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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

FDR was doing what he thought was best for our country during incredibly difficult times.

So is Trump. Trump tried to issue a travel ban for countries with the most terrorism. They just happened to all be Muslim. Imagine that.

Well then the press said that it was a Muslim ban, which was a lie. The ban would have let well over 90% of other Muslims to immigrate who were not from these countries. In fact, Obama had a similar travel ban at one time but nothing was said about it.

But now we are to believe the FDR was a much better President than Trump and that Trump cuz he is the racist one? I don't think so.

I call BS.

FDR also wanted to implement the Court Packing Scheme in order to get SOCTUS to do as he wanted, a clear repudiation and disdain for the Constitution. It should then be of no surprise that Democrats today want to do the exact same thing.

FDR was a little tyrant and evil racist. It was so bad, Congress implemented term limits for the role of President.

Trump's travel ban was NOT all Muslim countries. If I'm not mistaken, it included North Korea and Venezuela.

Other than that, you are correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

can you please explain how you are getting that "DEISTS" are more like "atheists"

Yes. They do not believe in a personal god, or a god that intervenes. Its just papered-over atheism.

Yes, you're still wrong and illiterate and trying to pretend that words mean whatever you "feelz" they mean at the moment.

 

[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.

Maybe, maybe not. History is never simple and straightforward. Could be that it required the right build up of circumstances at the right time with the right people to spark the movement. It is certainly my contention that it required the long build-up of Judeo-Christian culture to bring Western Civilization to that epiphany. Maybe Great Britain needed the example of the US's struggle.

No. They knew in advance when we could abolish the importation of slaves. That date is spelled out in the constitution. The constitution was ratified in 1789 and we could not abolish the importation of slaves until 1809. The brits abolished 1 year earlier.

 

[ding]

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.

Nope. Democrats still believe some human lives are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Nothing has changed.

You do realize that the Democratic Party has never apologized for their racist heritage, right?

FDR is still revered by pretty much everyone despite being the most racist in the 20th century.

What other President locked up innocent Americans simply because of their race?

FDR was doing what he thought was best for our country during incredibly difficult times.

There's a reason why it's the road to Hell, not the road to Heaven, that's paved with good intentions.

Agreed. As long as we don’t rationalize a wrong as a right I’m good with doing the lesser of two evils.

 

[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?

.

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?

.

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?

Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.

??? - is that because I have referenced the fraud to you, I would suppose so ... they spent the entire 4th century writing your book, there is nothing in your writings that does not reflect its corruption.

what are the sins you are unable to not commit, lynghton ...

the 1st century was a reaffirmation of the original religion of antiquity prescribed by the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil, that is all there is - your 10000 pg. document is itself nothing more than a political manifesto disguised as a religion.

your presumptive post is in itself an indictment christianity has orchestrated since the 4th century, your indifference for the truth is exemplative of that corruption.


whatever the party that has been referenced, what has always remained the same is the christianity of the "bible belt" responsible for the crimes against humanity they have perpetuated uninterrupted throughout their history. slavery, one kind or another.

Dear BreezeWood

I find both the Biblical Scriptures (and the Constitutional laws)
check themselves, and have built in principles and process
for resolving wrongs so that practices can be corrected.

See Matthew 18:15-20 about addressing rebukes and trespasses
to correct any false actions or false teachings so this is made right by God's laws

See also First Amendment to the US Constitution which contains
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances" using "freedom of speech, or of the press"
The rest of the Bill of Rights includes the right to DUE PROCESS.

So using those principles is enough to redress the grievances over slavery.

And the process in the Bible is enough to correct any past misteachings
involving SINS, so that CORRECTION process is INCLUDED
in this Bible you reject as flawed propaganda.

.

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

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.

had you responded to my first post your post regarding the latter would have been self evident ...

what are the sins you are unable to not commit, lynghton ...

how are you unbiased when you accuse everyone of being sinners which has no foundation in the 1st century events and is found only in your 4th century bible.

And the process in the Bible is enough to correct any past misteachings
involving SINS, so that CORRECTION process is INCLUDED
in this Bible you reject as flawed propaganda.

no, it is your misteachings about sin you have prevented from being corrected, it is the basis of your 4th century religion you erroneously contribute to the 1st century making your book nothing more than a political document disguised as a religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

can you please explain how you are getting that "DEISTS" are more like "atheists"

Yes. They do not believe in a personal god, or a god that intervenes. Its just papered-over atheism.

Yes, you're still wrong and illiterate and trying to pretend that words mean whatever you "feelz" they mean at the moment.

.

Yes, you're still wrong and illiterate and trying to pretend that words mean whatever you "feelz" they mean at the moment.

deism is a philosophical belief ... not a word, -

something your stagnant mind appears incapable of understanding as evident by your responses ... hopefully that is helpful for you in the future.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The very definition of Deism is a 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. In other words, he creates then sits back and watches the show.

 

[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.

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.

The very definition of Deism is a 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. In other words, he creates then sits back and watches the show.

