-->
@keithprosser
Well SPOKEN
Is Christian nationalism un-American?
Posts
Total:
388
-->
@keithprosser
No one talks about atheism where I am from, or fag for that matter, although other places they'll denigrate the behavior that way, pretty much in the form of jokes. The religious centers are central to the community I was raised in. We did have the kids say "gay", from the politics and social trends, but not adults.
The only time I hear about atheism and theism are from people who rip themselves off on books out of extreme boredom, and they don't believe in God. This website is weird that way. It's just something you see from books and speakers in my culture. There are places where people are concerned about the immorality entering into their community. Assuming they actually have something worth conserving the things they say are often different from the things that are in the media. Culture is not nationalistic, ever, in my experience. This would be a relatively new development, born out of ignorance, or a localized perception. Old school conservatism pretty much says that my house is my house and your house is your house. "The hippies in California can do drugs and burn their place to the ground, and that's fine in that its their choice. Just don't expect us to adopt the resulting nanny state or write a check on account of your problems."
-->
@Snoopy
Old school conservatism pretty much says that my house is my house and your house is your house.
I think you mean LIBERTARIANISM.
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean this "the holding of political views that favor, free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas"
-->
@Snoopy
I mean this "the holding of political views that favor, free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas"
Free Enterprise is a Libertarian ideal. "Conservatives/Republicans" are in favor of market regulation and now apparently even tariffs.
For example, I've never heard of any "Conservatives/Republicans" advocating for abolishing privileges for Boeing or ending subsidies for Corn.
Private Ownership is a universal ideal. Even Russian Commies protect private ownership.
Socially Traditional ideas ARE generally considered Conservative (by definition).
HowEVer, "Family Values" are universal.
Supporting Socially Traditional ideas (circa 1950) does however seem to conflict with your stated "live and let live" philosophy.
-->
@3RU7AL
Conservatism isn't libertarianism, although liberty is an aspect of American conservatism, and I'm specifically referencing conservatism as differentiated from neoconservatism, which I take to be more invasive or imperialistic in general.
-->
@Snoopy
"Conservatism" seems to be a mixed bag.Conservatism isn't libertarianism, although liberty is an aspect of American conservatism, and I'm specifically referencing conservatism as differentiated from neoconservatism, which I take to be more invasive or imperialistic in general.
It's sort of a cafeteria style ideology where each individual just picks and chooses what they want to include and what they want to distance themselves from.
It sounds like you're more of a "free thinker" with a nostalgic streak.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would tend to think left wing (libertarianism) is socialism, which opposes individuality. It's a sneaky principle and one might even think the opposite. But if you pay close attention that is what happens under the left wing agenda, individualism doesn't exist. It may not exist in fundamentalism either (two extremes) but in the end product of true spirituality the individual should possess true freedom. Not the freedom to do what it wants towards others per say but the freedom to express itself fully within the laws of creation. This way, you have full expression and full freedom because one need not hurt the other to express itself. This is what spirituality really wants, to have a reality where individuals express themselves while never violating the other party. You can have both unity and individuality, even within spirituality.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I would tend to think left wing (libertarianism) is socialism, which opposes individuality.
I'm quite certain that all definitions of Libertarianism are fully incompatible with all definitions of socialism.
Left-libertarianism stands in opposition to the notion that libertarianism belongs under the umbrella of conservative political philosophy. Left-libertarians reject the notion that libertarians are “Republicans who want to smoke pot.” They often reject fusionism, and generally reject dogmatic social conservatism, populist Tea Party rhetoric/politics, Reagan worship, the emphasis of traditional gender roles, and general pessimistic view of humanity (Thomas Sowell would call it a “constrained vision”) as envisioned by conservativism. Moreover, most left libs are not convinced that religious belief – even a popular religion such as evangelical Christianity – should dictate the social norms for society. The clearest example of this is marriage equality, where Right-libertarians are more inclined to say “get the state out of the marriage business,” while Left-libertarians view marriage as a legal contract between two individuals, which gay individuals are unjustifiably prohibited from entering.
Of course, labels have a habit of being re-appropriated by hipsters seeking to differentiate themselves. I have more than one friend who describes themselves as so-called “libertarian socialists.” This strikes me as a non-sequitur title that a 22-year-old might think sounds subversive. [LINK]
I'm quite certain that all definitions of Libertarianism are fully incompatible with all definitions of socialism.
You would think, but not the end product. Sorry about that.
-->
@3RU7AL
Gender roles are very misunderstood in the religious arena, but in the spiritual arena they are fully understood. This of course is reflected in the negative sides of duality and religious beliefs, often times religious fundamentalism get's in the way of freedom. Mixes up the laws of creation which have nothing to do with certain aspects of individuality.
-->
@3RU7AL
"Conservatism" seems to be a mixed bag.It's sort of a cafeteria style ideology where each individual just picks and chooses what they want to include and what they want to distance themselves from.
