Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Which kind of begs the question why believe in a god if he treats everyone the same. 

This all reminds me of American Gods. 

Jon,

Are you looking for logic, rationality, and empiricism in a discussion of matters of faith?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, The King in Black said:

Don't remind me of those dark days man.

 

But that leads to another interesting point. Christians often complaint how only they are being targeted for their beliefs and looking out for their interests when a ) every religion does that and b ) Atheists argue against religion and them specifically far more aggressively. But tying with the above point I raised about how predominant politicians must affirm their Christianity it becomes clear why - Christians have way more power in the current system than anybody else, but they ignore this simple reality and choose to indulge in victim complex  

You really notice this as an outsider, especially being British / european, where religion is kind of the exception and religion is very much away from public life. In fact, claiming to be a Christian or basing any decisions on a religious belief would do nothing but create a huge deal of mis-trust around you. Tony Blair outed himself as religious and it very much damaged his reputation. 

I think my growing up here in Europe meant I was destined to be an Atheist, its very difficult to have a religion here

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr. Pepper,

The 6 hour drive to drop my kids off at Uncle Peter's, or the 16 hour drive to drop my kids off at Uncle Lucas's would be a bit of an impediment to that idea.  As for finding a babysitter on Sunday mornings from 8 AM - 1 PM that would be pricey.  Are you saying that only those who have the money to pay a babysitter should be able to go to church?

Oh ffs, Scot.  This isn't difficult.  Stop trying to make it be.  You're such a christian.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh ffs, Scot.  This isn't difficult.  Stop trying to make it be.  You're such a christian.

It's easy to find someone you trust to watch your kids for 5 hours every Sunday morning?  

[The King in Black]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, before we had the monotheistic regimes of Christianity and Islam conquering the world there was a lot of religious freedom in antiquity. Where there are many gods pretty much nobody is persecuted because of his beliefs. You don't have to worship them all, you can pick your favorite. And when the cultures interacted you can just identify Zeus with Jupiter, Hera with Juno, and so on. Jahwe would have basically be seen as another version of Jupiter/Zeus by the Greeks and Romans.

Theodosius and the Emperors after him, especially Justinian, ended religious pluralism in the Roman Empire for good and all.

The gospels only make a difference between god and the emperor because there was an emperor who was not following their god at the time they were written.

In Late Antiquity and throughout the entire Middle Ages this was different. Society belonged the and was controlled by the Church. The Clerics were the First Estate, the nobility only the Second Estate. There was struggle for power between the kings/emperors and the Pope who was the top dog in the entire thing, but nobody ever questioned the right of the Church to rule. It was just the question whether the Pope or the monarch was in charge of State and Church both, or the king/emperor just in charge of the State, subservient to the Pope who ruled the entire world.

As far as I know our American friends attached those stupid saying to their money during the 1950s when they were irrationally afraid that they would all become godless Communists who had to speak Russian.

Well, Thomas Jefferson thought he could edit the Bible and cut out stuff he didn't like (especially that nonsense connected to those exorcisms and miracles). The founders of your nation were educated people of the enlightenment who were about as religious as Voltaire or Frederick the Great.

The problem with such compulsory prayer is that the state's institutions demand from everyone present to go along with a particular brand of religion, mostly Christianity, but it is a very large difference whether that's Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

The idea that the state can force you to pay lip service to a particular (brand of) religion when you are not following that religion is clearly a violation of a separation between religion and government. Diluting it down to 'we are all Christians' (we aren't) or 'we are all monotheists' (we aren't) is not going to work.

We effectively have two state churches over here, including the state collecting the church's taxes in the name of the church, and even compulsory religious classes (with the curriculum being decided and overseen by the churches) in public schools but we would never demand non-Catholics or non-Protestants to actually sit in those classes or participate in any prayers against their will. That would essentially violate them.

Not as far as I know. You have to pay lip service to some religious branch (of Christianity) to get yourself elected into a position of real power.

For Jews the rules are somewhat different because the average guy doesn't understand that religious belief is not really mandatory to (self-)identify as a Jew. It is also a cultural, ethnic, and (for the racist) a racial kind of thing. People assume that Jews also have to believe in god but they are not compelled to do so, at least not in all branches of Judaism. It can be more a ceremonial thing where you celebrate the same feasts, do the same kind of rituals, but never actually believe in this god guy.

Sanders is a Jew, and one assumes that the overwhelming majority of the Americans did not understand that this could also mean that he is basically not religious at all.

Such branches of religion don't really existed among Baptists or other Evangelicals. And while there are a lot of 'cultural Catholics', Catholicism itself, of course, demands that you believe in the doctrines of the Church.

