Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 388
#91
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL

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.
No. The problem is you're hoping we overlook verse 20.

This is not a detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws concerning the death of a bond-servant.

One of the keys here is that the author isn't giving an exact time-frame for the servants death. If your life hung on whether or not your servant dies after a blow you inflicted, wouldn't you want to know if you had 24 hours, or 48 hours before you find out your verdict?

This law was to attempt to assure the servant's owner doesn't die if the servant's death wasn't a result of the blow. They had judges back then just like we do today. This means that if say, the servant has a serious head wound, and his hair is on the rod he was hit with, that they won't find th owner guilty, maybe even weeks or months after the servant's death. The focus was on was the death of the servant a result of the infliction of the rod?

#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
This is not a detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws concerning the death of a bond-servant. 
REally?  Where exactly is the "detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws"??????????????????
Topic's author
#93
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mharman
Completely false. The Bible does not endorse slavery.
Of the three objections (no liberty, no democracy, no equality), only the example against liberty gets a defense. The others are left on the table. 


As to slavery, there are different kinds of slavery in the Bible.  Israelites are to be nothing more than indentured servants (unless you trick them into being a slave for life by providing a wife they want to stay with). However, there is chattel slavery in the Bible too. Apologists typically focus on the first type (as though an endorsement of beating an indentured servant is somehow less problematic), and pretend the other kind was never mentioned. Anyone who believes they are accurately representing the Bible ...needs to read the Bible.


I stand by my point. The concept of liberty is not something the Bible easily lends itself to.



#94
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Leviticus 25:44-46

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. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Case closed.
Topic's author
#95
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We should do our level best to tread gently. Realization that our cherished beliefs (and very identity) are flawed can be slow and painful. 

#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Good point.  Perhaps some light humor will fit the bill. [LINK]
#97
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,248
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
I guess for me this depends on how much of their holy text they're really holding on to. What they think still applies and what they think is just backstory. The worst offender is of course the Old Testament, which Christians have a complicated relationship with, in my experience. They've left it behind and yet not left it behind.

The problem I as a Christian might have with the Old Testament is not it's inclusion, but with the idea that harsh laws are at times, under certain circumstances, are necessary. I may not even see them as necessary, but I know I don't possess enough wisdom to make that call.

To give a more contemporary example, was it justifiable for the Army to shoot a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty? I think that was harsh myself. But I can't claim it wasn't necessary. It's quite possible that these unusual strict laws not imposed on civilians (we wouldn't execute a football player who shows fear of tackling) might have been necessary in some of our victories.

There is a distinction between the transient nation of Israel, and the rest of Christendom. Just as there is a distinction between the military, and civilian society.
The response I get from Christians is typically, "They were harsh rules for a harsh time. But that time has passed." They also often dip into "who am I to judge." Such evils were certainly a fact of ancient times, but it's hard to imagine there was any time when genocide or taking virgins as slaves was necessary. Some things are never okay.

But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today. If so, that Christian must be my ideological enemy, as they would stand for everything I deplore -- if not, we can be allies in values and ethics. I must admit the latter is the case the vast majority of the time.

#98
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today.
The question I have is, if there's so much stuff in the holy scriptures that you disagree with, why not just edit it out?

Why not just start from scratch and write down just the "good bits"?

The problem seems to be that people are quick to say (dogmatically) "the bible is a beacon of morality" and then twist themselves into pretzels when confronted with the actual text.

Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.
#99
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Well said mate, but the numpties will never understand.
#100
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Why not just start from scratch and write down just the "good bits"?
Why is the collection as a whole called a testament?




Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.
Are you implying the two are incompatible?
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.
Are you implying the two are incompatible?
One is explicitly open to interpretation.

The other is explicitly NOT open to interpretation.

The word "objective" itself specifically includes "not subject to opinion" as part of its definition.
#102
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,248
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today.
The question I have is, if there's so much stuff in the holy scriptures that you disagree with,why not just edit it out?

Why not just start from scratch and write down just the "good bits"?

The problem seems to be that people are quick to say (dogmatically) "the bible is a beacon of morality" and then twist themselves into pretzels when confronted with the actual text.

Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.
I've asked this many times, for years. Only a Christian can give you an answer.

In the past Christians may have been reluctant to cut the Old Testament because it was the Old Testament that gave the New Testament authority. When Christianity first sprang up it was necessary to piggyback on the pre-existing authority of the older religion.

