YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #humor #history #ai #artificialintelligence #automotiveengineering
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Go LIVE! Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

A Prayer When a Situation Seems Impossible - Your Daily Prayer - April 24
Favicon 
www.ibelieve.com

A Prayer When a Situation Seems Impossible - Your Daily Prayer - April 24

My wife has recently painted these words on a wall in our house as a reminder to us both: “Mightier than the waves of the sea‚ is His love for us&;#33;” (Inspired by Psalm 93:4). Please remember this. Mightier than the tempest you are facing is His love for you&;#33;
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

Confessions of a Recovering Perfectionist Parent
Favicon 
www.ibelieve.com

Confessions of a Recovering Perfectionist Parent

I have been the parent that expected everything to be perfect. Let me tell you what I have learned...
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

We Can’t Build Political Solidarity from Cultural Rubble
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

We Can’t Build Political Solidarity from Cultural Rubble

“Democracy in America is in crisis.” So begins James Davison Hunter’s new book Democracy and Solidarity: On the Cultural Roots of America’s Political Crisis. Few readers would disagree with his assertion. Amid the crisis‚ American Christians have rediscovered political theology. From Catholic integralism to post-liberalism to Christian nationalism‚ we’re awash in proposals for a new political future. But Hunter first wants us to reassess our present problem. In his telling‚ our primary challenges are cultural‚ not political. Contrary to the voices on both left and right who assert our troubled democracy can be repaired through “political will and smart public policy‚” Hunter argues the problem is deeper: “We no longer have the cultural resources to work through what divides us” (18). If his reasoning is correct‚ our societal illness is more advanced and our moment more urgent than we realize. Is there a future for liberal democracy&;#63; Perhaps not. But if there is‚ it lies along the path of repairing and rebuilding our culture’s deep structures. Solidarity Is the Problem As his book’s title suggests‚ Hunter frames the problem of modern democracy in terms of solidarity. We tend to think of solidarity as the willingness to come together with other people. But Hunter argues that “solidarity . . . is about the cultural preconditions and the normative sources that make coming together possible in the first place” (xii). He’s not arguing Americans don’t want to come together. He’s arguing we’ve lost the cultural resources that make coming together possible. He’s not arguing Americans don’t want to come together. He’s arguing we’ve lost the cultural resources that make coming together possible. Hunter is one of America’s most eminent sociologists. Since 1983‚ he’s held a teaching post at the University of Virginia‚ and in 1995‚ he founded the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the same institution. Like his mentor Peter Berger‚ he’s taken a keen interest in the problem of moral order. His 1991 book Culture Wars catapulted that term into our national consciousness‚ and his 2010 work To Change the World was the most provocative analysis of Christian cultural engagement since Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. Democracy and Solidarity applies his trademark emphasis on the “deep structures of culture” to our failing political ecosystem. America’s motto is e pluribus unum‚ “out of many‚ one.” How much pluribus is allowed within the unum&;#63; And how do the boundaries of the unum work against the pluribus&;#63; These questions have been repeatedly confronted during our national history‚ and our ability to work through them has made American democracy resilient. But the cultural framework that has underwritten our ability to cooperate is beginning to unravel. Hunter writes‚ For quite some time‚ the culture that has underwritten liberal democracy in America (and in Europe too) has been unraveling. The cultural sources that made it possible in the first place have‚ in the most elemental ways‚ dissolved‚ and all of the efforts to reconfigure and revivify those cultural sources over the decades . . . have [failed]. (49) American Christians have a bad habit of fixating on culture-war issues at a surface level. Hunter’s analysis takes us deeper‚ inviting us to see the erosion of our frameworks for meaning. Once‚ we shared a “background consensus” about issues of knowledge‚ purpose‚ and ethics. The loss of those shared ideals is the real story underneath our political polarization. Five Key Movements We can summarize Hunter’s story about the decay of American democracy in five basic movements. 