You can say 'I'm a Jew and I don't believe in god' within Judaism (whether this makes sense if you view Judaism just as a religion as I think you should view it is another matter) but if you say 'I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Christ and/or the Trinity' then more than a few people will raise their eyebrows in your congregation. And if you are a pastor saying this you no longer are the pastor afterwards.

But that's at the heart of 'true Christianity'. There is only one way, the right way - my way - to see it, and all the others are heretics. That's ingrained into the history. The idea that this is going to go away just because you have a Constitutional separation isn't very likely. Constitutions can be changed. Holy books usually aren't.

It is admirable for you to oppose the establishment of a theocracy but the theocrats actually have the better arguments if you take the Bible as a (literal) authority. Just as the monarchists do, actually.

From a religious point of view, do you see any intrinsic value in religious pluralism? If so, what is that? If Christ existed and cared for humanity and there was any truth to Christianity (which I very much doubt) then he would want to be worshiped in the correct way, the way he taught his disciples, and it would be a very good thing to ensure that people worship him the correct way. Else people will be tortured in hell forever. And that's much worse than to kill some unbelievers and establish a theocracy in which Christ's word will reach every soul on earth. Your own personal (religious) freedom is nothing when compared to eternal salvation.

If you think Eastern Orthodoxy is the real deal you should also begin and continue to convert other Christians/people to that particular truth. God might ask you (and judge you) for not doing so.

And care to elaborate on your conversion there? Was it something unusual or got it started because you interacted with people who had a considerable impact on you?

Yeah, America wants it's politicians Christian. 

[The King in Black]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You really notice this as an outsider, especially being British / european, where religion is kind of the exception and religion is very much away from public life. In fact, claiming to be a Christian or basing any decisions on a religious belief would do nothing but create a huge deal of mis-trust around you. Tony Blair outed himself as religious and it very much damaged his reputation. 

I think my growing up here in Europe meant I was destined to be an Atheist, its very difficult to have a religion here

Britain ? Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure about all of Europe, especially Eastern Europe. Ethnicism is big in those parts, I doubt religion is downplayed when identity is such a big factor of your politics.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, The King in Black said:

Britain ? Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure about all of Europe, especially Eastern Europe. Ethnicism is big in those parts, I doubt religion is downplayed when identity is such a big factor of your politics.

Yeah no doubt, I mostly was referring to Northern Europe / Scandinavia. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

From the average atheist point of view 'the pick and choose' believers are indeed somewhat more irritating and incoherent than the die-hard fanatics. However, I was subtly ironic there, at least in part. The idea that people today actually know what Christ may have taught or are able to uncover any sort of religious truth by going to writings that went through a lot of hands during the ages is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Not just because this whole thing is an internally contradictory mess but also because you can't be sure that it has not been doctored with. 

If a god existed I'm pretty sure he or she would be much more sympathetic to the guy who decided to worship no one because the evidence wasn't sufficient than to the mindless moron who just took a lot of unproven stuff 'on faith'. 

Even the dichotomy I made up (us vs. them) is something you have to read into the texts (because they are a convoluted mess). The fact that it is usually read in this way is because the people leading churches and religions realize that this is a great way to claim and keep power. There is no reason to believe we could not also worship a god in as different ways as there are people. We actually also have to believe that only our way is the right way, and presume we have the right to tell others what to do. Catholicism would never have ended up on top if arguments and rational interpretation of the holy scriptures would have been important. If you read a good history of dogma covering the development of doctrine in the early church you will literally find that the more irrational/internally contradictory school would win the day. 

It doesn't have to be a totalitarian ideology (and wasn't in the days prior to Constantine), it is made such by the people following it. And, of course, without any basis in reality. There is no proof that gods, heavens, hells, angels, devils, souls, etc. even exist. The arrogance you must have to actually dare tell anybody what to do while having literally nothing to back it up is breathtaking.

I don't know if you are reading the Bible a lot but I can advise you that actually reading it trying to read it without the 'interpretation guidelines' your church traditions have passed down to you things are quickly falling apart. I mean, I assume you don't follow all the laws in Leviticus to the letter but you actually have no Biblical justification for that aside from pointing to some church traditions. I also assume you don't advocate slavery despite the fact that Bible is both fine with and regulates it, giving you even little tricks to ensure that your slaves don't get away too easily. The Bible also does not condemn abortion. It is a later (and quite arbitrary) definition that life begins at conception and that children have the same legal status as human beings which can live on their own.

In that sense, even the more radical people are just picking and choosing other or more stuff. They are not better believers, just somewhat different. Not to mention there is also no reason but tradition to believe that 'the Bible' (which one are we talking about?) has been revealed or inspired by god. That has never been independently verified.

