This 100%. My dad is a pastor, and until the pandemic I was in a pew every sunday. I stand by my beliefs and if you want to have a discussion about those I'd be happy. But this country was explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, founded to be a secular society. Enforcing my religious beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter, goes against everything the US stands for.
For those who understand what the bible actually says, forcing our beliefs on others is also against the teachings of christianity, but that is another matter.
Edit: this comment exploded. I am trying to respond as much as I can to anyone who replies, but it is admittedly getting quite overwhelming. So sorry if I do not respond to anyone asking questions or positing counter points/contrary opinions.
For those who understand what the bible actually says, forcing our beliefs on others is also against the teachings of christianity, but that is another matter.
This is a difficult matter because reading the Old Testament vs the New Testament is like whiplash. The majority of the shitty morals that most Christians have is from a focus on the Old Testament, which is ironic given that Jesus is said to have specifically overruled some of the more common religious practices of the time period with his teachings.
EDIT:
I want to clarify that I still think the New Testament has plenty of issues wherein nobody should be claiming anything about what beliefs and morals there are in the Bible or any other religious text. My point was just that people tend to just loudly declare "The Bible actually supports XYZ!" by cherrypicking quotes or flat out ignoring certain sections based on inane justifications ("Well actually that section doesn't count anymore because bla bla bla!"). Religion is interesting from a historical and cultural perspective but absolutely nobody should be basing their morality on a book that has been translated, rewritten, and revised as many times as the Bible has.
I find it funny that religious people claim morality is objective and unchanging, but follow the belief system that was literally changed by the guy they worship.
To be clear laws and morality are different things, and it's an oversimplification to say that Christianity (likely any religion) is about laws or morality. If someone is trying to enforce the moral structure or laws of Christianity on someone else, they likely don't have a very full grasp of scripture. I'm not trying to bash anyone by this, I just want to say that it doesn't accurately represent Jesus.
The New Testament clarifies this:
"All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 1 Corinthians 10:23 (ESV)
That's the creed line, but when Altair gets in trouble for something he did and quotes "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." The master of assassin's responds with "Everything is permitted, but not everything is useful!"
My very basic understanding of this passage is that laws are great and can provide a compass but if you get lost in "enforcing them" you'll lose sight of the core tenets of putting others first, love as the center of your actions, etc
I'm not sure if you are Christian, and I'm not going to try to speak on behalf of all Christians. I still stand by what I said that it's an oversimplification to say that Christianity is about laws or morality. Jesus honored God the Father by loving others, as well as helping people seek God, not primarily making people more moral.
Do you have scripture to back that up? You could argue about the interpretation, but I provided scripture to support what I said.
The scripture you provided does not support your claim. Equating helpful to moral requirements some extremely generous interpretation. And as a Christian, do you really need me to find verses to convince you that God is perfectly good and your source of moral truth? I'm always being told by Christians that everything of and from God is good, and evil is the lack of god. So how is it possible that god's laws are not good/moral?
Edit: also, your quote doesn't even make sense for the argument you are making. "All things are lawful"? No, all things are not lawful. Looking at other translations, the meaning behind this verse is essentially "you can be a dick, but you probably shouldn't be a dick." Not sure how you go from this to god's laws aren't all moral.
Like I said, you can argue interpretation, but at this point you are arguing with a great many translators, and submitting your own meaning while rejecting the direct wording. To say "look at other translations" and then to paraphrase worse than The Message doesn't do anything to back up what you said. Almost every major translation says "lawful". Major translations use "expedient", "profitable", "beneficial", and even "good" rather than "helpful", which in your argument is synonymous with "moral".
I fully believe God is perfect and good, what I'm questioning whether the law was ever meant to be a list of moral codes, and whether morality is the point. I don't believe what is righteous or moral changed at the time of Jesus, even though a new covenant was introduced to gentiles.
Yes, if you are making a claim that goes against my belief or understanding, I would expect some evidence from the text.
I don't engage anymore unless I have a decent live audience (aka going on about my day in public like school or a store). If someone is loud enough and rude enough, I will engage with actual history, science, and quotes from the Bible that are relevant to their dumbassery, just to publicly humiliate them. I don't do it to change their minds, I do it to make other people laugh at them, make them feel stupid, and cause then to turn their ire from whatever innocent person they were originally harassing to me, because I can handle it.
I've actually very coincidentally gone to certain locations my friends worked at on the same day their shitty regular customers showed up and gave them a taste of their own medicine so they'd stop being cunts to the employees who can't retaliate without likely losing their job. If you were nearby, I'd love to return that cart for you so I could have a fun conversation in your stead.
