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

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

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

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

I found this VERY disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Hang Communists that try to rewrite history?

We'll probably be relegated to proving them wrong and mocking, but dammit! The guys they're talking about would have hung their sorry Commie asses in a NY minute for being traitors and slanderers. At the very least challenged to a duel.

 

[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?

Just tell them that there has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state and that socialism has always sought to subordinate religion. Then tell them that they are behaving like a religion that is attacking a rival religion.

 

[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.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Quincy Adams:

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

John Quincy Adams

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

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

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

Ben Franklin:

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

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

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

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

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

National Archives |

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

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

 

[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 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.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

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

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

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

I found this VERY disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hurling labels does not make it fact.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

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

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

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

I found this VERY disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible says in John Chapter 15, verse 18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flopper]

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

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

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

You already lost by using "factcheck".

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hurling labels does not make it fact.

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

 

[Flopper]

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

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

You already lost by using "factcheck".

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

You already lost by using "factcheck".

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

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

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

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

Listen to the video of him actually talking, dumbass. That's not how it happens. You're fucking retarded.

Video of actual event is there: Dipshit tries to roll with interpreted and erroneous transcript.

Derp!

Fuck! So derp make my head hurt!

 

[Marion Morrison]

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

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

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

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

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

I found this VERY disturbing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hurling labels does not make it fact.

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

So you give me Trump tweets, really?

Do you wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and say "Today I am most definitely going to set out and be teh weaksauce" or what?

 

[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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hurling labels does not make it fact.

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

So you give me Trump tweets, really?

Do you wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and say "Today I am most definitely going to set out and be teh weaksauce" or what?

Think of as a gift, 30,000 bits of wisdom from the old pussy grabber.

 

[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.

 

[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?

.

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.

And yet there is nothing inconsistent with the beliefs and practices of the early Christians.

Can you name anything that was?