Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 388
#151
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Deut 23.15-16

15Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. 16They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them.

#152
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne

Either Roderick doesn't know this law only applied to Israelites (and not unbelieving foreigners) or he is being dishonest in trying to equate all slavery in the Bible to indentured servitude.

Well, at least you let him know that there is a citation..

Now you can show me how, or why you think this only applies to Israelites

And, do you think this verse is one of those wink wink, nudge nudge scenarios? They wrote it, but don't really mean it?

 Exodus 23:9

"Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

#153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters, though without any sufficient cause or colour of justice, might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs; [LINK]
#154
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

A modern POW is generally a combatant and would be repatriated at the end of hostilities.  The US did not have the war aim of of killimg all the men and enslaving the women!  
My apologies. I read your post wrong.

If you think these passages are fictional, then these various arguments are rendered void. If Stan Lee says Captain America captured The Red Skull, we can't really argue.

The nations, all of them within the promised land, according to scripture were out to demolish the Israelite nation. So it wouldn't be any different than the U.S. bombing Hiroshima. Some people are anti-American for reasons like these.

If you think it did, or may have happened, then you have to figure they must be lying in many passages that claim severe penalties for actions like rape, kidnapping, and general oppression.

We see something similar happening in Nigeria today
I don't think so.
#155
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters, though without any sufficient cause or colour of justice, might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs; [LINK]
I'm a bit confused. Is that link supposed to support your claim?

It's not to be understood universally, because it was only practiced within Israel.

Yes, the practice was unusual. That's what they were in essence called to be. I think what people are doing is trying to add a human nature twist to the texts which allows for many unwarranted assumptions.

Here's another unusual biblical claim to chew on.


 Leviticus 25:47


"'If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner's clan,


Who does one think these foreigners are? Japanese businessmen?

#156
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you think these passages are fictional, then these various arguments are rendered void. If Stan Lee says Captain America captured The Red Skull, we can't really argue.
I doubt that the specific episodes are historical, but the ethical framework of the text is the same whether they happened or not.
t was a different time with different attitudes - killing the men and enslaving the women in war was the norm;  the text reflects the customs of its time even if the specifics are dubious. 

As for the parallel to Nigeria, the mass kidnapping of girls to serve as 'wives' by Boko Haram still goes on.  If it can happen in the 21st century, it could certainly occur then.
         

Topic's author
#157
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well, at least you let him know that there is a citation..

Now you can show me how, or why you think this only applies to Israelites
This was in regards to Deuteronomy 23:15-16.  In the context set by the previous verses (related to war), enemy slaves were not to be returned so that they might come to accept YHWH in which case these individuals could come to be part of the nation of Israel. 



And, do you think this verse is one of those wink wink, nudge nudge scenarios? They wrote it, but don't really mean it?

 Exodus 23:9 

"Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.


I assume you're placing a lot of emphasis on "foreigner", but it can be understood as sojourner, stranger, or guest. Was there anything you would like to add to this? It seems very similar to the above verse except it was in regards to strangers (potential converts?) and was addressed to judges rather than soldiers, but I'm no Biblical scholar. ;-)

Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused, you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty.  My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
#158
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
To the natives they pillaged, raped, tortured, vilified... Then founded the nation playing the good guy. 

Oh wait, that's what Christians and Muslims did in that era, I guess they were religious after all.
#159
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused, you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty.  My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
Well stated.
#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
Leviticus 25:47 "If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner's clan,"
I'm not sure why you left this part out...

"they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.

54“ ‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

So basically it lays out certain protections for ISRAELITE bond-servants (don't "abuse" them and release them after 7 years).

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/N

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR (NON-ISRAELITE) FOREIGN SLAVES ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE ISRAELITE BOND-SERVANTS ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N
#161
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
....in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
If America is so keen on equality and democracy, why were there still issues with letting blacks vote upto the 1960s,  200 years after the Bill of Rights?   Americans have so little faith in democracy they think they need guns to fight their own government.

Maybe the CNs do embody 'American values' and the fine-sounding principles of the founding fathers are just hot air - except for the 2nd amendment,of course.

I doubt there is another country in the world where 'liberal' is an insult.

In other words, I think you are right to worry, Skeps, because there is every chance the CNs will win.  We Brits have a queen who rules by divine right (for now), but we don't have a 'religious right', thank G... er, goodness!

#162
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@keithprosser
I doubt there is another country in the world where 'liberal' is an insult.

Sorry but I am going to defend American Right-Wingers here. They dont use it as an insult and they see themselves as the actual Liberals when it comes to religious freedom and economics.

On the other hand, there's a plethora of non-secular nations out there (and a few secular ones such as China and Syria) where this word is an insult indeed.
#163
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
a few secular ones such as China and Syria) where this word is an insult indeed
Probably N Korea too... good company for the US to be in, what?