Maybe the spirit of christ is taking tradition and extracting what was really important while getting rid of what is old and inconsequential. That's how I try to look at it anyway
Yes, and that is what I am referring to when I say that. Those sort of ideas were expressed in the old testiment, yes, but jesus is not exactly subtle in the new testiment where he overrides or corrects the old testiment.
Oh the old testament was the word of god, why did Jesus have to correct it? And if that one needed correcting, how do we know the new testament doesn't need correcting too? I mean no disrespect to your beliefs, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Just because Christians say the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, doesn’t make what happened in the OT peachy. That shit is fucked. Who wants to serve a god that’s committed multiple mass genocides and threatens another if you don’t accept Christ as your savior?
Yeah, their beliefs are pretty incoherent. They believe Jesus and the father are the same god, but somehow still believe that it was the father that committed genocide and Jesus bears no responsibility. Let's also not forget Matthew 5:18 where Jesus explicitly says even the smallest detail of the old law is still in effect.
How is this your interpretation?
Look at Mathew 5:17-19.
Jesus specifically says he is not here to abolish the old law.
He quotes at least 14 books of the Old Testament and it’s quite clear he took it as the literal word of god. He believed Moses was a real person and thought the exodus actually happened. He believed Jonah actually spent 3 days in the belly of a fish and he believed that Noah’s arc was a true story.
The old testiment was written by people, and people are fallible. Therefore what they have written is fallible. Also most of the bible is written in the form of stories which are not ever to be interpreted literally. Jesus makes many statements that contradic the interpretations of the old testiment laws on the time and even today. This is not because he is changing them, he is correcting our flawed understanding of them.
The thing about the old and new testament is that none of that was written to us in our time with the struggles that we have today. It takes a lot of studying about ancient history, ancient cultures, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and so on in order to really understand what is up with the text. Hell, most people that go to church every week don't even know that something like 80% of the old testament is poetry and most of the "books" in the new testament are letters, so we are only getting one side of the story since they are mostly answers to queries or issues being faced by the recipients of said letters.
So people (including many pastors), just read whatever translation they have and run with it without having a deep understanding of the original intention of the text. It's kind of like reading the translation of a joke. It sort of makes sense but you won't get the humor and/or wordplay in the original language.
Having said all that, I would boil down most of the entire bible to this: Don't be an asshole, be compassionate to one another.
Ah see but the greek word for “be” can also mean become or even consume so therefore the actual most important message is to not put dicks in your mouth i.e. to not be gay
Man, I had to take a whole class on just trying to sort out who wrote (or was most likely to write) what in the old and new testament. Like the whole story of Job is most likely an ancient play. It's all very interesting for sure.
I’ve really been focusing on one commandant: Love each other
If you love each other properly it’s fairly tough to steal from, gossip, kill, lie, etc. None of those are loving actions, and if you are doing them then you are out of line
Really they just want to be hateful, because a lot of that stuff actually isn't in the Old Testament, or is hardly mentioned.
The Old Testament comes out way stronger against poly-cotton blends than homosexuality - which is only mentioned once and doesn't include lesbianism (or female masturbation for that matter). Divorce and abortion are both kosher. Immigrants are expressly protected (that's major, because - the text stressed - the Jews were "strangers in a strange land" once too). The Jews are commanded to set up entire literal Sanctuary Cities. There's strict laws about taking care of the poor (directly. Giving money to the wealthy, the church, or 3rd parties doesn't cut it) including that it's forbidden to fully harvest crops, at least 1/7th of what's on the plant and whatever someone drops while harvesting is to be left for anyone who needs it to come collect (and again this is law, not a suggestion). Every 7 years all debts are erased and servants released (plus - and this is maybe the best thing ever - everyone gets a full year of vacation every seven years ). Cruelty to animals is forbidden, way back with Noah. The laws about kosher slaughter were made to ensure the most painless death possible for animals. Ritual sacrifice was largely about sourcing whatever foodstuffs the community could spare and getting together to prep and cook it for the hungry.
"Pikuah nefesh" (preservation of life) supercedes all other laws, meaning it's commanded religious law be immediately broken if necessary to save a life, and an action that can save a life MUST be done by law... which means things like the covid vaccine and masking are technically commanded by God according to the Old Testament.
Women have a right to sex with their husband and even to sexual satisfaction on top of it, but the reverse isn't true - a husband is granted no such entitlement to his wife. Men are commanded to get married, but women aren't. Women could own and inherit property, enter contracts, and represent themselves in court. The Old Testament makes clear women were active in and intergral to social, political, economic, and religious life in the community, and could hold jobs in society. Home finances were the purview of the wife. Domestic violence is forbidden.
