Evidence for God from Science

This is mostly an offshoot of the trump immigration thread, though it's also from a thought I've had about the apparent wave of isolationism that's been sweeping across Europe lately -- like Brexit and the nativist response in Nordic nations to their recent influx of immigrants.

At the moment I'm rather of the opinion nationalism breeds an "us vs them" mindset and so generally isn't all that great, but I do think there's something to be said for censoring/rejecting customs that interfere with the host culture.

Thoughts?

---
edited Title: 1 Sep 02:47 CST

There are some surface level positives - identity, protection, cultural diversity - but when you scrape down to the bedrock I think nationalism is a scam. It creates a false Us vs Them dynamic that allows wealthy, powerful people to get rich by sending send poor, weak people off kill each other. The real Us vs Them is the rich and powerful vs everybody else, and it's been that way since the dawn of time.

Anyway, there are my thoughts...

I believe nationalism is healthy and is a good thing for a country but sadly our leaders sold out our sovereignty to globalists who us their money and influence to stear countries into a one world government. This was all seen as a crazy conspiracy theory not long ago but has been exposed so that it was the conspiracy theorists who were right and everybody else wrong who denied it.Our politicians promise to uphold the Constitution and yet have totally abandoned it for these globalists in secret and I think it is a good thing it has finally been exposed.We also know that eventually the mark of the beast system will be a one world government,economy and religion and so we know where this globalism ultimately leads to,but it is not time for that yet and so until then we have work to get done as the body of Christ.I believe God is answering our prayers which is why so much corruption in government has been exposed so that it is like God is shining a light into darkness exposing corruption and it is a good thing and more is coming.

Isaiah 59:19 KJV "So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west,and his glory from the rising of the sun.When the enemy shall come in like a flood,the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him."

I don't see how nationalism is not healthy.
However, too many people pass as nationalists these days. At least that is how it is in my country. Dumb fks who are not interested in history, culture, art, poetry (...) of the country, but only know of insults towards the neighbours because of certain stereotypes, historical events, ethnicity and religious views.

So, yeah, I do not see a "us vs them" scenario in a healthy nationalism. Not to mention I'd take it any day over communism, lol.

And I don't see how the rich sending the poor to fight is tied to nationalism. That's another problem, no need to connect it to nationalism. Either way, following that logic, communism did the same.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I believe nationalism is healthy and is a good thing

Why? What does nationalism do for us that isn't offset by its negative aspects?

IceMobster wrote:I don't see how nationalism is not healthy.
However, too many people pass as nationalists these days. At least that is how it is in my country. Dumb fks who are not interested in history, culture, art, poetry (...) of the country, but only know of insults towards the neighbours because of certain stereotypes, historical events, ethnicity and religious views.

This is a no true Scotsman argument. "Put my country first" is nationalism, period. It makes no difference if the speaker is a highly educated master statesman or a "dumb fk who is not interested in history, culture, art, poetry."

IceMobster wrote:So, yeah, I do not see a "us vs them" scenario in a healthy nationalism.

What's "healthy" nationalism?

And are you saying that war ever involves anything other than the rich getting richer while the poor kill each other? Sure, sometimes one side or the other is justified, but the end result is always the same. The rich make the money while the poor do all the work and take all the risk.

IceMobster wrote:Not to mention I'd take it any day over communism, lol.

It's not an either-or situation. If there were one world government* there's no reason that it couldn't be a capitalist democracy.

IceMobster wrote:And I don't see how the rich sending the poor to fight is tied to nationalism. That's another problem, no need to connect it to nationalism. Either way, following that logic, communism did the same.

The rich fill the airwaves with nationalist propaganda, institute conscription, and push the idea that declining to go to war makes you at best a coward, and at worst an enemy of the state. Mobilization for war is always built on appeals to patriotism for the masses, and vilification and threats for anyone who dares to question the cause.

True communism wouldn't have done the same, because true communism is an international movement. Not that that matters, since true communism doesn't exist outside of the occasional hippy commune, and it never will. Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, and the rest were highly nationalistic bastardizations of communism. "Give your life for the fatherland" is not a communist idea. Anyway, it's not an either-or and communism isn't part of this discussion.





* I'm not advocating for that - it has issues of it's own. Just making a point. Please spare me all the Biblical prophecy and NWO conspiracy gibberish.

It's always good to consult an objective criteria when people say "Depends on what the definition of x is"

But let me tell you, I have never seen a more schizophrenic word definition than this one:


noun: nationalism
patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, flag-waving, xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism
"their extreme nationalism was frightening"
an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
plural noun: nationalisms
advocacy of political independence for a particular country.

It's literally a compliment sandwich. The first part, up to flag-waving, can be considered good by most minds. Then the negative portrayal of the word, ending with "advocacy of political independence..." which is always a good thing, because dependency is a word for addicts and children, not a nation.

Not only is it healthy, it is unavoidable, such that for a people not to be nationalistic will create serious social distress.

IceMobster wrote:I don't see how nationalism is not healthy.
However, too many people pass as nationalists these days. At least that is how it is in my country. Dumb fks who are not interested in history, culture, art, poetry (...) of the country, but only know of insults towards the neighbours because of certain stereotypes, historical events, ethnicity and religious views.

So, yeah, I do not see a "us vs them" scenario in a healthy nationalism. Not to mention I'd take it any day over communism, lol.

