Post Reply
Page 66 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66
Switch to Forum Live View Was America Always a Christian Nation?
4 days ago  ::  May 26, 2015 - 2:41PM #651
Roymond
Posts: 2,627

May 26, 2015 -- 12:04AM, El Cid wrote:


May 17, 2015 -- 1:16AM, Roymond wrote:


RE: "Laws of Nature's God":


You're not actually even reading the posts here, are you?  If you had, you'd note that Jefferson, if he meant anything in the Bible at all, meant the moral teachings of Jesus -- not the Old Testament, not the Ten Commandments, not anything that could be written into laws for a nation.


You have a delusion here that you're forcing everything into.  You're showing yourself another example of why so many people despise "evangelicals" these days:  deliberate ignorance and legalism.




No, you have to remember his audience, most of the signers/founders were Christians if not in fact at least in worldview as well as the entire country, so they would have plainly understood him to mean God's Law as revealed in the Bible. While Jefferson repudiated everything supernatural in the bible, he never repudiated the Ten Commandments. Also, as a jew, many of Christ's moral teachings are just expansions of the Ten commandments.




So from that set of moral teachings of Christ, where does coercion come in?  Where, please, does our Savior command the use of force to "teach all things"?


You pretend to uphold the Gospel, but at every turn you want to smuggle coercion in.  There is no love in coercion, thus nothing of the Gospel.  As most Calvinists, even when you read, "It is for freedom that Christ set us free!", you want to turn it into rules and regulations, condemnation and guilt -- forgetting that the blessed apostle went on, "Submit not, therefore, to any yoke of bondage", a bondage he described as consisting of rules.


Better to live in sheer anarchy, where the Gospel could be preached purely, than in a coercion-distorted stew of hypocrisy and false righteousness that distorts the Gospel into a diseased mockery stripped of all power.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 days ago  ::  May 26, 2015 - 10:54PM #652
El Cid
Posts: 2,121

May 17, 2015 -- 9:03AM, amcolph wrote:


ec: It is true that the Golden rule did pre-exist Christianity...


amc: El Cid, I am astonished that you, of all people, would make such an admission.  Are you sure you don't want to retract it?



Why? I have mentioned several times on the other thread that humans are created in the image of the Christian God, so many moralities of the past had some principles derived from the remnant of their moral conscience placed in them by God.


ec:...but the founders understood that its ultimate foundation was the Biblical God, and only if it originated from Him did it have a rational and objective foundation.


ec: Did they?  How do you know that?



Most of them were educated men who had been taught the basics of philosophy.


amc:"The God of the Bible" is a fairly late Fundamentalist invention.  Most Christians then (as well as most now) didn't believe in that God.




Evidence that most Christians then did not believe in the God of the Bible? You are correct about most Christians today.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 days ago  ::  May 27, 2015 - 9:18AM #653
amcolph
Posts: 19,375

May 26, 2015 -- 10:54PM, El Cid wrote:



amc: "The God of the Bible" is a fairly late Fundamentalist invention.  Most Christians then (as well as most now) didn't believe in that God.



ec: Evidence that most Christians then did not believe in the God of the Bible? You are correct about most Christians today.




"The God of the Bible" is a phrase used primarily by Protestant Fundamentalists to describe the god of a theology derived from their peculiar interpretation of scripture.


No one believed in "The God of the Bible" prior to the emergence of Fundamentalism in the 19th century.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 days ago  ::  May 27, 2015 - 1:38PM #654
TPaine
Posts: 9,673

May 26, 2015 -- 2:31PM, Roymond wrote:


May 25, 2015 -- 10:01PM, El Cid wrote:


Reaganomics worked pretty well in the 80's and 90's which are a couple of the most prosperous decades in American History. If Greece had not employed austerity, there would have been a total collapse. No, Detroit's problem is education, they would have been able to educate the children to move to other information type jobs, but the school system is totally stuck in the failed education policies of the past and the policy of just throwing money at a problem and not trying anything innovative. Those children grow up and cannot qualify for any of the 21st century jobs and then are given money by the government so they don't try to better themselves and go back to school and cause all kinds of problems. Also, most of these children are raised without fathers because of the cheapening of the instiution of marriage by liberal influences of the media and the schools. And studies have shown that children raised without fathers are much more likely to engage in criminal activities.



1.  Reagonomics appeared to wrok because it was implemented in a unique set of historico-economic circumstances which are far from universal.  Applying it to other sets of circumstances, such as what we have today, will be disatrous.


1a.  The application of austerity to Greece made the collapse worse.  The foundation of any economy is the great portion of the population spending money to make the gears move.  When a large section of that population is deprived of money to spend, it sets of a vicious cycle downward.


2.  But in reality, what Reagonomics accomplished overall was the greatest movement of wealth from the hands of many into the hands of a very few that has ever taken place ion history without the blatant application of force.  From a libertarian perspective, Reagonomics was state-authorized coercion to make the rich richer and the super-rich even moreso.


