That was added during the cold war in the 1950's. It's unconstitutional, but good luck changing it now. Christian bullies.
Christians in the century 21
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
That was added during the cold war in the 1950's. It's unconstitutional, but good luck changing it now. Christian bullies.
Was it not that Teddy Roosevelt invaded Tripoli Libya to avenge pirate activity and were comes the famous saying walk quietly with a big stick
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Treaty of Tripoli was written while George Washington was still in office. Ratified by unanimous vote while John Adams was in office. Not a single founding father had a problem with the treaty stating that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
Am I out of tune or you are out of tune .
The government is neutral but the colonists like Quakers , pilgrims, some Jews amd other come here because freedom of worship a government was create later . I doubt very much that the people of the original 7 state had secular inclination.
Lots more Christians than atheists! If anyone is a persecuted minority it's the atheists. (No one forces Christian kids to say "I don't believe in God" for example.)
Persecution has nothing to do with date or the choice of religion or ethnicity. It the Nazi era it was Christians massacring Jews. In the Bosnian war it was Christians raping and massacring Moslems. In Egypt it's Moslems massacring Copts. In Rwanda, Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution of China, Stalin's Russia, and on every continent, in the history of every culture, there is a legacy of persecution, either directly as a result of conflicting religious beliefs, or cultural differences that are akin to that.
Atheists do not persecute Christians. Fundamentalist Christians, however, do persecute science and scientists, and this gives us cause to speak out against fundamentalism -- since it shocks the conscience that one religious sect can muzzle and manipulate human development and well-being through propaganda, fear-mongering, stubborn ignorance and contempt for other human beings, especially while parading itself as the ultimate authority on morality. What a crock.
You are.
The Jamestown colonists were here for business.
http://www.historyisfun.org/history-jamestown.htm
Later, the "Pilgrims" left England in search of religious freedom, which they found in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, Amsterdam was a little too free for their tastes. So they came to the new world to escape the freedoms of The Netherlands.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-20/travel/tr-64906_1_leiden-university
It's their mind set that we must be wary of.
Last edited:
You need to look at this from the proper historical perspective. During the dark ages and early middle ages, the church was the leader, leading even the secular via the kings and queens. By the late middle ages and the Age of Enlightenment, the role of secular advanced and the church divides, first in Germany. In England, the King wanted to add divorce to the by-laws of the church, so the king could divorce. This was not allowed by the church, so the King divided away from the church to form his own church. The Church of England then becomes increasingly controlled by the secular via the King. The Pilgrims left for religious freedom because the secular interests in England were using the church like a puppet while putting the squeeze for monopoly control.
When America appears, the goal was religious freedom, away from the corrupt model of the King of England, where the secular controls the church. They did the opposite of the King of England and disbanded the integration of state and church, making the church and state separate. They were not breaking the secular away from the church, since the King of England was using secular to control the church. They were breaking the church away from corrupt secular interests, so the people could follow their faith without secular fear.
They were separating the church from the corrupt thumb of the secular. If you think of it logically, politicians are good at lying and back stabbing each other, especially during campaigns. Money is in the background pulling the strings. If you let these types of people lead the church, the church declines into a propaganda tool of the state. The founding fathers tried to separate the church from all the professional confidence men, so religion was less under that thumb.
If the constitution had been written in 1500, instead of 1776, the opposite may have been the intent, since at that time the church was the big dog and the secular or state was the underdog. But by 1776, the King and secular was the big dog and they were protecting the underdog.
When America appears, the goal was religious freedom, away from the corrupt model of the King of England, where the secular controls the church. They did the opposite of the King of England and disbanded the integration of state and church, making the church and state separate. They were not breaking the secular away from the church, since the King of England was using secular to control the church. They were breaking the church away from corrupt secular interests, so the people could follow their faith without secular fear.
They were separating the church from the corrupt thumb of the secular. If you think of it logically, politicians are good at lying and back stabbing each other, especially during campaigns. Money is in the background pulling the strings. If you let these types of people lead the church, the church declines into a propaganda tool of the state. The founding fathers tried to separate the church from all the professional confidence men, so religion was less under that thumb.
If the constitution had been written in 1500, instead of 1776, the opposite may have been the intent, since at that time the church was the big dog and the secular or state was the underdog. But by 1776, the King and secular was the big dog and they were protecting the underdog.
Wait , I am not against science , nor many like me we believe in God.
Yes we are a restrain to morality . Think, what would if there would not be any restrain
Are you not spreading your propaganda ?
Fear , think again , Nature implanted into a living been fear, that means it might be necessary other wise we will hurt our self.
About ignorance , we all share that talent.
A comment about you , you start as a nice person , but ends up very offensive , is that good or is it lack of restrain ?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'd dispute just about all of it.
Christians aren't a majority worldwide, though they do constitute a majority in some parts of the world.
The phrase "true Christians" probably isn't very meaningful. It suggests that 'true Christians' can be distinguished from 'false Christians', and I don't know how that can be done without introducing all kinds of controversial normative assumptions about what Christianity supposedly should be.
I agree that Christians are persecuted here and there, notably by the growing number of religious fanatics in the Islamic world. I'll also agree that atheists have persecuted Christians on occasion, most notably in some of the Communist countries in the twentieth century.
But I don't think that there's any evidence that Christians are currently persecuted in the United States or in Europe. Or in most parts of the world, for that matter.
What's better about your version of morality, which is based on the morality of bronze age peoples that we don't even follow any more?
You see from time and time killing Christian in the Muslim word , In China they don't have a full liberty they have to be registered. I don't mean at the present there is any persecution by any government ,example in Israel they restrict the Messianic Jews activity.
It is good to have a frame of reference for our moral activity Think 10 commandments are good for us all
A true martyr would not cry foul about his martyrdom. He'd gladly be a martyr for the greater glory of God.
No other Gods before me... useless to an atheist.
Shall make no graven images... no one follows that, least of all artists.
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain... Jesus Christ, I do that one all the time.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy... again, useless to an atheist.
Honor thy father and thy mother... OK, not bad.
Thou shalt not kill... no one follows that one, there are plenty of Christian soldiers, and Christians support the death penalty.
Thou shalt not commit adultery... none of your business.
Thou shalt not steal... OK that's a good one.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor... Good.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house... bullshit because envy is a positive thing, it makes people work harder.
So, 3 out of 10 isn't bad. But a secular list would be better.
[video=youtube;YzEs2nj7iZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM[/video]
Although Spidergoat beat me to it...ah what the hell I’ll just leave this here for you Arauca.
Oh ya he used to be funny when younger .
I'm a fan of Carlin, but I didn't know he did this!
Anyway, you are not much of a Christian, if you believe in Jesus and the Christian doctrine based on what you believe to be scientific evidence.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
That's cute and all, but this says nothing about the definition of a Christian. You picked a a few verses that define YOU as a Christian. But unfortunately, that's not the universal definition.
To be a Christian, you have to believe in:
1) The divinity of Jesus
2) That Jesus is the only way to salvation.
3) That Jesus rose again.
So, sorry. You're wrong, as usual. Because there are plenty of unmerciful Christians who are not pure in heart and who do not want peace.