I think you’re right. Simply believing they exist doesn’t seem to change people much. Truth be told, by averages I tend to find “better people” outside of church than in it.
What really makes a difference in your life is having an intimate relationship with Jesus, Yahweh, and Holy Spirit. I don’t really remember how easy these people were to identify from the outside, it was too long ago and nobody really explained the difference back then… but now I honestly can’t comprehend how anyone makes it through this horrible world we’re currently in without that relationship by far all my favourite people in the world have deep relationships with God. It is a very different taste to religion.
In my best of knowledge it is the same word in Greek and thus in the New Testament the word δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη are being used. So, the answer should be “yes”.
Since there is no nuance between “fair” and “just” in the original, this opens a whole new can of worms for those who are adamant about taking the Bible literally, forgetting that what they are reading is usually a translation (of, sometimes, dubious quality).
But that is a bit besides the point here for two reasons: a) I do not think that even with the nuance, the whole chain of logic changes. You could interchange the instances of “fair” with “just” and it would have been the same exact dialogue with the exact same issues presented. b) I’ve never heard anyone postulate that God is “Just, but unfair” or “Fair, but unjust”. Believers and theologists usually go for both of them.
You assume that most people would take a modern holistic view of “society” and have a broader definition of it, but you have to remember that most religions are quite old. At that time what you’d define as “society” would be a few hundred people of your village/clan and their “happiness” might very well be depended on whether they could plunder the next village or not.
Hurting other people might actually be the basis of your whole culture at the time (the Vandals come to mind).
In that regard a religious pretext always goes a long way to convince people to risk their lives to get to the end goal, rather than prevent them. Puffing up your local God to be “all-powerful” is also good, since it makes others think twice before attacking you.
I’d even say that believing or not is a rather moot question. The difference between atheist humanists and Christian humanists seems smaller to me than the theological differences that exists between various Christian denominations.
For example, many Unitarianists believe Jezus was a great prophet, but not actually divine or that he was merely adopted by God as his son for being a great man, and many Christian universalists don’t believe in eternal damnation in hell. Such differences seem rather fundamental to me, and sure enough wars have been fought over differences like this.
We just try to make the best of it, I guess. Whatever that is. Doing our part in making it less horrible for the people around us?
Having that feeling of a relationship (it’s probably more than a feeling for you) sounds soothing. But it’s not for me and I think it would be better if there was no need for it (one can dream, right?).
I can understand that people who are affected by war, famine, disease and crime need religion and/or other forms of spirituality to survive. But I don’t live in a country at war, and don’t lack food or healthcare. I tend to be optimistic, forget bad moments and remember good ones, and always hope for a better future, so that’s more than enough.
I’m curious if and how you decided to join a specific church or denomination.
Did you carefully look for a specific one that was a good fit to your existing in-detail convictions? Or did you just join one that was nearby, and then adopt the in-detail convictions they happened to have? Or are theological details of only minor importance to you?
So Trump has added the 27 countries of the EU to the list of countries he wants to fight a tariffs war with.
"I told the European Union that they must make up their tremendous deficit with the United States by the large scale purchase of our oil and gas,” Trump posted shortly after 1 a.m. on social media. “Otherwise, it is TARIFFS all the way!!!
Trump’s demands on Europe to buy more oil and natural gas were not especially new. He also made them during his initial term as president and in 2018 reached a deal with Jean-Claude Juncker, then-president of the European Commission, to sell more LNG to Europe.
The problem with that agreement, as noted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, is that the U.S. “cannot force companies to send products to a specific region or country” and the EU cannot force its members to buy American fossil fuels.
It seems a trade war between the US and the EU member states is inevitable.
A trade war between the EU and China also seems in the making (and between the US and China as well I guess), so I suppose we’ll see some price increases in the coming years in the US as well as the EU.
If that’s the only result we will be very lucky.
Combined with the overall situation in Gas prices/availability, whole industries might crack under the weight.
Qatar has also joined the list of countries issuing gas-related demands to the EU.
We can hope for that, but it is unfortunately unlikely, if the local produce and their prices are anything to go by.
Especially in cases of foodstuff and things grown in fields, any increase in international prices, usually affects them too, since the cost of fertilisers and fuel and all the things needed to run a professional farming operation, increase as well.
I went to buy some beans (a traditionally considered “food for the poor” here) and it was 4 euros per kilo. The larger kind were 10 euros per kilo. Out of season tomatoes grown in greenhouses and hydroponics were actually almost half-price compared to local in-season products. Insanity!
As far as I understand, Trump wants us to buy more LNG from the US, but that wouldn’t necessarily make energy more expensive for us, unless the EU member states retaliate by raising import tariffs on LNG from the US.
Maybe for goods that are mostly exported. If they get more expensive for people abroad, those tend to by less. This reduction in demand could lead to lower local prices.
I haven’t heard Trump threatening to raise import tariffs for goods from Australia, so perhaps Australia won’t be affected directly [1].
But there may be indirect effects, like China redirecting exports away from the US, toward Europe and Australia. That may lead to our markets getting flooded more with cheap stuff from China. That would lower some prices here, but it may also kill off some of our local industries, unless we also raise import tariffs for imports from China.
The EU has already imposed large import tariffs on cheap EVs from China a few months ago to save European EV production.
From what I can find, Australia does not have much of an EV industry worth protecting, so I suppose you’ll get a massive supply of cheap Chinese EVs in the coming years (because those will be harder to sell in the EU and the US). Perhaps it will be a good time to make your move in Australia during the coming years, if you’d like to own an EV.
[1] The trade volume between the US and Australia is perhaps too small for Trump to consider tariffs for imports from Australia:
by far all my favourite people in the world have deep relationships with God. It is a very different taste to religion.
