Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 5 Days Left


5 Day Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. See my map and write up for the map: Who wins if the election is today?

  2. 2. US shows historic GDP gains after the Covid Drop. Which of these align with your thoughts?

    • This is just the kind of last second news Trump needs to win! This news will see votes swerve in his direction as he sees momentum in the final days.
    • It might help Trump a little, but despite these gains, we are still far below pre-Covid levels, which means Trump fails the "are you better off 4 years ago" test.
    • The 33% GDP growth is faster than most economists predicted, which will align with Trump's message of the recovery, giving him more credibility on this topic.
    • Economists suggest "actual GDP growth" is a better metric, which shows only 7.4% growth. Trump's economic argument could be countered with this.
    • These gains are likely to be short-lived with Covid cases ticking back up. Trump's economic argument can be countered with this.
    • The record gains only exist because there was a record decline. It's like saying Usain Bolt is the fastest runner again once he takes his first step after having had a stroke.
    • Unemployment is still very high and people are still relying on government money to survive; this will diminish the economy helping Trump in this final week.
    • The economic report does not factor well-paying jobs, full-time or part-time work, etc. so it can't capture how middle class and lower middle class families are doing.
    • This GDP Report also shows that personal income fell in the third quarter. This number might be as important as the GDP #. Voters vote on a personal level not on a abstract GDP level.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it will favor Trump.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it won't make a difference.
    • I don't know what to make of this report, but it seems like it will favor Biden.
      0
  3. 3. Which kind of candidate would you be more likely to support?

    • Social and Economic Conservative who is a trans man and an atheist.
    • Social and Economic Liberal who is an Lutheran minister who has never made more than $40,000 a year.
  4. 4. If you were God, do you think you would be a more just and benevolent God than God?

    • It's impossible to be more just and benevolent than God.
    • Yes. They wouldn't be required to worship me. I wouldn't leave people defenseless in war, poverty, illness, and elsewhere. You'd see more people in heaven. In fact, life would pretty much be like heaven. No reason to test people if I can already predict how they'll respond.
    • No. I would seek more worship and would be willingly more unjust and less benevolent.
      0
    • Other (mention below)
  5. 5. Do you think the United States would become a better country if you were given the power to re-write the Constitution and it was automatically ratified?

    • Yes (why, please explain below)
    • No (why, please explain below)
    • I don't know, and I won't explain below.


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Biden wishes he had even 25% of the crowds trump could get

 

Can't help that Trump is popular 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/29/heres-why-massive-rallies-may-do-trump-more-harm-than-good/

59% of Americans disapprove of the large rallies. I doubt Biden wishes that he would do something that nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of. 64% of Americans approve of the way Biden has been campaigning. Believe it or not, it's a different year than most and some things will change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

... and also appoints conservative SC Justices.

I've been monitoring the betting market on Predictit of what the electoral college margin will be (including who will win) for weeks.  It's mostly been stable.  All of a sudden, today, there's a huge

Also, don't forget MN, IA and WI form a little bit of a trio in the Northern Midwest - it isn't too difficult to make a jump up to MN for a bit in time. It's worth it more than likely for the relative

14 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, "God so loved the world, that He sent his only begotten Son."

Yes, according to Christianity he has granted us free will, and that involves the possibility of evil.

"God doesn't love humanity if he kills all but a handful of them."

Sure, this is a major tension with the OT and NT - the God of wrath vs. the God of love. Again, the premise in these stories is those people were irredeemably wicked.

 

Yeah, but you are quoting the Bible, which is sort of like pro-God propaganda. Obviously, it would spin his mass murdering into something positive. So that doesn't really count since its incredibly biased and probably also mostly fictional. 

I just think a benevolent God would have the power to destroy evil or never make it exist. Sure, it would be a boring life. But the highest goodness in anything is when there is evilness at all. Sure, one could say, "But you have to have evil to have good or know what good is." No you don't. A powerful, and wholly good God would never have been capable of making evil or allowing evil, unless he wanted evil and all it does to exist, which means God is at least partially evil, if not half evil or more. 

In regards to God's son. Is that really the best he could think of? I mean, c'mon. He couldn't love the world without murdering his own son? Why does he need a son at all? This also implies that he may have unbegotten children and begotten or unbegotten daughters, possibly, by the way. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

59% of Americans disapprove of the large rallies. I doubt Biden wishes that he would do something that nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of.

If you look at the partisan breakdown of Americans' views on Covid-19, it's pretty stark. Which is why it makes sense for Trump to do rallies like this but for Biden to stick with car rallies.

But if there was significant enthusiasm for Biden, he could be doing knock-out car rally after car rally. He hasn't, because there isn't much pro-Biden enthusiasm. I expect these to get bigger in the last few days, but that's leaving a lot of campaigning on the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/29/heres-why-massive-rallies-may-do-trump-more-harm-than-good/

59% of Americans disapprove of the large rallies. I doubt Biden wishes that he would do something that nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of. 64% of Americans approve of the way Biden has been campaigning. Believe it or not, it's a different year than most and some things will change.