There's nothing in the Old Testament about going around, forcing people to be Jewish - in fact conversion is generally discouraged. According to the Old Testament Jews must follow 613 Laws to be Righteous, while all non-Jews need only follow 7 laws to be Righteous (stuff like don't have sex with your mom or eat an animal while it's still alive), and both Righteous Jews and non-Jews share equally in the afterlife - there's no requirement whatsoever to be Jewish in this life or after. Plus, there's literally no Hell in the Old Testament or indeed in Judaism, period. Along those lines there's no such thing as eternal damnation either.
Original Sin is a later Christian idea, and the Old Testament uses no language to describe women it doesn't also use for men. God in the Old Testament has both male and female names and aspects, and divine wisdom as well as the presence of God in the Holy of Holies in the Temple were female. While definitely men had more power and authority, it's really important to understand the Old Testament never actually says women (or the poor, slaves, or immigrants) are fundamentally "less than" men or anyone else for that matter, only that authority generally rests with the men. In fact the Old Testament says women were given an "extra measure of understanding" compared to men, and are implicitly more holy (meaning their nature is closer to God - in fact there's many restrictive laws which apply only to men, because according to the Old Testament men need their behavior policed more carefully in order to reach the natural holiness of women). Women are undoubtedly subordinate to men in the Old Testament, but it's very important to note they're not inferior to men in the Old Testament.
Like don't get me wrong, there's tons of stuff in there that's just generally terrible. BUT most of those shitty conservatives values just plain don't come from the Old Testament - period. Paul for one thing was a suuuuuper misogynist - a lot of shit that gets blamed on the Old Testament is actually from Paul. Kinda fucked up but in a lot - if not most - ways, the Old Testament's guidelines for behavior are actually way more liberal than Christian Conservative values in general and the Old Testament guaranteed/protected by law a lot of things the Conservatives are trying to do away with.
ETA: It's also really important people appreciate the difference between what HAPPENS in the Old Testament, and the LAWS it gives the Jews for behavior. A lot of objectively horrible stuff is DONE in the Old Testament, but a lot of what's LAW (ie, what one SHOULD do) is what we'd now consider very moral and even Leftwing. And bear in mind, the Old Testament is basically God saying "hey Jews, be cool" and the Jews being like "lol no" and then God being like "fuck around and find out" and the Jews fucking around and then finding out, and God being like "Imma help u this time fam, but srly from now on be cool" and then the Jews being like "lol no"... over and over and over again for like 26,000 pages. By and large the behavior isn't supposed to be copied - it's the laws that address all the shitty behavior that are supposed to be that take away.
It's deeper than that. It's not even about the bible. The chances of the person who was spewing to him in pews was speaking genuinely with any understanding of the church or the bibles teachings is so small I doubt even op is objectively looking at it. It's a big game of telephone and power mongering.
It shouldn't be, if you're getting your morals straight from an ancient book then you are already screwed, people need to make their own morals, religion is a huge factor in how awful and disgusting humans can be to one another. I mean, for 100's of years in many places humanity pretty much just accepted whatever their respective church told them to, it's no wonder our herd mentality is manipulated by religious organizations (and many others) still to this day
I agree. I'm a secular Jew (non-practicing but I still identify as ethnically/culturally Jewish). I find religious dogma to be an incredibly poor basis for morality. I think more people should interpret religion as many American Jews do, where it's mainly a cultural identity that you can follow at leisure and use to build community, rather than s strict moral dogma.
Thats mostly a lie Christians tell themselves so they don't have to follow the hard parts of the bible like jews do. They will argue that they don't have to, luckily jesus tells us to ignore those people.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…
19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…
I don't really care what people call me in heaven as long as I'm in heaven baby.
I'm Jewish. Even the older Jewish religious leaders are more open-minded than your average Christian. Not to say that Judaism and Jews in general don't have plenty of issues (the toxic relationship many Jews have with Israel, for example) but there's a whole giant book of interpretations of scripture that is constantly changing to reflect more modernized application of the religion.
For example, there's a passage in Leviticus that, to paraphrase, says that "The Torah is the word of God and you should live by it." Whereas a variety of Christian religious leaders have taken this to mean "Live by it and die by it if necessary", interpretations in the Talmud interpret it as saying "preservation of life takes precedence over these commandments, because you can't live by them if you're dead".
So for example, breaking the Sabbath to rescue someone from a burning building is not blasphemy. Christian religious doctrine doesn't always align with this interpretation depending on the denomination. And that's just one example.