1. It started with a ‘hybrid-Enlightenment.’ This is Hunter’s term for the unique recipe of ideas that birthed American democracy. The British and Scottish Enlightenment‚ the classical natural-law tradition‚ Greek and Roman republicanism‚ Protestant Calvinism‚ and Puritan millennialism all melded together in “a lively and evolving syncretism.” These are the ideals we’ve been fighting over ever since‚ and they’re the basis for our cultural solidarity. 2. The hybrid-Enlightenment gave us a framework for ‘working through’ our differences. Hunter deploys the concept of “working through” (borrowed from the field of psychiatry) to describe “the dynamics by which cultures work through their contradictions historically and sociologically” (28). For example‚ America was founded on the premise that all people are created equal. In practice‚ we’ve never lived up to that vision. Our national history is the story of how we’ve tried to “work through” that contradiction to achieve solidarity. 3. Over time‚ our cultural logic has changed. In our disagreements about social and political issues‚ Americans have always shared a “cultural logic” that allowed us to make sense of our differences and argue meaningfully about them. But the cultural logic of liberal democracy‚ rooted in hybrid-Enlightenment ideals‚ has gradually been supplanted by the cultural logic of nihilism: Critique and blame are totalizing. Nuance and complexity are minimized. . . . Every group defines itself against some other group‚ the net effect of which is the destruction of common life. (335) 4. As a result‚ the deep structures of our culture have eroded. The surface-level dysfunction in our society is merely a symptom. The real problem is a fracture in the “deep structures” of our culture: our assumptions about metaphysics (what is real)‚ epistemology (how we know)‚ anthropology (what is a human)‚ ethics (how humans should act)‚ and teleology (what it all means). Hunter writes‚ “American public life is divided . . . not only in its vocabulary‚ but in its premises about what is real and true and how we know these things‚ about what is right and just‚ and about what the nation is and what it should be” (324). 5. We’re now at a point of exhaustion. Late-stage democracy has suffered “a great unraveling”; we’re facing societal exhaustion. The hybrid-Enlightenment ideals that once united us have lost their force. Our cultural resources for working through differences have been depleted. Both left and right have abandoned the pursuit of solidarity through persuasion or compromise. This unraveling didn’t happen overnight; there’s a history here‚ and Hunter spends the bulk of his book walking the reader through it. But the result is “a weakening of liberal democracy’s cultural infrastructure” (292). Is There a Way Forward&;#63; For Hunter‚ the key to the issue isn’t the past; it’s the present. His discussion of current conditions will most benefit the patient reader. Hunter sees the same things you see: political polarization‚ identity politics‚ authoritarian impulses on the right and left‚ a media environment that rewards outrage‚ a public culture of anger and victimhood. As you’d expect from much of Hunter’s earlier work‚ it doesn’t lend itself to direct practical application. But if you’ve followed his argument thus far‚ he hopes you’ll begin to see these realities in a different light. Both left and right have abandoned the pursuit of solidarity through persuasion or compromise. And that‚ it seems‚ is Hunter’s project. He wants us to attend to the cultural roots of America’s political crisis (as the book’s subtitle states). Without minimizing the important role of law and public policy‚ Hunter wants to elevate our attentiveness to the health (or unhealth) of our public culture. Instead of being co-opted into the culture wars‚ thoughtful Christians have an opportunity to rehabilitate the deep structures of American culture. But we’ll only give ourselves to that work if we reject the logic of nihilism and embrace the possibility of a common good. Hunter’s hope—stated briefly in a coda that follows the last chapter—is for “a paradigm shift within liberal democracy itself” that would lead to a reinvigorated liberalism. I’m more inclined to surmise liberalism has run its course and that our future lies in a more post-liberal direction. But even where I disagree with his solutions‚ I’m provoked by Hunter’s analysis of the problem. Democracy and Solidarity offers a trenchant examination of our cultural rupture that’s alarming‚ informative‚ and interesting. It’s a book we’ll be arguing about for years to come.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
1 y

How Does God the Father Relate to Jesus Christ in 1 Peter&;#63;
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

How Does God the Father Relate to Jesus Christ in 1 Peter&;#63;

