US founded on "Christian Principles"?

[articulett]

That doesn't make too much sense to me. If the rule were intended to be applied solely to people of the same faith, why would Jesus illustrate it with the parable of the Good Samaritan (who belonged to a different faith than the person he helped)?

Well that's the way it appears to be practiced... and Jesus' dad (who is really him) endorsed it repeatedly. All religions think that the people who believe like them are the best and most moral and most worth caring about. It's why Christians can merrily slaughter Iraqis or Vietcong. In, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis apologizes it all away, by claiming it's not really "murder" and "thou shall not kill" really meant "thou shall not murder".

Where are these Christians treating those who believe differently with the same sense of entitlement they seem to have for themselves?

 

[Piggy]

That doesn't make too much sense to me. If the rule were intended to be applied solely to people of the same faith, why would Jesus illustrate it with the parable of the Good Samaritan (who belonged to a different faith than the person he helped)?

Exactly. It was Jesus' definition of "neighbor", not his espousal of the doctrine of "love thy neighbor", which is so radical in that text.

Don't forget that ancient Jewish tradition made clear distinctions between how one was to treat Jews and how one was to treat non-Jews.

So in this case, I'd say that this particular Christian principle finds analogs in the philosophy underpinning the founding documents of our nation.

Still, that doesn't suffice for a "founded on Xian principles" claim.

 

[ceo_esq]

I think what you've [joobz] posted is probably the closest that one could come to a decent argument that there are Christian principles at work in the USC.

I am not convinced by it, but it is much better than everything else I have seen. (I realize it is not necessarily your argument)

There is something to the idea of "natural rights" as a foundational principle in the founding, but I'm not convinced those a traceable to the NT. I would have to think about that some more or see some more discussion of it. I don't think simply saying you should treat your neighbor as yourself can reasonably be stretched to mean everyone is equal, but I may be wrong about that.

Given your interest in the subject, there's a fairly recent (2002) book that you might find to be a rewarding read: God, Locke and Equality by Jeremy Waldron. Professor Waldron is a distinguished Locke scholar now on the NYU Law School faculty (he wrote the book when he was professor of law and philosophy at Columbia).

Given the profound influence that Locke's concept of rights (among other things) exercised on the U.S. Constitution, and the equally profound degree to which Locke used Christian theology (his own version thereof, at any rate) and Scripture to develop and underpin his philosophy in this area, I think this is probably the best sense in which we can say that "there are Christian principles at work" in the Constitution. The Constitution can fairly be said to have assimilated a Christian sense of natural rights and the nature of the human person (what we might call a Christian anthropology). This isn't far from what joobz was getting at earlier.

 

[~enigma~]

Well that's the way it appears to be practiced... and Jesus' dad (who is really him) endorsed it repeatedly. All religions think that the people who believe like them are the best and most moral and most worth caring about. It's why Christians can merrily slaughter Iraqis or Vietcong. In, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis apologizes it all away, by claiming it's not really "murder" and "thou shall not kill" really meant "thou shall not murder".

Where are these Christians treating those who believe differently with the same sense of entitlement they seem to have for themselves?

And it was jesus who said he came for the sinner NOT for the righteous...kinda proves how hypocritical and unthinking christians really can be.

 

[CFLarsen]

and Jesus' dad (who is really him)

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you are going to criticize believers, you have to criticize what they actually claim, and not what you think they claim - or, worse, what you want them to claim. Otherwise, you are just making a mockery out of yourself, and not the beliefs you criticize.

You will not make any impact or progress until you learn this. If those are your goals, of course.

 

[~enigma~]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you are going to criticize believers, you have to criticize what they actually claim, and not what you think they claim - or, worse, what you want them to claim. Otherwise, you are just making a mockery out of yourself, and not the beliefs you criticize.

You will not make any impact or progress until you learn this. If those are your goals, of course.

So the trinity really means that the father, son and holy ghost aren't one?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I always thought I was confused about what the Trinity was.


Now I'm really confused.

I read the wiki article, and I understand each word individually. Put them together, though, and it suddenly doesn't make any sense.

Are you sure Christianity is monotheistic?

 

[articulett]

I always thought I was confused about what the Trinity was.


Now I'm really confused.

I read the wiki article, and I understand each word individually. Put them together, though, and it suddenly doesn't make any sense.

Are you sure Christianity is monotheistic?

Having trouble with a triune God? Can't wrap your head around 3-in-one? It's all part of the holy mystery, and who are you to question GOD (cubed)???

 

[~enigma~]

Having trouble with a triune God? Can't wrap your head around 3-in-one? It's all part of the holy mystery, and who are you to question god(cubed)???

And here i thought i was the Enigma...

 

[articulett]

And here i thought i was the Enigma...

Perhaps there is a triune enigma of which you are part.

 

[Piggy]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If you are going to criticize believers, you have to criticize what they actually claim, and not what you think they claim - or, worse, what you want them to claim. Otherwise, you are just making a mockery out of yourself, and not the beliefs you criticize.

You will not make any impact or progress until you learn this. If those are your goals, of course.

I don't know where you're from, but around here, Jesus = God is accepted by many people. It's not uncommon to hear Jesus described as creator of the universe, most high God, etc.

 

[~enigma~]

Perhaps there is a triune enigma of which you are part.