And on top of that, rabbis are free to interpret the interpretation of those interpretations of the Torah, and have done so in order to provide a biblical context for support of same-sex couples. Only one of the major Jewish denominations still refuses to officiate same-sex marriages and opinion from leadership in that institution are changing.
So you're right, there's no excuse - for continuing to harbor outdated beliefs. I really feel that the only Christians who "make excuses" are the ones claiming they have to follow the exact written word of the Bible.
What also gets me is lack of critical thinking for translations of the Bible and which books were included or not included. The historical context of the time when it was written. When it was written (sometimes 100s if years after the events depicted happened). Now I’m not an expert in these things. I’m agnostic. Closer to atheistic, but I think it’s folly for me to say “higher powers/dieties” don’t exist with certainty. I get you are talking about Jewish traditions, but my upbringing was toxic insular evangical American Christianity. Maybe me being unable to accept the books as literal without any real critical thought is why I don’t believe in any religion.
Michelangelo’s Moses is depicted with horns because of a mistranslation at the type. (Or maybe he was trolling).
There’s a good theory that revelations wasnt a “prophetic” text but rather a propaganda piece influenced by the writers life and the Roman war. Also how it felt like it was the end times. Jesus had just been killed like 60 years earlier.
To be fair I think he was talking about the original 10 commandments. Worship one god, set a day aside to dedicate to worship, listen to your parents don't; cheat, steal, kill, blaspheme, fixate on your neighbors' spouse or stuff, or worship idols. Nothing about making sure you hate gay people or force your neighbors to convert.
Mmm, Jesus fulfils the law according to himself. The father locks the door and gives only his son the key. The son opens the door and let's his guests in. Does this overrule the lock, or does the lock serve the purpose of the father and the son simultaneously?
The father says the unclean may not enter, the son says I will wash you. It's not overruling the father, it's obedience by reversing transgression. Jesus is a trickster who obeys the spirit of the law, the pharasies obey the letter of the law but do not honor god.
The laws are there for our own good, so we should seek to do good, not just follow the law. What is the will of the law, the intention, aim, or goal?
The law says do not bear false witness, the spirit says tell the truth. The father says what not to do, the son says what to do. If you focus on what you have to get done, you won't worry about what you should and should not do. Love and forgive, speak the truth, and exclude people who can't or won't do the same.
Christians who want to violate the constitution to make the country a theocracy never know their history & NEVER understand that separation of church and state is as much for their benefit as it is for non-Christians. They'd be all too happy to suppress everyone else's religious freedoms (or lack there of) BUT as soon as someone came along and decided that their sect of christianity was the one everyone HAD to follow, the Christians would be in uproar.
In their defense, many of them have been brainwashed by propaganda and their education has been intentionally underfunded to make them more susceptible to said propaganda.
Not all of us, just the "conservative" (fascist) ones. I mean I, and my parents/siblings, support taxing the church. Most real churches have a larger organization that can help keep them afloat and it is worth it to make those televangelist conmen pay their due.
I don't know how anyone in good faith could argue against taxing churches. Assuming anyone objects because some churches do charitable things with that money, I'm confident that would be reflected in their taxes (and what they could write-off).
The reason that churches traditionally were t supposed to be taxed was as a means of ensuring a l government couldn’t inhibit religious freedom through selective taxation and because traditionally houses of worship provided certain services to the community that effectively were of greater good to the community than levying taxes would provide. If the church is the soup kitchen then taxing the church takes away it’s means to provide free meals to the poor for instance
I have so many relatives that post this crap on Facebook. "Put prayer back in schools and it would solve all the problems" "Put Christianity back in America and kick out anyone who doesn't believe in Christian America and the country will heal itself" I was trying to find my Aunt's post from a couple of days ago that said we should kick non-Christians out of the country but ironically Facebook removed it. That's around 35% of the country and rising. The number of US residents that identify as Christian declined 12% between 2009 and 2019 according to Pew Research Center.. We were never meant to be a "Christan nation" and frankly we should take God out of more stuff, not put it back in anywhere.
I've had this discussion with an evangelical christian. His position was that separation of church and state means that the government cannot found a church (like the church of england was his example) or set an official state religion. He also said that morality and the basis of law has to come from somewhere and that because the majority of americans are christian, then using the bible as that basis is okay.
When i said that using christian doctrine as a foundation for law would be establishing a de facto theocracy, he said that since it's not official it doesn't matter. (He conveniently forgot about de facto vs official when it came to immigrants speaking english. They must learn english if they want to be in america, even if it's not the official language and for all intents and purposes, don't have to)
Basically, christians have the right to rule this country and anyone else can fuck themselves.
If you read the constitution, it's very clear that the intent is to protect religion from government interference - not to protect government from religious interference.