What’s the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1 Peter&;#63; How do God’s actions toward Christ contribute to our understanding of Peter’s conception of God’s identity&;#63; Jesus Christ’s identity can only be understood in relation to his unique filial relationship with God the Father. Further‚ God’s relationship with Christ is disclosed when the identity descriptions of Peter’s God-talk are given proper attention. Unique Relationship with Father Divine fatherhood is the controlling concept of God in 1 Peter (1:2‚ 3‚ 17). Commentators connect the picture of God as a Father to the rebirth metaphor that Peter uses to describe believers’ salvation (v. 3). John Elliott writes‚ “The metaphor of God as father . . . implies God as progenitor and the believing community as God’s family or household (2:5; 4:17) and ‘brotherhood’ (2:17; 5:9).” We may add that Peter clarifies that rebirth isn’t given by means of “perishable seed” (σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς) but the “imperishable” (ἀφθάρτου)—the living and abiding Word of God (1:23). Further‚ as God is the Father of believers‚ certain codes of conduct from his children are required (τέκνα ὑπακοῆς; v. 14). Thus‚ in 1 Peter‚ both spiritual and social privileges of the community are grounded in the thick metaphor of the fatherhood of God. Since the believing community relates to God as Father‚ how should we understand the fatherhood of God in relation to Jesus Christ (v. 3)&;#63; Is the sonship of Jesus symmetrical with the sonship of believers&;#63; Divine fatherhood is the controlling concept of God in 1 Peter. Several points in 1 Peter forward the notion that Christ’s relationship to the Father is indeed unique. All believers can certainly invoke God as Father‚ nevertheless‚ they do so in a mediated sense. Joel B. Green is close to the point when he says‚ “Although both Jesus and believers find their identity in relationship to God‚ they do so in different ways.” To bring out an obvious point‚ not only is the believer’s relationship with God different from Christ’s due to mediation but they’re only designated God’s children through the Son of God‚ Jesus Christ. This point is seen as Peter consistently uses the preposition διά to indicate how believers participate in calling God their Father. For example‚ in 1:3‚ the metaphor of rebirth (which is connected to the father metaphor for the believing community) is said to be “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν). Also‚ in 1:21 it’s through Christ that Peter’s audience has faith in God (τοὺς διʼ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεόν). Later in 2:5‚ Peter affirms believers offer spiritual sacrifices well pleasing to God “through Jesus Christ” (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Finally‚ according to 3:21‚ believers appeal to God for a clear conscience “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This suggests that while both Christ and believers have a filial relationship with God‚ Christ’s relationship with the Father is unique by its unmediated nature. It doesn’t necessitate much imagination to see how comparing the filial relationship between believers and the Father alongside the filial relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father causes serious reflection on the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son. Identity Descriptions of the Father The category of “mutuality” or “bidirectionality” has been used within a Trinitarian framework to analyze the God-talk of various texts. Mutuality is explained by Francis Watson when he writes‚ “Trinitarian theology claims that God’s identity is determined by God’s relation to Jesus‚ just as Jesus’ identity is determined by his relation to God.” In other words‚ both the identity of God and the identity of Jesus are determined by how they relate to each other. Using the concept of mutuality‚ we find that Peter likewise puts pressure on his readers to conclude God’s identity is tied to Jesus Christ in such a way that we cannot talk about God without reference to Jesus Christ‚ and we cannot talk about Jesus without reference to God. Mutuality between the Father and Christ is found in 1:17–21. Peter concisely narrates the Christ-event that stretches back before history and culminates in the moment of Christ’s death (vv. 19–20). A profound articulation of God’s identity appears at the conclusion of the semi-creedal statement about the Christ-event in 1:21. Peter’s description of God’s actions in that event is expressed with a pair of participles connected by a conjunction. God is described as “the one who raised him [Christ] from the dead” (θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν) and who “gave him glory” (καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα). Such descriptions of God are found elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Gal. 1:1; Rom. 4:24; 8:11). According to Elliot‚ they represent a “central . . . [and] stable element of early Christian tradition.” Due to the ubiquity of the depiction of God‚ as well as its semi-creedal nature‚ scholars working within a Trinitarian framework have labeled such participial phrases “identity descriptions.” Wesley Hill comments‚ “The aim of such formulations is not merely to reference some divine action but also to ‘name’ God or specify his unique character by that action.” The description of God’s action of raising Christ from the dead and giving him glory also discloses something about God’s identity. Following Watson‚ “The raising of Jesus discloses‚ not only what God does but‚ at the same time‚ who God is.” Again‚ Watson writes‚ “Divine being and divine action are inseparable from one another‚ and no distinction is drawn between how God is in se and ad extra.” One may object by asking why God’s action toward Christ should be constitutive to his identity. As the context of Peter’s letter indicates‚ God’s action in raising Christ from the dead is the definitive act of God. For Peter‚ the action of raising Christ from the dead and giving him glory constitutes the redemptive act by which God has brought about the new birth for his people. Specifically‚ the intended result connected to God’s actions in 1:21 is so believers have “faith and hope in God” (ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν). The action of raising Christ from the dead is elsewhere connected to providing believers with eschatological hope (1:3). Moreover‚ it’s integral to both cleansing believer’s consciences and forgiving their sins (3:21). Thus‚ from Peter’s perspective‚ God’s action in raising Christ from the dead is the definitive work of God’s redemption and relates to several benefits his people experience. God’s action in raising Christ from the dead is the definitive work of God’s redemption and relates to several benefits his people experience. Working from the assumption that divine act reveals divine being‚ we may consider two additional divine acts that disclose God’s identity in 1 Peter. Preceding 1:21 are two participial phrases that also narrate God’s actions toward Christ. Peter says Christ is “foreknown” (προεγνωσμένου) before the foundation of the world (v. 20) and he is “made manifest in the last times” (φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων). According to Paul Achtemeier‚ it’s the person of Christ and not merely God’s plan that’s foreknown. Moreover‚ this manifestation refers to Christ’s incarnation with the passive form of the participle indicating divine action. Putting all these divine acts together‚ we see that‚ in 1 Peter‚ Christ is the One who was foreknown‚ manifested‚ raised‚ and given glory by God. As such‚ God’s identity is constitutively tied to his actions in Christ as Christ is definitively identified by his relationship with God the Father. Defined by Relationship What does the relationship between God and Jesus Christ tell us about the divine identity in 1 Peter&;#63; God is who he is by virtue of his relationship with Jesus Christ; he’s the Father of Christ‚ and by implication‚ Christ is his Son. This relationship between God and Christ‚ although sharing some commonalities with all believers‚ is marked uniquely by the unmediated nature of their relationship. Further‚ God is identified in 1 Peter by his actions. Scholars have noted the importance of “identity descriptions” and specifically the ability to “pick out” the God of 1 Peter through these descriptions. When applied to 1 Peter‚ God is defined as “the God who raised Jesus from the dead and gave him glory.” He’s the God who has “foreknown” and “manifested” Jesus Christ. These identity descriptions work in a bidirectional manner; thus‚ Jesus is also identified as the One whom the Father foreknew‚ manifested‚ raised‚ and glorified. God is defined in 1 Peter by his relationship to Jesus Christ‚ just as Christ is defined by his relationship to God the Father.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

