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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"General and accepted definition" = The actual meaning of the fucking word, despite your long-term misuse of it.

In other words, you're telling us that you were babbling, got caught out on it, and are now trying to pretend that only peasants worry about silly things like using words correctly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If conservatives aren't contriving ridiculous lies they're propagating ridiculous rightwing lies, this post being one of many examples.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

Spot on.

Scripture speaks about those people though, remember when Jesus said "Not everyone that says 'Lord, Lord...?'"

Then Christ ran them out for running money scams in the church...

All this describes the religious right to a tee.

God is good anyhow and Jesus is coming back soon, so they will get their just rewards.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

General and accepted definition" = The actual meaning of the fucking word, despite your long-term misuse of it.

Yes, thank you, I said that already. When i need a retard to follow me around and repeat what i say, i will give you a call.

Funnt thing it, it was always reigious freaks like you that called exists "atheists", due to their lack of belief in a personal god. I thi k there is truth to what they say. I think deists are just feckless atheists, myself.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The positions of the parties have changed radically.
In 1860, the Democratic party split into the Northern and Southern Democrats and remained so for some years. Even when they unified, they were sharply divided over race. However they were unified when it came to small government and states rights and their opposition to republicans which was the party of big business, big government, and big spending. This continued till the great depression.

Roosevelt completely changed the direction of the democratic party from a fiscally conservative party with little interest in racial causes to the tax and spend party, willing to support labor movements and slowly moving toward a more liberal racial policy. By the 1970, the democratic party had become the liberal party we know today.

Today the two parties are the opposite of what they were a hundred years ago. Republicans were responsible for passage of women suffrage in 1919. In the 1980's they were responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. Republicans were the champions of civil rights and getting blacks registered to vote in earlier 20th century. Now republicans are calling for repeating of Voting Rights Act and changing Civil Rights Act. Religious fundamentalists were far more likely to be democrats than republicans in early 20th century. The reverse is true today. Margaret Sanger, a campaign of women rights, birth control, and founder of Planned Parenthood was a republican and got strong support from republican allies and was constantly being attacked by democrats. The money that founded Planned Parenthood came mostly from republican donors. Today Margaret Sanger is cheered by democrats and condemned by republicans.

 

[emilynghiem]

General and accepted definition" = The actual meaning of the fucking word, despite your long-term misuse of it.

Yes, thank you, I said that already. When i need a retard to follow me around and repeat what i say, i will give you a call.

Funnt thing it, it was always reigious freaks like you that called exists "atheists", due to their lack of belief in a personal god. I thi k there is truth to what they say. I think deists are just feckless atheists, myself.

RE: "I think deists are just feckless atheists, myself"

Dear Fort Fun Indiana
Regardless of what OTHER people are saying or calling "atheists"
can you please explain how you are getting that "DEISTS" are more like "atheists"

Do you mean they take a NONTHEISTIC or "IMPERSONAL/INTANGIBLE" approach to what God means?

Because I'd still NOT call that "atheist" but would say we were "talking about the same
THINGS meant by the term GOD" but the DEIST/NONTHEIST is merely using
more neutralized/impersonal terms for the meanings (such as substituting
words like UNIVERSE instead of creation, WISDOM instead of God's truth,
Natural or Universal Laws instead of God's Laws or Divine laws,
Good Will for all humanity, instead of God's will, etc.

Is this what you are calling "atheist"?

Wouldn't a DEIST be someone who takes the impersonal meaning
but AGREES that it is coming from or applies to the same thing that
Christians/Theists are calling a personal GOD.

And then the Atheist is someone who doesn't attribute or believe
in any such higher, central or universal source that other people call God.

Wouldn't the DEIST actually agree it's the same thing, but just not represented in a personified way?

NOTE: Fort Fun Indiana
my bf believes in God as the impersonal type/not interfering in activities of humanity.
So he seems more a DEIST and not an ATHEIST at all, he even challenges atheists
to prove they are not really agnostic of some level or another.
So he will DEFEND his belief in GOD even though he does not see GOD as personal as Christians do.
And he aligns and supports the conservative Christian beliefs and respect for GOD.
So he's the type of DEIST that Christians are saying align with Christianity even
if they don't embrace or embody the "divinity of Jesus and invoking authority of law and grace" etc. that
Christians believe are part of the relationship between God and man through Christ Jesus.

