US founded on "Christian Principles"?

~enigma~ said:
So christianity or in this case cathlocism is beyond science and logic? Now where have we heard that claim before...
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't say any such thing. I just pointed out a potential logical weakness in skeptical's argument: not all relationships conceivably signified by "the Father is God" are necessarily transitive - nothing in logic dictates that they be, anyhow - and so skeptical's syllogism may have a faulty premise.
 
ceo_esq said:
I certainly didn't say any such thing. I just pointed out a potential logical weakness in skeptical's argument: not all relationships conceivably signified by "the Father is God" are necessarily transitive - nothing in logic dictates that they be, anyhow - and so skeptical's syllogism may have a faulty premise.
Click to expand...
Ok...lt's turn it around. What logic leads you to believe it isn't transitive? Now is your logic based on science or personal superstition?
 
CFLarsen said:
I said accept it. I didn't say understand it.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a a-hole, but, how do you accept something that you don't understand?

I mean, I accept that there is strong evidence for QM, even though I don't understand the mathematics behind it. But, I accept it because I could, in theory, through study of the principles acquire the knowledge to fully understand it.

But, in cases of things like the trinity, there doesn't seem to be any amount of learning or information that will make it any less opaque. So, what is the point of accepting something that cannot even in principle be understood?
 
ceo_esq said:
I certainly didn't say any such thing. I just pointed out a potential logical weakness in skeptical's argument: not all relationships conceivably signified by "the Father is God" are necessarily transitive - nothing in logic dictates that they be, anyhow - and so skeptical's syllogism may have a faulty premise.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see your point. It depends on what one means by the word "is". ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

However, I would argue that they go further than using just "is", as I understand it they say that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are actually equivalent, so that would seem to justify a transitive relationship. Or, am I wrong about that?
 
NeilC said:
What are christian principles?
Click to expand...

An excellent question. I assume it means, at a minimum, a principle allegedly articulated by Jesus, but it might mean more, such as a principle espoused by the Christian churches, which might not be traceable to the NT.
 
skeptical said:
An excellent question. I assume it means, at a minimum, a principle allegedly articulated by Jesus, but it might mean more, such as a principle espoused by the Christian churches, which might not be traceable to the NT.
Click to expand...
I would have thought it would be more along the lines of a Christian's creed. In other words, something along the lines of
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy atholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."​
It just screams freedom, liberty, and democracy, doesn't it?
 
Upchurch said:
I would have thought it would be more along the lines of a Christian's creed. In other words, something along the lines of
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.​

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.​

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy atholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."​
It just screams freedom, liberty, and democracy, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the creed from the catholic church? Are catholics the only true christians? If not, then that can't be the answer.

ETA - nice cookie. Can I have some?
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
Isn't that the creed from the catholic church? Are catholics the only true christians? If not, then that can't be the answer.
Click to expand...
As Mark said, it's the Nicene creed. The Apostles' creed (the one the Catholics use) is similar. You'll note that I said "something along the lines of".


~enigma~ said:
ETA - nice cookie. Can I have some?
Click to expand...
You'll have to ask Bruce, if he ever comes back. He gave me this one.
 
Back when I was a theist, I had the rather interesting experience of taking a religion class taught by an atheist Catholic priest (he became an atheist after taking vows and claimed he felt he had to follow through on them because having lost faith, all he had left was his word--and yes he did drink heavily). I asked this guy about the whole trinity thing, and his explanation was something like:

Replace the word "person" with "aspect". The trinity represents 3 different aspects of the totality of God, not 3 different people. God the Father is the aspect of God that provides, protects, judges and disciplines. God the Son is the aspect of god that is sort of a peer to man, right down to the dual nature of being both God and human--since we humans are actually part of God, but we are unable to experience this unity during our lives on Earth. God the Holy Spirit is the aspect of God that pervades creation and animates all life.

For what it's worth, this explanation seems to me to be at least internally self-consistent. But it also reminds me of the sort of arguments that paranoid schizophrenics make to explain their delusions. I have no idea how closely it matches official Catholic doctrine.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
It's the Nicene creed. Other Christian denominations have their own versions.
Click to expand...
The Apostle's creed of the catholc church is very similar. Since other denominations have differing versions then I would ask if that means there are differing opinions within christianity on what christian principles are. As I said in another thead, the new testament can't even agree so how can anybody be expected to answer. now getting back to the topic of this thread, how can anyone say (with a straight face) that the founding men of this country were "wishy-washy" enough to found a country on undefinable principals.
 
Prometheus said:
Replace the word "person" with "aspect". The trinity represents 3 different aspects of the totality of God, not 3 different people.
Click to expand...
I've heard this explanation before. I find it limiting.

I have way more than three aspects and I'm a mere human being. God has only three?
 
Upchurch said:
I've heard this explanation before. I find it limiting.

I have way more than three aspects and I'm a mere human being. God has only three?
Click to expand...

Like I said, it seems like a paranoid delusion to me, but it avoids the Jesus=his own father illogic.

I'm not defending the argument in anyway. I used to get in trouble in Sunday school for asking things like, "what happened to God the Mother, and God the Second Cousin Twice Removed, and God the Family Pet?"
 
I was a Catholic too, and I remember reciting the Nicene Creed as well as the Apostle's during mass as a child depending on what parish I was attending at the time.
 
ceo_esq said:
As near as I can tell from references online, it is from Berakhot 7:18 in the Talmud: "Blessed be [God], who did not make me a Gentile."

While looking into this, I noticed a reference in a similar vein to the one above, found in the Aleinu prayer: "[God] did not place us in the same situation as anyone else / For they bow to vanity and emptiness / And pray to a god which helps not." Apparently some Jewish congregations leave the latter part of that out, for p.c. or other reasons.
Click to expand...


The Talmud is not recited three times a day in synagogue. The Aleinu, however, is, and upon reading the wiki page about it, I recognize the entire thing...except for the phrase

"For they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a go which helps not."

This phrase has never been recited in any Jewish service I've been to, in Hebrew or in English. And I've been to many.

Indeed, the wiki article says that some congregations outside of Israel omit that passage. Every one that I've been to does.

So basically, the prayer I grew up hearing says, "Since we are in a different situation than others, it is our duty to praise God."

I don't really see a problem with that attitude.

Now, if it had said, "Thanks be to God, for not making us like those other poor schlubs...." I'd take exception.

According to the article, Christianity was responsible for that line being censored, as they believed (possibly mistakenly) that it referred to them. In fact, they may have been doing themselves a disservice:

wiki said:
Ismar Elbogen, a historian of the Jewish liturgy, held that not only this line, but the early form of the entire prayer pre-dated Christianity. Conservative/Masorti Rabbi Reuven Hammer comments on the excised sentence:

Originally the text read that God has not made us like the nations who "bow down to nothingless and vanity, and pray to an impotent god," ...In the Middle Ages these words were censored, since the church believed they were an insult to Christianity. Omitting them tends to give the impression that the Aleinu teaches that we are both different and better than others. The actual intent is to say that we are thankful that God has enlightened us so that, unlike the pagans, we worship the true God and not idols. There is no inherent superiority in being Jewish, but we do assert the superiority of monotheistic belief over paganism. Although paganism still exists today, we are no longer the only ones to have a belief in one God.
Click to expand...

It goes on to say that the Reform and Reconstructionist movements have altered the prayer soas to make it more inclusive of other ideologies.

I love this forum. Even something I know something about, I can learn more about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom