- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But it's an incorrect one, so until Christians learn to keep their beliefs out of politics, I will continue to call them out on it. BTW, are you sure that church feeds homeless gays? I occasionally visit a church in my town that feeds the homeless (unless they're gay - in which case they have to commit themselves to undergo "therapy" first).
Christianity was a sub group of Judaism in its inception. It was a small group of people who agreed to follow Jesus across the empire. There was no grand mastermind scheme behind it.
Paul didn't speak for Jesus any more than Joseph Smith did - Paul never even met Jesus (unless you believe his "magical vision" was real). He invented his own doctrine and claimed to be "speaking for God" - that's how religion was invented.Ok Tooth. It seems you are going to argue with anything I say no matter what it is. I said nothing about the origins of the teachings nor whom they listened to. Paul taught them to follow Jesus. Therefore, they were following Jesus THROUGH the teachings of Paul. This is a HUGE discussion which tomes and tomes have been written on throughout the church's history. On a message board, your going to get the surface bare minimum of responses.
You'd let people trample all over your just to avoid "offending" someone or making "generalizations".WHAT?! Now you're just not making sense.
Christianity was a sub group of Judaism in its inception. It was a small group of people who agreed to follow Jesus across the empire. There was no grand mastermind scheme behind it.
Paul didn't speak for Jesus any more than Joseph Smith did - Paul never even met Jesus (unless you believe his "magical vision" was real). He invented his own doctrine and claimed to be "speaking for God" - that's how religion was invented.
You'd let people trample all over your just to avoid "offending" someone or making "generalizations".
Hahaha - you're still assuming that Paul literally had a "magical vision from God" on the road to Damascus. Doh!Philippians chapter 2 for one. Please don't argue with me if you haven't even read your Bible for goodness sake. There are numerous verses in Paul's letters that contradict your claim.
Philippians chapter 2 for one. Please don't argue with me if you haven't even read your Bible for goodness sake. There are numerous verses in Paul's letters that contradict your claim.
It's not accurate, it's a meaningless and bleeding obvious statement that adds nothing to the discussion.No, that is called being accurate. It's a good habbit to get into, you should try it.
That's the origins, but it evolved into something much more political from the time of Constantine I.
This is true. Like I said in a prior post, religion was not separate from politics in any society (that we have record of) until the enlightenment. Therefore, it's difficult to compare the US to those periods. BUT, there were those who had issues with it nonetheless. St. John Chrysostom was a preacher in Antioch and often preached against the political actions of the emperor. Again, we hear about the prominent and loudest voices while those who are in opposition are often subdued (the winner writes history and all). It is not political in its doctrine but rather can be used politically by those who do so wrongly (and I am speaking again of the US situation. history has taught us the traps of having a theocracy).
It's not accurate, it's a meaningless and bleeding obvious statement that adds nothing to the discussion.
I respect your belief Roadie. However without proof that God exists, it is only a belief. I think it grew out of traditional beliefs that evolved from the sun and moon being gods and man's fear of the afterlife.
Governments simply promoted religion as way to placate the masses, and narrow the leadership to a few, IMO.
I understand your belief and I respect it, but to say that it wasn't a sect of Judaism that spread throughout a small group of people across the empire is odd. It doesn't contradict your take on the situation in any way.
The problem, Redress, is that Christianity has a history of being inseparable from government, and there are many in American who want to restore it to that position. In some ways, it is already there.
Unfortunately, there is a huge movement amongst evangelicals that would tear down the wall between church/state. And, the wall was erected during the enlightenment at a tremendous price....the murder of scientists, politicians, etc. for not following the will of the church or in some way daring to undermine accepted doctrine.
Agreed. But, again, not all Christians agreed with such measures.
So, we are at the beginning of the argument again.
I do like that you say "evangelicals" because that is the group I would place them in among people who claim to be Christian. But, there are probably evangelicals that don't do that, I've just not met any.
I think that it's more religion has been a part of our government since our inception because the people in many political positions were religious and made and enforced laws based on that instead of the constitution, precedent, etc.
Moving away from that is what we are trying to do and the religious right are scared, fearful and downright wrong.
And when efforts are made to insert Christianity actively in government I will happily oppose it. That does not make Christianity political, only some people who are Christians political.
I am talking about historical occurrences, not "belief." While I am a believer, I am also a historian. There was no grand scheme to do what you say at the inception of Christianity. Sorry man. The fact is, the majority of people (I am a scholar and am hesitant to say "all") were religious and it would not have been in any way odd. In fact, a deviant would have been non-religious. Like I said to Tooth, it's far more complex than we can discuss here. People are involved with daily lives in a real historical period of Roman Occupation, upheaval, and massive mobility like never before. I understand your belief and I respect it, but to say that it wasn't a sect of Judaism that spread throughout a small group of people across the empire is odd. It doesn't contradict your take on the situation in any way.
I guess the question is: Do they represent the majority of the movement or the minority? If they represent the majority, and I would contend that they do, then the movement could accurately be characterized as political. It's a matter of numbers.
For instance, I have zero problems with the Greek Orthodox church. But then, they aren't political and they are also small in numbers in the U.S.
Why do you think that Rick Warren was one of the facilitators at the presidential debates? Was it because Christianity is apolitical?
Poll data from the March 4 primary in Ohio show that more than four out of ten white evangelical Christians cast their vote for a Democratic candidate. According to the liberal groups that sponsored the poll, the data indicate that white evangelicals are interested in a broad range of issues and are shifting their voting behavior.
Wrong. It's based on my personal experience with Christianity as a former evangelical Christian.Of course it is inaccurate. Any time you make generalizations about a large group it's going to be inaccurate. Once you get a fair number of people, there are going to be large differences between even relatively similar groups. You have been wildly inaccurate in just this thread, since you see only what you choose, instead of all that is there. You are one of those people who reach a conclusion, then search for evidence to support it, instead of looking at the evidence and then reaching a conclusion.
The 2009 Religious Activist Surveys were conducted by the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in partnership with Public Religion Research. These first ever comparative surveys of conservative and progressive religious activists find them to be faithful, engaged, and divergent.
Wrong. It's based on my personal experience with Christianity as a former evangelical Christian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?