My Problem with Christianism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Nice try, but God is the foundation of the christian faith. Maybe not a direct reference to a specific faith, but one could hardly consider any of those documents secular.

Many of the signers of the Constitution are believed to have been Masons. Masonry requires belief in a higher power. It does not require the participant to be Christian. [/quote]

You saw the movie too? Read what I wrote. I said based on christian principles.

Nice to see you back. Here’s to some good fights in the future.

22

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, as someone who mostly believes that there is a God, and who still semi-accepts the Catholic framework for said God, I don’t like that being a lefty means that I have to renounce either my religion or my political philosophies in order to be considered a good person, or to win the vote of other good people.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you on this.

I don’t like the idea that I am labeld a right wing jesus freak if I am against gey marraige, or abortion.

Same coin - two sides.

[quote]It was truly a smooth move by the neo-cons to assimilate religion and piety into the message of the Republican party, although lately we have discovered that all men are fallible, even those we trust.

This needs to change.[/quote]

I think that the left running from relgion has as much to do with this as the right co-opting it.

My frame of reference is probably different than yours on this because of where I live, but I can remember the day when no God-fearing christian would dare vote for a republican. And with the south exploding like it is, this same attitude will continue. It will undoubtedly flip back the other way in a few years, or decades - but it will happen.

Same coin different side.

23

I don’t understand how the left is “running from religion”.

EVERY MAJOR DEMOCRATIC candidate that has run for ANYTHING as of late with the exception of a couple Jews (very few, however) has been a Christian.

It’s not like our senators are all gay aethiests, and as a liberal, and a very spiritual person, I resent the insinuation.

Believing in freedom doesn’t negate faith in God. In fact, I think they go hand in hand.

24

[quote]vroom wrote:
Jesus was a liberal.

He was railing against the conservative power structure of his time…

He taught kumba-ya peace and love for all mankind.
[/quote]

Really? Ya think so, eh? Let’s hear Jesus speak for Himself rather than allow such an ignorant and presumptuous one as Vroom to speak slanderously for Him:

Mat 10:34-37 Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to divide a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law. Ones hostile to the man shall be those of his own house. The one loving father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And the one loving son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

25

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I don’t understand how the left is “running from religion”.

EVERY MAJOR DEMOCRATIC candidate that has run for ANYTHING as of late with the exception of a couple Jews (very few, however) has been a Christian.

It’s not like our senators are all gay aethiests, and as a liberal, and a very spiritual person, I resent the insinuation.

Believing in freedom doesn’t negate faith in God. In fact, I think they go hand in hand.[/quote]

Just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it has not happened. The right has capitalized on the fact that millions and millions of dems have been abandoned by their party.

It doesn’t really matter what religion a candidate says the espouse. The proof is in their actions and, like it or not, the actions of the left are decidedly anti-christian.

I don’t know how old you are, but you do not act old enough to understand that the denocrats used to be the “party of christ”. I doubt that term was ever really used, but there are still the old yellow dogs around here that swear that anyone voting republican will burn in the fires of hell.

26

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
vroom wrote:
Really? Ya think so, eh? Let’s hear Jesus speak for Himself rather than allow such an ignorant and presumptuous one as Vroom to speak slanderously for Him:

[/quote]
The irony is that you are quoting people quoting him while saying we should let him speak for himself…I found this amusing.

Jesus was a liberal, indeed. By the definition of the word liberal:

LIBERAL–1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
LIBERAL–1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."[/quote]

The the current climate of the left does not meet the definition of liberal.

Bigotry is rampant on the left. They haven’t been free of dogma in 25 years. And since when has the left supported any type of reform? Just saying the word does not make it true.

The left are whores to the dollar and the special interest groups every bit as much as the evil right. They just take their money from different SIG’s.

Same coin - different side.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I think you are being a tad myopic. This country was founded on christian principles. Ever read the Constitution? How about the Declaration of Independence? Maybe George Washinton’s inaugural address?
[/quote]

Jefferson, main author of the Declaration of independence was a Deist.

As for the Constitution, Madison wrote (Federalist paper 10): “We well know, that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals and lose their efficiency in proportion to the number combined together.” This is an emphatic rejection of state-building on a religious basis.

Granted, Washington was a conventional Episcopalian.

TQB

29

[quote]TQB wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I think you are being a tad myopic. This country was founded on christian principles. Ever read the Constitution? How about the Declaration of Independence? Maybe George Washinton’s inaugural address?

Jefferson, main author of the Declaration of independence was a Deist.

