nec209

Doctors grapple with how to save women’s lives amid ‘confusion and angst’ over new Louisiana law A lifesaving drug used to stop postpartum hemorrhaging will be pulled off emergency response carts once it becomes a ‘controlled dangerous substance.’ When a woman starts bleeding out after labor, every second matters. But soon, under a new state law, Louisiana doctors might not be able to quickly access one of the most widely used life-saving medications for postpartum hemorrhage. The Louisiana Illuminator spoke with several doctors across the state that voiced extreme concern about how the rescheduling of misoprostol as a controlled dangerous substance https://lailluminator.com/2024/09/03/louisiana-women/

Could there also be culture difference where Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian countries view death as more normal and part of life? Where as in the US and western countries some thing very bad and we need to fight it?

What is the difference of corporatocracy system than corporatism system? I thought Corporatocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled by business corporations and corporate interests. The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, and the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources and not say other tax cuts for the rich and allowing company mergers. Some people say the US is more corporatocracy system than corporatism. But I hear corporatism is the merger of large businesses and corporations and the government. That basically the businesses and corporations run the government. And the government pass laws to help large businesses and corporations. The US is mix of both? It also does not say how the US became Corporatocracy system.

But I wonder if one reason is the US has hundreds and hundreds of pharmaceutical companies and universities where has in those countries they have only handful of pharmaceutical companies and universities. So the US government likes giving money to universities.

You mean the cancer treatment sites lobbying the government and is massive in the US unlike those other countries.

That is odd I wonder if the reason the US spends so much money on cancer research is because the lobbyist is so massive in the US the pharmaceutical companies and universities are so massive in the US and are lobbying the government to spend money on cancer research. Where those other countries only have handful of pharmaceutical companies and universities unlike the US that has hundreds of pharmaceutical companies and universities.

If you look at this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00182-1/fulltext Well than China is 4%, Japan is 4%, UK is 9%, USA is 57% So not sure why the US is so high compared to other countries and why Japan and China is so low.

I wonder if it is right wing Christian base like the GOP is in the US?

Some one said Trump wants to ban birth control, casual online dating, ban same sex and push christian views. Is this true or is it more fear base than reality? I thought Trump is back paddling on abortion now to get more votes?

Also if I’m not mistaken it is the US that is spending lots of money on cancer research and medicine where as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan hardly spend any money on cancer research and medicine but they spend lots of money on electronics/computers/robotics, AI and robots research.

Brain Scientists Finally Discover the Glue that Makes Memories Stick for a Lifetime The persistence of memory is crucial to our sense of identity, and without it, there would be no learning, for us or any other animal. It’s little wonder, then, that some researchers have called how the brain stores memories the most fundamental question in neuroscience. A milestone in the effort to answer this question came in the early 1970s, with the discovery of a phenomenon called long-term potentiation, or LTP. Scientists found that electrically stimulating a synapse that connects two neurons causes a long-lasting increase in how well that connection transmits signals. Scientists say simply that the “synaptic strength” has increased. This is widely believed to be the process underlying memory. Networks of neural connections of varying strengths are thought to be what memories are made of. In the search for molecules that enable LTP, two main contenders emerged. One, called PKMzeta (protein kinase Mzeta), made a big splash when a 2006 study showed that blocking it erased memories for places in rats. If obstructing a molecule erases memories, researchers reasoned, that event must be essential to the process the brain uses to maintain memories. A flurry of research into the so-called memory molecule followed, and numerous experiments appeared to show that it was necessary and sufficient for maintaining numerous types of memory. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-scientists-finally-discover-the-glue-that-makes-memories-stick-for-a/

And base on that article I posted it shows According to Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey from 2014, 40% of Christians identified or leaned Democratic. So I was wrong as 40% of Christians identified or leaned Democratic. But I’m not sure what they mean by destroying individual agency that evangelicals have problem with. And things like Helping the weak, feeding the hungry, helping the poor and homeless healing the sick and universal healthcare and dealing evils of capitalism. They the evangelicals don’t like that because they view destroying individual agency I’m not sure what they mean by that? What do they mean by destroying individual agency? Where it shows. Modernists embraced a “social gospel,” where Christianity required caring for the poor and disenfranchised and making structural changes to society.

