Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 388
Topic's author
#61
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
My theory is that most (as in 'nearly all') Christians are nice people - in fact most people are nice!  However Christians are taught that they are naturally sinful and evil and it is only their faith in God that prevents them from being murderous thieving rapists.

Of course that's nonsense.  People are not naturally evil and only held back their faith - people are naturally nice (not totally so, but we're not actually evil by default).   But it doesnt suit a church's interest to say that!  Churches want people to believe they need religion and that civilsation will collapse without it.

I see this thread has moved on since I started this post!


I agree.

#62
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
Would you agree that 'Judeo-Christian values' of the CN are mis-named and are actually conservative or reactionary values?  
#63
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
How can these commandments be useless today if we follow many of them? 
We follow them incidentally. People who don't steal every day don't think "Well, I'd steal if the commandments weren't there." They just don't steal. How do I know? Because people steal all the time, and the commandment IS there. I'm letting your battallion one go, it seems to be a distraction unless you can tell me how it relates to the ten commandments.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you thinking of this scripture?
That one or the one cited earlier, Matthew I believe 10;35. They can't all be right, so how do you pick?

If your parent were racist, you think you'd be dishonoring them by not becoming a racist?
If the commandment is about obeying, not loving, your parents, as I was taught (honestly do we need a commandment about loving your parents but NOT ONE ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE INTO SLAVES?), then yes, it would be dishonoring them. 

Where was this advice?
Luke 14:26.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
#64
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Apparently it was about a 50/50 mix.

It was a long time ago!   I think their lack of overt religiosity is remarkable for the time.

Topic's author
#65
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
TBH, Im not really sure what is meant by JCP. I was hoping someone would define them. Best I can tell, JCP is a moving target - sometimes it refers to humanistic values and other times (when appealing to a religious crowd) it refers to Biblical edicts such as the 10 commandments.
#66
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
My guess is that most American Christians are not theologians and have a pretty shakey grasp of the details of Christianity.  Basicaly, there is a vague feeling that if it's good it's Christian.  They have a very 'sunday school' attitude towards it all.

I suspect the CN movement is primarily about conservatism and an idealised vision of the past.   They use the language of religion and terms like JCP to gain support from the huge number of American Christians.   It's a dangerous game because while politically conservative and biblical values overlap I don't think mostconseratives want to burn witches or stone adulterers, but if they use biblical values to gain power they may have to continue doing so to retain it.

I think something like that happened in the Muslim world when Islam transformed from being a tool of the political powers to being the political power when the political mohammedan empire began to disintegrate in the 11C.
 
#67
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Isn't this question a different way to phrase "Should judeo christian values be placed in a position of favor over other no-judeo Christian values when evaluating legislation like LGBTQ rights, reproductive rights, school curricula? In other words tie goes to the Christian."
#68
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
That one or the one cited earlier, Matthew I believe 10;35. They can't all be right, so how do you pick?
I don't pick because I don't see any
contradicton
. I knew the verses in question use hyperbole right the moment I read them.

I already addressed Matthew 10:35 by the way in another post in this thread.



We follow them incidentally. People who don't steal every day don't think "Well, I'd steal if the commandments weren't there." They just don't steal. How do I know? Because people steal all the time, and the commandment IS there. I'm letting your battallion one go, it seems to be a distraction unless you can tell me how it relates to the ten commandments.
You lost me on the battalion thing. It seems like you're actually confirming the value of the 10 commandments since people do still steal.


If your parent were racist, you think you'd be dishonoring them by not becoming a racist?
If the commandment is about obeying, not loving, your parents, as I was taught (honestly do we need a commandment about loving your parents but NOT ONE ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE INTO SLAVES?), then yes, it would be dishonoring them. 


I'm sorry, you lost me here.


Luke 14:26.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
We can't use the authors contradicting each other idea, because this verse is in the Book of Luke.

20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

The author didn't contradict himself. So it's not an issue of which verse do i choose?

He's talking in hyperbole. That was common back then, including within the Bible. When Jesus said "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out". Do you think that was hyperbole, or do you think Jesus really meant one should pluck their eye out?



#69
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
"pluck out your eye" is hyperbole, clearly. No one can do it. Plenty of people can do this:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

I know people who hate their families today. Are they in line with Jesus words here? 

Really, can you not see the problem with these verses? you can pick any one to mean anything you want even when it's not what the words say or mean, and someone else can do the same, and both are, at least as far as you seem to think, correct. Or, you don't have a way to say "this is hyperbole" (like stone non virgins on their wedding night in front of their dad: hyperbole? No? how do you tell) versus "this is one I should still apply.' Should you or should you not stone gay people? Not CAN YOU TODAY. Should you. Is it moral to do so if you can cite a biblical verse commanding it?

