MennoNet.com

KingdomBuilder wrote:

Josh wrote:You've got to admit this is a bigger problem for liberals in our culture right now, though. And they pair with an attitude that they have an exclusive monopoly on what truth and science are.

Well conservatives counter that with an attitude that they have an exclusive monopoly on morality & Faith.
If I had to pick which concerns me most, it'd be the latter.

well, KB, to me, your statement presumes an organized conservative group, i see zero indication such a thing exists.

however, the (minority) left is highly organized, to the point they follow a single script, whether they individually agree on it or not. to me, that's dangerous, if not cult-like.

the U.S. was structured to attempt to cope with exactly this: greed, power, politics.
so, the system may not be completely broken.

possibly, what almost happened, or was about to happen, was -
greedy politicians on BOTH sides had become such (co-conspirators?) for themselves, not public servants; people/voters had to realize, there was emerging 1 establishment party, calling itself 2 parties, essentially for political theater, or window-dressing.

Trump guarantees nothing.
Voters hope there will be a move away from the 1 party/establishment.
Only time will tell.

The U.S. was never-ever meant to run on "auto pilot."
It was structured to require active oversight of public servants by the citizenry.

temporal1 wrote:i don't disagree with much of what you're saying, with one decided exception:
there is a major difference between individuals' personal opinions versus paid professionals, elected politicians, paid lobbyists, etc. that's the rub.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Which of these two things are the best arbiter of truth? Are you setting these two things against each other (and favoring one over the other) or am I misunderstanding you?

Dan Z wrote: Oh...I was reflecting the other day on this, and I would probably add "anti-intellectualism" to my list above, likely fed at a deeper level by an "anti-institutionalism" that distrusts organizational conclusions and efforts.

Imo these run especially rampant in the Protestant branch of Christianity and conservative Mennos are not immune as well. Could the historical and continuing penchant for splits etc into new "denominations" or fellowships or independent churches be a result of anti-institutionalism? Do we exhibit the same fragmenting so characteristic of our post-modern/secular culture, but just in a different way? If this is the case, what would be an antidote?

temporal1 wrote: Voters hope there will be a move away from the 1 party/establishment.
Only time will tell.

In reality, the voters chose an Executive, a Senate, a House (and most state gov) to be all run by 1 party...and the way most of those voters seem to talk and think about the other party; it appears that they'd be quite happy with only 1 party doing everything, forever... They do not appreciate nor see a need for any counterbalance or check of any kind...
So I'm not sure your so called "move away from the 1 party/establishment" is reality...

Jazman wrote:

temporal1 wrote: Voters hope there will be a move away from the 1 party/establishment.
Only time will tell.

In reality, the voters chose an Executive, a Senate, a House (and most state gov) to be all run by 1 party...and the way most of those voters seem to talk and think about the other party; it appears that they'd be quite happy with only 1 party doing everything, forever... They do not appreciate nor see a need for any counterbalance or check of any kind...
So I'm not sure your so called "move away from the 1 party/establishment" is reality...

not exactly. when voters voted, they did not know the outcome until afterward.

as well, if you will consider, in the U.S., there is a "rotation" of parties in office.
imho, what happens, is, each party "wears out its welcome," in office, then is replaced by voters.

the odd thing that developed in recent years, let's say, the Bush-Clinton years, the elected grew together (for their own common personal interests and investments) .. thus, in effect, the 2 "named" parties became 1 party, using 2 names, for outward political appearances.

prior, many recognized this, many on MD; in the 2016 campaigns, it became undeniable, even to the least politically-savvy. 2016 brought out some very-very strange statements from establishment politicians on both (claimed/named) sides.

these entitled ones, evidently without knowing, helped voters decide what they did not want:
no more of "that."

i was not referring only to the "checks+balances" of the 3 executive branches in D.C.
i was afraid that might be mistaken.
but to the broader checks+balances that primary and general elections bring, combined with term limits .. which, it appears, may be expanded to limit many more elected offices. again, because of too much power and influence resulting from entitled, career, "representatives," who no longer represent.
hope that helps.

interesting now.
Trump, not being conservative, may not satisfy conservative voters (?)
but, leaning-liberal likely won't satisfy liberals (if what i witness+experience in Illinois is any indication.)

it reminds of pastors who try to "deal with the devil," who alienate their core flock, while learning the others will never be satisfied, either. causing all to be lost.

i am praying for both Trump as POTUS; and, for churches to find their way (to Truth.)
two.different.prayers.

temporal1 wrote:i am praying for both Trump as POTUS; and, for churches to find their way (to Truth.)
two.different.prayers.