Well I have a father and I am a son but I am not yet nor doubt I will ever be a ghost. But you can worship me if you want...or not...I am very amenable

 

[ceo_esq]

Well that's the way it appears to be practiced...

In what context? Not that how it's practiced necessarily matters to this point.

... and Jesus' dad (who is really him) endorsed it repeatedly.

There's an OT endorsement to the effect that the Golden Rule was only intended to apply to coreligionists? I'm not denying that one exists, but it is news to me so I hope you will point it out. Don't bother pointing out, among other things, simply (1) examples of OT people apparently violating the G.R., or (2) examples of God conducting himself in such a way that, if a human being did the same thing, would appear to violate the G.R.

All religions think that the people who believe like them are the best and most moral and most worth caring about.

Some religions may subscribe to that principle, though I really don't think Christianity is one of them. The thing is, human beings in general have a tendency to think that the people who share their values and other characteristics in common "are the best and most moral and most worth caring about". This isn't a feature of Christianity or even of religion as such. Indeed, many religious teachings are intended to restrain or discourage that human tendency.

 

[~enigma~]

Some religions may subscribe to that principle, though I really don't think Christianity is one of them.

Really?!

Then why is the new idiot in the mitre busy pissing off the Jews? Oh....right...he isn't a real christian

 

[articulett]

I believe one of the teachings of Christianity is that those who don't believe that Jesus died for our sins will be burning in hell.

Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that Christians aren't eager to let the hell bound to enjoy the momentary life on earth before burning for eternity... they like tell them how great Christians are and how everyone else is damned. I don't think they'd like to be treated that way... but feel free to play all the apologetic and semantic games you want to pretend that Christians are super duper and the US is a Christian Nation.

Christians often seem very good at propping up this notion... even though it's a lie. We were founded as a secular nation... they don't really apply the golden rule to secularists when they try to rewrite history and push legislation to celebrate Christian heritage.

Christians are excellent at claiming to be discriminated against while tromping all over the rights of others. Not very golden rule-ish if you ask me. But I know you need to spin your delusion, so feel free. I'm aware that nothing can convince a person of faith to change their mind or utilize the tools of skepticism within their faith.

 

[articulett]

In their heads the Christians are the most compassionate kind people they know. The non-Christians don't see it. It seems Christianity allows people to feel "holier than thou" while never actually doing anything except play semantic games for Jesus.

 

[ceo_esq]

Really?!


Then why is the new idiot in the mitre busy pissing off the Jews? Oh....right...he isn't a real christian

I presume you're referring to this story regarding the pope's decision to revise a prayer, recited once a year by a small handful of Catholics, in order to make the idea of it less offensive to the sensibilities of certain Jews. The same story that was hailed by Rabbi David Rosen of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations as reflecting the fact that the pope is "deeply committed to advancing the relationship with the Jewish Community".

Well, let's think about the answer to your question, enigma. The prayer, which Rabbi Rosen characterized as one for the "well being of the Jews", goes as follows:

Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.

...

Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved.

Could it be that what the pope did, and indeed the sentiment of the prayer itself, is an expression of obedience rather than disobedience to the Golden Rule? After all, that part of the prayer plainly expresses a desire on the part of the few people reciting it to see done to others as the speakers would have done to themselves.

 

[~enigma~]

stupidity snipped for sanity..Could it be that what the pope did, and indeed the sentiment of the prayer itself, is an expression of obedience rather than disobedience to the Golden Rule? After all, that part of the prayer plainly expresses a desire on the part of the few people reciting it to see done to others as the speakers would have done to themselves.

Whatever you call it the result is offensive to many Jews. If you want to defend the actions of the mitred idiot, that's your choice but I figured you were smart enough to do otherwise. Guess appearances are deceiving.

ETA - How could you even think for a moment that the holier than thou bs from the pope is an application of love thy neighbor?

 

[ceo_esq]

Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that Christians aren't eager to let the hell bound to enjoy the momentary life on earth before burning for eternity...

Well, a great many of them seem to be motivated in one way or another to spare people pain and loss in the afterlife. It seems a bit churlish to deny the possibility that such behavior could arise from a bona fide intention to carry out the Golden Rule.

they like tell them how great Christians are and how everyone else is damned. I don't think they'd like to be treated that way...

Well, let's hope none of them read your posts then, because you seem inclined to use them as an opportunity to return what you perceive as ill treatment with more ill treatment.

but feel free to play all the apologetic and semantic games you want ...

... I know you need to spin your delusion, so feel free.

Remarks like the foregoing come across as the rhetorical equivalent of declaring the other team to be bad sports and then walking off the field every time you're down a few points.

Also, I have the lingering impression that you have me confused with a person of faith, to the extent you were addressing those remarks to me.

I'm aware that nothing can convince a person of faith to change their mind or utilize the tools of skepticism within their faith.

I doubt that's strictly true. However, I suspect that the Christians you're complaining about probably feel the same way about our views on God/sin/etc. as you do about theirs, but minus the sour personal assessment and plus a desire (however ignorant, misguided or counterproductive) to see us helped out of what they see as a dangerous predicament.

 

[articulett]

I was raised Catholic... I know the spin... I used to apologize for the Pope too... I don't think there really is an excuse for his behavior... I don't go into churches and tell people how deluded they are and how nutty it is to believe in a triune god... even though I wish someone had done so in my childhood.