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

[Marion Morrison]

^ 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

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.

God made man in his image, so these things are printed in most people's DNA.]

As for Islam, Mohammed was a pedophile rapist slaver that denies Jesus Christ as the Son of God, (which he is) so Mohammed is no good and has no moral standing as far as I'm concerned. The fruits of Mohammed's religion reflect exactly what I just stated as well.

 

[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?

Deists ARE atheists.

^ ???? ^ Where are we getting these definitions all twisted around?
Fort Fun Indiana

If DEIST means something to do with GOD (DEO)
why use that term if you are using it to mean A-THEIST?

Do you mean NONCHRISTIAN
NONTHEIST?

Does DEIST mean faith in a NONPERSONIFIED GOD.
If so, that isn't ATHEIST but NONTHEIST.

Can we agree on terms please.

How about
NONTHEIST meaning not believing in personifying God but conveying the same
meanings or aspects that God is used to mean
but in impersonal or SECULAR terms

ATHEIST meaning NOT believing in God

ANTI-THEIST being AGAINST THEISM/THEISTS who believe
in a Personal God

So DEISTS may be Anti-Theists or Nontheists

maybe we should specify what we mean by Atheist
to distinguish the nontheistic/secular Deists from
those who oppose theism/theists which is also different.

Don't you find it confusing to use the term
Deist if you mean nonchristian or nontheist not atheist!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

^ What Cecilie1200 said ^
Thank you!
Fort Fun Indiana

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

"
Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot,"


If atheists and muslims and all nonchristians have the same rights as christians then it is a SECULAR nation.

You can say "America IS a christian nation" all you want but if it has no meaning it is meaningless....

 

[Marion Morrison]

^ 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

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.

That central universal source is God The Father.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

"
Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot,"


If atheists and muslims and all nonchristians have the same rights as christians then it is a SECULAR nation.

You can say "America IS a christian nation" all you want but if it has no meaning it is meaningless....

It has meaning more than you realize. Do you really think you'd be free to spout your leftist bullshit if America was a Muslim nation, dumbass? Are you actually spitting on those that gave you the freedom you have and yearning to be a slave or something? Wtf?! You are meaningless. You have no direction.

 

[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

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.

God made man in his image, so these things are printed in most people's DNA.]

As for Islam, Mohammed was a pedophile rapist slaver that denies Jesus Christ as the Son of God, (which he is) so Mohammed is no good and has no moral standing as far as I'm concerned. The fruits of Mohammed's religion reflect exactly what I just stated as well.

Marion Morrison
Mohammad and the Quran call for Believers/Muslims to receive and respect
All Sent by God including Jewish Torah, Christian Scripture and Muslim Quran.
So if Believers follow that calling, they would reconcile with Christians
(and Jews) by living by Scripture which includes Jesus and laws thereby fulfilled.

What we have is a failure to follow the laws that otherwise unite
Jews Christians Muslims and all other Believers.

I know many Muslims who live in peace with Jews and Christians.
They cite the same Bible and teachings of Mohammad, and yet
do not come to the conclusions you do about what those laws teach.

What matters is that we embrace embody and live by the spirit
and laws of Christ Jesus which means Restorative Justice
or Justice with Mercy. People of many faiths are joined this
way to God through Christ, whether they identify as
atheist Buddhist Muslim Jew Christian etc. What unites us in truth
is common faith in universal Justice and Peace for all humanity.
I find this to be the meaning and message of Christ Jesus
or Universal Justice as the authority of all laws, in bringing
peace and salvation to humanity, regardless of tribe or nation.

Muslims can share this faith too, and they are called to
follow Scripture which teaches the same things that Christians believe.

I hope and pray we all come to this same realization.
It would be much easier to reconcile among tribes if we taught that
Christianity fulfills all these paths instead of rejecting as being in conflict.

 

[Marion Morrison]

^ 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

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.

God made man in his image, so these things are printed in most people's DNA.]

As for Islam, Mohammed was a pedophile rapist slaver that denies Jesus Christ as the Son of God, (which he is) so Mohammed is no good and has no moral standing as far as I'm concerned. The fruits of Mohammed's religion reflect exactly what I just stated as well.