Me too.

Both prayers are vitally important. We in the church are often post-truth these days too.

It is a mystery to me how man without God can find any truth at all.

The man who has rejected God, and his incarnation on the earth, Jesus, has completely rejected all truth. Say what you want about evangelical conservative Christians, with whom I have deep theological and lifestyle agreements, but they have not flatly rejected truth.

Dan Z wrote:I see what you are saying Max...especially in light of the worldview divide borne out in politics today. But I wouldn't be too dismissive of the idea. I think there is something to it...election or not.

From my POV, I have seen the phenomenon at play in most areas where an objective reality is being discussed - e.g. science, philosophy, and even religion. In other words, I don't think this term (and more importantly the ideas behind it) is just a result of reacting to lost elections/referendums - I believe there is a destructive "post-truth" zeitgeist at play and gaining strength in the western world today.

Oh...I was reflecting the other day on this, and I would probably add "anti-intellectualism" to my list above, likely fed at a deeper level by an "anti-institutionalism" that distrusts organizational conclusions and efforts.

Actually I was agreeing with you and adding another aspect. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

I was talking with a deacon about some of the same things you're observing. We both started pulling up Bible verses about the imminent return of Christ and noted that the human attitudes and events of today were prophesied along with geological events such as earthquakes. It makes for an interesting study and adds urgency to the need to sort out our own personal walk with Christ. Just don't do it before bedtime because that study was so compelling I was up most of the night

From another thread:

Jazman wrote:

Josh wrote:I keep on having to check if I'm on MennoNet or one of the "alt right" forums I read. Sometimes some of this conversation feels like the latter.

Can't trust polls, can't trust media, no faith in politicians (unless they're Trump or Ben Carson), lots of sensational headlines… can't we better than this?

Unfortunately... probably not. (I agree with you btw) But this thing you describe has some deep roots in american christendom... I go to a cute little evangelical lanc conf church with the nicest, most welcoming people in the world (and I mean that) and I hear the same things constantly... And my FB feed, all from equally nice good christian, church-going, Bible believing folk is the same (and usually worse) If I knew what to do about it, I'd give some ideas here, but I don't other than waiting till God allows Reality to dawn.

I think this is related to the whole post-truth phenomenon. Pursuing truth is slow, hard, and uncertain, you find that yourself changing your mind as you learn new things, you look at several sources that each paint a different picture of the truth, and you work your way toward a fuller understanding. It takes discipline, and it requires skepticism of my own beliefs, a willingness to show that my own beliefs are wrong whenever the facts show that. This is a key value that many people have lost.

This post-truth hogwash isn't really about what is true or what is false. Words are designed to impress the listener, to imply that someone is an expert and that their opinion is the one that must be believed, while never really engaging with the facts or taking the time to really understand the subject. Like a performing magician, words are used to distract attention from what's really going on. If people start looking at the facts, and the facts are heading the wrong direction, find some way to stop them from doing that. Politicians especially love to do this, because they do not want facts to limit what they can say.

As far as I can tell, there are really only two ways out of this trap: humility and expertise. Humility by itself is sufficient, expertise must always include humility ... and epistemological humility. Humility could simply say that we are not experts on economics, foreign policy, the character of various politicians, what news is fake and what news is real, and not try to take sides in all of this. Humility could say That Other Kingdom has to figure this stuff out, and we should focus on our own calling. Expertise, armed with humility, might take time to examine the facts on all sides, sometimes concluding that the truth is obvious, sometimes concluding that one view is more likely to be true, often concluding that it does not know. You don't have to start with expertise, you grow in expertise as you ask questions and look for answers, slowly and carefully, together in a group of people seeking the truth. But if we want to get involved with these issues, we do need expertise.

But in the post-truth culture, you don't do that. You insist that you know before you start learning. If anyone questions that, you posture. You can dismiss any fact by saying that it is biased or liberal or conservative or whatever.

This is essentially the same thing Proverbs called folly.