When dr Schindler talks about our problems, he sounds right. When at the end, he talks about concrete solutions to this problems, he sounds hollow and unconvincing.
Sad that our intellectuals could be so deluded... Of corse if a country is liberal it imposes a liberal ideology on religious people, however, its the same if the roles were reversed. It all depends on what perspective you take. The only difference between liberal and religious systems is that liberal values are formed from social consensus between free and rational individuals, while religious values are largely arbitrary (tradition).
@@GRIFFIN1238 Defined in this way, yes. Yet, as it exists in real institutions, tradition is not decided by democratic communal consensus. It is validated by the religious authorities who hold responsibility for imposing it on their communities as dogma.
@@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120 What the comment above means when it says democracy of the dead is that the traditions validated by religious authorities are actually validated by all the past lives of Christians now dead and gone. It is called a democracy of the dead because your dead ancestors also get a vote on what traditions you should follow today because their experiences matter as much as yours do, or mine, or our neighbors.
@@alexandersmith7518 “Defined in this way”. I understand the sentiment yet disagree with the characterization of these ancestors as anything but themselves arbitrary religious authorities and not people like you and I. Not saying that is a bad thing, democracy isn’t always appropriate. However, recognizing that in this conversation does poke a hole in the speakers argument.
Essentially what you're saying is that the past isn't as important as the present. The past is arbitrary to put it in your words. @@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120
![Beyond the Empty Tomb // Gospel of John [Livestream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sGsdaUglY14/mqdefault.jpg)
PVK SENT ME HERE HELP
Same AHHHH
Algo sent me but I'm also from the land of TLC.
Here we all are.
When dr Schindler talks about our problems, he sounds right. When at the end, he talks about concrete solutions to this problems, he sounds hollow and unconvincing.
A profound, if not challenging, blessing of peace in the midst of a particularly harrowing storm. Amazing! Thanks Dr. Schindler!
US is not a Christian country. The last Christian country was Spain before the civil war there.
Americans finally discovered that Americanism wasn't "phantom heresy"?
Not yet.
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 Sad.
Sad that our intellectuals could be so deluded... Of corse if a country is liberal it imposes a liberal ideology on religious people, however, its the same if the roles were reversed. It all depends on what perspective you take. The only difference between liberal and religious systems is that liberal values are formed from social consensus between free and rational individuals, while religious values are largely arbitrary (tradition).
Tradition is not arbitrary- see G.K. Chesterton's idea of the democracy of the dead.
@@GRIFFIN1238 Defined in this way, yes. Yet, as it exists in real institutions, tradition is not decided by democratic communal consensus. It is validated by the religious authorities who hold responsibility for imposing it on their communities as dogma.
@@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120 What the comment above means when it says democracy of the dead is that the traditions validated by religious authorities are actually validated by all the past lives of Christians now dead and gone. It is called a democracy of the dead because your dead ancestors also get a vote on what traditions you should follow today because their experiences matter as much as yours do, or mine, or our neighbors.
@@alexandersmith7518 “Defined in this way”. I understand the sentiment yet disagree with the characterization of these ancestors as anything but themselves arbitrary religious authorities and not people like you and I. Not saying that is a bad thing, democracy isn’t always appropriate. However, recognizing that in this conversation does poke a hole in the speakers argument.
Essentially what you're saying is that the past isn't as important as the present. The past is arbitrary to put it in your words. @@sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120