#164
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@keithprosser
I am telling you that the US is the most freedom-obsessed nation on Earth. That's the entire problem with it!!!!!
#165
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
I had a dig at 'equality' and 'democracy' as 'American values' but not 'liberty'!
Topic's author
#166
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I'll be the first to admit America has its flaws and fails to realize the value of its founding principles all too often. Progressive goals are easier laid out than realized. But allowing CN revisionist history to stand would actually make American ideals the pretense you suggest.
#167
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@keithprosser
NK worships their leader as a genuine deity. It's not a secular state in categorisation.

#168
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.
In rare cases (only the wealthy could have purchased a slave), the foreign slave was to be treated as a servant. Semantics are not really necessary here.


What do you mean by universal sense? There was no United Nations back then. And there isn't even a universal sense today. If the Kingdom of Tibet had a problem with Israel purchasing servants from the foreign slave market, and that nullifies their universal legality in purchasing a servant from the slave market, it wouldn't be any different than North Korea viewing us as being in a global violation. Every nation has it's enemy who doesn't approve of what they do.

You're trying to justify our taking prisoners because we are more humane than other nations today, and in past history. We still held people captive. If it's wrong to hold anyone captive, then we are violation as well.

#169
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
As I said earlier, I don't think that 'Christian Nationalists' really want to impose Christian values.  They want to turn the clock back to an imaginary golden age (about 1955!) when things were much simpler!   I suspect that, in reality, 1955 was pretty bad, but in mind ofthe CNs is the picture of an America of happy families wuith the man the unisputed head of the house, his wife a dutiful home-maker and the kids well-scubbed and respectful. 
You're stereotyping a bit here. It's sort of like saying all Brits greet each other by saying"Pip pip cheerio, and all that sort of rubbish".

We've had people like that (but I'm sure you've had people who did say "pip pip cheerio").

There was a famous minister named Jerry Falwell who emphasized that theme. But most people today want to appear young, contemporary, up-to-date.

The whole "Life was simpler back then" has been replaced by "TV shows back then were better, funnier, etc., than now". Or "music was better back then". Or "cars were better back then".

The 60's are the newer 50's. And the 60's it could be argued was wilder than what goes on today.



#170
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).
China has religious freedom to. But it has to fall under strict government control. The humanists aren't a whole lot different except they are not in power fortunately.

#171
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you dismissing every other name mentioned because you find Mr. Campolo's views distasteful? That's not reasonable, if so
No. I mentioned him because that's who I'm familiar with. I disagree with some of his views. Distasteful is not really an accurate term in this case.

#172
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I doubt that the specific episodes are historical, but the ethical framework of the text is the same whether they happened or not.
t was a different time with different attitudes - killing the men and enslaving the women in war was the norm;  the text reflects the customs of its time even if the specifics are dubious. 

As for the parallel to Nigeria, the mass kidnapping of girls to serve as 'wives' by Boko Haram still goes on.  If it can happen in the 21st century, it could certainly occur then.
It certainly did go on back then. The practices of the Israelites were specifically designed to set them apart from the other nations. Their law demanding the showing of mercy, acting humane, etc. was the intent. It doesn't make sense to 3RU7AL, and for a good reason.

Another NT meets OT.

1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Just like the NT church, the OT Hebrew clan were to be a peculiar people as well.

#173
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
This was in regards to Deuteronomy 23:15-16.  In the context set by the previous verses (related to war), enemy slaves were not to be returned so that they might come to accept YHWH in which case these individuals could come to be part of the nation of Israel.
I may not be sure what your argument. Is it that since the foreigners have an opportunity to become a part of the nation of Israel, they are not really foreigners?


I assume you're placing a lot of emphasis on "foreigner", but it can be understood as sojourner, stranger, or guest. Was there anything you would like to add to this? It seems very similar to the above verse except it was in regards to strangers (potential converts?) and was addressed to judges rather than soldiers, but I'm no Biblical scholar. ;-)
I've placed emphasis on "foreigner" because that seems to be the topic's target at the moment.


Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused,
If it's predictable it's probably because we've discussed it before. Your concern is commendable though.


you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty. 

But highly unnecessary.

My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
Favored race is a false view of related scripture. So is your reference to "God's chosen people". If "GSP" meant what you seem to think it does, Christians wouldn't be evangelizing. We'd keep it to ourselves, because we're special and chosen, and you're not (being facetious of course). Here's a sobering verse.

Matthew 20:1-16 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

If you were one of the workers who came later, and I was the one complaining and wanting more money than you, you (the atheist) would be in the more favorable light in this parable than myself. I (the Christian) would be the one who was humbled and put in my place.



Many people, for instance, much prefer being a slave to Jesus than a slave to drugs. It baffles me how people can't make the slavery-servant connection. The term slavery was not politically incorrect back then. A king is simply a leader. They didn't have presidents and prime ministers back then. Having a king didn't necessitate an oppressive government.
#174
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure why you left this part out...

"they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.

54“ ‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

So basically it lays out certain protections for ISRAELITE bond-servants (don't "abuse" them and release them after 7 years).

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/N

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR (NON-ISRAELITE) FOREIGN SLAVES ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE ISRAELITE BOND-SERVANTS ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N

I didn't purposely leave anything out, but posted what I thought was relevant. There was no need to post all of what you did.