You need to read more about the history because it is shocking you just talking about your young friends. The US is not some atheist country but extremely rooted with far right Christians when you read history. This explains how Christians took over the Republican Party and why they are the way they are. Before I start, it’s important to note that Christians in the United States make up the majority of both political parties and are relatively evenly split politically. According to Pew’s Religious Landscape Survey from 2014, 40% of Christians identified or leaned Democratic while 44% identified or leaned Republican. African American Christians have been among the most solid supporters of the Democratic party, while Catholics and Mainline Protestants are divided. Simply being Christian is far less of a predictor of political leanings than gender, age, income, or race. Why Do We Associate the Republican Party with Christianity? The reason why you associate Christianity with the Republican Party (also known as the Grand Old Party, or GOP) is because the party has white evangelicals as a core constituency. White evangelicals currently make up about 25 percent of the American population and are a particularly visible group. Theologically, evangelicals teach that the Bible is without error, and they often hold a belief in an imminently forthcoming apocalypse that would be linked to the return of Christ (the most common of these views is called dispensational premillennialism, and is what evangelicals mean when they talk about believers ascending to heaven during the rapture). Republicans sought voters, and white evangelical leaders hoped to achieve their social agenda, so the two sides courted each other starting during the 1930s. However, it took until the 1980s for evangelicals to become a solidly Republican voting bloc. When Did the Relationship Between Evangelicals and Republicans Start? In the 1930s, some of the forerunners of modern white evangelicals, the fundamentalists, quickly grew to hate Franklin D. Roosevelt with a passion. There were many reasons for this; FDR repealed prohibition, which was a key issue for these Christians, and they saw the creation of Social Security and other social welfare programs as destroying individual agency. These fundamentalists also complained that Roosevelt’s administration was too dominated by academics and Jews, and they saw modern liberalism as satanic. By the mid-1930s, a number of fundamentalists had become convinced that FDR was associated with the Antichrist, a theological figure of ultimate evil that would presage the end of the world. Leaders of what would become evangelicalism. like Harold Ockenga, saw Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt as roughly equivalent figures. Because of their hatred of of FDR, fundamentalists were receptive to supporting the Republicans. Fundamentalists saw their hatred of FDR as an extension of their feud with Protestant modernists, the forebearers of contemporary Mainline Protestantism. Modernists thought the Bible was an ancient text that should be viewed metaphorically and did not believe in an imminent end of the World. Modernists embraced a “social gospel,” where Christianity required caring for the poor and disenfranchised and making structural changes to society to reduce or eliminate this kind of suffering. Fundamentalists worried that FDR’s liberalism was essentially a governmental version of modernist ideas. Nixon and the Emergence of Republican Evangelicalism Despite fundamentalism's flirtation with the GOP, when their successors, modern evangelicals, formed into a distinct movement by the 1940s, they were not yet a politically uniform group. During the 1964 election, the magazine Christianity Today surveyed evangelical publishers, and found they supported Johnson against Goldwater at roughly the same rate as the rest of the U.S. population. Many evangelicals' views aligned more with Republicans. They were zealously anticommunist. They were also either very tepid supporters of civil rights or outright opposed to it, which would lead them to gravitate away from the Democrats during the 1960s. They were concerned about the growing political and social power of Catholics and Jews, who tended to be more affiliated with the Democratic Party. They were enraged that a liberal Supreme Court removed prayer and Bible reading from public schools. Yet evangelicals worried about being too politically involved, and evangelical leaders like Billy Graham were initially reluctant to openly support any candidate. Baptist minister Jerry Falwell denounced the political involvement of ministers like Martin Luther King in 1965, declaring, “Preachers are not called to be politicians, but soul winners.” During his presidency, Richard Nixon began to court evangelicals. He had lost the support of mainline Protestants over Vietnam, so he used evangelicals to fill the void. Nixon invited the head of the Southern Baptist Convention to preach in the White House, and Nixon managed to convince the Southern Baptist Convention to pass a resolution in 1970 endorsing his policy in Vietnam. Nixon made a case to evangelicals that he was their man. He publicly known to be friends with evangelical minister Billy Graham, who campaigned for him. Harold Ockenga, the first president of the National Association of Evangelicals, endorsed Nixon in 1972. In that election, 82% of evangelicals voted for Nixon. Carter Yet Democratic evangelicals still existed. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist and a Democrat, won the presidency. Carter nearly split the evangelical vote, though his opponent Gerald Ford won a slight majority, with 51% of the vote. Carter managed to alienate many evangelicals. By 1978, Carter suggested that gays and lesbians were not a threat and there should not be limits on gay rights. He also was supportive of feminism and backed international efforts for women’s equality, such as the UN’s International Women’s Year in 1975, which evangelicals saw as a threat to traditional gender roles. Abortion was also becoming a major issue for evangelicals in 1970s. Evangelicals initially did not engage much with the issue, seeing it as too Catholic, and even sometimes supported abortion rights. But by the 1970s, they increasingly were opposed to it, and the Democratic Party was becoming more in favor. Reagan and the Moral Majority The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a watershed moment for evangelicals politically and saw the creation of the modern Christian right. In 1979, Baptist minister Jerry Falwell formed the Moral Majority, which began to register voters and try to mobilize evangelicals to vote for socially conservative candidates. It succeeded in flipping votes; almost 20% of Moral Majority supporters had backed Carter in 1976. Reagan, like Nixon, courted evangelicals. He spoke at Liberty University, which was an evangelical school run by Falwell. This became a tradition for Republican presidential candidates. Evangelicals liked the fact that Reagan favored a military buildup against the Soviets. In 1980, Reagan won 67% of the white evangelical vote. In the election of 1984, Reagan managed to get an astounding 80% of white evangelical votes. The Republican Party began to feel it needed to win evangelicals. Yet Reagan did not achieve many of the goals evangelicals set for his presidency. He appointed a Supreme Court justice who favored keeping abortion legal (Sandra Day O'Connor). He did not reinstate school prayer, or erect legal obstacles to gay rights. Yet evangelicals could not get the Democratic Party to do these things, so they kept voting Republican. In short answer it is the evangelicals that causing the problems in the US. Read the part about key issue for these Christians, and they saw the creation of Social Security and other social welfare programs as destroying individual agency. Seems to be the reason why they hate social programs. I don’t know what they mean by destroying individual agency. Modernists embraced a “social gospel,” where Christianity required caring for the poor and disenfranchised and making structural changes to society The US seems to lack these people because US had lot of evangelicals that don’t subscribe to that so does republican party do not subscribe to because the republican party is the evangelicals party. And things like Helping the weak, feeding the hungry, helping the poor and homeless healing the sick and universal healthcare and dealing evils of capitalism. They don’t like that because they view destroying individual agency what ever they mean by that. Only the Modernists embraced a “social gospel,” where Christianity required caring for the poor and disenfranchised and making structural changes to society.