We can't use the authors contradicting each other idea, because this verse is in the Book of Luke.
So if it's in one book and not another, how do I know which one is right? It's all in the bible. Which is, according to many who share your faith, the unerring word of the timeless governor of all time and places. It can't be wrong. 
Topic's author
#70
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I have to say I agree with the Sunday school understanding of Christianity being prevalent. Perhaps you're on to something with Christianity being equated to 'niceness', although I think this may be too much simplification.

I am not too familiar with Islamic history, so I will need to do research before I can fully grasp that point.

#71
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
"pluck out your eye" is hyperbole, clearly. No one can do it. Plenty of people can do this:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

I know people who hate their families today. Are they in line with Jesus words here? 

Really, can you not see the problem with these verses? you can pick any one to mean anything you want even when it's not what the words say or mean, and someone else can do the same, and both are, at least as far as you seem to think, correct. Or, you don't have a way to say "this is hyperbole" (like stone nonvirgins
on their wedding night in front of their dad: hyperbole? No? how do you tell) versus "this is one I should still apply.' Should you or should you not stone gay people? Not CAN YOU TODAY. Should you. Is it moral to do so if you can cite a biblical verse commanding it?

No, I don't have problems with these verses at all. The only thing I'm getting out of this is that you seem to pick and choose what you think is hyperobole, and what isn't. You're comfortable with "plucking out one's eye" as hyprbole, but not "hating family".

Same principle. The idea of plucking one's eye out (as I assume you understand) is meant to show how serious we should treat sin. Plucking one's eye out is equivalent of removing one's computer from their room if they have an issue with porn.

Hating parents simply means abhoring the idea of favoring family over following Jesus as a disciple. Very simple. Luke was a physician, so was probably quite intelligent. He wouldn't contradict himself like that. Or claim Jesus did. For some reason, that form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with you. But the authors just weren't concerned about Ludo's understanding of scripture in the 21st century. So I might just as well ask you how do you tell what is hyperbole?

And where in the world did you get the idea no one can pluck their own eye out?


So if it's in one book and not another, how do I know which one is right? It's all in the bible. Which is, according to many who share your faith, the unerring word of the timeless governor of all time and places. It can't be wrong.
The reason i stated this was because sometimes people claim different authors mean contradictions. So being that both verses being referred to in Luke were probably from the same author, contradiction is unlikely.







#72
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 The only thing I'm getting out of this is that you seem to pick and choose what you think is hyperobole, and what isn't. You're comfortable with "plucking out one's eye" as hyprbole, but not "hating family".

We are doing the EXACT same thing. Which is more possible, I ask you: plucking out one's eye (which your central nervous system, at least a properly functioning one, will not allow you to do), or hating one's family? How do I reliably tell which is hyperbole in the bible, that's the question. How do we both, or all, arrive at the same correct answer?

Hating parents simply means abhoring the idea of favoring family over following Jesus as a disciple. Very simple. Luke was a physician, so was probably quite intelligent. He wouldn't contradict himself like that. Or claim Jesus did. For some reason, that form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with you. But the authors just weren't concerned about Ludo's understanding of scripture in the 21st century. So I might just as well ask you how do you tell what is hyperbole? 
Does anyone, do you think, use this "hate your family if you love Jesus and they offend you or him" verse as NON-hyperbole? Say, fundamentalist parents who sever ties with a gay child? Why don't they know it's hyperbole? It doesn't sit well with me because while I'm convinced no one can pluck out their own eye, and therefore an order to do see seems like exaggeration for dramatic effect, I DO know that people can hate their own families, and therefore it is not, at least in the same order of magnitude, the same as 'pluck out your eye.' That's how everyone assesses hyperbole, except if it's in the bible and you don't like it, you say it's hyperbole. How do I know, for example, that Jesus rising from the dead ISN'T hyperbole? Shouldn't GOD be concerned about the understanding of all of his 21st century children? How do you know you're right?

I love when people say Luke was a physician. He went to the same medical school as Dr. Dre. 



So being that both verses being referred to in Luke were probably from the same author, contradiction is unlikely.

Do the words as written, not as meant according to Rod, contradict each other? Again it's hate your family, love your family, if you boil it down. 
#73
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
although I think this may be too much simplification.
It's only a forum post - only you and the nsa will ever read it.