The reason I posted that specific scripture was simply to show that a foreigner (the one who supposedly didn't have rights) could eventually become wealthy himself, and have an Israelite work for him as a servant. That certainly defies any notion that a foreigner, purchased as a servant or not is treated like a new world slave.

And at least some of it is practiced today.

The military owns people. I've heard the argument that since it's voluntary, it's not the same thing. Well, that person who made the argument probably forgot about the draft. And for the Israelite, their servitude was voluntary as well.

The Israelite put himself in that position because he either stole, or damaged someone's property, and rather than go to prison he could opt voluntary servitude. This is of course similar to today's community service option for inmates as an alternative to doing time.
#175
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Their law demanding the showing of mercy, acting humane, etc. was the intent. It doesn't make sense to 3RU7AL, and for a good reason.
We atheists - or some of us - do like to point out that the God that Christians worship is not all sweetness and light!  I think if you asked an ancient Hebrew to describe his god in one word, that word would not be 'Nice'!

In those times gods were beings of immense power who could use that power for or against individuals or a nation.   They had to be kept on-side by performing rituals and sacrifice.   If the rituals were performed correctly the god would avert disasters and bring victory in war.  Convervsely disaster and defeat were due to laxness in the perfomance of those rituals - at least according to the priests!

Hence we get passages like this:
Joshua 10: 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

Of course the writer of Joshua approves of that - it was the job of a tribal god like YHWH to 'smite enemies'. 

It's imporant to bear in mind the Hebrews and yhwh are not exceptional - they are typical of the peoples and their gods of the peridand region.   We have the law-codes of the babylonans and hittites and they are practically identical to the Hebrews.  
#176
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
Semantics are not really necessary here.
Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning, in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation. [LINK]

SERIOUSLY, YOU DON'T THINK THE MEANING OF WORDS IS IMPORTANT?
#177
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/N

I'm going to guess... NO!

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR (NON-ISRAELITE) FOREIGN SLAVES ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N

I'm going to guess... NO?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE ISRAELITE BOND-SERVANTS ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N

I'm going to guess... YES?
#178
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.

Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
Hi Skeptical one. 

Christian nationalism is an oxymoron. Christianity is an international organism. Christ's purpose in coming was in part to break down the walls of race and nationalism. Although I have seen it argued that the US was founded on "Judeo- Christian principles", that is a nonsense. The US constitution was founded on Freemason - Baptist - Unitarian principles which were diametrically opposed to Christian principles. The Plymouth Brethren in its earliest days - save for the very first couple of years in America may have had good Christian doctrines - but this did not last. 

However Judeo- Christian philosophy is not nonsensical. Judaism did not reject Christianity. Judaism died out. Pharisaical religion was born to a large extent after the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  Christianity arose out of Judaism - in particular the laws of Moses. I accept there are various views on this yet it is not inconsistent or nonsensical. 

Christian Nationalism in my view ought to be left to rot. It is a disease and needs to die. It is opposed to the doctrines of the Bible and to Jesus and Abraham. 


Topic's author
#179
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).
China has religious freedom to. But it has to fall under strict government control. The humanists aren't a whole lot different except they are not in power fortunately.
I don't see the relevance of Chinese religious freedom.

First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.
In rare cases (only the wealthy could have purchased a slave), the foreign slave was to be treated as a servant. Semantics are not really necessary here.

It is not a matter of semantics as far as I am concerned. The Bible has rules which apply to native servants and foreign slaves. Verses which allow "permanent slaves" to be bought from the heathen nations [Link] and others which mandate Hebrews slaves are to be set free on the 7th year of service [Link] make this painfully obvious.


I may not be sure what your argument. Is it that since the foreigners have an opportunity to become a part of the nation of Israel, they are not really foreigners?
No. This is a bit of a mess. You said:

You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up.
Foreign slaves could not leave their master for any reason that I'm aware of. If that was allowed at all, it would not be a foreign slave's decision (at least not one own by Israel). I supplied a verse which I thought you were referring to, but it did not apply to all slaves or even slaves owned by the nation of Israel at all.

Favored race is a false view of related scripture. So is your reference to "God's chosen people"

Favored Race and God's chosen People is not a reference to Christians. It is a reference to Jews.[Link] [Link] I understand what you are suggesting by supplying the parable, but that doesn't change that Jews were chosen by God/favored race - at least according to the Torah/Bible. "Christian" is not a race even if some Christians believe they were chosen.


Many people, for instance, much prefer being a slave to Jesus than a slave to drugs. It baffles me how people can't make the slavery-servant connection. The term slavery was not politically incorrect back then.
Would you be my slave as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?

Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.

A king is simply a leader. They didn't have presidents and prime ministers back then. Having a king didn't necessitate an oppressive government.

Agreed, but if America was founded on Biblical principles democracy is a bit of a head scratcher.
#180
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
Agreed, but if America was founded on Biblical principles democracy is a bit of a head scratcher.
I think that for many Americans Christian values = conservative values (and vice versa) is axiomatic.   They have a point - it's only pinko atheist fags who say different.