Conservatism as is generally conveyed allows the family/community to pick and choose, and prioritizes that. They can be less individualistic at times, the people who say "it seems like a good idea at first but this could undermine the family unit" and put a great deal of thought into sociological consequences whereas liberals tend to put more emphasis on individualistic equality of opportunity. Libertarianism I have never rapped my head around as useful in conveying anything but an aspect within a general philosophy. I'm not particularly familiar with libertarian thought.
It sounds like you're more of a "free thinker" with a nostalgic streak.
I'm talking about people I have personally spoken with, and my observations of conservative thought. I believe even if conservatives turn out to be on the loosing side at times that they contribute greatly to our national discourse. Some see the heart of conservatism simply as a different attitude towards the same problems, that liberals think of losers, and conservatives think like winners, that is they are okay with a healthy degree of success and failure in society which leads to natural inequality.
Ideologically I do believe my country has one of the most advanced forms of government on earth, but I would really like to see something better come along. I'm a pretty staunch proponent of republican federalism (by the people, for the people with checks and balances), rule of law, and respect of property rights. Politically, I prioritize the developing relationship of myself and others as common citizens with the government and its representatives over aspirational ideology. We really shouldn't devalue history, but I can't say I have much of a nostalgic streak.
-->
@3RU7AL
The true nature of the soul has no gender identity and neither does God. The only aspect of our experience that identifies us with gender is our physical parts at birth. Religious people aren't aware why souls stuck in male or female bodies wish to express themselves as the opposite gender. Reincarnation plays a huge role is this phenomenon. Sometimes a soul leaves the physical world by accident, too early or whatever...since the soul has no gender it can take on either form, both male or female and mostly it's the nature and attitude of the soul that dictates which form it takes on. But because of Karma the soul can inhabit either bodily form due to what it needs to learn from the choices it has made.
Since the soul keeps and retains all it's experiences in it's conscious awareness that exists beyond the physical form it can come back within another gender role and still have the desire to express itself in female or male form, even though it has a definitive role. Of course the Creator doesn't really care lol, it's religion and fundamentalism that make this expression evil or bad. In reality that soul is neither, it's just wanting to express itself beyond the physical role because their awareness is beyond the physical body. They may not know why, but they feel they have a more direct connection with the other role.
Heretical beliefs?? I don't care and that's irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
-->
@Snoopy
This statement does nothing at all to distinguish you in any significant way from a screaming libtard.I'm a pretty staunch proponent of republican federalism (by the people, for the people with checks and balances), rule of law, and respect of property rights.
Nobody wants to abolish the federal government.
Nobody wants to abolish democracy.
Nobody wants to abolish the rule of law.
Nobody wants to abolish property rights.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The true nature of the soul has no gender identity and neither does God. The only aspect of our experience that identifies us with gender is our physical parts at birth. Religious people aren't aware why souls stuck in male or female bodies wish to express themselves as the opposite gender. Reincarnation plays a huge role is this phenomenon. Sometimes a soul leaves the physical world by accident, too early or whatever...since the soul has no gender it can take on either form, both male or female and mostly it's the nature and attitude of the soul that dictates which form it takes on. But because of Karma the soul can inhabit either bodily form due to what it needs to learn from the choices it has made. Since the soul keeps and retains all it's experiences in it's conscious awareness that exists beyond the physical form it can come back within another gender role and still have the desire to express itself in female or male form, even though it has a definitive role. Of course the Creator doesn't really care lol, it's religion and fundamentalism that make this expression evil or bad. In reality that soul is neither, it's just wanting to express itself beyond the physical role because their awareness is beyond the physical body. They may not know why, but they feel they have a more direct connection with the other role.Heretical beliefs?? I don't care and that's irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
Can I call you a Gnostic?
-->
@3RU7AL
This statement does nothing at all to distinguish you in any significant way from a screaming libtard.
: ) I mean I'm a genuine proponent of that form of government, not just a patriotic observer.
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure but don't confuse that with an objective reality. Your view of gnostic just means category, my view means objective reality.
-->
@Snoopy
: ) I mean I'm a genuine proponent of that form of government, not just a patriotic observer.
Nobody wants to abolish the federal government.
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody [in America] wants to abolish the federal government.
The problem is maintaining a relationship with limitations upon the federal government, and also limitations upon the several states, which share sovereignty.
Nobody wants to abolish democracy.
It can be problematic that people may impose policy through the federal government onto other states opposed to that policy, and this is a widespread issue. The idea that this is justified by the fact that representatives are democratically elected is wrong. Plus there's Gerrymandering and general integrity of the process.
Nobody wants to abolish the rule of law.
Eh, I don't care if they want to or not. Its a constant problem.
Nobody wants to abolish property rights.
Some people have a way of thinking that is irrespective of property rights, more along the lines of property privileges. For example, should something be banned, I the property rights of that thing which is already produced and legally held ought to be respected. I generally don't believe in confiscating private property and transferring to another private entity, under a pretense of "social justice", economic reasons etc... Disputes over land use are another issue of concern for me.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sure but don't confuse that with an objective reality. Your view of gnostic just means category, my view means objective reality.
If you believe Noumenon is a reasonable place-holder for "objective reality" then perhaps we can agree.
-->
@keithprosser
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.
There are grains of truth in what you say.