Well, at risk of getting involved in a theological debate - which someone upthread rightly cautioned against - that is not actually correct. The Bible makes it quite clear that the laws of the Old Testament (and Leviticus in the example you used) no longer apply in blanket fashion to Christians. That was for a pre-Christian Jewish religious group. So there is very much a Biblical basis for setting Leviticus aside.

As for the Bible not being independently verified. Well, how would you propose that happen? By some camcorder being dug up with video footage of all the events described within its pages?

 

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You really notice this as an outsider, especially being British / european, where religion is kind of the exception and religion is very much away from public life. In fact, claiming to be a Christian or basing any decisions on a religious belief would do nothing but create a huge deal of mis-trust around you. Tony Blair outed himself as religious and it very much damaged his reputation. 

I think my growing up here in Europe meant I was destined to be an Atheist, its very difficult to have a religion here

Well, that lady living in 10 Downing Street says she's a paid up Christian and looks set to win a big majority, so ... It looks like you only really run into problems if don't get behind secular doctrine wrt homosexuality.

[Dr. Pepper]

 

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It's easy to find someone you trust to watch your kids for 5 hours every Sunday morning?  

I have no difficulty finding someone I trust to watch my kids.  I watch theirs in turn.  Certainly it took some work to cultivate these relationships, but that's sort of what you need to do when you become a parent.

The point here is that "who will watch the kids" is a bogus rebuttal to 'taking kids to church is abusive'.  It's the argument of someone who can't quite figure out a good reason why taking his kids to church isn't abusive.  

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

Well, that lady living in 10 Downing Street says she's a paid up Christian and looks set to win a big majority, so ... You only really run into problems if don't set behind secular doctrine wrt homosexuality.

Yeah true, although she hasn't been vocal on her beliefs for a while, in fact right now you'd struggle to really know what she believes about anything.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

I have no difficulty finding someone I trust to watch my kids.  I watch theirs in turn.  Certainly it took some work to cultivate these relationships, but that's sort of what you need to do when you become a parent.

The point here is that "who will watch the kids" is a bogus rebuttal to 'taking kids to church is abusive'.  It's the argument of someone who can't quite figure out a good reason why taking his kids to church isn't abusive.  

Would you regard it as abuse?

[The King in Black]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yeah no doubt, I mostly was referring to Northern Europe / Scandinavia. 

Scandinavia has negligible diversity of any kind though, so that's not quite a good case study. When the majority is overwhelming, issues aren't going to be about things the majority has heteronomous 

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Well, that lady living in 10 Downing Street says she's a paid up Christian and looks set to win a big majority, so ... It looks like you only really run into problems if don't get behind secular doctrine wrt homosexuality.

Yeah, religion is creeping into British discourse too nowadays, though imo that's just British rightwingers copying Americans 

 

Also please don't start that 'religion=child abuse' debate again. The last one was a shit show, so will this be

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

I have no difficulty finding someone I trust to watch my kids.  I watch theirs in turn.  Certainly it took some work to cultivate these relationships, but that's sort of what you need to do when you become a parent.

The point here is that "who will watch the kids" is a bogus rebuttal to 'taking kids to church is abusive'.  It's the argument of someone who can't quite figure out a good reason why taking his kids to church isn't abusive.  

Is taking my kids to Church abusive?  You seem to be saying it is but I'm curious to see if you will say it explicitly.

[Jo498]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, before we had the monotheistic regimes of Christianity and Islam conquering the world there was a lot of religious freedom in antiquity. Where there are many gods pretty much nobody is persecuted because of his beliefs. You don't have to worship them all, you can pick your favorite. And when the cultures interacted you can just identify Zeus with Jupiter, Hera with Juno, and so on. Jahwe would have basically be seen as another version of Jupiter/Zeus by the Greeks and Romans.

The gospels only make a difference between god and the emperor because there was an emperor who was not following their god at the time they were written.

In Late Antiquity and throughout the entire Middle Ages this was different. Society belonged the and was controlled by the Church. The Clerics were the First Estate, the nobility only the Second Estate. There was struggle for power between the kings/emperors and the Pope who was the top dog in the entire thing, but nobody ever questioned the right of the Church to rule. It was just the question whether the Pope or the monarch was in charge of State and

It was not the religious freedom we mean, as you probably very well know. So the claim is simply wrong if understood in the modern way. Nobody would have bothered or persecuted the early christians if they had agreed to revere the Emperor as godlike. But many didn't. So you could only pick Mithras or Jahwe or whomever if you did not deny the divinity of the Emperor and revered him as well. Which was of course anathema to both jews and christians (as it is to us - even if we are atheist we find someone claiming to be a God-Emperor pretty abhorrent).