So I'm curious if you would say my bf is a Deist not an Atheist,
and by this description would see why Christians consider Deists to be in line with them, not with Atheists or
secular/liberal types rejecting Christianity, God and Jesus.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Dear Moonglow:
1. Don't you think they had enough to battle with even among themselves to get the laws written and govt formed WITHOUT addressing slavery as well.
2. For comparison, let's look at a similar equivalent today:

Today we are fighting a similar battle with states rights vs. federal govt,
and parties that believe in CENTRALIZED govt vs. parties that want to LIMIT federal govt.
We have all that going on, comparable to the Founding Fathers fighting over
bigger Federalist centralized govt and greater emphasis on INDIVIDUAL and STATES Rights.

Now let's add to that the issue of slavery, which today you could say is our economic dependence on IMPORTED slave labor that we still allow to provide goods (like electronics, phones, computers, cars, etc. we don't want to pay living wages to produce).
Some people argue Republicans are hypocrites for tolerating the dependence on illegal immigrant labor to run businesses and pay less for certain services, so that
can be argued as a form of depending on slave labor.

Moonglow are you saying that we as Americans "aren't fighting hard enough"
to get rid of the slave labor we are depending on?

Are would you acknowledge it would take TIME and carefully orchestrated effort
to convert sweatshops and slave labor into living wages so it doesn't prevent
prices from going up so drastically that we couldn't afford to buy the goods and services.

Well, at the time that SLAVES were traded, these were MORTGAGED through the banks
as part of the land property. So people like Jefferson owed money to BANKS and didn't directly own slaves that required working the land to pay the BANKS.

This could be compared to people today mortgaging their HOUSES through Banks,
so you can't afford to just donate your house to the homeless if you are still paying for it
and the BANKS technically control it until you completely pay it off.

If you expect Jefferson and other slave holders to just "free their slaves"
do you understand they couldn't afford to pay the debts owed to the banks to do this?

In fact, we are still going through the economic development and changes
necessary for low income populations (not just descendants of former slaves,
but other minorities facing similar economic and educational disparity) to become
self-sufficient and equally empowered in order to be "equally free" as other citizens
with a longer history of economic education and ownership than slaves, migrant workers,
and their descendants have had.

If we still have these problems today, are you saying we aren't fighting hard enough?
Or do you understand it takes time to DEVELOP the economic and political foundations
necessary for all slaves/workers to be equally freed as others more educated and experienced
in governing ourselves and manage our own resources?

How would you expect all these massive social changes to happen back then
if we are just now getting programs set up that allow education and liberation today?

 

[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?

.

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

4th century christianity's accusation that everyone is born a sinner, and remains sinners alleviates them of any justified role they would impose on society by the very nature of their unjustified religion as in itself being biased without cause.

??? Dear BreezeWood

1. if 4th century Christianity was teaching inaccurately or incompletely
isn't it the responsibility of believers today to fix this misteaching and not follow it?
Does this require renouncing Christianity altogether in order to fix past teaching
or why can't the correction be made while claiming and promoting CORRECT faith and teaching
and still call it Christianity. (Similar to correcting mathematical or scientific errors,
does that mean we throw out "math and science" and call the corrected system by a different name?
Can't we replace the errors using the same system of math/science and still call it math/science?

2. How are human biases without cause "unfixable"?
If you have no faith that unjustly biased people can ever resolve this
so they COULD play a meaningful constructive "role in society"
isn't that an issue of YOU LACKING FAITH in correction. How is YOUR lack
of faith a reflection on other people, isn't that a reflection on YOU?

3. As for the idea "everyone is born a sinner and remains a sinner"
Why can't this be interpreted to mean
everyone is BORN to be BIASED and will always be influenced by our personal BIASES and preferences.
Thus we are NOT PERFECT. we are not universally equal in treatment and understanding
of all other people as God is who IS perfect and all inclusive, knowing and treating all people justly.
No person is able to do that, save the representation of Jesus as Perfectly EQUAL Justice under Law
universally for all humanity.

Do you agree no one person is so perfectly just as to be able
to solve all problems with all people and speak perfect justice and solutions to all the world's problems?
That nobody is God?

Given that interpretation, isn't it true that we are all born to be imperfect as humans
and will remain limited in that way.

In the spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, with Mercy and Peace,
we can all work around our imperfect biases and limits,
and still follow God's will despite our mistakes in perception and judgment
(which we can help each other correct).

Do you agree that we can be "perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect"
by uniting in agreement in Christ Jesus, agreeing to forgive and confess our
faults that we may receive correction and healing to remedy those imperfections.

