Can this Bias be resolved? (on defining "Christian" or "Muslim" faith etc.)

[emilynghiem]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty, to a man they believed that freedom and liberty could not exist without virtue and morality and that religion was necessary for virtue and morality.

^ ??? ding ^^^ ????

where are people getting that "religion" is necessary for virtue and morality. isn't it the other way that virtue and morality inspire and motivate people to "express" this using terms that become religions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Tell them to read this book:

Then remind them that Jesus did not have very kind things to say about people who aren't willing to stand proudly on His behalf, rather than cowering and apologizing . . . or worse, denying Him entirely.

We will never reach any sort of common understanding until we stop allowing our children to be taught insane lies about our history and culture. That's gonna be tough at this point, since so many parents and even grandparents were ALSO taught the same lies and misinformation.

As always, the solution is knowledge and education.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Deists ARE atheists.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If by Christianity you mean the teaching of Christ, then yes Christianity is definitely identified with social justice. However, if you mean the actions of Christians today, not so much because too many Christians are wrapped up in politics. Why else would they embrace someone like Trump, a self centered lecher who claims to be a Christian but rarely has time for church but has plenty of time to spread a doctrine of hate, fear, and racism in hours of daily tweets.

I just heard, "I must make everything about TTTTTTRRRRRRUUUUUMMMMPPPPPP!!!!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

If the Founders had attempted to get everything all at once, there wouldn't BE a US at all, and slavery would still exist, since the US didn't invent the concept, however much your substandard public school education told you otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

nd slavery would still exist, since the US didn't invent the concept

Oh really? And where is there state-sanctioned slavery now?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If the Founders had fought hard enough for political freedom the slaves in the US would not have existed.

Learn some history. Slavery was a British institution. Not an American one. The founding fathers knew not how to end slavery at the time of founding but did put plans in place for it to perish. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date the importation of slaves could cease and stopped it on that date. In the meantime they wrote laws that halted the spread of slavery. Unlike your beloved Democratic Party which reversed those laws in the late 1820’s when they gained power.

I think you need to face the facts that the Democratic Party was responsible for the spread of slavery and the perpetuation of slavery.

Actually, slavery was a human institution, from much farther back than the British Empire, and certainly farther back than the US. It took the Judeo-Christian culture ascendant in the US and Great Britain to make the first serious inroads into ending slavery as an accepted and normal practice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It took the Judeo-Christian culture ascendant in the US and Great Britain to make the first serious inroads into ending slavery as an accepted and normal practice.

hahaha.... wow.... such unfettered horseshit....

The British Parliament ended slavery in spite of the Church of England. And despite its objections.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

As for the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty, to a man they believed that freedom and liberty could not exist without virtue and morality and that religion was necessary for virtue and morality.

^ ??? ding ^^^ ????

where are people getting that "religion" is necessary for virtue and morality. isn't it the other way that virtue and morality inspire and motivate people to "express" this using terms that become religions?

Nope. It is sincere belief that there is something higher than human beings which expects and requires us to be better than our base natures. Doesn't necessarily have to be God; Buddhists certainly seem to grasp the same concept, for instance.

But the cause and effect chain is pretty clear.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Deists ARE atheists.

You, on the other hand, need to read THIS book:

de·ism
NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

a·the·ism
[ˈāTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Cecilie1200]

nd slavery would still exist, since the US didn't invent the concept

Oh really? And where is there state-sanctioned slavery now?

Officially? Nowhere. Which is my point: without Christians in the US and Great Britain spearheading abolition efforts, we would not live in a world which had finally learned to condemn it as evil.

Unofficially, there are still millions of slaves in less-developed places where corrupt governments turn a blind eye, which just goes to show you that slavery is an outgrowth of the evil of human nature in general, not a unique American anomaly.

Seriously, the Internet is for more than porn. Try it sometime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It took the Judeo-Christian culture ascendant in the US and Great Britain to make the first serious inroads into ending slavery as an accepted and normal practice.

hahaha.... wow.... such unfettered horseshit....

The British Parliament ended slavery in spite of the Church of England. And despite its objections.

