Maybe you want prosperity and freedom for all, but there are plenty of people saying you should speak English and be a Christian or get out of America.
There are people saying we need to follow immigration law and make coming to this country fair for all, but no, there aren't a lot of people saying speak English, be a Christian or leave. That's false.
Of course no one wants pollution in their back yard, but many are willing to create it and dump it on someone else if it profits them.
Which is why it's against the law and everyone but criminals support the law. What's your point?
And people do want ignorance, as in "ignore the man behind the screen", they don't want people who are smart enough to catch them at what they are doing.
Like when we are told if you like your insurance plan you can keep it? And premiums will come down an average of $2500. per family?
I didn't say Christians are the Taliban, I was pointing out that the tactics being used are the same. They haven't changed in centuries, just the names of the actors.
Which you know is a complete lie, but like the narrative anyway so you go with it. That is pathetic.
It’s simply amazing how the same exact words can be said and claims made by two people with exactly opposite viewpoints. It’s as if LilySmith uses English words, but has such a finely crafted and practiced narrative that given the same exact set of facts, can come to the opposite and incorrect (to us) conclusion though exactly correct to her. Amazing. The only analogy I can think of is the way the solar system can be described either earth centric or sun centric. And once you actually get out in space, you see one is wrong. The problem is, how do you get people like LilySmith to “get out in space”? Maybe you can’t.
It's simply amazing how the same exact words can be said and claims made by two people with exactly opposite viewpoints. It's as if LilySmith uses English words, but has such a finely crafted and practiced narrative that given the same exact set of facts, can come to the opposite and incorrect (to us) conclusion though exactly correct to her. Amazing. The only analogy I can think of is the way the solar system can be described either earth centric or sun centric. And once you actually get out in space, you see one is wrong. The problem is, how do you get people like LilySmith to "get out in space"? Maybe you can't.
I spent a few hours driving today, so I heard a couple conversations about changing mindsets. I know I was much more hopeful in my teens in the seventies, having watched what looked like a generation making major changes. That was a limited view and now I see how history is not an arc of constant progress. So I'm aware of how long it can take that sort of change to occur.
One young person, in a conversation about women in leader positions, however, noted that he grew up basically accepting that women and men are equal. That's not true everywhere of course, but it's a big improvement over it being true nowhere.
It got me thinking about the perception of our brains. Aristotle thought they were just there to cool the blood, and that stuck for a long time. We even need to adjust our concept of "universe". That doesn't happen overnight.
Of course no one wants pollution in their back yard, but many are willing to create it and dump it on someone else if it profits them.
Which is why it's against the law and everyone but criminals support the law. What's your point?
Statements like this show how, when it's convenient for you, you can say the laws are all fine and people just need to follow them. If you believe pollution laws are fine, then you agree with government regulation. But when it's convenient for you to be against that, you make general statements about how the government is controlling us.
I know I'm not right all the time, but I hope I am not that transparent.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy was fabricated by the atheist Antony Flew. The problem is he didn't take into consideration the difference between a religion--which is a set of beliefs--and ancestry. It's a ridiculous fallacy which makes no sense when used against Christianity. Atheists should seriously stop using it. It only makes them look bad. Many here, including yourself, are an example of people who once believed in God and Christian teaching, only to reject it later in life. But no one can change their ancestry. They are simply born with it and will have it their entire life.
You do not understand the fallacy at all. Ancestry has nothing to do with it. Calling it the No True Christian fallacy would not change its meaning. Getting hung up on the name shows your predilection for arguing semantics, not ideas.
So, yes, the divine right of kings is a Pagan tradition, not a Christian teaching. It does not come from Christianity no matter who practiced it and that will never change. The divine right of kings is not a part of Christianity's set of beliefs. That's not a fallacy, but a fact.
Again, it does not matter one whit that the divine right of kings is not based on the Bible. Christian monarchs used it to control their subjects. Constantine claimed it, and without Constantine Christianity would have withered and died. The divine right of kings may not be part of Christianity's set of beliefs, but it sure is a part of Christianity's set of actions.
The fact also remains that no one, including Ted Cruz's father, is calling for Dominionism, especially according to the twisted view the left has invented of it. You are falling prey to political hate speech which is not based in any reality.
No, i am merely reading what Rafael Cruz preached, which you have not apparently done. You are wrong, again. Have you clicked the link I provided and read the article about Rafael Cruz' sermons?
You do not understand the fallacy at all. Ancestry has nothing to do with it. Calling it the No True Christian fallacy would not change its meaning. Getting hung up on the name shows your predilection for arguing semantics, not ideas.
I understand the attempt being made very well. Atheists are attempting to invent a fallacy using the story of a Scotsman who doesn't like the behavior of another Scotsman to says he isn't a "true" Scotsman because of that behavior. But being a Scotsman isn't a voluntary affiliation and it isn't a group defined by a set of beliefs. Religion is. Therefore, it is very relevant to say when someone rejects the teachings of Christ and behaves contrary to his teachings, he is not a follower of Christ--a Christian. I'm not arguing semantics, but logic.