As for the Constitution, Madison wrote (Federalist paper 10): “We well know, that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals and lose their efficiency in proportion to the number combined together.” This is an emphatic rejection of state-building on a religious basis.

Granted, Washington was a conventional Episcopalian.

TQB[/quote]

I said based on christian principles. Not based on religious doctrine. There is a difference. That does not mean that the U.S. was formed as a religous country. We were not set up as a theocracy. But the foundation of this country was built on the principles espoused by the christion faith. Of that there is no denying.

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The irony is that you are quoting people quoting him while saying we should let him speak for himself…I found this amusing.[/quote]

I am quoting you above. Am I slanderously speaking for you in this quote above; or am I letting you speak for yourself?

So, the person who quotes me quoting you is not letting you speak for yourself?

Is the person who quotes me quoting you speaking slanderously for you?

Is the person who quotes me quoting you not allowing you to speak for yourself? Aren’t you speaking for yourself in the above quote?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Jesus was a liberal, indeed. By the definition of the word liberal:

LIBERAL–[i]1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.[/quote]

Jesus certainly was not limited by the “traditions of men” for He vehemently rejected them. In fact, Jesus called those who held to such traditions as “sons of hell.”

As far as orthodox views are concerned, Christ Himself sets the standard of what is and what is not orthodox:

“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

In John 14:6, Jesus Christ certainly exhibits an “authoritarian attitude”, view and/or dogma. And since Jesus Christ is Truth, He is necessarily intolerant of all falsehood. And thus the only true bigots are those who are intolerant of His intolerant and exclusive claims.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."[/i][/quote]

Jesus Christ was certainly NOT “open” to new ideas. He was certainly NOT “tolerant” of the ideas and behavior of others (see the many Bible verses I provided in my previous post).
“Broad-minded”? Read John 14:6 again and other passages like unto this:

“Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Sounds real tolerant and broad-minded, eh?

Sure sounds like Jesus would be open to new ideas in order to progress FROM such stifling strictness TO a more inclusive, broad-minded, kinder, and gentler theology, eh?

31

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
LIBERAL–1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

The the current climate of the left does not meet the definition of liberal.

Bigotry is rampant on the left. They haven’t been free of dogma in 25 years. And since when has the left supported any type of reform? Just saying the word does not make it true.

The left are whores to the dollar and the special interest groups every bit as much as the evil right. They just take their money from different SIG’s.

Same coin - different side.
[/quote]
The original post I was referencing was stated by Vroom: “Jesus is a liberal”. It did not make note of political party. And besides that, who ever first called democrats liberals was probably a moron.

This was not to be taken in the political sense but on the social sense. If you don’t think Jesus preached liberal leaning values then you are a very inattentive Christian.

32

[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Jesus Christ was certainly NOT “open” to new ideas. He was certainly NOT “tolerant” of the ideas and behavior of others (see the many Bible verses I provided in my previous post).
“Broad-minded”? Read John 14:6 again and other passages like unto this:

“Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Sounds real tolerant and broad-minded, eh?
[/quote]
WTF?!

These are people who are just making shit up. They never ‘knew’ Jesus. No one who wrote anything in the bible did. It is all slander and libel nonsense.

33

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I said based on christian principles. Not based on religious doctrine. There is a difference. That does not mean that the U.S. was formed as a religous country. We were not set up as a theocracy. But the foundation of this country was built on the principles espoused by the christion faith. Of that there is no denying.
[/quote]
Yes and no. Most of the Federalists where inspired by Locke, Hume and Voltaire the philosophy of rationalism. These were mostly traditional Christians but the philosophy they espoused was that of reason and enlightenment. If you really want to read some democratic philosophy that predates the US Constitution I would suggest these authors.

34

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
These are people who are just making shit up. They never ‘knew’ Jesus. No one who wrote anything in the bible did. It is all slander and libel nonsense.[/quote]

Then how do you know Jesus was liberal then? I mean if it’s all slander and libel nonsense as you say - you have no basis from which to say anything. You would be just repeating the libel nonsense, right?

Isn’t slander verbal, and libel written? How could the bible be both? It would only be libel, right?

35

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes and no. Most of the Federalists where inspired by Locke, Hume and Voltaire the philosophy of rationalism. These were mostly traditional Christians but the philosophy they espoused was that of reason and enlightenment. If you really want to read some democratic philosophy that predates the US Constitution I would suggest these authors.
[/quote]

So are then saying that christianity is a religion that espouses reason and enlightenment?