When did I say anything about the Church of England? I said "Judeo-Christian culture". Take your strawman and stuff him where the sun don't shine.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Go to Tehran and report back to us on the positive things of Islam.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot, so he said it wasn't because he isn't.

Nope:
He said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. A chain e-mail drops that key word and thus changes the meaning.
Obama and the "Christian Nation" Quote - FactCheck.org

Factcheck.org is a department of the DNC.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot, so he said it wasn't because he isn't.

Nope:
He said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. A chain e-mail drops that key word and thus changes the meaning.
Obama and the "Christian Nation" Quote - FactCheck.org

His direct words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

Deists ARE atheists.

You, on the other hand, need to read THIS book:

de·ism
NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

a·the·ism
[ˈāTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Deism is not theism. I know how the words have become colloquial, over time.

 

[emilynghiem]

^ O geez, I have to agree with ding. What is the world coming to?

He's right though, and it's well-documented.

The FF pulled zero concepts from the quran and implemented them.

John Adams:
=========

"
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!4

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.5"

John Quincy Adams:

=============

John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR;
U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.6
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].7

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
"

Ben Franklin:

==================

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.29

The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.30 (FRANKLIN’S EULOGY THAT HE WROTE FOR HIMSELF)"

The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible - WallBuilders

Ah screw it, read it all! Let the Commies try to dispute things, the documentation is there, if not, it's in the archives. By archives, I mean National Archives.

National Archives |

That's the good thing about the printed word, it cannot be erased with a few keyboard strokes on the internet.

The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible - WallBuilders
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/#FN8

Marion Morrison the concept of natural laws inherent in man's conscience and coming from GOD means these WEREN'T "dependent" on Christian laws and church authority, but greater than that. The Muslims I know also believe in God as creator of Natural Laws of Democratic governance that Mohammad also taught.
(Native Americans also defend certain Constitutional principles as influenced by their tribal teachings and cultural contributions as well.)

So this also shows these 'natural laws' come from a central universal source,
and not from "man made religions" that attempt to put them into words and written laws. the source is still universal and independent of religious expression.

 

[emilynghiem]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

So I'm a Christian... Like hard core conservative Christian.

I honestly do not believe that it can be resolved, and the reason is in the Bible, which is the founding code of our faith.

The Bible says in John Chapter 15, verse 18:

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."​

Christian people, and by that I mean those like me who actually practice our faith (just had baptism at the church this weekend).... Are not going to fit into this world.

You can see this in how all the other religions of the world have changed over time, but the Bible and Bible-based Christianity has not. Even Islam to some extent has changed over time in how they read the Qur-an. Only Judaism and Christianity have remained largely unchanged.

This is why, generally speaking, Jews and Christians have been the target of both the left-wing and the alt-right.

Further, in the end the Bible says clearly that world will adopt a universal religion, and that the True Christians will be persecuted in the end. I believe this will happen in the foreseeable future.

This is why in recent years, largely ignored by the mass media.... the two largest Christian groups, have opened ties with each other, after 1,000 years of being split. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Church which is largely based in Russia, opened communication with the Roman Catholic Church. While not unified in belief, no doubt the connection will grow.

Additionally, in an effort by the Catholic church to help Christians in the areas that were near, or under, ISIS rule, they have reached out to leading Imam, foster positive relations for the benefit of isolated Christians.

Once the 3 major religious groups of the world unite, it won't be hard to spread into the rest of the world. The slow but steady march toward the one world religion will continue.

So this idea that we can resolve the differences between Biblical Christianity is not possible. If it were, then the Bible would be false. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I wouldn't put any stock in it.

Thank you Andylusion
Though I agree the Bible does warn that members of families and congregations will turn against each other and throw each other out, and

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

So I'm a Christian... Like hard core conservative Christian.

I honestly do not believe that it can be resolved, and the reason is in the Bible, which is the founding code of our faith.

The Bible says in John Chapter 15, verse 18:

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."​

Christian people, and by that I mean those like me who actually practice our faith (just had baptism at the church this weekend).... Are not going to fit into this world.