Marion Morrison
Mohammad and the Quran call for Believers/Muslims to receive and respect
All Sent by God including Jewish Torah, Christian Scripture and Muslim Quran.
So if Believers follow that calling, they would reconcile with Christians
(and Jews) by living by Scripture which includes Jesus and laws thereby fulfilled.

What we have is a failure to follow the laws that otherwise unite
Jews Christians Muslims and all other Believers.

I know many Muslims who live in peace with Jews and Christians.
They cite the same Bible and teachings of Mohammad, and yet
do not come to the conclusions you do about what those laws teach.

What matters is that we embrace embody and live by the spirit
and laws of Christ Jesus which means Restorative Justice
or Justice with Mercy. People of many faiths are joined this
way to God through Christ, whether they identify as
atheist Buddhist Muslim Jew Christian etc. What unites us in truth
is common faith in universal Justice and Peace for all humanity.
I find this to be the meaning and message of Christ Jesus
or Universal Justice as the authority of all laws, in bringing
peace and salvation to humanity, regardless of tribe or nation.

Muslims can share this faith too, and they are called to
follow Scripture which teaches the same things that Christians believe.

I hope and pray we all come to this same realization.
It would be much easier to reconcile among tribes if we taught that
Christianity fulfills all these paths instead of rejecting as being in conflict.

I feel the Spirit in that post, Idk what else to say.

Mohammedism is bad. It denies Jesus, that right there is displeasing to God the Father. There's no way it can't be.

You think it was easy for him to sacrifice his Son for us? Or for the Son to do it? No! No, it was not.

But it was what had to be done, and they did it.

What did Mohammed do? Take a 9-year old girl for a wife? Enslave anyone he conquered?

Would Jesus do that?

Force non-Muslims to pay Jizyah? Jesus took a whip to people like that.

Need I mention what he said about people that corrupt/defile children?

I'll paraphrase: "It would be better if a millstone were hanged around his neck and him tossed into the sea."

^ It doesn't get any clearer than that than I can make it.

Mohammed was a nobody and self-serving.

 

[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.

"
Obama dared say America was not a Christian nation. It is, but he's a Commie Muslim traitor narcissistic faggot,"


If atheists and muslims and all nonchristians have the same rights as christians then it is a SECULAR nation.

You can say "America IS a christian nation" all you want but if it has no meaning it is meaningless....

1. anynameyouwish
Christians can believe in Constitutional laws allowing free choice and exercise of religion. Christianity teaches free will to choose what to believe, not be forced by the state. (either by faith in free will as inherent by God/nature or belief in Civil obedience to civil institutions which include Constitutional laws that Christians are called to obey which recognize religious freedom and no discrimination by creed.) it is not against the Bible to obey civil laws such as these, but rather part of civil obedience as believers are called to do.

As one of the Muslim community leaders in Houston said about the Muslim teaching "there shall be no compulsion in religion": religious belief cannot be "forced" or the faith is fake - by nature, it must be freely chosen for that faith to be real.

Free choice in religion is NOT against Christianity.

2. Marion Morrison what I'd say about Obama
He doesn't believe in Constitutional laws that establish limits on govt
and democratic due process for changing them by the Constitution.

What I find unchristian about him, Clinton and other leaders claiming
to be Christian is that they put Mammon or material laws and interests
first, namely PARTISAN interests before Constitutional principles that
protect Beliefs and Consent of ALL citizens equally under law.
These leaders do not respect that, nor do they follow Scripture
where believers are supposed to rebuke one another to reach
agreement in Christ (see Matthew 18:15-20) they violate these
Biblical principles and process by badmouthing and backbiting
instead of reconciling and correcting one another in Christ Jesus.

That is the worst "unchristian" practice I see going on with today's
politics that harms the faith in authority of Christ to bring agreement in truth.

Very sad and I hope to see this corrected before the next election!

 

[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

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.

That central universal source is God The Father.

^ Dear Marion Morrison ^
if you restrict the definition of God to a personified Father
if that is the ONLY correct God,
this is where people are getting that DEISTS who
don't see GOD as "father" but as impersonal as the Universe
get labeled along with ATHEISTS who reject this as
the "only definition of God"

Sure we can agree that the SAME SOURCE
that YOU are calling God the Father
is Universal to all humanity, regardless how we see or name this Source.