Thus, even though man is made in the image of God,
our physical lives and relations are going to be flawed and biased.
We are not omniscient and will not be able to "read each other's minds"
so we make mistakes in communication, perception and action towards each other.

Don't all people continue to make mistakes?
So if sin means separation from God who is perfect,
aren't all people imperfect and influenced by bias that makes us
"less" than universally selfless and inclusive of all people equally as God is?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

God chooses people. We don't get a say. He selects from among the most flawed. The greatest sinners to do his most important tasks. Donald Trump is just such a man. In our darkest hour, when our leadership had betrayed every American principle, Trump assumed a mantle of derision, insult, obstruction and false witness against him to lead us back to the principles we had set aside. Thank God for such a leader.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: "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."

Thanks for clarifying what you mean Fort Fun Indiana

Yes it is confusing to use "atheist" to mean it's just a "personal god" they object to,
when other people are using "atheist" to mean not believing in any god at all.

This is why I prefer the term Nontheist because it only describes the
secular terminology used.

It's a totally ADDITIONAL discussion after that is established
on what someone believes about the meaning of God.

Once we get past the fact this person uses SECULAR language,
the real questions can be discussed about the meanings and concepts.

And yes, there are differences whether people believe there is an interactive
relationship between individual man and whatever thing they are using to mean
the equivalent of "God".

I usually substitute some word a person uses to mean the COLLECTIVE level
beyond the individual. And then we discuss what is the connection between
the INDIVIDUAL and this "higher collective level".

So we can discuss what we believe about the "relationship between
man and God" but call it the INDIVIDUAL vs. the COLLECTIVE level
(of humanity, of society, of knowledge, of the universe, or the body of laws,
or collective good will etc) and discuss the RELATIONSHIP between
those and the PROCESS of resolving issues. So this doesn't require
agreeing on terms like God and whether this is personal/interactive or what.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.



​

A.
???? about slavery BreezeWood
I've heard from Native Americans that their tribes went through slavery, genocide and wars
well before the Europeans and Christianity.
Also the Jewish/Christian believers I know said this Hebrew slavery was also before Christianity.

Wouldn't you agree that slavery is from people enslaving each other,
for economic or political/tribal advantages.

When Black people in the South became slave owners of black slaves to engage in the same slave trade as white traders,
that was motivated by business. Do you think that was motivated by Christian faith???

[PS if you insist on equating "Christianity" with false practice motivated by selfish human motives,
wouldn't the historic term for that be ANTICHRIST and not Christian?
That term would seem more consistent, as the institution of slavery was present and
practiced in the world long before Christianity, and the spirit of ANTICHRIST was always
and still in the world. Aren't we talking about the spirit of oppression by greed?
So that is what Christians call "ANTICHRIST" while the meaning of TRUE Christian faith
is more like CHARITY and faith in Christ Jesus as RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.
BreezeWood I think you must be referring to the warning that "there will be those
who come in the name of Christ yet are of the Antichrist" ie the FALSE Christians who violate the truth faith and meaning.]

Also
B. the Constitution being removed from Christianity

What about
1. Christian rebuke and Constitutional due process
2. Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King. He will save us. reference to three separate powers of Governance
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
Judicial, legislative, and executive roles of government
3. Jesus as Lord of all, translated into "Equal Justice under Law"

and in general, the similar process of INVOKING authority of law
by citing, enforcing and rebuking by Scriptural law (when addressing
church matters with church members) and with Constitutional or natural
laws (when addressing civil or secular matters with that audience or leadership).

Isn't this REBUKE/DUE PROCESS a Universal construct that all people
use REGARDLESS of tribal language or "tongue."

When correcting a Buddhist, wouldn't a monk or teacher cite Buddhist
principles that the person they are addressing AGREED to follow?

When correcting a Scientist wouldn't SCIENCE be used?

So with Christians who commit to Scripture and obedience to that authority,
it is only natural to rebuke fellow colleagues by citing Scripture.

And with Constitutionalism, rebuking and correcting matters of laws
and govt would involve citing those laws.

How is this not fulfilling the teaching and principle that
Christ Jesus makes all things right, new and whole,
fulfilling all paths if Christ Jesus is indeed the universal
Authority of Justice, and Message or Messiah for all Humanity?​

 

[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.

If conservatives aren't contriving ridiculous lies they're propagating ridiculous rightwing lies, this post being one of many examples.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
and Conservatives complain similarly about Liberals promoting leftwing lies in the media and party propaganda.