You can see this in how all the other religions of the world have changed over time, but the Bible and Bible-based Christianity has not. Even Islam to some extent has changed over time in how they read the Qur-an. Only Judaism and Christianity have remained largely unchanged.

This is why, generally speaking, Jews and Christians have been the target of both the left-wing and the alt-right.

Further, in the end the Bible says clearly that world will adopt a universal religion, and that the True Christians will be persecuted in the end. I believe this will happen in the foreseeable future.

This is why in recent years, largely ignored by the mass media.... the two largest Christian groups, have opened ties with each other, after 1,000 years of being split. The Eastern Orthodox Christian Church which is largely based in Russia, opened communication with the Roman Catholic Church. While not unified in belief, no doubt the connection will grow.

Additionally, in an effort by the Catholic church to help Christians in the areas that were near, or under, ISIS rule, they have reached out to leading Imam, foster positive relations for the benefit of isolated Christians.

Once the 3 major religious groups of the world unite, it won't be hard to spread into the rest of the world. The slow but steady march toward the one world religion will continue.

So this idea that we can resolve the differences between Biblical Christianity is not possible. If it were, then the Bible would be false. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I wouldn't put any stock in it.

Thank you Andylusion for one of the best explanations I've read in a while.

I think we are talking about two different levels of reconciliation.
I agree that you cannot change theist and nontheist mindsets to the other
in order to reach agreement in that sense. They are not ever going to think
the same way.

However I do believe we can reach agreement on truth.

yes, Jesus and the Bible warns that members of families and congregations will divided against each other, and there will be wars and talk of wars. This does happen before the end times.

But as in Matthew 18, where 2 or 3 witnesses to truth agree by conscience in the spirit of Christ Jesus ie "Restorative Justice" or "Equal Justice Under Law", then
we can agree on concept and principle, even if our words and ways remain relative and even in conflict with each other. I believe the faith in Justice with Mercy, where forgiveness of differences and conflicts allows corrections and restoration of good faith relations, doesn't mean we have to agree 100%, it just means we will agree on solutions that will unite people of diverse tribes, tongues, nations and beliefs.

or else it is a "lie" that in Christ Jesus there is no Jew or Gentile, bond nor free, but all are made one.

We can agree on key truth, principles and process and still have conflicting cultures, language and motivations for where we agree and disagree. That doesn't have to interfere with establishing Peace and Justice for all, but rather
accepting the fact we are going to have irresolveable differences, that forgiveness and inclusion is necessary to establish universal truth and justice, given the fact humanity is so diverse and every person unique.

 

[emilynghiem]

I came away shocked, and indirectly scolded, for trying to counteract a bias I encountered in a group meeting Saturday.

A group of nontheistic historians discussing Thomas Paine's writing
saw him and other Deists are more aligned with "atheists who reject the Christian right"
rather than aligning such Founding Fathers with today's Christians who include
such Deists and Quakers as fighting against political oppression.

I found the bias to be caused by the liberal mindset
and INSISTENCE on "defining Christianity" based on the OPPRESSIVE political abuses
(which the Founding Fathers and historic patriots fought against at the risk of their lives)
while seemingly negating or dismissing the Christian Left such as QUAKERISM
including historic abolitionists against slavery.

Why isn't Christianity defined by that POSTIVE PART of history and culture?
Fighting for humanity and equal justice for all people?

Why this insistence on "equating Christianity with political oppression",
so that anyone going against that (even Quakers or Deists) can't be called Christian?

I found this VERY disturbing.

Are we ever going to resolve this bias in cultural perception and language?

Isn't it just as destructive and degrading to Muslims
ONLY to define Muslim faith based on political abuses of Jihadists and oppressive Islamic regimes
instead of correctly teaching the faith by what the TRUE spiritual practice and teachings are about?

If it's unfair to "define" Muslims based on only the negative history,
why not with "defining" Christianity this way?

And if Christians don't like being defined by only the oppressive political history,
why do this same marginalization to Muslims fighting the same oppression,
within their own Muslim countries and leaders, that Christians fought?