Topic's author
#74
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser

only you and the nsa will ever read it.
...oh great, now they really are watching. Good job, Keith. 😅
#75
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Mharman
You should read the Constitution AND other documents by the founders.

You’ll find that they intended for a secular government by, of, and for the people, a people of Judeo-Christian culture.
You @'d me with this so I'll assume you're interested in my return mindfarts. Have you read the Treaty of Tripoli by the founding fathers? 

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I think this and other extracts fit with your statement reasonably well. Imo many of the central founding fathers leaned more toward deism and theistic rationalism than mainstream Christianity, which probably explains their secular values, but they certainly knew America was a Christian culture and would have said American values are compatible with Christian values because it would have been political suicide to say otherwise. It still is.

#76
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
You may not believe those things come from religion but the founding fathers certainly did, deist or Christian.
#77
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x

Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.

I'm simply that saying that other documents provide the context for which this document is to be interpreted.
#78
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mharman
Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.

I don't understand. 

I'm simply that saying that other documents provide the context for which this document is to be interpreted.
Right, you're simply saying it. You're not making an argument for it, you're just...saying it. That doesn't make it so. Look, let's agree that these were some pretty smart folks, right? If they wanted to ensure "judeo-christian principles" were enshrined and clear in the founding documents, it seems reasonable that they would have been able to do so. The fact that any of them held their own views on religion, which some say was more deist than theist because there wasn't an alternative to deist at the time (though it is functionally identical to atheist), and expressly kept them OUT of the founding documents shows you that they valued freedom over religion. Again, if they'd said "god of the bible" instead of "creator," you'd have a different argument. They don't, for no reason at all. Unless of course you want to tell me WHY they left that very simple part out, but laid out an otherwise complex and unique system of government entirely. 
Topic's author
#79
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mharman
Liberty, democracy, and equality did not come from the Bible. The Bible endorses slavery. No liberty. Yahweh is viewed as a king..the king of kings. No democracy. Daughters can be sold into slavery, Yahweh has a chosen people, etc. No equality.
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.
The Trinovantes are the first British tribe to be mentioned by a Roman author, appearing in Caesar's account of his invasion of 54 BC. By this date they seem to have been already involved in a power struggle with the neighbouring tribes to the west who were to be forged into the kingdom of the Catuvellauni under Tasciovanus. This group shared the same ways of life and religious practices as the Catuvellauni and Cantiaci. [LINK]

Are you suggesting that the "creator" mentioned by the American founding fathers was in-fact a Celtic deity?

I'm simply that saying that other documents provide the context for which this document is to be interpreted.
Like the Jefferson Bible for example?

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine. [LINK]
#81
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that the "creator" mentioned by the American founding fathers was in-fact a Celtic deity?
Almost certainly it refers to 'Nature's God', mentiomed in the first paragraph.

...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...

#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Almost certainly it refers to 'Nature's God', mentiomed in the first paragraph.

...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. [LINK]

Smells like DEISM.
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Stronn
What made the U.S. unique is that it was the first nation founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. The founding fathers explicitly rejected longstanding religious principles such as the divine right of kings and the acquisition of knowledge through revelation instead of reason, and emphasized the natural rights of individuals.


 Excellent!
#84
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Completely false. The Bible does not endorse slavery. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/

#85
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So some of them were deists? So what? Deism shares the same types of values.
#86
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The Trianovites long before the time of George Washington. Try again.
#87
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
So some of them were deists? So what? Deism shares the same types of values.
Citation please.
#88
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL

Like the Jefferson Bible for example?

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
Jefferson is another FF who is difficult to pinpoint in terms of religious belief. He was, for instance, very dedicated to attending church service. But on the other hand it appears he didn't believe in the supernatural references in scripture. It would be interesting to have heard his thoughts on Washington's claim to supernatural providence on the battlefield.

In my opinion, I feel the LAMOJON was at least partially a political move as it's alleged to have been, or meant to be distributed to a local Native American tribe. I have no reason to doubt this, and I think he wished to promote the teachings of Jesus Christ concerning peace. I think for political reasons, Jefferson wanted the tribe to learn the moral teachings of Jesus as a means for a better relationship between the U.S. government and the tribe. And may have thought the supernatural elements of the Bible might either hinder this, or would just be unnecessary.



#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
Completely false. The Bible does not endorse slavery.
So, you're hair-splitting between "chattel-slavery" and "bond-servant".

Exodus 21:20-21

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So you can beat your "bond-servant" to death, just as long as they don't die immediately.
#90
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
Interesting list of other possible possible creators. Now tell me, how many of those were British legend? None of them.
Which British legend are you referring to?