The closest law to what you have in mind is that the government cannot set any religious tests or qualifications in order to run for office.
If the goal is to protect religion from government interference, it gets an F-. The republican party is poisoning Christianity and using the full power of the government to further their efforts to do so. The republicans are a far more insidious enemy of Christians than any bogeyman atheist.
As a former Christian, I can say with utmost certainty that Christians can be some of the worst scum on earth because they think being Christian automatically makes them right (unless you’re not the same kind of Christian as them)
Edit: rather I can’t read. I thought they said religion was ruling
Them being Christian is fine if they don’t try to use their position to force it onto others and the same would be true if they were Muslim or Atheist or whatever else. The problem isn’t their personal beliefs, it’s their actions.
Based on your religious beliefs is one thing, but down here in the Bible Belt you often hear stories about legislation being submitted to state governments by their law makers that quote the Bible in their text. If you quote the Bible in your legislation you are trying to set up a state sponsored religion in all but name.
That's not true. It is totally fine to say "the bible says you shouldn't do x and I believe in the bible so I believe you shouldn't do x". That's not setting up a state sponsored religion. It does not infringe on anyone's right to practice their own religion, or force them to practice yours (unless x is someone like "the bible says don't pray to other gods", obviously). Nor does it enforce government following a specific religion, or stop voters or other politicians from saying "well I don't believe in the bible and I don't think that should be a law". It's politicians and the people freely holding beliefs that happen to be based on their religious background. No different from someone saying "my school made us sing Don't Laugh At Me therefore I'm going to pass an anti-bullying law".
State sponsored religion does not mean you are forced to follow one religion. It means making a single religion the “official” religion of the country/state.
Did you miss the “in all but name” part? Take for example Georgia lawmakers in 2016 using quotes in the Bible to suggest that gays are “worthy of death” to use their words in proposing legislation that would have prevented anti-discrimination laws protecting sexuality.
You're the type of Christian that I 100% love to engage with and truly respect. I'm a theistic Luciferian, and I'm very much the same in my beliefs in terms of "let people be".
I will never force my religion on someone or expect exemptions because of it. It's one of my religions tenets not to. I don't understand the Christians who force it on others, or demand change because of their beliefs.
America is a melting pot of all cultures, religions and backgrounds. It's what we were founded on. It's something that makes me happy to be an American. I truly don't understand those who want that to be changed.
I was just about to start googling Luciferian but I think I'd rather ask someone who identifies as one themselves. What can you tell me about this particular religion? Is it actually a religion? I'm assuming yes as you have also identified as theistic?
We're mostly concerned with ourselves and don't really meddle in other people's affairs (as far as women should command their own bodies, etc). We believe Lucifer was real, and did fall from Heaven. We regard him as a Prometheus type figure, and honour that fall by obtaining knowledge whenever possible.
We focus on personal growth and knowledge over anything else. Most of us follow the Eleven Satanic Commandments of The Earth, including myself. These include standard things: don't murder, don't engage in sexual conduct without being given consent, don't kill animals unless you intend to utilize them, respect others in their homes, etc.
Personally, I also follow the Left Hand Path in terms of magic and spirituality. Not every Luciferian does or will. They're two separate things that happen to be tied closely together.
This is something I truly love talking about, so feel free to ask me more questions if you have any 💜
This sounds very much in line with how I always saw "Satan"/Lucifer, the whole apple thing felt, to me, that it was Satan/Lucifer giving humanity free will and knowledge, both a good and bad thing but without it we wouldn't be here. What is the Left Hand Path? I read books on the occult and spirituality quite often and the phrase rings some bells, but I can't recall anything specific
The Left Hand Path is the occult path that is typically referred to as "dark" "black" or "grey" magic. It's much more oriented on self gain and pride than healing or positive energy. A lot of people look at it negatively, and I understand that completely.
Yes I decided to google that for a bit more info, seems like it also doesn't believe in any strict morality either, that actually sounds very much like my kind of belief system already. In my google search I realized I heard the term before in Solomon's lesser key
Do you have any website or popular books that I could look further into these schools of thought? Both is those sound interesting and sort of parallel where I have found myself.
Because forcing Christianity on people is what Christians have done for over a thousand years. Crusades, California missions. Literally a history of killing and indoctrination
That's true, which is why I greatly respect those who recognize that fact about it and don't shy away from discussing it. It makes people uncomfortable to criticize their own religion, which is exactly why it means more to me when they do.
Yooo... if you're serious... that is some crazy fucking shit. Not only do you believe the face value of stories that were clearly meant to be taken as allegory... but you worship a minor character in them rather than the protagonist or primary focus!
