Fifty Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[Minimalist]

and Christianity modeled itself after Paul.

Or "Paul" was created/modified to expound the needs of the power-brokers of the early church.

There are a lot of holes in the Paul story.

[fr0d0]

---

Judeo-Christian principles included a lack of woman's rights even though many pagan societies gave rights to women. Many Gnostic sects practiced giving women equal rights as men in church. Paul was against it and Christianity modeled itself after Paul.

Slavery was an institution supported by numerous biblical quotations. (Servent=slave in the Bibe.) It was also incorporated into the US Constitution under the 3/5 ths compromise.

The genocide of Native Americans was also biblical as preachers would quote Romans and Psalms, that the heathen lands were theirs to take.

Of the 3 mentioned negative aspects of Christian morality, I suspect slavery and genocide would have happened with or without the wonderful support of Jesus as they are simply a matter of economics. The Karl Roves of their era would have found an excuse. The lack of woman rights, however, I lay at the feet of religion.

---

Yes religion. No not Christ like.

[Samson]

Yet they are identical to some part of Christian morality that it is alo based on in western society!

And you are living in a dream world Fr0d0....

I think the US legislating for religious freedom and non involvement in government is actually completely in line with Christian thinking BTW.

Depends on which group of "Christians" your talking about...I can think of a few groups that would argue against that line of thinking....

I'd question your use of mass but then again I'm part of the community and therefore a subjective judge. That statement was made by me Shelllb , so I have every right to feel compared to clan members and judgemental pricks, even though it was taken out of context and only a joke. If that's the way you feel come on over and have a beer so I can prove you wrong. Oh, and we'll have it at my church where 150 others can prove you wrong as well. Judgemental pricks and bigots are everywhere and I would say religion has equivicobal number in relation to populace

Of course I would have a beer with ya... and what Shell B said was what I was in meaning with. But as far as attending your church, I'll have to pass on that one...I have enough church around me where I live to last two life times....

Yes, you will find judgmental pricks and bigots no matter where you go....There are just more of them coming from the dogmatic side and making it worse by throwing up faith cards while doing so....

[Minimalist]

I think the US legislating for religious freedom and non involvement in government is actually completely in line with Christian thinking BTW.

You are confusing morality with the great fear of the Founding Fathers, Frodo. This quote from Jefferson is what they were striving to avoid.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

"Religious freedom and non-involvement" by government was seen as a CURE to hundreds of years of Xtian bloodletting and barbarism in Europe. The entire Enlightenment was a repudiation of xtian tyranny.

[tackattack]

@Samson.. seeing as theists are still the majority I'm not suprised there's more of them

[Shell B]

The separation of church and state is not in line with Christian thinking. I believe history has shown us that Christians seek to BE the government. Also, if it is so in line with Christian thinking then why do so many Christians claim that our government is based on their "principles?" In other words, if it was the idea of Christians to separate church and state (lol), than why would they have injected their "principles" into our government, like so many Christians claim they did? (lol, part deux)

[LEDO]

---

Judeo-Christian principles included a lack of woman's rights even though many pagan societies gave rights to women. Many Gnostic sects practiced giving women equal rights as men in church. Paul was against it and Christianity modeled itself after Paul.

Slavery was an institution supported by numerous biblical quotations. (Servent=slave in the Bibe.) It was also incorporated into the US Constitution under the 3/5 ths compromise.

The genocide of Native Americans was also biblical as preachers would quote Romans and Psalms, that the heathen lands were theirs to take.

Of the 3 mentioned negative aspects of Christian morality, I suspect slavery and genocide would have happened with or without the wonderful support of Jesus as they are simply a matter of economics. The Karl Roves of their era would have found an excuse. The lack of woman rights, however, I lay at the feet of religion.

---

Yes religion. No not Christ like.

So your view is that Jesus had no idea how his followers would pervert his teachings?

[Minimalist]

So your view is that Jesus had no idea how his followers would pervert his teachings?

Hmph. Some 'god.'

[tackattack]

Bolding by me

---

The separation of church and state is not in line with Christian thinking. I believe history has shown us that Christians seek to BE the government. Also, if it is so in line with Christian thinking then why do so many Christians claim that our government is based on their "principles?" In other words, if it was the idea of Christians to separate church and state (lol), than why would they have injected their "principles" into our government, like so many Christians claim they did? (lol, part deux)

---

I think everyone wantsto feel like they have control over their lives and through power( aka Government usually) we all seek it. Human thinking not Christian teachings, would have been better word usage, and I think that was the point trying to be made.
Most Christians I know go from the scriptures
1st John 2:15-17

---

"15 Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. 16 For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. 17 And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever."

---

and 1st Corintians 9:19-23 is usually a good example of how to follow above teachings.

---

"19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize."

---

vs 24 is typically seen as a blank check for evangelicals to bully people into believing, but obviously that's not the intent I read in it.

As far as, Christians claim that our government is based on t heir principles? idk I think when Christians feed the faith with nothing but a selfish desire to want to see God, instead of reason or belief then they cling to anything related to the word God or Christ. Most feel the word "secularism" wasn't even around till 1787. The only known way at the time of it's penning I believe for the creation of the universe was creationism.. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. A lot of Christians assume that since they had less science back then that the default explinations for life was religion, therefore religious people penning the constitution.I've heard the arguement about Florida's supreme court

---

State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950) "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."

---

. I'm pretty sure it's in the declaration of independance as well as I'm sure lots of state constitutions. People are just trying figure out the reasoning behind great things and ideas to better understand them. I don't think we have a theocracy, but a constitutional republic and that should say a lot.

[Minimalist]

State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950) "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers."

Wow. Talk about a bottomless pit of bullshit. One imagines that these fools never heard of Athens? The Greeks had participatory democracy centuries before the imaginary jesus was concocted.

Of course, we need not go back quite that far.

http://www.aren.org/prison/documents/Asa...ocracy.pdf

Like the British parliament, with its House of Lords and House of Commons, the US Congress was made
up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. But ultimately, the idea of a dual parliament came from
a blending of the customs of the Vikings, Nor-mans, and Anglo-Saxons. In fact, the world's first parliament
was held by Scandinavian settlers in Iceland in 930 AD. Nowhere was the Norse love of freedom better
expressed than in this rugged frontierland led neither by kings nor really any government at all, save for a
yearly gathering called the "Althing," at which laws were made, legal cases were heard, and business was
transacted.
However, the Norse influence on governance is felt in other rights that Americans hold dear, such as the
right to trial by jury. In Njal's Saga, one of the most detailed accounts of Scandinavian life, there are several
accounts of trial by jury dating from about 1000 AD, such as:
The Althing continued... Geir the Priest called upon Gunnar to hear his oath. Then he …led evidence
that notice of the charges had been given in the presence of nine neighbors, whom he now called upon to
take their places as jury
Though an Icelandic jury functioned more like a grand jury (i.e. determining if there was a case and if
complaint had been made according to the proper forms), the court only had the power to declare someone
an outlaw. Thus, we see it here being used solely as a practical way to administer justice.
The Vikings introduced these customs to England through treaties such as the Peace of Wedmore, which
was made between Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian rulers in 878 AD, which stated:
if a king's thegn (noble) be accused of manslaying, if he dare clear himself.. let him do that with 12
king's thegns. If any one accuse that man who is of less degree than the king's thegn, let him clear himself
with 11 of his equals and with one king's thegn.