It does not say being rich is sin. The text shows God knows there two groups the rich and the poor and God seems okay with it base on the text. Well God dos not say I command all faithful people being rich will not enter gates of haven. it says nothing like that or it is sin. Later on Jesus says rich people having harder time going to haven this is very different tone than the other text. But even Jesus does not say being rich is a sin or God commands being rich will not enter the gates of haven. One text reads conservative and the other text reads little bit liberal but still conservative.

How would I know what group they are, they seem to have very large voice in the US and political party called the republican party that carries them.

Did you not read page one and two of this thread? Where does God command that there is no rich? I don’t see any commandments saying no rich. God knowledge there is poor and rich. Bible poor and wealthy The Bible presents a nuanced view of poverty and wealth, emphasizing that both are under God’s sovereignty (1 Samuel 2:7). Here are some key insights: God’s equality: Proverbs 22:2 declares that “the rich and the poor meet together: Jehovah is the maker of them all.” This verse highlights that both the wealthy and the poor are created by God and have equal value in His eyes. No distinction: The Bible does not teach that poverty or wealth is inherently sinful or blessed. Rather, it emphasizes that both are neutral, and it is how one uses their resources that matters (Matthew 25:14-30). Responsibility to the poor: The Bible consistently calls believers to care for the poor and vulnerable (Deuteronomy 15:7-11, Psalm 41:1-3, James 1:27). This is seen as a demonstration of faith and obedience to God’s commands. Warning against wealth’s dangers: The Bible warns against the dangers of wealth, such as arrogance (1 Timothy 6:17) and a lack of spiritual focus (Matthew 19:23-24). Jesus taught that it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God due to their attachment to material possessions (Mark 10:23-25). God’s provision: The Bible affirms that God provides for both the rich and the poor (Psalm 104:28, Matthew 6:25-34). It encourages believers to trust in God’s provision, rather than relying solely on their wealth or poverty. Key Verses 1 Samuel 2:7 - “The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts.” Proverbs 22:2 - “The rich and the poor meet together: Jehovah is the maker of them all.” James 2:2-5 - “My Christian brothers, our Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of shining-greatness. Since your trust is in Him, do not look on one person as more important than another. What if a man comes into your church wearing a gold ring and good clothes? And at the same time a poor man comes wearing old clothes…” Scriptural Perspectives on Poverty and Prosperity The Bible presents a nuanced view of poverty and wealth, highlighting both their positive and negative aspects. Poverty God is concerned with the poor and needy (Psalm 72:12-13, Proverbs 31:8-9) Poverty can be a result of God’s humbling or testing (1 Samuel 2:7, Job 5:7) The poor can be rich in faith and spiritual wealth (Matthew 5:3, Luke 12:15) Examples of poor individuals who trusted and served God include Job, David, and the widow who offered her last meal to Elijah (Job 1:1, 1 Samuel 20:42, 1 Kings 17:8-16) Wealth Wealth can be a blessing from God, indicating His pleasure and favor (Deuteronomy 28:1-8, Genesis 13:2, 1 Kings 10:23) However, wealth can also lead to pride, greed, and spiritual decay (Proverbs 30:8-9, Luke 12:15) The Bible warns against the dangers of wealth and materialism, encouraging believers to use their resources wisely and generously (Matthew 6:19-20, Luke 12:15, 1 Timothy 6:17-19) Key Principles God is the one who gives and takes away wealth (Job 1:21, 1 Samuel 2:7) Wealth is not an indicator of one’s standing with God (Psalm 73, Jeremiah 12:1) True riches come from a right relationship with God, not from material possessions (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:15) In conclusion, the Bible presents a balanced view of poverty and wealth, emphasizing the importance of faith, generosity, and a right relationship with God, regardless of one’s economic circumstances. Conclusion The Bible presents a balanced view of poverty and wealth, emphasizing God’s sovereignty, equality, and provision for all people. While wealth can be a blessing, it also carries risks, and believers are called to use their resources responsibly and to care for the poor and vulnerable. Ultimately, our trust and focus should be on God, rather than our material circumstances.

