Christian Nation?
- Thread starter Crusader
- Start date
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
Me too. However one conceives of Jesus, as a man, a rabbi, a divinity, or whatever, I find much good sense in what he's reported to have said. Have you read Tom Harpur's books, For Christ's Sake, God Help Us, and The Pagan Christ? I recommend them highly. He makes essentially that point, among many others, that Christianity has moved a long way from its origins largely to satisfy the church's secular requirements and the personal ambitions of its leaders; the original message has been lost in the noise.
pastafarian said:
Me too. However one conceives of Jesus, as a man, a rabbi, a divinity, or whatever, I find much good sense in what he's reported to have said. Have you read Tom Harpur's books, For Christ's Sake, God Help Us, and The Pagan Christ? I recommend them highly. He makes essentially that point, among many others, that Christianity has moved a long way from its origins largely to satisfy the church's secular requirements and the personal ambitions of its leaders; the original message has been lost in the noise.
Actually, I have read all of those books and exchanged a couple of e-mails with Mr. Harpur concerning some issues I had with The Pagan Christ, which he graciously cleared up for me. In fact, when you catch me on my soapbox defending Christianity, it is the Christianity that Mr. harpur invites us to consider in that book that I'm thinking of: rational, humane, mature and transcendent.
Crusade, I'm not sure if your vision is somewhat Chrsitian Socialist or what but it sure does sound like it...... I wouldn't mind for borders to disappear, and peace and harmoney to rain on earth. But people will disagree with a celestrial organ of government rather then a seculer. Even during the middle ages the Pope even knew he could not even dream of a day when the Seculer order would fully follow his commends of the celestrial.
For your Utopia to work many millions who do not agree with it would need to disappear.... have you ever thought of that... I dare not ask for the answer as it may be slightly scary, since you view borders as "Satanic lines".
For your Utopia to work many millions who do not agree with it would need to disappear.... have you ever thought of that... I dare not ask for the answer as it may be slightly scary, since you view borders as "Satanic lines".
Starting to believe that Crusader is the other side of Danieltowsky,or at least,as bugcrazy as him.
Obviously, I don't in any detail, but where our opinions differ on the subject of politics and morality, there must be a reflection of a difference in our respective interpretations of the Gospels, since you have made no secret of the fact that you consider yourself a Christian, and I have made it clear that I consider the teachings attributed to Jesus as a reliable foundation for a personal morality.
I mean no disrespect meant here, Jay, I'll be the first to admit it's a matter of interpretation and I would guess that at least twice the number of the world's Chrisitans would be more partial to your take than mine.
The short answer to your question is that I can't imagine a way to reconcile my understanding of the Gospels with support for George Bush's invasion of Iraq, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians or the developers in the Caledonia land dispute. Clearly you can, therefore I respectfully submit that we see very different things in the Gospels.
What an awful thought.
Even the founding fathers of the United States did not believe in Christianity as it is practiced now by the fundamentalists.
Religion has been the downfall of many nations - and Christianity has played its fair share.
Even the founding fathers of the United States did not believe in Christianity as it is practiced now by the fundamentalists.
Religion has been the downfall of many nations - and Christianity has played its fair share.
I'm completely stumped as to how one can separate political values from moral values, and by extension from religious values if one is religious. Every political choice reflects a moral stance either implicitly or explicitly. If a person believes a religion, then either that person follows the moral precepts of the religion, as they understand it, or they substitute another moral position that is in conflict with the teachings of the religion.
Obviously not all Christian, Jews, Muslims etc will interpret the moral code of their sacred texts identically. So when Paul Martin supported sasme-sex marriage legislation, as a practising catholic, he was making a moral choice based on considerations other than the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was still a moral choice, just as the decision to allocate money to tax cuts for middle income earners as opposed to for improving conditions in Native reserves is a moral choice. Even less obviously "moral" decisions such as whether or not to adopt proportional representation or to open trade talks with China have, at their root a weighing of options that can be seen in a "moral" light.
Clearly there's a trend in the sides you take on issues, Jay.
You don't flip a coin, and what's more, I can probably predict your opinion on a random assortment of issues with an accuracy of 90% or better, and I'll bet you could probably do the same for me.
I bet you mix religion with politics all the time, you just don't admit it for fear of losing debates. Otherwise, you must have some completely parallel value system with which to choose sides ...hmmm.
Not Satanism is it? Or worse, Ayn Rand?
You don't flip a coin, and what's more, I can probably predict your opinion on a random assortment of issues with an accuracy of 90% or better, and I'll bet you could probably do the same for me.
I bet you mix religion with politics all the time, you just don't admit it for fear of losing debates. Otherwise, you must have some completely parallel value system with which to choose sides ...hmmm.
Not Satanism is it? Or worse, Ayn Rand?
Generally speaking I don't.
Even abortion, I don't take the side I take because of Jesus.
Freedom, individualism, yes in my world that is religious, but it doesn't enter into the debate because if I'm debating the subjects, I'm usually debating some commi who wouldn't understand anyway.
I don't need to mix religion with politics.
Do Secular Humanists mix their religion with their politics?
Ayn Rand is great and from my understanding she had little use for religion.
Ann Coulter is great too.
Even abortion, I don't take the side I take because of Jesus.
Freedom, individualism, yes in my world that is religious, but it doesn't enter into the debate because if I'm debating the subjects, I'm usually debating some commi who wouldn't understand anyway.
I don't need to mix religion with politics.
Do Secular Humanists mix their religion with their politics?
Ayn Rand is great and from my understanding she had little use for religion.
Ann Coulter is great too.
To the extent that it can be considered a religion, of course they do. Since a secular humanist will support political ideas that acknowledge and reflect the value of all human beings, that are arrived at by the application of reason and without relying on mythology, received truths or superstition.
Somebody who can read and write admires Ann Coulter...will wonders never cease?
Tell me, do you admire her because of Jesus?
AC has espoused religious beliefs??? 8O
...I mean aside from "kill them and convert them to Christianity".
Well, it can't be Satanism because Lucifer has better taste in women and would kick her skanky butt out of hell...
Can't be Christianity, because she makes Fred Phelps look like Mother Teresa...
You both belong to one of those UFO cults, right?
Can't be Christianity, because she makes Fred Phelps look like Mother Teresa...
You both belong to one of those UFO cults, right?