I think you and others hit the nail on the head.
This definition of God as being a father figure personified
is what the Deists/atheists were diverging away from.

Some people are able to align Deists with Christians
as still referring to the same source as the same God.

If so, can we do the same and agree that
Buddhists are also defining God's laws from
the same Source but in nonpersonified terms.

if we are okay with reconciling Deists with Christians,
why not also with Buddhists that aren't necessarily
rejecting or conflicting with God's laws just because
this isn't attributed to a PERSONIFIED figure.

 

[Marion Morrison]

^ 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

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.

That central universal source is God The Father.

^ Dear Marion Morrison ^
if you restrict the definition of God to a personified Father
if that is the ONLY correct God,
this is where people are getting that DEISTS who
don't see GOD as "father" but as impersonal as the Universe
get labeled along with ATHEISTS who reject this as
the "only definition of God"

Sure we can agree that the SAME SOURCE
that YOU are calling God the Father
is Universal to all humanity, regardless how we see or name this Source.

I think you and others hit the nail on the head.
This definition of God as being a father figure personified
is what the Deists/atheists were diverging away from.

Some people are able to align Deists with Christians
as still referring to the same source as the same God.

If so, can we do the same and agree that
Buddhists are also defining God's laws from
the same Source but in nonpersonified terms.

if we are okay with reconciling Deists with Christians,
why not also with Buddhists that aren't necessarily
rejecting or conflicting with God's laws just because
this isn't attributed to a PERSONIFIED figure.

I cannot comment further until tomorrow or later. There's a time for everything, and right now is not the time for this for me.

 

[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

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.

God made man in his image, so these things are printed in most people's DNA.]

As for Islam, Mohammed was a pedophile rapist slaver that denies Jesus Christ as the Son of God, (which he is) so Mohammed is no good and has no moral standing as far as I'm concerned. The fruits of Mohammed's religion reflect exactly what I just stated as well.

Marion Morrison
Mohammad and the Quran call for Believers/Muslims to receive and respect
All Sent by God including Jewish Torah, Christian Scripture and Muslim Quran.
So if Believers follow that calling, they would reconcile with Christians
(and Jews) by living by Scripture which includes Jesus and laws thereby fulfilled.

What we have is a failure to follow the laws that otherwise unite
Jews Christians Muslims and all other Believers.

I know many Muslims who live in peace with Jews and Christians.
They cite the same Bible and teachings of Mohammad, and yet
do not come to the conclusions you do about what those laws teach.

What matters is that we embrace embody and live by the spirit
and laws of Christ Jesus which means Restorative Justice
or Justice with Mercy. People of many faiths are joined this
way to God through Christ, whether they identify as
atheist Buddhist Muslim Jew Christian etc. What unites us in truth
is common faith in universal Justice and Peace for all humanity.
I find this to be the meaning and message of Christ Jesus
or Universal Justice as the authority of all laws, in bringing
peace and salvation to humanity, regardless of tribe or nation.

Muslims can share this faith too, and they are called to
follow Scripture which teaches the same things that Christians believe.

I hope and pray we all come to this same realization.
It would be much easier to reconcile among tribes if we taught that
Christianity fulfills all these paths instead of rejecting as being in conflict.

I feel the Spirit in that post, Idk what else to say.

Mohammedism is bad. It denies Jesus, that right there is displeasing to God the Father. There's no way it can't be.

You think it was easy for him to sacrifice his Son for us? Or for the Son to do it? No! No, it was not.

But it was what had to be done, and they did it.

What did Mohammed do? Take a 9-year old girl for a wife? Enslave anyone he conquered?

Would Jesus do that?

Force non-Muslims to pay Jizyah? Jesus took a whip to people like that.

Need I mention what he said about people that corrupt/defile children?

I'll paraphrase: "It would be better if a millstone were hanged around his neck and him tossed into the sea."

^ It doesn't get any clearer than that than I can make it.

Mohammed was a nobody and self-serving.

^ Yes and No Marion Morrison
I'd say it depends on the Muslim if that person rejects Jesus or not.

Even Jefferson was criticized for rejecting the divinity of Jesus
shown by him editing out reference to miracles that required that level of faith
and only keeping the secular level teachings of Jesus as a model of natural laws and principles.

Even as a secular gentile, Jefferson is seen as aligned with Christian
teachings and principles. So why not with Muslims who respect the law
out of faith in God, and who follow the Bible as Jefferson did,
whether or not this included faith in Jesus divinity that secular gentiles
tend not to follow as much. Can't secular gentiles still obey God and
natural laws by Conscience. Doesn't Jesus govern that fold and
fulfill natural laws the same for the gentiles as with Believers under
Scriptural laws.

(see Bible Scriptures on Jesus governing sheep under a separate
fold of the same flock. I find many secular gentiles whose faith in
Jesus authority is expressed in secular terms of JUSTICE. The difference between antichrist/false justice and true justice in Christ Jesus is
Retributive Justice (or man's justice that brings war out of greed for material power) vs. Restorative Justice or Divine Justice with Mercy that brings Peace
out of spiritual power of healing and restoration to humanity.

So I agree with you if you mean Jihadists/islamists that are against
peace and worship Jihad or War (similar to Zionists that worship
Armageddon and are considered AGAINST Christianity).

But I disagree with you if you unfairly include God loving Muslims
who believe God brings peace by humble obedience and serving others
as in Christian charity and respect for civil laws and authority.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

^^ Fort Fun Indiana

1. If taxation rates are nearing 40%
that's 3/5 free and 2/5 of someone's income or labor going to govt.
That's giving up one's labor required by law, or state sanctioned.

2. how many computers, cell phones, etc are made using slave labor.
I doubt we could afford our current goods, services and standard of living
if the laborers were paid living wages, thus isn't the whole import industry
a form of state sanctioned slavery

3. look at all the trafficking going on in Asia, Africa South and Central America (and in America illegally though corrupt officials have been caught enabling or profiting off crime rings). I remember reading that at one point, India couldn't even ban child labor because more kids would die of starvation than if they worked to feed themselves and their families.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

The Dutch outlawed slavery before England.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I am well aware of the realities of their position, yet the propaganda mills stated otherwise. You lowbrow attempts to discredit public schools and myself are your usual digs showing how shallow and pedantic your nature is.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

I am well aware of the realities of their position, yet the propaganda mills stated otherwise. You lowbrow attempts to discredit public schools and myself are your usual digs showing how shallow and pedantic your nature is.

.

I am well aware of the realities of their position, yet the propaganda mills stated otherwise. You lowbrow attempts to discredit public schools and myself are your usual digs showing how shallow and pedantic your nature is.

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.

If the Founders had attempted to get everything all at once, there wouldn't BE a US at all ...

that is correct and the constitution is written as far removed from christianity as would be possible in that time period and still be ratified -

slavery was always a christian, bible belt phenomena and was not supported by any other groups throughout its dismal history in this country culminating in the defeat of the confederacy and its christian based underpinnings.

 

[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.

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

I just heard, "Fuck the actual meaning. I'm going to go with the ignorant mistakes people make."

the·ism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Deism is not theism, but it is not atheism either, no matter how much fools like you want to destroy the language and make communication impossible in service of your agenda.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If DEIST means something to do with GOD (DEO)
why use that term if you are using it to mean A-THEIST?

Because I am saying that an atheist is someone who does not accept a personal god. But the more general and accepted definition is "no deities", this is true.

 

[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.

The Dutch outlawed slavery before England.

The Dutch decided THEY weren't going to participate in slavery. England and the US made efforts to eradicate slavery everywhere.

And if I'm not mistaken, the Dutch had the same Judeo-Christian cultural base.

 

[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.

I am well aware of the realities of their position, yet the propaganda mills stated otherwise. You lowbrow attempts to discredit public schools and myself are your usual digs showing how shallow and pedantic your nature is.

"I am well aware of the realities of their situation, after criticizing them as though they didn't exist and after having you correct me. How DARE you try to discredit public schools by correctly pointing out my spewing of misinformation!"

Your usual lame excuses show how accurate I was. And being called "lowbrow" by a mouthbreather like you? Hold your breath waiting for me to aspire to the "high culture" of ignorance you represent.