US founded on "Christian Principles"?

[skeptical]

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.

Thanks for that ref, I'll put it on my reading list, but probably won't get to it before this thread is long dead and gone.

Is the idea of natural rights truly traceable to the NT? I can see how one could extrapolate out that idea, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. After all, Christianity thrived under both the Romans and Medieval feudal system, which were hardly known for equality for all.

If those ideas are Christian, the church sure seemed to have done a good job of ignoring them for quite some time.

 

[ceo_esq]

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?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. To restate it, does the prayer, or does it not, express a desire to see done (or for God to do) to Jews what is done (or what the prayer asks God to do) also to Christians and indeed all people?

 

[skeptical]

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.

It would seem, that no matter what were anyone motives, if you pray for someones "heart to be illuminated", you're pretty much saying their heart is NOT illuminated right now.

I realize that just about every religion (but not all) think they have "the answer", but it is a little over the top to have a specific prayer calling out a specific other religion to "come over from the dark side".

I'm not even Jewish, far from it, and that pisses me off, especially after the treatment that Jews have suffered at the hands of the RCC for thousands of years. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[~enigma~]

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. To restate it, does the prayer, or does it not, express a desire to see done (or for God to do) to Jews what is done (or what the prayer asks God to do) also to Christians and indeed all people?

I figured when you read my first post saying the idiot in the mitre was busy pissing off Jews you would have understood my answer was no...guess I expected too much of you.

 

[~enigma~]

It would seem, that no matter what were anyone motives, if you pray for someones "heart to be illuminated", you're pretty much saying their heart is NOT illuminated right now.

I realize that just about every religion (but not all) think they have "the answer", but it is a little over the top to have a specific prayer calling out a specific other religion to "come over from the dark side".

I'm not even Jewish, far from it, and that pisses me off, especially after the treatment that Jews have suffered at the hands of the RCC for thousands of years. But, maybe that's just me.

It's not just you...

 

[articulett]

How isn't it as offensive as Osama saying that the answers to the worlds problems is for everyone to become Muslim?

Sure, he's following the golden rule of his religion... the same apologist argument works... so do people who go door to door trying to proselytize... they don't want to hear your opinions... but, damn, they sure do want you to hear theirs.

 

[ceo_esq]

It would seem, that no matter what were anyone motives, if you pray for someones "heart to be illuminated", you're pretty much saying their heart is NOT illuminated right now.

Well, Christians also pray for their God to illuminate their own hearts. The question here is, does the ethic of reciprocity - the Golden Rule - dictate that a Christian (1) should want God to confer what he believes to be spiritual well-being on Jews, (2) should want God to withhold it, or (3) should be indifferent whether God confers or withholds it?

 

[~enigma~]

Well, Christians also pray for their God to illuminate their own hearts. The question here is, does the ethic of reciprocity - the Golden Rule - dictate that a Christian (1) should want God to confer what he believes to be spiritual well-being on Jews, (2) should want God to withhold it, or (3) should be indifferent whether God confers or withholds it?

So it's ethical now for a christian to "pray" that his beliefs become given to me even though I don't want them? Seems to me what would be ethical is to allow me my own choice not to try to forcefeed your bs down my throat.

 

[ceo_esq]

To restate it, does the prayer, or does it not, express a desire to see done (or for God to do) to Jews what is done (or what the prayer asks God to do) also to Christians and indeed all people?

I figured when you read my first post saying the idiot in the mitre was busy pissing off Jews you would have understood my answer was no...guess I expected too much of you.

OK. You think that the prayer does not express a desire to see done (or for God to do) to Jews what is done (or what the prayer asks God to do) also to Christians and indeed all people. Are you really basing that answer on the text of the prayer? Do we need to parse the text here? Your answer seems to ignore its plain language.

 

[~enigma~]

OK. You think that the prayer does not express a desire to see done (or for God to do) to Jews what is done (or what the prayer asks God to do) also to Christians and indeed all people. Are you really basing that answer on the text of the prayer? Do we need to parse the text here? Your answer seems to ignore its plain language.

And you seem afraid to answer my question just like a good catholic boy

 

[articulett]

If Christians would pray really hard for Satan to let Jesus in his heart, then they wouldn't have to worry about the rest of us... there'd be no hell.

Or maybe they should spend time praying to lift that "original sin" curse that is such a downer.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It would seem, that no matter what were anyone motives, if you pray for someones "heart to be illuminated", you're pretty much saying their heart is NOT illuminated right now.

I realize that just about every religion (but not all) think they have "the answer", but it is a little over the top to have a specific prayer calling out a specific other religion to "come over from the dark side".

I'm not even Jewish, far from it, and that pisses me off, especially after the treatment that Jews have suffered at the hands of the RCC for thousands of years. But, maybe that's just me.

It's not just you...

Beat me to it.

Well, then, it's not just you two, too.

 

[skeptical]

Well, Christians also pray for their God to illuminate their own hearts. The question here is, does the ethic of reciprocity - the Golden Rule - dictate that a Christian (1) should want God to confer what he believes to be spiritual well-being on Jews, (2) should want God to withhold it, or (3) should be indifferent whether God confers or withholds it?