Which is just papered-over atheism...

Deists get to claim belief in a supreme being, but without all the annoying 'belieiving in gods that do things or have any power'.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The very definition of Deism is a 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. In other words, he creates then sits back and watches the show.

Which is just papered-over atheism...

Deists get to claim belief in a supreme being, but without all the annoying 'believing in gods that do things or have any power'.

Deism can't be the same as atheism because the two have polar opposite beliefs. Where one denies the existence of a supreme being the other embraces it. Because someone does not share your religious beliefs does not mean they have none.

 

[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.

"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.

I can certainly tell you were educated at a super bitch for baptist private school.

 

[LittleNipper]

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

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

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

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

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

I found this VERY disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the Founding Fathers didn't believe in a "Christian" nation, as much as they believed in Christian leaders and leadership. A nation cannot be "Christian" unless there are Christians living there. That being said, I don't see how a Christian can become the President, unless he first gets involved in politics.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

The very definition of Deism is a 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. In other words, he creates then sits back and watches the show.

Which is just papered-over atheism...

Deists get to claim belief in a supreme being, but without all the annoying 'belieiving in gods that do things or have any power'.

Historically, Anglican Episcopalians living back at the time of the American Revolution had a problem. The Monarch (King George at the time ) was the head of the church. Most of our Founding Fathers were raised and attended that church. So it was a form of separation to declare one's self a deist ---- until one could figure out where indeed one would worship and how the Revolution would effect the Anglican church....

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The very definition of Deism is a 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. In other words, he creates then sits back and watches the show.

Which is just papered-over atheism...

Deists get to claim belief in a supreme being, but without all the annoying 'belieiving in gods that do things or have any power'.

"It's atheism because I want it to be atheism, because I dont want to admit I've been babbling like an illiterate fool for years!"

I really hope this shocks you - like, you have a heart attack and die from the shock - but people don't choose their religious beliefs based on "getting to claim" something in order to win YOUR approval. Deists believe in a supreme being because they believe in a supreme being, not because they're trying to impress YOUR sorry, uneducated ass.

They aren't any sort of atheist, they never WERE any sort of atheist, and you've been misusing words all along in your attempt to claim some sort of "superiority" for your religiophobia by pretending that famous people were on your side. The End.

 

[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.

I can certainly tell you were educated at a super bitch for baptist private school.

This is what you get for ASSuming that you have any thinking ability.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Deism can't be the same as atheism because the two have polar opposite beliefs.

Hmm, it's pretty close. Deism is just a way of having your cake and eating it, too. They don't have to believe that gods actually have any power or effect anything about our lives, but they can claim they exist. Like believing in unicorns, but also believing nobody will ever see one and they have no effect on the universe. In other words, equivalent in every practical way with their non existence, but without offending one's own desire to believe in unicorns.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most of our Founding Fathers were raised and attended that church.

Sure, children dont have any choice.

Yes it was a form of separation...it was a clear declaration that literally everything about christianity is false. You're right...that is quite the separation from christianity ...

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

Why'd you go to it? Matter of fact, how'd you even get into that predicament? lol. What kind of group is it, beside being some nonthiestic historians? Is that just all they are?

 

[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.

Why'd you go to it? Matter of fact, how'd you even get into that predicament? lol. What kind of group is it, beside being some nonthiestic historians? Is that just all they are?

I went there to introduce a new friend who has a humanistic vision for health care reform and cooperative economics, and thinks in similar secular terms.

My friend who runs the "ideas" club/group, is very atheistic, but as openminded as you can get, and tries VERY hard to understand the "linguistic neurological" differences in the way we think and communicate. So he is as fascinated as I am in how are we going to communicate about these things we see so differently.

He tried very hard and did make concessions when I brought up the positive contributions and programs in Christianity. He may not get the connection but he tries to be fair and rationally minded, as a secular humanist thinker.

as for mixing and interacting with such thinkers Natural Citizen how are we EVER going to communicate and reach an understanding of differences
or make corrections UNLESS we interact and find out the causes of conflicts?

We can't even begin to resolve these if we don't try to identity where
we are talking past each other and framing things in opposite ways.

So this is an important first step in any process.

It is just shocking to me how engrained and inherent some of these
beliefs are, reminds me that in order to respect beliefs, that includes this
level of thinking. If it cannot be changed, if it's how people's minds think,
we NEED to be able to work with and accommodate these differences
if we are ever going to resolve issues with public policy that represent people
of this diverse type of thinking and belief system wired in the brain.

Instead of fighting each other, why not learn to accommodate each other?

 

[LittleNipper]

Most of our Founding Fathers were raised and attended that church.

Sure, children dont have any choice.

Yes it was a form of separation...it was a clear declaration that literally everything about christianity is false. You're right...that is quite the separation from christianity ...

Everyone has a choice or you wouldn't be a so called atheist.
Nothing regarding Christianity is false.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everyone has a choice

Not children. They are forced to do what their parents say.