Crisp Dill Pickles Recipe – 7 Secrets To Making Crunchy Dill Pickles
Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

Crisp Dill Pickles Recipe – 7 Secrets To Making Crunchy Dill Pickles

The post Crisp Dill Pickles Recipe – 7 Secrets To Making Crunchy Dill Pickles appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

15 Safest States in the U.S. According to Latest FBI Data
Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

15 Safest States in the U.S. According to Latest FBI Data

The post 15 Safest States in the U.S. According to Latest FBI Data appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

17 Best Meat Sheep Breeds for Your Homestead
Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

17 Best Meat Sheep Breeds for Your Homestead

The post 17 Best Meat Sheep Breeds for Your Homestead appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

What Do You Need to Have Ready Before An EMP

The post What Do You Need to Have Ready Before An EMP appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

How To Improve The Soil In Raised Garden Beds
Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

How To Improve The Soil In Raised Garden Beds

The post How To Improve The Soil In Raised Garden Beds appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Survival Prepper
Survival Prepper  
1 y

How to Turn Your Basement into a Survival Shelter
Favicon 
www.prepperwebsite.com

How to Turn Your Basement into a Survival Shelter

The post How to Turn Your Basement into a Survival Shelter appeared first on Prepper Website.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 58931 out of 84444
  • 58927
  • 58928
  • 58929
  • 58930
  • 58931
  • 58932
  • 58933
  • 58934
  • 58935
  • 58936
  • 58937
  • 58938
  • 58939
  • 58940
  • 58941
  • 58942
  • 58943
  • 58944
  • 58945
  • 58946
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund