My Problem with Christianism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
My feeling is that faith and spiritual beliefs are pure, uncorrupted entities and the political arena is an impure, corrupt entity. You cannot mix the two and expect the result to be a pure, uncorrupt entity. It will be a foul thing. Combining any secular political party with Christianity will breed an evil hybrid that will use Christianity as justification for atrocities.

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?

But I do think that you have a very valid point - just look at the middle-east for proof.
[/quote]

I’m being a tad myopic? Rainjack, I believe that you are being a tad shortsighted in your own assessment. You can see how this works in the middle-east, but you can’t see how this has worked in Christian circles? Maybe I should have made it simple and said that combining religion with politics will result in a bad thing. I think that by my use of the phrase “secular political party” caused you to limit what you perceived as my point.

The Vatican was the seat of political power for many, many years. This is why half of South America speaks Spanish and the other half Portugese, because the Pope divided that country in half and gave it to its two Catholic countries, Spain and Portugal. The last time I checked, Catholics were considered Christian. Several kings in England tied the Christian church into its own doctrines to legitimize their power. The Crusades was a combination political/religious move of the King to solidify power. The Inquisition was another one. The very documents that you referred to were written by people that used religion to justify the owning of other humans as their right. Manifest Destiny was another political move that used religion to justify the expansion efforts into the west and the wholesale genocide of the Natives as their God-given right.

My statement was not myopic, it was and is an accurate assessment of the power that both religion and politics holds and how the combination can be dangerous.

62

Al, I agree with you that Church and State do not mix and should not be mixed. When it is historically the results are always bad.

However, I have to correct you on a few issues.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
The Vatican was the seat of political power for many, many years. This is why half of South America speaks Spanish and the other half Portugese, because the Pope divided that country in half and gave it to its two Catholic countries, Spain and Portugal.
[/quote]

Not sure what you are smoking bro, but Spain and Portugal are NOT in South America. Also, it is not half that speak Portuguese and half Spanish. All Latin based countries speak Spanish except for Portugal and Brazil which speak Portuguese.

63

[quote]Not sure what you are smoking bro, but Spain and Portugal are NOT in South America. Also, it is not half that speak Portuguese and half Spanish. All Latin based countries speak Spanish except for Portugal and Brazil which speak Portuguese.
[/quote]

He didn’t say Spain and Portugal were in South America. He said South America was divided and given to Spain and Portugal.

You are supporting his point actually, by pointing out the languages spoken.

64

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I’m being a tad myopic? Rainjack, I believe that you are being a tad shortsighted in your own assessment. You can see how this works in the middle-east, but you can’t see how this has worked in Christian circles? Maybe I should have made it simple and said that combining religion with politics will result in a bad thing. I think that by my use of the phrase “secular political party” caused you to limit what you perceived as my point.
[/quote]

I don’t think you can separate religion and politics. People will generally vote based on their convictions. Religion plays a huge part in that. separating it would be impossible.

If you meant that governance and religion should not mix, I agree 100%.

We do not live in a theocracy. It was a decided decision to make that as difficult as possible - if not downright illegal.

The middle east has yet to figure out that it is not a good idea to govern from the mosque. We have. there’s a big difference.

It might make you uncomfortable to see that the ‘religous right’ has as much power as it does, but don’t mistake that for a theocracy.

65

Which one of those guys was the one in the movie with Nicholas Cage?

66

[quote]vroom wrote:
Not sure what you are smoking bro, but Spain and Portugal are NOT in South America. Also, it is not half that speak Portuguese and half Spanish. All Latin based countries speak Spanish except for Portugal and Brazil which speak Portuguese.

He didn’t say Spain and Portugal were in South America. He said South America was divided and given to Spain and Portugal.

You are supporting his point actually, by pointing out the languages spoken.[/quote]

Good, because I agree with his point. It’s just incorrect that half speak Portuguese.

67

[quote]deanec wrote:

Which one of those guys was the one in the movie with Nicholas Cage?[/quote]

Randall Tex Cobb

(Edit your post so you don’t quote 300 lines)

68

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
It’s just incorrect that half speak Portuguese.
[/quote]

You’re right, most speak Portuguese.

“Portuguese and Spanish are the primary languages of the continent. The majority of South Americans (51%) speak Portuguese. However, most South American countries are Spanish-speaking, and nearly all of the continent’s Lusophones reside in Brazil.”

69

[quote]doogie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

[/quote]

I am not saying that all or even most of the framers were true, born-again Chrisitans. Some were – but most were what I would call “God fearers.” They respected the Bible, Christianity, and most of all they had a strong sense of Divine Providence as the hand that guided the success in the revolution and in the establishment of our form of government.

Just look at the founding documents. Read that we are “endowed by our Creator with these inalienable rights…” The recognition that the One True God has given us the rights that we are asserting, in other words.

We were founded upon Christian principles – irrespective of the fact that the founders may not all have been Christians.

What people wish to do now is to REWRITE HISTORY – cut our Christian heritage out – so as to try to diminish Christianity and thereby diminish God.

Good try – it will never work, because God is in control and His purposes will prevail.

BTW – Irish – until you prove, by your posts, that your IQ is above an 80, I really wouldn’t try to comment on other people’s intelligence. It just makes you look more ridiculous then usual.

70

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
deanec wrote:
TQB wrote:
deanec wrote:
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

And yet:

John Jay, Federalist No. 2:
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people?a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.

President John Adams, October 11, 1798:

?[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.?

President John Adams, October 11, 1798:

?[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.President John Adams, October 11, 1798:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

And yet, President Adams was a Unitarian who would reject the divinity of Christ and who incidentally three months before the quote signed the Sedition Act into law.

Under the Sedition Act, anyone “opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States” could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to “write, print, utter, or publish” anything critical of the president or Congress.

As far as the principles of the Constitution goes, this is probably the worst example of abuse in the history of the US. Still, I have to confess, I like Adams;-)

I am not sure what the Sedition Act, the stupidity of which we are in agreement, has to do with the topic.

Good attempt to dodge though :slight_smile:

Excellent post! You are going to get ripped for it, but you are correct and the quotes you provide are the proof.

We were, in fact, founded upon Christianity – because those who fled England (Puritans) wished to practice their [Christian] religion in freedom. These are FACTS – the founding documents prove the point and that is that.

LOL.

You’ve proved that you know about as much about politics and history as George W. does about running a baseball team.

Smart folks are talking, run along now. [/quote]

You have no problem with Christianity – your problem is with God.

I have news for you though. God has a problem with you, and if you don’t settle the matter, you will find it quite hot some day.

“run along…” – make me.

71

I love watching Steveo make shit up. He’s pulls more crap out of his hat than a magician.

Steveo, every time you open your mouth it is clear you have no ability to process logic in any meaningful way.

Maybe I will go to hell, for finding amusement at your disabilities.

72

[quote]doogie wrote:
Freemasonry had a much larger influence on the formation of our government than Christianity.

…
[/quote]

The above is true.

On the other hand, it seems likely that some of the delegates who voted for acceptance of the Constitution and many of the congressmen and legislators who voted for acceptance of the First Amendment would not have voted in favor had they perceived the Constitution and/or its First Amendment as requiring legalized abortion, legal recognition of homosexual marriage, etc.

I am guessing that even the rank-and-file Freemasons of the 18th century were most likely not in favor of such things.

I believe that government should operate according to Christian principles, but I don’t base it on the idea that the founding documents and origins of the USA are Christian. I believe the wording in the founding documents is ambiguous enough that they could be interpreted to allow laws to be passed with the intent of fostering or upholding Christian morality.

I also consider it likely that a large portion of those delegates, congressmen, and legislators who voted in favor of those documents would not have so voted had they perceived those documents as precluding such laws.

Mr. Doogie is correct insofar as those who argue for the social-conservative agenda based on the “Christian origins” of our government and Constitution are basing their argument on quicksand. While I agree with the social-conservative agenda and I believe it is in accord with the way God wants persons, governments, and societies to fulfill certain duties, I do not agree that the Consitution clearly mandates it as well. The Consitution could reasonably be interpreted as being either neutral, or opposed.

73

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:

Mr. Doogie is correct insofar as those who argue for the social-conservative agenda based on the “Christian origins” of our government and Constitution are basing their argument on quicksand. While I agree with the social-conservative agenda and I believe it is in accord with the way God wants persons, governments, and societies to fulfill certain duties, I do not agree that the Consitution clearly mandates it as well. The Consitution could reasonably be interpreted as being either neutral, or opposed.[/quote]

I said our country was founded on christian principles. I never said wwe had christian origins.

Whether you want to agree or disagree with what I said - I don’t care. But saying I said something I never did, that means something different than I meant - is kinda setting up a straw man.

74

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I said our country was founded on christian principles. I never said wwe had christian origins.

Whether you want to agree or disagree with what I said - I don’t care. But saying I said something I never did, that means something different than I meant - is kinda setting up a straw man.
[/quote]

Rainjack,

What is the difference between Jewish and Christian principles?

Or Christian and Buddhist principles?

75

[quote]doogie wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I said our country was founded on christian principles. I never said wwe had christian origins.

Whether you want to agree or disagree with what I said - I don’t care. But saying I said something I never did, that means something different than I meant - is kinda setting up a straw man.

Rainjack,

What is the difference between Jewish and Christian principles?

Or Christian and Buddhist principles?