2a.  Detroit is not alone in having education problems, but those problems were in great part inspired by Reagan's love of dumping people out on their own rather than helping -- famously in his moves to throw the mentally ill out on the streets, where the statist love of police force as a "solution" to things turned jails into mental health care institutions, which is bad not justfor the mentally ill but for ourunderstanding of compassion and justice.


2b.  The statist urge to throw people in jail rather than help them is more responsible for people ending up dependent on government than any lack of education.  The current GOP thrill at taking away even basic support is just making things worse.


America has never been a Christian nation.  It never will be, in reality, until the wealthy heed the words of Jesus to give all to the poor, then follow Him.  But today's "evangelicalism" induges in the error of Job, exalting wealth, and embraces the error of Jesus' time that blamed the weakness of the weak on the weak and extended no hand to help.  The GOP worships not God, but Mammon, and delights in hedonism, not the Gospel.



Congratulations on an excellent post, Roymond! It's a shame it will be wasted on el cid.

"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University (October 12, 1985)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  May 27, 2015 - 11:38PM #655
El Cid
Posts: 2,121

May 18, 2015 -- 8:36AM, amcolph wrote:


May 17, 2015 -- 10:51PM, Roymond wrote:


May 17, 2015 -- 9:03AM, amcolph wrote:


"The God of the Bible" is a fairly late Fundamentalist invention.  Most Christians then (as well as most now) didn't believe in that God.




Not sure what you mean by that -- could you expand?




"The God of the Bible" is insider fundy code for the god revealed by scripture taken as the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.


I'm talking about the god who lives in a magic book and can't do anything that isn't written there; the god seen through the hypertrophied version of Sola Scriptura practiced by his followers, who reject any knowlege of God and His Son not derived solely from the Bible, who reject any Bible scholarship which considers archaeological and literary materials other than the Bible, who reject the Creed (some going so far as to denounce it as "error-ridden and satanic.") and despise any thought at all of Apostolic Tradition.


You know the god I mean:  He's a Republican, pro-war and pro-death penalty, intensly concerned about the sex lives of his followers, but entirely indifferent to the cruelties of social Darwinism.




Thisi s a straw man. I know very few conservative Christians that believe in the teachings you refer to above.  Maybe a few rural redneck fundies. But most educated middle class evangelicals reject almost everything you mention above.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  May 27, 2015 - 11:44PM #656
Roymond
Posts: 2,627

May 27, 2015 -- 11:38PM, El Cid wrote:


May 18, 2015 -- 8:36AM, amcolph wrote:


May 17, 2015 -- 10:51PM, Roymond wrote:


May 17, 2015 -- 9:03AM, amcolph wrote:


"The God of the Bible" is a fairly late Fundamentalist invention.  Most Christians then (as well as most now) didn't believe in that God.




Not sure what you mean by that -- could you expand?




"The God of the Bible" is insider fundy code for the god revealed by scripture taken as the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.


I'm talking about the god who lives in a magic book and can't do anything that isn't written there; the god seen through the hypertrophied version of Sola Scriptura practiced by his followers, who reject any knowlege of God and His Son not derived solely from the Bible, who reject any Bible scholarship which considers archaeological and literary materials other than the Bible, who reject the Creed (some going so far as to denounce it as "error-ridden and satanic.") and despise any thought at all of Apostolic Tradition.


You know the god I mean:  He's a Republican, pro-war and pro-death penalty, intensly concerned about the sex lives of his followers, but entirely indifferent to the cruelties of social Darwinism.




Thisi s a straw man. I know very few conservative Christians that believe in the teachings you refer to above.  Maybe a few rural redneck fundies. But most educated middle class evangelicals reject almost everything you mention above.




When I was at OSU in the late eighties and early nineties, I dropped in on a weekly meeting packed with the children of "educated middle class evangelicals" who fit the above description quite well.  They spouted rules and exuded condemnation, and were one of the great forces at the university for driving people away from hearing the Gospel.


It was called "Campus Crusade for Christ".

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  May 27, 2015 - 11:45PM #657
El Cid
Posts: 2,121

May 19, 2015 -- 9:27AM, amcolph wrote:


May 19, 2015 -- 1:11AM, El Cid wrote:




Yes, I know many are against the death penalty and some but hardly all are economic liberals, but I don't think I have ever met a Catholic that was pacifist. Evidence that most Catholics are pacifists?




Careful, your sophistry is showing.  I didn't say that Catholics were pacifists in the strict sense.  They opposed the war in Iraq and they oppose the war with Iran that the neoCons who brown your nose are pining for.




Your exact words were "opposed to war" with no qualfications, that means any war defensive or not. To me that sounds like a pacifist.   I don't know about the neocons, but most conservative Chrsitians desire war only when absolutley necessary. And I know no one that wants to go to war with Iran.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 66 of 66  •  Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook