveal rational side (Jesus Christ, the interface, the cornerstone), and that His spirit becomes our motivation/attitude (and there's more to say on that). He may thus know what we will do, and drive everything to the best possible course for the sake of the innocent/redeemed, but there is still the ability to operate as free moral agents. I hope this rant doesn't sound too harsh. I do enjoy your show, regardless of some of the differences we may have. Regards, CF