Who is going to make the first move to correct this mutual dilemma?

What I offered as a first step, let's address the issue that only the OTHER party is pushing THEIR beliefs through govt
and discriminating against people of other beliefs.

Could we agree to call a truce on this mutually objectionable pattern of politics?

I ask advocates on both left and right
* if the rightwing wants their right to life to be respected as a belief, and to defund programs they find violate their beliefs
can't the leftwing argue for their right to fund "right to health care" as a belief and to defund
the Death Penalty they don't believe in so those resources can be redirected to health care instead
* if the leftwing wants their LGBT beliefs to be respected and protected, including in public schools and institutions,
can the rightwing argue for their expressions of God, Christian prayer, Jesus, spiritual healing, etc.
to be taught and included in public institutions equally as a choice of belief or cultural expression or IDENTITY

Can we admit that these constitute BELIEFS
and that everyone wants their beliefs to be protected from any imposition, infringement or obstruction by other beliefs.

Can we quit lying to ourselves and others,
professing that it's acceptable and lawful to impose our beliefs
on others through govt, when in fact we oppose when this is done to us.
Thus, it ISN'T okay to abuse majority or judicial rule to establish beliefs
that WE believe in if OTHERS don't. It's actually unconstitutional
and discriminatory, so why don't we just admit this isn't lawful or ethical practice?

Can we be that political honest and transparent?
Would that help both sides to drop their fronts and quit pretending
only one side is right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If conservatives aren't contriving ridiculous lies they're propagating ridiculous rightwing lies, this post being one of many examples.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
and Conservatives complain similarly about Liberals promoting leftwing lies in the media and party propaganda.

Who is going to make the first move to correct this mutual dilemma?

What I offered as a first step, let's address the issue that only the OTHER party is pushing THEIR beliefs through govt
and discriminating against people of other beliefs.

Could we agree to call a truce on this mutually objectionable pattern of politics?

I ask advocates on both left and right
* if the rightwing wants their right to life to be respected as a belief, and to defund programs they find violate their beliefs
can't the leftwing argue for their right to fund "right to health care" as a belief and to defund
the Death Penalty they don't believe in so those resources can be redirected to health care instead
* if the leftwing wants their LGBT beliefs to be respected and protected, including in public schools and institutions,
can the rightwing argue for their expressions of God, Christian prayer, Jesus, spiritual healing, etc.
to be taught and included in public institutions equally as a choice of belief or cultural expression or IDENTITY

Can we admit that these constitute BELIEFS
and that everyone wants their beliefs to be protected from any imposition, infringement or obstruction by other beliefs.

Can we quit lying to ourselves and others,
professing that it's acceptable and lawful to impose our beliefs
on others through govt, when in fact we oppose when this is done to us.
Thus, it ISN'T okay to abuse majority or judicial rule to establish beliefs
that WE believe in if OTHERS don't. It's actually unconstitutional
and discriminatory, so why don't we just admit this isn't lawful or ethical practice?

Can we be that political honest and transparent?
Would that help both sides to drop their fronts and quit pretending
only one side is right?

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Republican president of the United States does nothing but lie, with his conservative supporters defending and propagating those lies – a comprehensive policy of lies, misinformation, and fake news unique to the right.

 

[ding]

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?

Maybe, but I don’t believe so. To me it seems that virtue and morality must be reinforced. Why? Because we keep forgetting it.

 

[ding]

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.

I actually have that book.

Some atheists, especially militant ones, don’t realize that their righteous indignation only exists because of the values of justice and fairness that Christianity established in western civilization.

 

[ding]

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.

No. They aren’t. Atheists are materialists. They believe that everything proceeded from the material world. That there is nothing beyond the material that did not proceed from the material.

Deists believe in spirit which did not proceed from the material.

 

[ding]

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.

Not a chance.

 

[ding]

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.

Agreed. But what I find interesting is the British waited until right before the US could abolish the importation of slaves to abolish it themselves. They could have done it 20 years earlier.

 

[ding]

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.

A lot of people don’t understand Paschal’s argument for his wager. What he was really saying is that the benefits of belief are so overwhelming that it is irrational not to believe.

Just look at how nasty the atheists who post here behave. I just have to believe they act that way in their real lives. Those behaviors aren’t like light switches. They can’t be turned on and off at will. They have no peace.

 

[ding]

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.

Right. But it is closer to theism than it is to atheism. Deists believe in spirits same as theists. You tried to claim deists were atheists.