Can this Bias be resolved? What will it take to reach a common understanding?

If by Christianity you mean the teaching of Christ, then yes Christianity is definitely identified with social justice. However, if you mean the actions of Christians today, not so much because too many Christians are wrapped up in politics. Why else would they embrace someone like Trump, a self centered lecher who claims to be a Christian but rarely has time for church but has plenty of time to spread a doctrine of hate, fear, and racism in hours of daily tweets.

God loved David, too. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Trump hasn't reached David level yet. His body isn't as good and he doesn't play music, for one thing.

He's a good American president, though, the best since Truman, probably. Ford was not a bad president, but he was a reserved man.

Okay, let's have you lay out Trumps "Doctrine of hate, fear and racism" and document it, pls. Proof or STFU.

I say there is no such thing. Let's see you prove me wrong, Commie.

You hurling labels does not make it fact.

30,000 tweets, almost everyone laced with either hatred, racism. or fear.
Trump Twitter Archive

Dear Flopper I find the Trump Effect
is a combination of deliberate Trolling on Trump's part,
and the "fear hatred and racebaiting" being EQUALLY
in the eyes of the beholder. That's exactly what he's trolling for,
knowing that the liberal opposition will react in that way.

The more either side takes the hate bait,
the mutual trolling continues. I can't stand it either,
but if it burns away all the excess fat, I hope we
come away in better shape after we drop all that garbage and trash talk
back and forth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot, so he said it wasn't because he isn't.

Nope:
He said we are no longer "just" a Christian nation, but a nation of many other faiths as well. A chain e-mail drops that key word and thus changes the meaning.
Obama and the "Christian Nation" Quote - FactCheck.org

You already lost by using "factcheck".

He says it, then throws in some bogus (dis)qualifiers. Next!

The key word is "just "which changes the meaning from not being a Christian nation to a nation of many faiths which is true.

The actual quote from text of speech is:
"Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

Dropping the word, "just" and all phrases after Christian nation, you change the whole meaning of the sentence. Removing the word "just" doesn't do it. You have to do both otherwise the meaning of the sentence is unchanged.
Obama Speech - “'Call to Renewal” Keynote Address - Complete Text

Dear Flopper
Your meaning is well taken and stated.
However again we seem to use the term Christian in two different ways.
1. one is the Christian CULTURE and traditional religious expression/perception
2. one is the Christian SPIRIT which isn't necessarily restricted to #1
Christian Universalism includes atheists, Buddhists people of any faith or
no faith at all in the process of universal salvation for all humanity.
The tribes that all unite in Christ can be seen as preserving their
religious and national identities, not "converting" to Christian as in #1.

So again, I keep running into this confusion because "Christian"
is used in different ways and contexts. I wish there was a better
way to word this to make that distinction, because I run into it all the time.

I usually end up explaining I'm Christian by faith, but not by culture.
Culturally I am secular gentile and express my faith using
Constitutional terms. I believe in translating Christianity into
universal terms of Restorative Justice as the meaning of Christ Jesus
and Truth, Justice and Peace as the symbolism behind the trinity
of God, Christ and Holy Spirit. So I believe the principles in Christianity
can be "translated" into any religion or even secular terms for
atheists and nontheists claiming no religion at all.

Buddhists, Muslims anyone can add Christian faith to their affiliation
and identity, and still remain Buddhist Muslim etc.

So I understand what you and also what Obama mean by not restricting
to just "Christian" as in #1, but this shouldn't be taken to mean
that the Universal meaning of Christianity is AGAINST or SEPARATE
from any of the other tribes or religions. Christ Jesus authority as
universal Law is like the Constitution in relation to the sovereign states.
Those are not in conflict with the law of the land, or shouldn't be.

Same with local religions not being in conflict with universal truth.
All these agreeing on truth "through Christ Jesus" does not mean
Christianity "imposes" or supercedes any other religious following.
Just like the federal authority does not dictate or rule over individual states.
we are supposed to AGREE on federal laws where we are harmony with them.

And that's how I see the different religious tribes that all unite in
Christ Jesus or authority of law where Universal Justice governs all humanity as one.