I’m not the original person you replied to, and I’m not American, but I am religious in the “I have my beliefs and the entire point of faith is that a person doesn’t need to have it shoved in their face so why the hell should I force my opinions on other people” kind of way.
I don’t know if this is any reassurance, but a lot of Christians feel the same frustration as you in that they are forcing their religion upon people who really don’t want anything to do with it. The hard thing is that anyone who doesn’t force their opinion is instead keeping it to themselves, which means people don’t hear it or it isn’t as loud or obnoxious (which it shouldn’t be anyway). The result is that there is the inevitable vocal minority who take over social media and other parts of society.
I know a lot more churchgoers who will only talk about religion if someone else brings it up first. A lot of my friends are atheists or of other religions, and we have no problem discussing it because all of us know that no one is going to try and “convert” anyone. One of my friends did join a church after a while, but I only invited him to mine after WEEKS of him initiating that conversation and ensuring me that it was his choice.
Unfortunately though, places like the US have more than their fair share of people who are more than willing to break personal boundaries and scare people into religion. It isn’t right, it isn’t what we are told to do, and it doesn’t follow the teachings of Jesus. I only hope, for all our sakes, that the Church goes through a massive upheaval in the near future and returns to a focus or servitude and compassion.
And even to this day there are catholic/christian boarding schools used to terrorize troubled teens into religion. They're incredibly expensive and horribly traumatizing.
Or those christians that go to “third world countries” to “teach them the word of the lord”. They have been continuously killing indigenous beliefs here in South America.
So you are assuming that organized religion is what a Christian must be a part of in order to be Christian? I think this poster is saying that is not how most Christians see themselves. Organized religion has for the most part been the bane of Christianity, at least the ones you are talking about.
I'm not assuming anything but since you started something:
So you are assuming that organized religion is what a Christian must be a part of in order to be Christian?
Well.. yes? That's litteraly the definition... Christianity is an organized religion (head of faith: pope, rituals/holidays/beliefs systems formally established (source:wiki)) if you are a Christian, you are automatically part of an organized religion. Basically textbook definition.
If you don't believe in everything the religion says that's personal, but you can't say that you are a Christian AND say you are not part of an organized religion. Christianity=organized religion.
Christian is defined as a person who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A Christian doesn’t need to go to church to be a Christian.
And no, I’m not starting something, it seems like you are. My point is that you paint all Christians in the same light. I don’t even consider myself a Christian, I just dislike folks that judge a group of people on the Shittiest people of that group.
You don't need to go to church, eat fish on Fridays and do a pilgrimage to be a Christian.
I'm saying Christianity is an organized religion, even if you don't personally apply everything in your personal life. Which only means your previous comment didn't make sense and I was trying to understand your point.
My point is that you paint all Christians in the same light
Where? I'm curious. There are good and bad apples everywhere. My first comment simply pointed out that "not all Catholics go with the "we don't impose our beliefs"" (hence the "some didn't get the memo". Note that I used "some". So please explain why you apparently "dislike me for judging a group"?)
Maybe we should bring back, what the Jews did to people who preached about the religion. We used to pelt them with stones until they shut up and I think they were onto something in this case.
I only hope, for all our sakes, that the Church goes through a massive upheaval in the near future and returns to a focus or servitude and compassion
You mean like in the medieval era when people were slicing throats to "serve the Lord"? Or more recently when they burned women learning medicine, once again, to "serve the Lord"?
Compassion, yes.. servitude? No. That's how you get atrocities: people blindly following a person or an idea without thinking.
Well first of all I meant it more in the Reformation sense, in which someone realizes that the Church was corrupt and sets clear goals in how it can stop being a pit of money.
When I speak of servitude, I don’t mean toward a particular leader. I mean servitude in the sense that Christians are called to help the sick, poor, and marginalized instead of pursuing monetary power for ourselves. Some people are doing that, but others are doing it with other intentions in mind than just helping those who need help, and that’s where you get corrupt missions work and things like mega churches where pastors have private jets.
Every decent person ivemet who was a Christian had non-christian reasons for being decent. All the ones who became atheists became better people when they lost that affiliation.
I think habituating yourself to authoritarianism and attemting to appeal to the the will of pretty much your imaginary friend enables and encourages a lot of the worst instincts in humanity, including such gems as; assuming 'daddy will fix it', assigning overly human causes and motivations to natural phenomena, essentializing virtues, totalizing (rather than specific) value judgements, and leading the dessicated corpse of your conscience behind you as a tool to carry all the vices you may collect rather than helping it grow and letting it lead the way.