"Believing polls" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

If you look at the partisan breakdown of Americans' views on Covid-19, it's pretty stark. Which is why it makes sense for Trump to do rallies like this but for Biden to stick with car rallies.

But if there was significant enthusiasm for Biden, he could be doing knock-out car rally after car rally. He hasn't, because there isn't much pro-Biden enthusiasm. I expect these to get bigger in the last few days, but that's leaving a lot of campaigning on the table.

Yes, but notably peoples' views in battleground states were high disapprovals (higher than typical voting for Biden). I think that it likely won't end up mattering either way (i.e. rallies won't hurt Biden or Trump), but I definitely think anyone who's saying based off crowds alone Trump will win is not looking at the data close enough. 

Quote

55% of likely voters in Wisconsin and North Carolina say they have a less favorable view of Trump because of the rallies, with 56% in Arizona, 57% in Michigan and 58% in Pennsylvania and Florida – mostly states Trump needs to win to keep the White House – saying the same, the survey found.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Say what you will about Trump violating norms, he has never tried to redo the balance of power by irregular means.

Well that's a lie for a start, considering he tried to stop the election from taking place at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

A powerful, and wholly good God would never have been capable of making evil or allowing evil, unless he wanted evil and all it does to exist, which means God is at least partially evil, if not half evil or more.

No, it's that love is the highest good, and love requires free will.

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He couldn't love the world without murdering his own son? Why does he need a son at all? This also implies that he may have unbegotten children and begotten or unbegotten daughters, possibly, by the way.

No, God didn't murder Jesus. Pontius Pilate, soldiers, and a crowd, among others, did. Where are you getting this?

"Why does he need a son at all?"

Well, first of all, God's 'son' is the Logos ('Word') - which is made flesh in the body of Jesus. Think of Zeus' 'daughter' being Athena, the goddess of Wisdom. We're using everyday language to express theology.

So why does God need a son in this sense - a distinct person who in this case is the Logos? The standard answer in trinitarian theology is that, if God is love, you need a lover, a beloved, and the activity of love between them (so Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

"This also implies that he may have unbegotten children and begotten or unbegotten daughters, possibly, by the way."

Of course - we are all (at least potentially) made (as opposed to begotten) children of God.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

No, it's that love is the highest good, and love requires free will.

No, God didn't murder Jesus. Pontius Pilate, soldiers, and a crowd, among others, did. Where are you getting this?

"Why does he need a son at all?"

Well, first of all, God's 'son' is the Logos ('Word') - which is made flesh in the body of Jesus. Think of Zeus' 'daughter' being Athena, the goddess of Wisdom. We're using everyday language to express theology.

So why does God need a son in this sense - a distinct person who in this case is the Logos? The standard answer in trinitarian theology is that, if God is love, you need a lover, a beloved, and the activity of love between them (so Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

"This also implies that he may have unbegotten children and begotten or unbegotten daughters, possibly, by the way."

Of course - we are all (at least potentially) made (as opposed to begotten) children of God.

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he has both the power and the knowledge to anticipate murder that will happen and to prevent it. He did not do this. He murdered his son or is at least an accomplice. 

I also question whether God is all that good or loving if he can love anything more than another. Was he powerless to love us as much as he loved his son (who is also him, so maybe he's narcissistic?)? This reminds me of something philosopher Slavoj Zizek said (to paragraph): That love is evil, because one doesn't say, I love you all equally. They say I love this one person or thing more than anything else.  God sacrifices his Son (something he didn't have to do if he's powerful). But how much of a loss is that when he just ascends to Heaven and is reunited with God after 3 days? 

I question many of God's actions as being needless or rash when he is supposedly all powerful, all good, and all knowing. He is seriously flawed. This is why I think there are several humans that can be more just and more benevolent Gods if given the same powers as God. 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For four, as God, I wouldn't do anything at all. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

For five, no one should have that power. Nor would I want it. If I had that power and the actual desire to use it. I'm sure in some ways the country would be worse off. In some ways it'd be better but on principle I voted no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

For four, as God, I wouldn't do anything at all. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

I see it the opposite way. If you have to complain to a God, there IS no God!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

If God is all powerful and all knowing, he has both the power and the knowledge to anticipate murder that will happen and to prevent it. He did not do this. He murdered his son or is at least an accomplice.

Well, by this logic every murder is God murdering someone.

It seems to me, if there is free will in a full sense, God cannot then simply step in and prevent the consequences of actions that follow from free will, as to do so is to cancel free will in that full sense.