Again, it does not matter one whit that the divine right of kings is not based on the Bible. Christian monarchs used it to control their subjects. Constantine claimed it, and without Constantine Christianity would have withered and died. The divine right of kings may not be part of Christianity's set of beliefs, but it sure is a part of Christianity's set of actions.
I assure you Christianity would not have withered and died without Constantine, and Constantine does not define Christianity. Christ does, and he was never a European monarch and never endorsed the divine right of kings. Therefore, it is not Christian no matter how hard you want to blame it on Christianity.
No, i am merely reading what Rafael Cruz preached, which you have not apparently done. You are wrong, again. Have you clicked the link I provided and read the article about Rafael Cruz' sermons?
No, you're reading what left leaning political operatives wrote about what he said and labelled it "Dominionism"--a very scary sounding word used to conjure up all sorts of fear and loathing of the Christian right. Here's what you're missing. The original "Dominionists" or Reconstructionists believed that when Jesus came, He brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take action to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth. This is a belief of moderate Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church as well. Jews also have their version. It goes like this--the people of God on earth are to work towards peace and prosperity so the Christ, the Messiah will come and rule on earth. This, however, is not the Evangelical view. Evangelicals believe in a coming apocalypse, the end times when the world will turn its back on God in total rebellion--as in the days of Noah. Christ will return before mankind completely destroys himself. Either Mr. Cruz is a moderate Protestant or Catholic who believes in working towards peace and prosperity on earth so that Christ will return, OR he's an Evangelical who believes in the coming "End Times." He can't be both.
Again, it does not matter one whit that the divine right of kings is not based on the Bible. Christian monarchs used it to control their subjects. Constantine claimed it, and without Constantine Christianity would have withered and died. The divine right of kings may not be part of Christianity's set of beliefs, but it sure is a part of Christianity's set of actions.
I assure you Christianity would not have withered and died without Constantine, and Constantine does not define Christianity. Christ does, and he was never a European monarch and never endorsed the divine right of kings. Therefore, it is not Christian no matter how hard you want to blame it on Christianity.
So, curious, I'm wondering what you think would have had happened, or should have happened. I assume you agree that in fact, Constantine and his heirs did increase Christian following and they did call the counsels that made many decisions about what was anathema and all that. Let's not argue about whether or not they got it right, I don't think we'll settle that. I'm wondering how you think it would have all played out without a major army backing the movement, without the succession of all those kings doing all things in the name in Christ.
Dominionists are going to eradicate the deviants and oppress every non-Christian by reducing government to the role of defense, internal security and property rights protection! Do you not see the contradiction here? This is absurd and I'm sorry you fall for it. It's nothing more than political hate speech and lies about those on the other side of the political aisle by Democrats who do want to increase government and force everyone to live by their dictates.
I expect one of your "no true Christian" responses, but I'll ask anyway because no libertarian has ever given an answer to this before. Sorry if you don't like the libertarian label, but that's what reducing the gov't to defense and property rights protection is. Please ignore it if it offends you. I agree government should be involved with internal security, so we can leave that one out.
The question is, why those two things? Why, out of all the things that modern democratic gov'ts do around the world, do you think those two things are ones they should do? If having an army base in the Phillipines is so important, why don't you get together with some friends and contract that out yourself? Why should I have to contribute to it? What about the CIA? Is that defense? A lot of people say it is. Or are you advocating building a big wall and only having a strict definition of defense?
Same for property rights. Or some say interstate commerce. Private roads, private security firms, non-government organizations to enforce patents, why not? Would my iPhone not work if it didn't have that little folded up piece of paper with it with all the legal language?
"Small government" makes me laugh every time I hear it. Republicans don't want small government any more than Democrats do. They just want it big in different ways. Someone very wise said Republicans will never want government so "small" that it won't fit inside a woman's uterus.
Lois
I first heard this idea that "fundamentalism is a modern term" on Krista Tippet's Speaking of Faith. It is a liberal Christians' way of saying that fundamentalism is not really Christianity, that is some new form of it. But I never heard any more explanation of it. Doing my own research, I found the history of the pamphlet titled "The Fundamentals" and some other lists of fundamentals that came out around the turn of the last century. They were a reaction to the archaeology and textual analysis of the Bible that was changing Christianity. But that doesn't answer if they are right. Are the fundamentals, such as believing in salvation, believing in miracles and for some, believing the Bible is the word of God, correct?
That doesn't mean they are true in a scientific sense, but are those beliefs the heart of Christianity intended by the founding members. To answer that, you would have to analyze the original texts, but that has proven very difficult. Even the earliest canonization of official texts includes different versions of the same stories and is quite open about arguments and disagreements going on between those authors. Christians themselves can't agree on these terms even today.