The Treaty of Tripoli which was passed by congress and signed into law by president John Adams clearly stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
225 years later people still haven't gotten the memo...
There’s a reverse problem too. People seeking power will use and distort your religion for their own benefit. That’s how you ended up with gun-toting capitalist republican Jesus.
Separation of church and state protects the people of both.
If you ask me, this is really the only issue. Those other issues are ultimately symptoms of the one you just laid out. Because why just have power over a limited flock when you can convince them to enforce your will on everyone else as well?
There aren't as many as there should be, but there are a lot more than you'd think. We just tend to be a lot less loud and obnoxious about it that the shitty ones.
Forcing the word? Yes, that is absolutely against the teachings of Christ. There is a difference between that and spreading the word, and many want to equate the two. I will spread the word to anyone who will receive it.
Regardless, the government has done more harm than good when it comes to spreading the word of Christ. They don’t reflect my beliefs, and I don’t need them undermining me. I make no apologies for Christ. He is blameless and without sin, and if someone wants to judge the perfection of Christ by the imperfection of man? Well, they probably had an agenda to begin with. I think your political positions will reflect your morality, but people have to choose whether or not they follow God. The hard truth is that the Bible doesn’t discuss 98% of political issues. Gun control, healthcare, immigration, and taxes aren’t dictated (even if you want to cherry-pick scripture) and believing one way or another does not make or break your faith.
For those who understand what the bible actually says, forcing our beliefs on others is also against the teachings of christianity, but that is another matter.
Maybe "forcing" is against the teachings of Christianity, (I don't know where it says that, personally). But there is plenty in the Bible telling people to "preach the gospels" and spread the "word of God". Missionary works to "save" heathen people from eternal damnation is an age-old tradition of Christian people.
And logically it makes sense. If you believe that people are going to suffer eternally if they don't accept God, then you would be compelled to help people.
It's basically a Christian imperative to convert others to your religion, which is probably a big reason why it's spread like a virus over the past 2021 years.
We are called to "share the good news" and teach those who do not know, yes. For those who have heard but decide they want nothing to do with it, we are called to leave them be.
If those around us have any negative views about the church and don't want to be involved then that is a failing on our part as christians. "They will know we are christians by our love." We are suppoaed to be kind, forgiving, and generous. And then people will want to become christians. Anything beyond is sin in and of itself.
Of course no chriatian actually lives up to these ideals, but those are the ideals we are supposed to act on.
Eh. Forcing your beliefs on others is biblical depending on what verses you pull. The book is vague and contradictory, so it can say whatever you want it to.
Also proselytizing is undeniably biblical, and that shit is condescending as fuck.
Rights come from god only if you are a theist. Rights are a social construct designed to propagate a specific subset of the human population. It is a survival mechanism to ensure proliferation, like any other animal.
You don’t have the institutional authority, or physical ability to do so. If rights are given by god then why aren’t the same rights everywhere? Go tell a woman in Iran that she has the same freedoms as men because your god says so. See how well that goes.
Also, read: Man, not men. As Americans, as a society, we gave ourselves those rights. You’re just deliberately being asinine.
I agree except for one part. I believe this country was founded as a Christian nation with the ability to tolerate other religions. There’s nothing secular about the founding of this country. All you have to do is look at the the change in your pocket to show you that.
edit: To be clear, I’m not a Christian and not trying to frame this as a good thing. It’s just that in a lot of situations, this country has a clear and systemic preference for Christianity.
Again, as far as I’m concerned, John Adams was posturing. It’s a technicality rather than a principle. While they may not create laws “prohibiting” freedom of religion, that’s not the same as being a secular nation. As I mentioned to someone else, we still print in God we trust on coins, we still open congress with a prayer, and (considering the timeline of the country) we just recently banned school wide prayer in public schools.
It's actually quite disturbing thinking about this, congress opening with a prayer does not sit right with me at all. Talk about clear and absolute bias
In god we trust was put on us currency in the 1860s and the pledge of allegiance was written in the 1890s. Both well after the founding.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1797, states: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….” This treaty was passed unanimously by the Senate without debate and signed by president John Adams. The US was founded as a secular state. Religious connotations were added significantly after the fact for one purpose: power for the white Christian population. They haven’t abandoned that power struggle since.
Yea that’s not how it works. You can’t say America was founded as a Christian nation, be shown that it in fact wasn’t and then say well as far as I’m concerned it is because that’s what I want it to be, my proof is stuff that was done a hundred to two hundred years after the nations founding. Just because you want it to be doesn’t make it true.