My problem with it is the sheer audacity of calling out your parent religionists directly to "see the light". I just have a problem with that on its face, but I also have a problem with anyone who is convinced that they have all the answers to begin with, so there you go.

But, to answer the question, wanting something and making a public display of it seem like different things to me. Wanting some other group to believe as you do may in fact be the golden rule, but I fail to see how calling out another group specifically and implying that they, specifically, are suffering in darkness, is a good application of the GR or any other rule.

Additionally, I wonder what the RCC would say if Jews held a world wide prayer and called upon all Christians to see the light and abandon Jesus as a false Messiah. After all, they would just be following the GR as well.

It seems a bit, well, tawdry is the only word that comes to mind.

 

[~enigma~]

My problem with it is the sheer audacity of calling out your parent religionists directly to "see the light". I just have a problem with that on its face, but I also have a problem with anyone who is convinced that they have all the answers to begin with, so there you go.

But, to answer the question, wanting something and making a public display of it seem like different things to me. Wanting some other group to believe as you do may in fact be the golden rule, but I fail to see how calling out another group specifically and implying that they, specifically, are suffering in darkness, is a good application of the GR or any other rule.

Additionally, I wonder what the RCC would say if Jews held a world wide prayer and called upon all Christians to see the light and abandon Jesus as a false Messiah. After all, they would just be following the GR as well.

It seems a bit, well, tawdry is the only word that comes to mind.

Taken to an extreme, didn't this type of thinking lead to the spanish inquisition, pogroms and eventual "head turning" of the RCC during the holocaust? Pope is an idiot...really.

 

[ceo_esq]

And you seem afraid to answer my question just like a good catholic boy

I'm no more Catholic than you are. I thought the answer to your question was clear. To put that answer more unambigously, though: I was able to think for just a moment that the pope's revision to the prayer was an application of the Golden Rule because, by its plain language, it expresses a wish for somebody else to enjoy a benefit that the speaker also would want.

 

[~enigma~]

I'm no more Catholic than you are. I thought the answer to your question was clear. To put that answer more unambigously, though: I was able to think for just a moment that the pope's revision to the prayer was an application of the Golden Rule because, by its plain language, it expresses a wish for somebody else to enjoy a benefit that the speaker also would want.

Right...and that would lead to what I wrote in post #195...I admire your tenacity in avoiding answering my question. Are we gonna play ring around the rosie all night or do you intend to answer my question that you quoted in post #183?

 

[ceo_esq]

But, to answer the question, wanting something and making a public display of it seem like different things to me.

Wanting something and actually following the Golden Rule are different things too. Making a public display of something and having a tiny subset of your already private club mention it once a year in a private meeting also seem like different things. I'm not really sure I understood your point here though.

Additionally, I wonder what the RCC would say if Jews held a world wide prayer and called upon all Christians to see the light and abandon Jesus as a false Messiah. After all, they would just be following the GR as well.

Funny you should mention that. Back in July, when the pope made the initial decision to allow (not require) the old Good Friday prayer to be revived, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish intellectual, pointed out that "the synagogue liturgy has an equivalent prayer which we say three times a day, not just once a year." Except that instead of praying for the hearts of the Gentiles to be illuminated, in that prayer they basically thank God for not making them Gentiles.

 

[~enigma~]

Except that instead of praying for the hearts of the Gentiles to be illuminated, in that prayer they basically thank God for not making them Gentiles.

Nor women or slaves but do you hear anyone defending jewish liturgy? Or are you now changing your defense to one of tit for tat or an eye for an eye? BTW, how is that answer to post 183 coming?

 

[skeptical]

Wanting something and actually following the Golden Rule are different things too. Making a public display of something and having a tiny subset of your already private club mention it once a year in a private meeting also seem like different things. I'm not really sure I understood your point here though.

I suppose my point was, that if it was a matter of following the GR, one could simply WANT or HOPE that God would illuminate their hearts, or even pray in private, with no announcements or fanfare about it. I didn't see the purpose of making it public. Sort of one of those "just because you're thinking it doesn't mean you actually have to say it" moments. Even if the prayer itself is private, why publicize it? I can't see the purpose other than to sow more divisiveness.

Funny you should mention that. Back in July, when the pope made the initial decision to allow (not require) the old Good Friday prayer to be revived, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish intellectual, pointed out that "the synagogue liturgy has an equivalent prayer which we say three times a day, not just once a year." Except that instead of praying for the hearts of the Gentiles to be illuminated, in that prayer they basically thank God for not making them Gentiles.

Its not really the same thing to me. Saying you are thankful for who you are, and saying you want God to illuminate someone else, seems categorically different, regardless of what the good Rabbi said. However, I'm not particularly fond of the tribalism in that statement either, but the RCC is one of the last organizations that should be calling on other people to be illuminated.

 

[~enigma~]

Its not really the same thing to me. Saying you are thankful for who you are, and saying you want God to illuminate someone else, seems categorically different, regardless of what the good Rabbi said. However, I'm not particularly fond of the tribalism in that statement either, but the RCC is one of the last organizations that should be calling on other people to be illuminated.

Good point. If the jewish liturgy said to make the gentiles Jews catholic boy might have a point but that isn't what it says.