[/quote]

That’s a bad question. We were not formed as a theocracy. How hard is that to grasp. The founding documents of this country closely mirror the morality advocated by christianity. Were there any Jews among the founders? I don’t thik so. Were there any Buddhists? No.

You question is that of someone that would rather slit their throat than admit we are a christian nation, founded on christian principles.

I know - most of the delegates were Masonic/Deist types. But they used ideas and verbage that would most definitely appeal to those they represent - and who were they?

Is it really that hard to just admit it and move on?

Honstly - I don’t really see the issue. You guys are getting all upset because of what you think I said.

76

[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I said our country was founded on christian principles. I never said wwe had christian origins.

Whether you want to agree or disagree with what I said - I don’t care. But saying I said something I never did, that means something different than I meant - is kinda setting up a straw man.

Rainjack,

What is the difference between Jewish and Christian principles?

Or Christian and Buddhist principles?

That’s a bad question. We were not formed as a theocracy. How hard is that to grasp. The founding documents of this country closely mirror the morality advocated by christianity. Were there any Jews among the founders? I don’t thik so. Were there any Buddhists? No.

You question is that of someone that would rather slit their throat than admit we are a christian nation, founded on christian principles.

I know - most of the delegates were Masonic/Deist types. But they used ideas and verbage that would most definitely appeal to those they represent - and who were they?

Is it really that hard to just admit it and move on?

Honstly - I don’t really see the issue. You guys are getting all upset because of what you think I said.

[/quote]

It isn’t a bad question. What are Christian principles as opposed to Jewish principles or Buddhist principles? Or do you just not want to admit that it boils down to “decent human” principles.

77

[quote]doogie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I said our country was founded on christian principles. I never said wwe had christian origins.

Whether you want to agree or disagree with what I said - I don’t care. But saying I said something I never did, that means something different than I meant - is kinda setting up a straw man.

Rainjack,

What is the difference between Jewish and Christian principles?

Or Christian and Buddhist principles?

That’s a bad question. We were not formed as a theocracy. How hard is that to grasp. The founding documents of this country closely mirror the morality advocated by christianity. Were there any Jews among the founders? I don’t thik so. Were there any Buddhists? No.

You question is that of someone that would rather slit their throat than admit we are a christian nation, founded on christian principles.

I know - most of the delegates were Masonic/Deist types. But they used ideas and verbage that would most definitely appeal to those they represent - and who were they?

Is it really that hard to just admit it and move on?

Honstly - I don’t really see the issue. You guys are getting all upset because of what you think I said.

It isn’t a bad question. What are Christian principles as opposed to Jewish principles or Buddhist principles? Or do you just not want to admit that it boils down to “decent human” principles.

[/quote]

I think this is what I understood in the last weeks:

To them, being a decent human being means being “Christian”.

To us, being Christian means to swallow the whole mumbo-jumbo part, hook, line and sinker.

Their version of Christianity is what their parents taught them, not what is actually written in the bible.

Being Christian=not being an asshole pretty much is their position.

Why they need a God for that, only God knows…

78

[quote]doogie wrote:
It isn’t a bad question. What are Christian principles as opposed to Jewish principles or Buddhist principles? Or do you just not want to admit that it boils down to “decent human” principles.
[/quote]

Christian and Jewish principles are pretty similar, no?

I never said the principles weren’t decent, or human. I said they were basic christian principles. If you have a problem with that - I really don’t know what to tell you.

I am not avoiding anything. You are just trying to make an argument where there is none.

79

[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
It isn’t a bad question. What are Christian principles as opposed to Jewish principles or Buddhist principles? Or do you just not want to admit that it boils down to “decent human” principles.

Christian and Jewish principles are pretty similar, no?

I never said the principles weren’t decent, or human. I said they were basic christian principles. If you have a problem with that - I really don’t know what to tell you.

I am not avoiding anything. You are just trying to make an argument where there is none. [/quote]

I’m trying to figure out why you would say the country was founded on Christian principles instead of decent human principles.

80

rainjack wrote:

Those that were represented were probably mostly Fundamentalist Protestant Christians or Evangelical Protestant Christians, by today’s standards. The resulting verbiage in the Constitution looks like it is based on Freemasonry, with sufficiently ambiguous wording to allow for Christian-oriented interpretation; and with some Christian-oriented or Judeo-Christian-oriented state and local laws allowed to remain in place (special status for Sunday, assumption that marriage is one man & one woman, etc.).

I think perhaps the overall body of law including the Constitution and various statutes at that time could actually be considered a hybrid of Masonic and Christian principles.

doogie wrote:

It boils down to an ever-shifting synthesis of what an ever-increasing number of people believe are the “more enlightened principles” of all major world religions, combined with the principles of “enlightened philosophers.” I believe the most pervasive organized long-term proponent of that synthesis has been Freemasonry, and therefore that synthesis itself could be considered a “Masonic principle”.