The closest match to these modern lists of fundamentals is 4th century Christianity. And if you just left it at that, it wouldn't be a problem. But if you look at how those early Roman Kings who first made Christianity legal actually acted, then you start to wonder what the fundamentalists are really up to. This was the time of book burning, destruction of pagan religious icons and buildings and expelling apostates, not to mention what they did to people who didn't agree with their fundamental beliefs. Fortunately many, perhaps most, fundamentalist Christians today distance themselves from such violence, but enough do not. And suggesting that we teach a 6,000 year old world in science class is still horribly wrong, even if you are using legal means to get people to do it.
The question is, is fundamentalism some passing fad of Christianity, or is it what Christianity is designed for, a complete take over of the world with people who claim divine rights at the head?
So, curious, I'm wondering what you think would have had happened, or should have happened. I assume you agree that in fact, Constantine and his heirs did increase Christian following and they did call the counsels that made many decisions about what was anathema and all that. Let's not argue about whether or not they got it right, I don't think we'll settle that. I'm wondering how you think it would have all played out without a major army backing the movement, without the succession of all those kings doing all things in the name in Christ.
After Constantine died, Julian became Emperor of Rome and he sought to minimize Christianity and restore Rome to its Pagan roots. Christianity had spread most among the slaves and the downtrodden. It gave them the hope of a loving Father in heaven who was above the Empire and the Emperor. Emperor Julian gives a glimpse into why Christianity spread and was so popular, "(Christianity) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not one single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them."
Wiki explains it this way and gives a similar version of the quote, "Because Christian charities were open to all, including pagans, it put this aspect of the Roman citizens lives out of the control of the Imperial authority and under that of the Church. Thus Julian envisioned the institution of a Roman philanthropic system, and cared for the behaviour and the morality of the pagan priests, in the hope that it would mitigate the reliance of pagans on Christian charity, saying: "These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae (Godly love), they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes."
This all took place after Constantine ruled Rome. Christianity didn't spread by armies and kings, nor through scholars and philosophy. It spread through faith, hope and love.
"For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" Acts 13:47
"I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6
It was prophesied 3500 years ago.
So, curious, I'm wondering what you think would have had happened, or should have happened. I assume you agree that in fact, Constantine and his heirs did increase Christian following and they did call the counsels that made many decisions about what was anathema and all that. Let's not argue about whether or not they got it right, I don't think we'll settle that. I'm wondering how you think it would have all played out without a major army backing the movement, without the succession of all those kings doing all things in the name in Christ.
After Constantine died, Julian became Emperor of Rome and he sought to minimize Christianity and restore Rome to its Pagan roots. Christianity had spread most among the slaves and the downtrodden. It gave them the hope of a loving Father in heaven who was above the Empire and the Emperor. Emperor Julian gives a glimpse into why Christianity spread and was so popular, "(Christianity) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not one single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them."
Wiki explains it this way and gives a similar version of the quote, "Because Christian charities were open to all, including pagans, it put this aspect of the Roman citizens lives out of the control of the Imperial authority and under that of the Church. Thus Julian envisioned the institution of a Roman philanthropic system, and cared for the behaviour and the morality of the pagan priests, in the hope that it would mitigate the reliance of pagans on Christian charity, saying: "These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae (Godly love), they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes."
This all took place after Constantine ruled Rome. Christianity didn't spread by armies and kings, nor through scholars and philosophy. It spread through faith, hope and love.
"For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" Acts 13:47
"I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6
It was prophesied 3500 years ago.
Lots of things were "prophesied" 3500 years ago all the way up to 35 minutes ago. Most of them never came to be. Even for those that did there is no evidence that they had anything to do with the prophesy. Make a prophesy ambiguous enough or ridiculous enough and anyone can make a case for it happening sooner or later.
Not exactly what I was expecting, but I guess I should expect the unexpected from you, LilySmith. It’s always nice when we agree on something, like how many Popes have twisted the words of the original gospels, but it’s frustrating when you make something else out of that, something that I can’t make sense of.
Like here, where you pick out one pagan Emperor, the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire, and claim that proves something about how Christianity won people over through love and kindness. Yes, “this took place after Constantine", but I was referring to the Constantinian dynasty and the 1,000 years of Christians culture in Europe. We have agreed in the past that there were many non-Christian acts throughout that time by people claiming to be Christians. I was hoping to start from the point of agreement.
I was referring to Emperors like Gratian (375-383) who removed the pagan Altar of Victory from the Senate Forum and confiscated property from the vestal virgins. Do you deny that throughout that 1,000 years and up to the present, there have been people who justifiably claimed to be persecuted by Christians?
What I’m trying to do is have a conversation about Christianity that acknowledges it as it is. That means, if the proclaimed head of the church anoints a political leader that says it’s the official church, I have to accept that is what Christianity is during that period. Maybe they aren’t doing it the way someone centuries earlier intended it, but Kings, theologians and regular folk like yourself have argued about what Christianity is since Christ died, so I’m not going to be able to sort that out.
I’m sure many people would be glad to have a conversation about reforming all of the problematic Christian sects. It would be great if all Christians focused on helping the poor and building hospitals. But my guess is, we’d run into trouble pretty quick about how those hospitals worked, who could get or give transfusions perhaps, or what kind of prayers were allowed at bedside.