Why are Christian's very reactionary in the US? And so anti far left? Why is christianity in the US very different christianity brand than other countries is that because of the strong baptist and born again in the US? In the US Christian’s don’t really seem to view millionaires and billionaires being sin. They say if you rich you have God blessing and if you poor you have to turn to God and God will help you. The Christian’s in the US are against raising taxes for the rich and against state run universal healthcare, they believe God created rich people and poor people and it just part of society. They say people can volunteer and donate money to help the poor and homeless to do Gods work for needy but the government should stay out of it. They also say homeless people and poor people are lazy and don’t want to work and turn away from God and the government should not help them. How did the US Christian’s become so reactionary like this? So far right in the US.

I think it was pointed out text from Bible showing being rich is not sin and other text saying Jesus saying being rich person harder to get to haven so points to many conflicting text. That why one member said Which is why you can’t use the Bible as a reliable reference. It’s an anthology where different authors give conflicting instructions. So I’m sure what else is there to discuss in this thread now.

Yes but how did the Conservative Party get so removed from the Christianity? Okay so this is the strange and odd part the Conservative Party is extremely rooted with Christianity. Lots of the Conservatives in the Deep South and Midwest are very very religious. Lots of congressman and senators are evangels in the Deep South and Midwest. But how did Conservative Party get so removed from the Christianity? And yet in the US, the policies of the far left and I say the far left because the liberals in the US are centrist right compared to Europe and Canada are arguably align better with Christianity. Helping the weak, feeding the hungry, helping the poor and homeless healing the sick and universal healthcare and dealing evils of capitalism. So what happen to the Conservative Party? How did it get like this so removed from these things? But branded has Christianity party. That the christians vote for and love.

That is odd because when I read link above I can see the URL going to other website but when I click on it well it takes me back here. I thought you wanted me to find Bible verses on wealth? Has that is what we are talking about money and wealth?

Here is a discussion with Jesus about wealth and money. Again the text is very muddy and not clear but seems Jesus was more concern about greed than rich people. If you where rich but not greedy with money and had faith with God was okay in God eye. The Bible and Jesus is not clear giving both liberal and conservative views. Looking at the christians forums they don’t seem to be concern about being rich. When question is ask is it sin to be rich. As you can see the discussion with Jesus was very muddy and not clear. Riches have nothing directly to do with entrance into the kingdom of heaven, but the love of wealth does. [/B]The spiritual loyalties of the kingdom are incompatible with servility to materialistic mammon. Man may not share his supreme loyalty to a spiritual ideal with a material devotion. 163:2.11 (1803.2)Jesus never taught that it was wrong to have wealth. He required only the twelve and the seventy to dedicate all of their worldly possessions to the common cause. Even then, he provided for the profitable liquidation of their property, as in the case of the Apostle Matthew. Jesus many times advised his well-to-do disciples as he taught the rich man of Rome. The Master regarded the wise investment of excess earnings as a legitimate form of insurance against future and unavoidable adversity. https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-163-ordination-seventy-magadan 5. Counseling the Rich Man 132:5.1 (1462.2)A certain rich man, a Roman citizen and a Stoic, became greatly interested in Jesus’ teaching, having been introduced by Angamon. After many intimate conferences this wealthy citizen asked Jesus what he would do with wealth if he had it, and Jesus answered him: “I would bestow material wealth for the enhancement of material life, even as I would minister knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual service for the enrichment of the intellectual life, the ennoblement of the social life, and the advancement of the spiritual life. I would administer material wealth as a wise and effective trustee of the resources of one generation for the benefit and ennoblement of the next and succeeding generations.” 132:5.2 (1462.3)But the rich man was not fully satisfied with Jesus’ answer. He made bold to ask again: “But what do you think a man in my position should do with his wealth? Should I keep it, or should I give it away?” And when Jesus perceived that he really desired to know more of the truth about his loyalty to God and his duty to men, he further answered: “My good friend, I discern that you are a sincere seeker after wisdom and an honest lover of truth; therefore am I minded to lay before you my view of the solution of your problems having to do with the responsibilities of wealth. I do this because you have asked for my counsel, and in giving you this advice, I am not concerned with the wealth of any other rich man; I am offering advice only to you and for your personal guidance. If you honestly desire to regard your wealth as a trust, if you really wish to become a wise and efficient steward of your accumulated wealth, then would I counsel you to make the following analysis of the sources of your riches: Ask yourself, and do your best to find the honest answer, whence came this wealth? And as a help in the study of the sources of your great fortune, I would suggest that you bear in mind the following ten different methods of amassing material wealth:"Read On" https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-132-sojourn-rome https://truthbook.com/jesus/matadormus-the-rich-young-man/ Looking at the text it seem God was more concern that people help the poor and needy than rich people. Has God is okay that some people are really rich and wealthy. But wants people to turn to God and help the poor and needy. This probably why the Church stands on millionaires and billionaires in the world is not sinful.

But I see people discussing this all the time on political forums where some people say they are left and others say they are more right. On some political forums they say the church is very conservative well some far left people on far left forums say some priests where very left but the church was very far right. I think you looking way and I say way too much into Bible what it is saying and not what the church is teaching. I read on other forums the Old Testament is very far right. But the new testament lighter and more left. I understand the church studies the Bible taking both conflicting views and come up with their own view what to teach. Also does not say why lot of christians in the US are very far right. And lot of republicans party in the Deep South and Midwest are very religions but are very far right on economics. I hear this all the time from republicans a conservative in the US that poor people and homeless people are too lazy to work and get job and should not get any money. And yet lot of christians are conservative and vote that way.

So member posted text here saying money and wealth is not sin and other member was showing me text saying rich person harder to get in haven. I said this does not make sense one part is conservative and other part is liberal the reply was. Which is why you can’t use the Bible as a reliable reference. It’s an anthology where different authors give conflicting instructions. Okay I get it the Bible is confusing and not scientific because it is confusing one text conservative and other text liberal. So the Bible could be both conservative and liberal it up to reader to pick part that for their political views. That the problem with the Bible. Sorry I was trying to find the position of God, Jesus, Bible and church from political science point of view. Has lot of people in the far left people who are not christians view slavery, monarchy, rulers, homeless, poor, poverty, rich, millionaires, billionaires, class hierarchy, money and wealth as evil and sinful. And if they subscribe to God a non christians God that hates those things. But seems the church and christians are more conservative and that why I was trying find from political science point of view the political stand on this. Yes I understand some priest and popes were left and others far right. But from reading it seems the church is not really concern about this and more conservative. Witch means God and Jesus is more conservative as that what the church is teaching.

There is reason iPad or nintendo is not in the Bible because that did not exist at the time. What I’m trying find out why the word million or billion is not in Bible because. 1 at the time no one had that amount of money? 2 very little people had that amount of money so they did not use that word in the Bible? 3 Inflation is very high today so at time some one having 1,000 would be million today and some one having 50,000 would be billion today.

So in the Bible there is no reference to the amount of money all they say in the Bible is wealth and money? With a sorta of fuzzy construct how to read the Bible and make sense of it. But this bring up a big question may be at that time there was not many millionaires and billionaires on earth like today and that why the Bible does mot have the word millionaires or billionaires?