FWIW I don't even think communism works well with globalism. Sweden's been going through a major crisis because they're a socialist society facing a massive influx of poor foreigners, meaning more and more people just end up bumming off their system. Don't even want to think of what'd happen to a communist society dealing with that kind of stress.

As for the rest, I'm kinda wondering what you think is healthy about nationalism. You seem to be arguing that xenophobia isn't a side-effect of nationalism, but rather comes from something else, so I'm kinda curious both where this something else comes from as well as what you see nationalism as. And I don't really care about defending or denigrating the word or people under that banner, just rather the issues itself, so don't worry about me trying to catch you on using a wrong definition or something.

patrick wrote:This is mostly an offshoot of the trump immigration thread, though it's also from a thought I've had about the apparent wave of isolationism that's been sweeping across Europe lately -- like Brexit and the nativist response in Nordic nations to their recent influx of immigrants.

At the moment I'm rather of the opinion nationalism breeds an "us vs them" mindset and so generally isn't all that great, but I do think there's something to be said for censoring/rejecting customs that interfere with the host culture.

Thoughts?

Respectful Globalism, would cherish the uniqueness and independence of each Nation. What you is currently in place, that is being reacted to, this Globalism, is an absorptionism. Each country should have the same values, same ethic, same vision, same whatever as whoever is actually at the top running things.

It is a Communism of sorts even, Nations can't have their own opinions and differences and if they do they're told they're out of line with International Law or what-have-you and told to change of suffer sanctions, have trading consequences, interventions or some consequence. It is run by the powers that be at the top. Nations like China, Russia and others laugh at this self-declared Internationalist reigns that Europe with US nodding tries to yoke the rest of the world with. And, I see it is largely influenced by European powers that be.

It is ridiculous. There is always an "us" and "them" mentality and it is the UN who sets this in place more so than an independent nation respecting another as an equal. The UN sets itself up as a consortium, it creates the "us" and "them" mentality between those who are on it and a nation who wishes to exercise a right to independence. Such is not tolerated, and the "they" (Globalists) point the finger at "them" (an otherwise independent nation) when they don't conform and bow down.

I'm pro-Nationalism for each and every country. I've grown to actually like Trump for this, and I hope Australia follows suit and breaks away from wanting to be "Internationally" absorbed. Each and every country should be treated and respect as an independent equal in much the same we do on individual person-to-person levels. What we a fed today as "Internationalism" (International laws, etc etc) is simply smoke and mirrors and ought to be banished since it seeks to break down each nation's independence and force them into the borg-like collective run by some elitist think-tank group at the top. That's not toleration, it's not respecting a nation, it's totalitarian rule.

Case in point, Hungary and the EU:
http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive ... eu/499742/
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/09/eu-sho ... rants.html

Philippines as another case in point:
- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-2 ... tupid-unit

Kurieuo wrote:Philippines as another case in point:
- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-2 ... tupid-unit

What an ignorant dolt!!

"Why are you Americans killing the black people there, shooting them down when they are already on the ground?" he asked. "Answer that question, because even if it's just one or two or three, it is still human rights violations."

The guy really shouldn't be talking about things he has no clue about.

It's really a tit-for-tat comment, being told first how to run his country what he can/can't do, though I don't like the guy myself.

Sorry, came across more on Duterte


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeN2HeZpKlY

I suppose the Nationalism Duterte embraces does create an "us" and "them" (EU). Keep in mind it logically follows that "they" singled "them" out to first create such an us/them dichotomy.

There can never be an "us" and "them" unless ALL subscribe or bow down to the International/Globalist powers that be, but now why give up your independence and freedom?

I think nationalism is or has become a very ambiguous position. To want to maintain identity, values and laws soveign to a nation is not a bad thing.
Patriotism is neither a negative.
Up until recently I would have considered myself a patriot Australian. Proud of living in such a blessed country. Invested in nationalist ideals; an economy that relies heavily on an internal market, laws that are governed by an Australian majority and reflected in parliament.
But I believe these values have been manipulated to a position I am no longer comfortable associating with.
This has nothing to do with the definition but what has arisen in a culture of blatant racism and prejudice that hides behind a veil of so called nationalism.
My experience in Australian culture is that some really ugly ideals of self preservation and national identity has been turned into a by culture of racism and intolerance.
Racism has always and will always exist.
Sadly
Within a society that for the most part no longer openly admits such flaws, new ways and new movements sprout to manifest the same, longstanding racist mindset and is being smuggled under nationalism.
So for people like myself who love my country, patriotically so. Who believe in domestic job security, a sustainable internal economy, wise and internally profitable investments ect. But who also believe that this nation was previously built on the rich diversity of immigration, that built this nation from a convict settlement to a diverse and rich melting pot of ethnicities.
Our nationalism is diversity
Very few apart from our indigenous could go back but a generation or few till when our ancestors built their future on this nation.
I am a second generation Australian.
My dad migrated here from Finland.
That is our national identity.
Immigration is not a dirty word.
Neither are refugees.
If the process is handled correctly, it is but a continuation of the diversity that is the backbone of many countries.
Nationalism is taking pride in one's nation. Not wanting to forgo the culture and identity that surrounds it. When it's done ethically and in a manner that both embraces diversity whilst holding onto the integrity of its core values its a wonderful thing.
But in today's environment it seems to have substituted itself for a very selfish, self serving definition devoid of what pride in nation actually entails.