First off, naturally there are similarities. The Israelites were a cultural product of the ancient near middle east. The reason we know about the similarities is because of extensive study on the region in conjunction with Bible study. And that's how we know the differences. They were, alongside similarities, differences. If the differences are minimal, it's okay because they are also profound. An example would be the foreigners right to leave their master if they were oppressed. And to be housed by whomever they seek help from. And the potential to become a citizen, become wealthy, etc.
The grain of truth I was referring to was the Israelites initial perception of God which coincided with the view of gods from the surrounding nations. The "Golden Calf" was a picture of the god of the nations. The common god-theme among the nations was a national god that didn't require personal relationship. More of a national mascot god.
It was also common for nations to have a mediator (priest) who handled the more substantial communication with the god of the nation. This was a role that Moses played, but was really meant to be for all of Israel if they weren't so focused on having the common national god everyone else had.
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
Yes, this was directed at Jerusalem, but obviously included nomadic Israel.
Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The author understood that rituals in themselves were not of any interested to the creator.
-->
@3RU7AL
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?
Of course I do. The meaning of words is very important. That's why I can't understand for the life of me why some people disregard Hebrew and Greek translation.
The actual word referring to slavery is in Jeremiah, with no Hebrew translation. This verse makes a distinction between oppressive slavery, and servitude.
Jeremiah 2:14 Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder?
The other reference to actual slavery distinct from servitude is in Revelation.
Revelation 18:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
The Greek word is Soma, which means body, bodily, slave, This would be strictly a bondage form of slavery.
Most of the references to slavery in the OT means servant which is the Hebrew word ebed, which means bondage, bondman, servant, bond servant.
My challenge to S1 concerning semantics was assuming just because Israelites purchased servants from a slave market (see reference to Jeremian 2:14), didn't mean they were to be treated like slaves per Jeremiah 2:14, and Revelation 18:13.
-->
@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?
-->
@3RU7AL
WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/NI'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/NI'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/NI'm going to guess... YES?
Yes, the Bible condems chattel slavery.
I'm against chattel/new world slavery.
I'm not against the military, which owns it's soldiers. Most military recruitment is voluntary, just like Israelite voluntary servitude, and voluntary servitude in Egypt associated with the construction of the pyramids (if that's how it was built). It's a good system because it's an alternative to another form of slavery (being owned), imprisonment.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes, the Bible condems chattel slavery.
Please refresh my memory.
I believe all of your scriptural references applied to bond-servants and did not specifically prohibit chattel-slavery.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please refresh my memory.I believe all of your scriptural references applied to bond-servants and did not specifically prohibit chattel-slavery.
Exodus 21:16
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surelybe put to death.
Pretty serious. Wouldn't you say?
Or do you not think this verse applies to chattel slavery, which generally involves involuntary abduction?
-->
@RoderickSpode
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
Ok, but you can buy foreign slaves and bequeath them to your children.
How do you square that circle?
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, but you can buy foreign slaves and bequeath them to your children.How do you square that circle?
I would say this is similar to household butlers, gentlemen's gentlemen, etc., that sometimes serve a couple of family generations.
The key here is that the author is explaining that this is optional for the purchaser, meaning, they may not want to keep the servant beyond a given period of time. However, the master has an obligation to see that the servant is taken care of. The potential for any violation of a master would include abandonment.
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave. And they're not obligated to any 7 year stretch. They can leave if they're abused, and they can leave if they become wealthy enough to provide for themselves.
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.
So the scripture says you can buy foreign slaves, specifically stating "as permanent slaves" and you can bequeath them to your children.
At what point does it say they can leave whenever they feel like it?
At what point does it CONDEMN chattel-slavery?
-->
@RoderickSpode
An example would be the foreigners right to leave their master if they were oppressed. And to be housed by whomever they seek help from. And the potential to become a citizen, become wealthy, etc.
It's hard to tell all the social norms surrounding slavery and how 'bad' it was to be a slave. No dout there were good and bad msaters everywhere. I note this law in Hamurrabis code:
176. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of the freeman take the daughter of a man (gentleman); and if, when he takes her, she enter into the house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman with the dowry of her father's house; if from the time that they join hands, they build a house and acquire property; and if later on the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman die, the daughter of the man shall receive her dowry, and they shall divide into two parts whatever her husband and she had acquired from the time they joined hands; the owner of the slave shall receive one-half and the daughter of the man shall receive one-half for her children.
Cleaely male slaves were permitted to marry the daughters of free men. That implies that slaves were not dehumanised. Nor was slavery always permanent: "117. If a man be in debt and sell his wife, son or daughter, or bind them over to service, for three years they shall work in the house of their purchaser of master; in the fourth year they shall be given their freedom."
I don't know if a slave was better of in Babylon or Israel.. it probably depended on the master becuase the rules (even if they ere always followed which is doubtful) aren't substantially different. In all probability most slaves in the AME were much better off than the planation slaves in the ultra-Christian ante-bellum Southern states of America.
I think it's obvious that the Hebrew's laws are not divine revelations but entirely typical of the norms of the age. How could it be anyhthing else becauase there are no gods!