I am confused. Enlighten me.

36

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The the current climate of the left does not meet the definition of liberal.

Bigotry is rampant on the left. They haven’t been free of dogma in 25 years. And since when has the left supported any type of reform? Just saying the word does not make it true.

The left are whores to the dollar and the special interest groups every bit as much as the evil right. They just take their money from different SIG’s.

Same coin - different side.
[/quote]

Rainjack, you can do better than this. You are confusing the term liberal and democrat. They are not synonymous and you certainly know that.

Just as conservative and republican are not synonymous either.

Anyway, if Jesus didn’t wear sandals and preach love towards your fellow man, he went barefoot.

Damned straight he was a liberal, whether or not Kumba-Ya was even a song yet. Quit picking on the silliest of points and actually make one.

It’s time to strip off the attempts at cloaking the republican movement with Christianity in an exclusive manner. It’s laughable. Sure, the conservatives may hold more ideals close, but there is no denying Jesus was a liberal.

It’s time to divide the religious zealots and hence remove their strength and influence from politics… so that more moderate influences can prevail. Yes, there are loony leftists too, but nobody really pays attention to them anyway, except to throw labels at non-loony lefties.

37

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes and no. Most of the Federalists where inspired by Locke, Hume and Voltaire the philosophy of rationalism. These were mostly traditional Christians but the philosophy they espoused was that of reason and enlightenment. If you really want to read some democratic philosophy that predates the US Constitution I would suggest these authors.

So are then saying that christianity is a religion that espouses reason and enlightenment?

I am confused. Enlighten me.

[/quote]

I think that one step got missed here. Although LM will no doubt give his views, the issue here was whether the US constitution and declaration of independence were inspired by specifically Christian morals. I and LM pointed out that the main authors were either deists (Jefferson) or very wary of any link between religion and the new state (Madison).

LM then indicated a number of authors/philosophers that definitely did inspire those documents, but not on the basis of their religious beliefs. These early 18th Century philosophers were acutely aware of the damage that religious claims of exclusive truth could do. From the Wars of Religion in France starting 1560, through the Thirty-years war to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, Religion was used in Europe to murder steal and maim.

That created a certain coolness to excessive piety that also transplanted to the US. It is quite likely that the drafters of the constitution were concerned by The revival of personal pity happened during The Great Awakening in the middle of the 18th Century and wanted to limit religious influence on the state.

38

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, you can do better than this. You are confusing the term liberal and democrat. They are not synonymous and you certainly know that.

Just as conservative and republican are not synonymous either.

Anyway, if Jesus didn’t wear sandals and preach love towards your fellow man, he went barefoot.

Damned straight he was a liberal, whether or not Kumba-Ya was even a song yet. Quit picking on the silliest of points and actually make one.[/quote]

Read what I wrote. I never said Jesus wasn’t liberal. Find where I said it, and I’ll gladly apologize. what i did say was that the left is not liberal. It is a word attached to them. They are as closed minded and bigoted as anyone else.

You attached modern liberal stereo-types to him. Not me. If anyone shouled try harder here - I think it would be you.

There you go again, slaying another windmill. I never said jesus was not liberal. I said the left, dems, the current group of folk that wear the liberal label - those are no where near what a liberal is, ideologically speaking.

If we are going to do what you want done to the right, it should also be done to the left. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Youjust need to think about what i am saying before you launch into your brainiac mode.

Who will be the arbitor of what a zealot is? Or what a “moderate influence” is? Wait…we already have one…it’s called the ballot box.

Get off your little soap box, and use your head for something besides a hat rack.

39

[quote]TQB wrote:
I think that one step got missed here. Although LM will no doubt give his views, the issue here was whether the US constitution and declaration of independence were inspired by specifically Christian morals. I and LM pointed out that the main authors were either deists (Jefferson) or very wary of any link between religion and the new state (Madison). [/quote]

Show me where I ever said “specifically”. You can’t because I never said that. I said “based on christian principles”.

I don’t disagree. but you are mistaking what I really said with saying that our founding fathers wanted a theocracy. Under your mistaken assumption you would be correct, but it would seem to me that you have created a strawman argument out of your misunderstanding.

40

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The left are whores to the dollar and the special interest groups every bit as much as the evil right. They just take their money from different SIG’s.

Same coin - different side.
[/quote]

Exactly. Now you just need to find a way of explaining why any reasonable person should support either side.

Vroom is right, however, in pointing out that ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat’ are not exactly interchangeable.