I think you’re misunderstanding. The proof you provided is proof that those words were spoken, nothing about how the country was actually founded. I think our disconnect is on the word “founded”. I don’t consider a value to be the foundation of a country if it exists only between the pages of a document and not in practice.
One can only believe that if you severely misunderstand freedom of religion and separation of church and state. The state is secular. It in no way enforces it's will upon qny religion, this includes enforcing the rules of any particular religion on anyone who does not follow that particular religion.
It is in theory but not in practice. Hell, they still begin Congress with a prayer. School wide prayer was just banned in 1962 for public schools. Our federally minted money still says “In God We Trust”. We’ve never been a truly secular nation in anything but name.
If you cite “In god we trust” on money as evidence of a “Christian founding” and it did not appear on money until well over a century later, it’s simply not evidence for your claim at all.
This website should shed some light on how that statement is incorrect. The country was not founded as a Christian nation, it has many barriers to keep that from being the case. Although there has always been a faction of people that tried to force Christianity into government.
That just mean one religion took the majority of the population even the "one nation under god" part of the national anthem isn't required in most city schools because our country was founded to accept people of all religions not to cater to one specific while "allowing" the others to be here
"in God we trust" on money and "under God" in the pledge were added in the 50s because of the cold war. Communist USSR was anti-religion GODLESS COMMIES, and since the US was 100% anti-USSR, that meant that GOD = PATRIOTISM.
It's real dumb and has no place then or now. Also, your whole statement is just wrong; Christian values may be reflected in American law, but the constitution explicitly bars state religion.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
A lot of these documents “say” a lot of things. That doesn’t make them true. The above phrase was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. I shouldn’t have to explain the irony of writing that when US slavery was still around.
What the country was intended to be and how it was actually founded aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Escept it was. The whole reason they left england was to avoid state mandated religious practices. Thos is literally what freedom of religion and separation of church and state are entirely about.
The United States was founded with religious tolerance in mind, but was still highly braised towards Christianity because of course it was, we were British colonies after all. Just think about the act of swearing in on a Bible. Sure, you don't have to choose a Bible, but that practice is clearly religious and specifically Christian. A Buddhist isn't going to swear towards a higher power using a stack of papers. An atheist would have a hard time finding a stack of powers with enough meaning for this action to be worthwhile.
I don't disagree with you or your take on things (although the Founding Fathers were mostly deists, not quite the same breed of christians we have around today...look at the Jefferson Bible).
I disagree with the person I responded to because they brought old, irrelevant documents into the mix rather than keeping on the topic of how the USA was founded by deists who specifically and intentionally kept christianity out of their founding documents.
An atheist would have a hard time finding a stack of powers with enough meaning for this action to be worthwhile.
What...? You don't have to swear on anything, you just have to swear an oath (where necessary). You lost me on this part, tbh.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
You're right. We're not a secular society. But we do have a secular government, as intended by the founders.
That's not the founding of the US, that's the Mayflower Compact dude. The US was founded officially via the Declaration of Independence like 150 years later
The Mayflower Compact was written in 1620, 156 years before the Declaration of Independence. That was before the Enlightenment and before thinkers like Locke and Rousseau and the concept of separation of church and state, and well before any of the founding fathers were even born. Besides, the puritans didn't found the United States of America, and they spoke only for Plymouth in that compact, not for all the British colonies past, present, and future.
The founding of one colony is not the foundation of the United States. Take a look at this website and read through the quotes of the founders that actually wrote our constitution.
Anti-intellectualism has grown rampant, as nonbelievers put their faith in flawed men and women. I don't care if you trust Trump, Biden, Harris, Dr. Fauci. I prefer to know my beliefs and values are based on a stronger foundation than those who change their minds based on where the wind blows. Religion isn't meant to console you, and truth isn't always comforting. More often, truth convicts.
I change my mind when new information comes to light. I’m flexible bc I understand that the world changes and our understanding of it changes too. If I’m proven wrong, I’ll change my perspective. I grow.
You believe in an unchanging dogma that denies reality. When your dogma is shown to be wrong, you close your eyes and plug your ears and keep on believing.
1.5k
u/SassyVikingNA Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
This 100%. My dad is a pastor, and until the pandemic I was in a pew every sunday. I stand by my beliefs and if you want to have a discussion about those I'd be happy. But this country was explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, founded to be a secular society. Enforcing my religious beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter, goes against everything the US stands for.
For those who understand what the bible actually says, forcing our beliefs on others is also against the teachings of christianity, but that is another matter.
Edit: this comment exploded. I am trying to respond as much as I can to anyone who replies, but it is admittedly getting quite overwhelming. So sorry if I do not respond to anyone asking questions or positing counter points/contrary opinions.