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I also question whether God is all that good or loving if he can love anything more than another. Was he powerless to love us as much as he loved his son (who is also him, so maybe he's narcissistic?)? This reminds me of something philosopher Slavoj Zizek said (to paragraph): That love is evil, because one doesn't say, I love you all equally. They say I love this one person or thing more than anything else.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

But how much of a loss is that when he just ascends to Heaven and is reunited with God after 3 days?

I think this is an important point - it's rather a great victory, and this is the traditional understanding of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension ('Christus Victor').

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wiw said:

I see it the opposite way. If you have to complain to a God, there IS no God!

My dad has a saying that "if you give people an outlet to bitch, they will do just that." Basically saying people will always find a way to complain, especially if they have a way to go about it where people will listen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Well, by this logic every murder is God murdering someone.

It seems to me, if there is free will in a full sense, God cannot then simply step in and prevent the consequences of actions that follow from free will, as to do so is to cancel free will in that full sense.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

I think this is an important point - it's rather a great victory, and this is the traditional understanding of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension ('Christus Victor').

 

I think most of your argument is only going to work on someone that is full of faith. 
 

Can God not create a hybrid of free will that doesn’t allow evil or him knowingly allowing murder? I think if own can question God’s goodness then he can’t be absolute good. If he were, it would be unquestionable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I think most of your argument is only going to work on someone that is full of faith. 
 

Can God not create a hybrid of free will that doesn’t allow evil or him knowingly allowing murder? I think if own can question God’s goodness then he can’t be absolute good. If he were, it would be unquestionable. 

Ya, to me this is getting things a bit backward re Christianity.

Christianity begins with the fact of suffering.

What do we do?

The answer is to take actions via a new way that has opened up to God, to transform the world for the better.

So the point of Christianity is to become part of the 'body of Christ', and in so doing, eliminate things like murder.

You, on the other hand, take the existence of something like murder as proof there can be no 'body of Christ', because of some abstract theological reasoning.

This isn't to say one response is correct - it's just an interesting difference in how one can approach the world.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, it's that love is the highest good, and love requires free will.

Is God not supposed to have made man in his own image? Is that one of the bits that's not meant to be taken too literally (I can never keep up with what we're supposed to believe the bible means)? And if not surely if you accept humans are not wholly good you must believe the same is true of your God?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark_W said:

Is God not supposed to have made man in his own image? Is that one of the bits that's not meant to be taken too literally (I can never keep up with what we're supposed to believe the bible means)? And if not surely if you accept humans are not wholly good you must believe the same is true of your God?

No. 'In his own image' is a vague phrase, open to all sorts of interpretations. But it fairly clearly doesn't mean that humans share all aspects of their nature or being with God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

No. 'In his own image' is a vague phrase, open to all sorts of interpretations. But it fairly clearly doesn't mean that humans share all aspects of their nature or being with God.

I don't think it is clear. But it's convenient to think it's clear if you believe what you read in the bible I'll grant you.

Quite a lot of it's vague really isn't it? I guess that's quite useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark_W said:

I don't think it is clear. But it's convenient to think it's clear if you believe what you read in the bible I'll grant you.

Quite a lot of it's vague really isn't it? I guess that's quite useful.

If I make a coin 'in my image', does the coin contain all the aspects of my nature or being? Obviously not.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

I don't think it is clear.

No one I have read, in the history of Judaism or Christianity, has thought that phrase has meant humans share all aspects of their nature or being with God.

In much of Jewish and Christian thought, this would be simply a category error. God is infinite, a human is finite. God is Being, a human is a being.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, to me this is getting things a bit backward re Christianity.

Christianity begins with the fact of suffering.

What do we do?

The answer is to take actions via a new way that has opened up to God, to transform the world for the better.

So the point of Christianity is to become part of the 'body of Christ', and in so doing, eliminate things like murder.

You, on the other hand, take the existence of something like murder as proof there can be no 'body of Christ', because of some abstract theological reasoning.

This isn't to say one response is correct - it's just an interesting difference in how one can approach the world.

I’m not trying to “get” Christianity in this debate. I’m just arguing that God likely isn’t absolute good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

If I make a coin 'in my image', does the coin contain all the aspects of my nature or being? Obviously not.

Sure. But if you make a sentient being in your image (however you'd go about doing that) I imagine it'd share quite a lot - especially if you're all powerful and knowing.

If you were making a coin 'in your image' it'd just look like you were on the coin. If God was just trying to make all people look like him, and by extension all look the same, he did a really s*** job.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m not trying to “get” Christianity in this debate. I’m just arguing that God likely isn’t absolute good.

Ya, my understanding of God is different, I suppose.

First, through an intuitive spiritual understanding.

Second, through an understanding involving basic descriptions, like 'God is love' or 'God is the good'.

Third, through an understanding of God's nature by the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth.

Only fourth do I look at more abstract theological conceptions, such as the triple-O God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent - I honestly have a hard time even understanding what these words might mean).

So to me, the fourth are derivative ways of understanding God, but it sounds like to you perhaps they are primary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...