Your claim that gospel passages like "render unto Caesar" and others that the idea of "two cities" of western christianity is founded on are only there because there was no christian emperor is pure speculation (how could it be otherwise?) But the story with the Jewish religious establishment provoking Jesus with the Emperor's taxes shows that already for the Jews (who were an occupied people) there was a clear idea of conflict between religious laws and obligations and laws of the state.

Your description of the relation between church and state in the middle ages is also doubtful but I am not going into a historical disgression here. The church had lots of power but did not rule in the sense the state did and if there never had been a question as to how much the church should be involved in wordly rule the Reformation would have popped out of thin air. Which it didn't. And there would not have been a real difference between Byzantium without the distinction between Emperor and Pope and the West. Or to  All these are important historical differences and were important politically as well and hotly debated lots of times, so it is a gross simplification or rather a distortion to describe the European middle ages as a theocracy.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, at risk of getting involved in a theological debate - which someone upthread rightly cautioned against - that is not actually correct. The Bible makes it quite clear that the laws of the Old Testament (and Leviticus in the example you used) no longer apply in blanket fashion to Christians. That was for a pre-Christian Jewish religious group. So there is very much a Biblical basis for setting Leviticus aside.

Then why do you guys keep Leviticus and the other books of the Old Testament in the Bible? And do you really think a god would make special rules for some of his people (only to later discard them) and then later make exceptions for some newcomer converts from other religions? The relationship between Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) is basically the same as that between ASoIaF and the show. With the show being Christianity. It is a ripoff. Worse even, they stole the holy texts of another older religion and then put their own interpretation on those texts that are blatantly false. The idea that the pregnant woman in Isaiah is supposed to give birth to Christ is just nonsense. The book itself makes that clear a few verses later.

That sounds like a good sales pitch if you want to found a cult but not something a real deity would do. God is supposed to be omniscient and perfect, remember.

There are also gospels where Jesus makes it clear he has not come to change any iota of the law. I take it that would include Leviticus and others. And presumably Jesus' own words (if recounted correctly by the gospels) would be more binding than the sayings of some self-involved letter writer like Paul and the others you get later on. These men were all not Christ. Or do you think the gospels are less reliable than the sayings of mortal men who came afterwards and (might) never (have) interacted with him directly? If so, then you could just as well take my word for it that Christ spoke to me yesterday.

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for the Bible not being independently verified. Well, how would you propose that happen? By some camcorder being dug up with video footage of all the events described within its pages?

How should I know? But if you want to sell me stuff you have to verify it independently. Else I can't be sure that you are right. And if you are trying to tell we how to live my life or what to believe you better give me a good reason why I should listen to you.

There is a reason why religious people are usually indoctrinated from a very early age on. Else becoming Christian would sound as ridiculous to you as might the idea to convert to Mormonism or become a Scientologist. Stuff like that sounds only 'normal' to you if you have always been associated with it one way or another.

[Dr. Pepper]

11 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Would you regard it as abuse?

It obviously depends on the situation, the church, what's being taught, etc.  I can't imagine how this is even a question or how it became a question to begin with.

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is taking my kids to Church abusive?

Lol, so now you are circling back to the original question instead of agreeing that your response to it was bogus.  We could go through a whole list of what would entail abusive behavior when it comes to religious societies and what children are exposed to.  But the entire point was that you think that whether it's abusive or not, you have to take your kids because you've never heard of a babysitter.  

[Jo498]

2 hours ago, Mikael said:

He already did accuse you of not being a real Christian though

Isn't it kind of odd though, how people are perfectly clear that their faith is like 90% caused by where they were born and still believe that their's is the one true faith? 

Edit: I get that the same is true for atheism.

The same is (trivially) true for almost everything. Therefore it is not a good argument for or against anything. There are probably also more converts than one might expect. Especially in the US with its myriads of protestant churches it does not seem all that uncommon for people changing from one church to another, sometimes every few years. (And no, I don't expect that all or most of them did that because of careful deliberation and argumentation about whether the doctrines of the baptists or the presbyterians are more consistent.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LV,

Do you think taking Children to religious services is abusive?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It obviously depends on the situation, the church, what's being taught, etc.  I can't imagine how this is even a question or how it became a question to begin with.

Lol, so now you are circling back to the original question instead of agreeing that your response to it was bogus.  We could go through a whole list of what would entail abusive behavior when it comes to religious societies and what children are exposed to.  But the entire point was that you think that whether it's abusive or not, you have to take your kids because you've never heard of a babysitter.  

I'm interested that you will not give a direct answer to the question.  If there is nuance here what would cause you to believe a Parent taking a child to Religious services with them is abusive?

Would it apply to most mainline Christian faiths?