Nowadays Christianity has its own authority to swing around and the Old Testament is just becoming more and more outdated and dismissed. But they still won't cut it because who are they to edit the word of God and so on.
#103
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Who are Christian nationalists? Those who attempt to inject Christianity into government arguing Christianity was instrumental to the Constitution.

Notions found in the 10 commandments are not unique or new to Christianity. If murder was not considered bad before religion then I doubt we would be having this conversation since mankind predates it. No god belief is needed to accept some actions cause more harm than benefits. So, it's not a matter of Christian values vs. humanistic values- it's simply humanistic values. 

Furthermore, some commandments are completely contradictory to the government established by our founders. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is incongruent with religious freedom. 

Where is attempting to inject Christianity into government happening?

And what is your opinion on this?


#104
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

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?
What is easier? It depends on the person probably. Some people who love their family enough may find it easier to pluck their eye out. That scripture
is not an instruction to hate one's family though.

How do we come to the conclusion as to what's hyperbole, and what isn't? A lot of study, both scripture, and near middle-eastern history, and logic and reason.

What you don't want to do is make a judgment at first read, assuming it means what you translate through a contemporary eye lens. Especially if you have a prejudicial bent.


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 centurychildre? 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. 
This was actually addressed in the "What is hate thread". I would review that thread, and then maybe we can continue.


I'm not familiar with Dr. Dre.


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. 
You lost me again.


#105
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Castin


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.
This was addressed to a Muslim nation that was concerned about an historical repeat of early religious wars with European theocracies. This wasn't an address to the nation telling them "Hey, we aint a Christian nation". Or for future (contemporary) Americans to make claim the FF's were deists.

One of the reasons people claim the FF's were deists is because they didn't use contemporary evangelical lingo. They would not use the name of Jesus randomly. They were careful about it because their view was that the sacred name shouldn't be thrown out casually in order to avoid using his name in vain.

For instance, George Washington is rarely recorded to have used the name. One of the exceptions was when he is quoted using Jesus' name to an Native American leader. So they probably avoided using the name amongst each other as it may suggest evangelizing someone who is already a professed Christian. Where the name of Jesus was strongly used was by the various ministers who preached Sunday mornings in the capitol. The famous founding fathers were not ministers, so they would have refrained from speaking as one.

Another example of the restraint of using Jesus' name, we never see people of European descent named Jesus. It's considered a dishonor. Sacriligious. But in Latin American culture many males are named Jesus, because to them it's honoring Jesus.

But to try and convey hoe silly this whole FF/deism thing is, the contemporary view now among many is that the Christians were the peasants, farmers, common folk. And somehow magically the deists filled all the political positions. Unfortunately, society was so different at that time that people today can make their own interpretation. The OP struggled just to acknowledge that there were any Christan FF's. He had to emphasize "some were". One gets the sense that it's painful for some to acknowledge America's Christian heritage.



Topic's author
#106
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Where is attempting to inject Christianity into government happening?
Link

And what is your opinion on this?

It is a fact the stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexuals contributes to suicide and depression in these groups. 


#107
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Castin
The response I get from Christians is
typically, "They were harsh rules for a harsh time. But that time has passed." They also often dip into "who am I to judge." Such evils were certainly a fact of ancient times, but it's hard to imagine there was any time when genocide or taking virgins as slaves was necessary. Some things are never okay.

But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today. If so, that Christian must be my ideological enemy, as they would stand for everything I deplore -- if not, we can be allies in values and ethics. I must admit the latter is the case the vast majority of the time.
The virgins weren't taken as slaves. They were taken to become wives. And the command to wipe out their enemies was only given because these nations were out to wipe Israel off the planet. The funny thing is, every accusation aimed at the O.T., one way or the other we practice ourselves. Genocide is no exception. Had Japan continued their assault campaigns we would have wiped them all out. The bombing of Hiroshima was horrible. But it only ended there because their assault campaigns (to the degree of the attack on Pearl Harbor) discontinued. Many people would say the assault on Hiroshima was evil, but how many of them moved to a different country due to our wickedness?

And it wasn't just that it was harsh times. Just like we can't base civilian laws today on laws that apply to the military. At the time of the Exodus, they were pretty much a nomadic army. It was necessary for very strict laws just like in today's military.  Of course their laws were also strict on who could fight in battle. It was not for women and children like we see today in other parts of the world.

#108
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL

REally?  Where exactly is the "detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws"??????????????????
There isn't one book that I know of. Rather, multiple books referred to concerning near middle eastern history. Part of Bible study involves regional history in that time period. We have Rabbinic exegesis to glean from.



Topic's author
#109
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The virgins weren't taken as slaves. They were taken to become wives.
Is collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and childbearing) mitigated by calling them "wives"? Quite plainly - this is sexual slavery. There is no context where this is acceptable.

#110
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not familiar specifically with project blitz. But the push for religious freedom protection is valid. This is pretty much a response to the incidences like the bakery in Colorado where the business owners were on the defensive, and the real victims. 

These bills they're referring to are non-aggressive which is how they're made to sound. Like if they were bills based on Bible morals prohibiting pre-marital sex, or same sex activity. Allowing teachers to display the 10 commandments is non-aggressive for instance. Now there may very well be bills they're trying to push that are just not feasible today, but nothing to cry "conspiracy" over. I think a number of evangelicals feel we should have the right to practice what was practiced in early American history. But making certain things mandatory would be a problem I would agree. But the FFRF do the same things, and lose cases because some of their demands are unconstitutional. 

But, I would need a more neutral source to fnd out just how aggressive these bills really are. I don't trust sites that use terms like the Christian far-right, conservative watch, religious watch, religious far-right, etc. 

Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.



It is a fact the stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexuals contributes to suicide and depression in these groups. 

Any article that states that Hawaii is an island paradise, I will agree with on that point no matter how much I disagree with the overall message from that site. I understand that there's something within the article you agree with. But that's not what I'm asking. Are these people in the right? Are they acting within constitutional boundaries?

#111
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and childbearing) mitigated by calling them "wives"? Quite plainly - this is sexual slavery. There is no context where this is acceptable.
No, collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and child bearing) wouldn't be mitigated by calling them wives. But that's not what they were given permission to do. Kidnapping, rape, sexual slavery, are serious crimes in Biblical law, mostly punishable by death.

The problem is you're trying to make a claim about an event you probably don't even think happened, and then base it on man's animalistic behavior as a law allowing for sexual slavery. Kind of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing.

Topic's author
#112
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and child bearing) wouldn't be mitigated by calling them wives. But that's not what they were given permission to do. Kidnapping, rape, sexual slavery, are serious crimes in Biblical law, mostly punishable by death.

The problem is you're trying to make a claim about an event you probably don't even think happened, and then base it on man's animalistic behavior as a law allowing for sexual slavery. Kind of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing.
The women and young boys brought away were considered "captives" [1]. This is kidnapping by definition.  Also, rape was only a capital offense if the victim was betrothed [2], and Hebrews could sell their daughters into sexual slavery [4]. Simply put, these offenses did not guarantee punishment... much less capital punishment.

I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery. However, the Bible and/or the individuals within it (whether they are fictional or not) do not do the same. Fortunately, the laws and values of our country stand in stark contrast to Biblical laws such as these.

Topic's author
#113
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
But, I would need a more neutral source to fnd out just how aggressive these bills really are. I don't trust sites that use terms like the Christian far-right, conservative watch, religious watch, religious far-right, etc.  

Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you need another source for, you obviously accept religiously themed copy-pasta laws are a thing. Also, "Christian Nationalism" is actually in the title of this thread, but here at post 110 you reject the term?

I feel as though you're not being intellectually honest. I don't want to waste a lot of my time if you are only interested in what jibes with your beliefs and not what's actually true.

For what it's worth, rights cannot negate the rights of others. Freedom of religion does not include using  government to advertise beliefs. It does not include treating homosexuals (or any group of humans) differently than others. It does not include the freedom from criticism. It simply means you are free to believe and worship as you please, (so long as that doesn't take away the rights of others) and government has no religious beliefs.

But that's not what I'm asking. Are these people in the right? Are they acting within constitutional boundaries?
You do realize this is a resolution and not a law, right? What issue do you have with it?

Topic's author
#114
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.
These Christians understand it as I do: LINK

#115
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.
I don't think Christian Nationalists are in favour of them either! 

Topic's author
#116
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.
I don't think Christian Nationalists are in favour of them either!  

Neither do I.

#117
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
So what do they want?
#118
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists believe in nothing. So when people believe in anything they hate it. 
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
We have Rabbinic exegesis to glean from.
None of what you posted contradicts the following.

Leviticus 25:44-46 

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 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. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Case closed.

Topic's author
#120
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
The revisionism, legislation, education, etc they advocate would have the effect of giving Christianity more respect than it deserves on its merits.