Logic problem: The founding principles of the U.S. and Christianity.

[CliveStaples]

A conversion system that claims you are born on your way to eternal torture and that you can only be saved by becoming a slave to one specific being isn't coercion? What is it then, a polite suggestion?

I understand "conversion system" to mean "the means by which a believer acts in order to produce belief in a non-believer". Everything you mention above has to do with "existence" and "obligation" claims made by the belief system, and has nothing to do with conversion.

Take a religion that posits something really horrible, something like "We should violently kill everyone over the age of 50." Despite the fact that this religion advocates violence, it could very well have a non-violent non-coercive conversion system. In fact, it might not have a conversion system at all.

---

Christianity is a militant religion, perhaps even more so than Islam. Just look at all the carnage left behind done in the name of a "Convert or Die" attitude.

This has nothing to do with what kind of conversion practices Christianity teaches. Suppose a religion contains only the single belief "A god exists." Some of its adherents use a "Convert or Die" approach to convert atheists. Would you say that this belief system is militant?

Any Christain belief is inherently antagonistic toward science and reason. The Rennasaince finally dragged Europe out of the Dark Ages where Christianity reigned supreme in it's practice of selling indulgences to bribe Kings and mass torture of anyone who might have been a "heretic". Jesus Christ violates the very first commandment which says there shall be no IDOLS placed before me. The Christian Bible is a total contradiction that places the believer in the same sad, angry state. "God" is external, not internal. "God" is a strict father figure, not a motherly love. Jesus is a pathetic victim that which modern man aspires to be like??? Fudge that! The Buddha shows a much saner and internal way, into the light of awareness!

I'm not really sure where to believe. Lots of Christians throughout the ages were scientists and philosophers; it was the religious scholars who maintained and produced writings through the Dark Ages.

It seems like you're just painting all Christians with an anti-intellectual brush--and you're not even giving an argument for it. You're just claiming that their beliefs are antithetical to science and reason. Why should I believe you?


Also, I'm not quite sure how things like "A topological space is a set X together with a set T consisting of subsets of X such that: 1) X and the empty set are in T; 2) T is closed under arbitrary union; 3) T is closed under finite intersection" are somehow incompatible with "Christianity is true". I'm a big fan of math (and to a lesser extent its grubby-fingered grandchild, physics) so I'd be very anxious to find out that my commitments to reason and science are somehow at odds with my religious beliefs. Please explain further.

---

Christianity is coercive, even if those advocating it do not intend to be. Sadly they often do, and so I can list just about any sort of distasteful coercion you care to imagine as being leverged in service of the christian faith. These are terrible things done by terrible people, you might say (which would be true). Neverless, had these people merely preached the gospel without taking any action whatsoever they would still be leaning heavily on coercion by fear and ignorance. So you can take your pick between the evils done, or the evils inherent, but either way, it's coercion.

Or any of the more specific examples from american politics recently.

I didn't come to Christianity in a state of ignorance or fear. The pastor at the church that my parents took me to every Sunday didn't try to prey on fear or ignorance, either. So I don't find your argument at all persuasive.

[RW_9]

I understand "conversion system" to mean "the means by which a believer acts in order to produce belief in a non-believer". Everything you mention above has to do with "existence" and "obligation" claims made by the belief system, and has nothing to do with conversion.

Take a religion that posits something really horrible, something like "We should violently kill everyone over the age of 50." Despite the fact that this religion advocates violence, it could very well have a non-violent non-coercive conversion system. In fact, it might not have a conversion system at all.

The obligation claims are inextricably linked to the conversion, though. If you do not fulfill your obligations to this divine being via conversion, these heinous things will happen to you. That is coercive.

[Bgood]

GOD is dead, I put my sacrifice in too much already.

[The Grand Nudger]

Take a religion that posits something really horrible

Really horrible? You mean something like having a blood debt to a punishing god that can only be paid by scapegoating a third party, thereby saving yourself a lengthy stay in a cosmic prison?

I didn't come to Christianity in a state of ignorance or fear. The pastor at the church that my parents took me to every Sunday didn't try to prey on fear or ignorance, either. So I don't find your argument at all persuasive.

Well you definitely didn't come to christianity in a state of knowledge, nor does christianity confer a state of knowledge. "The church my parents took me to"...ah, so you were carried to your indoctrination center by those who were supposed to be your caretakers and guardians. Spiritual Stockholm Syndrome, lol.

[Bgood]

Benjamin Franklin, who once lived as an introspective neighbor to me in nearby Philadelphia, once said, "Fuck God, he can suck my big, fat cock." And he is not in hell, he is in many museums as an American god. Explain that.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Anyone want to hear the latest of fucktwittery that my anti separation of church and state friend has posted?


My Friend:the primary purpose of the religion part of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from financing and establishing The Church of America, similiar th the Church of England where everyone is taxed for the church. Of the approximately three hundred clergy in the Church of England in America between 1776 and 1783, over 80 percent in New England, New York, and New Jersey were loyalists. This is in contrast to the less than 23 percent loyalist clergy in the four southern colonies. Many Church of England clergy remained loyalists as they took their two ordination oaths very seriously. Anglican clergy were obliged to swear allegiance to the king as well as to pray for the king, the royal family, and the British Parliament. In general, loyalist clergy stayed by their oaths and prayed for the king or else suspended services. By the end of 1776, some Anglican churches were closing. Anglican priests held services in private homes or lay readers who were not bound by the oaths held morning and evening prayer. During 1775 and 1776, the Continental Congress had issued decrees ordering churches to fast and pray on behalf of the patriots. Starting July 4, 1776, Congress and several states passed laws making prayers for the king and British Parliament acts of treason. The patriot clergy in the South were quick to find reasons to transfer their oaths to the American cause and prayed for the success of the Revolution. One precedent was the transfer of oaths during the Glorious Revolution in England. Most of the patriot clergy in the south were able to keep their churches open and services continued.

Whole bunch of chaos went about during the period between 1776 and 1789 between the former Colonies and the Church of England. In 1789, representative clergy from nine dioceses met in Philadelphia to ratify the Church's initial constitution. The Episcopal Church was formally separated from the Church of England in 1789 so that clergy would not be required to accept the supremacy of the British monarch. They went about and set up a House of Bishop and a House of Laity along with a Presiding Bishop (with little or no authority over the dioceses) as head of the church.

Some people argue that the Founding Fathers used this as a model for creating the House of Representative, the Senate, and the Executive. Congress out of fear that somewhere down the road, the call for a State Religion would come up, and that is why the Freedom of Religion Clause was put into the First Amendment.

Through the years the government has let religious beliefs rule over government policies, The Conscientious Objector to serving in the military, the permission of Chaplaincy in the Military and Congress, opening the Supreme Court with prayer, providing Koran for detainees, etc.

There are certain restrictions on religion such a ban against polygamy, snake worshiping etc. But for the most part the government never tried to set standards for religion, up until the last 50 years with the banning of prayer in the schools, and other attacks by liberals.

Obamcare, with its regulation concerning contraceptives is a slap not just in the face of the Catholic Church, but all religious faiths. Remember the old story, when the Nazi came for all those people in my town, I was okay because I was not among them so I didn’t stand up, but when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me. This, what Obama is doing.

Me: In writing the constitution the founding father's recognized that they were writing not just for their time period but for the future -so that what they wrote would still be relevant in the future. Though the church of England scinario may have been the impitus for writing the first amendment, the founding father's recognized that many religions have a tendency to become state institutions. By making the statement that essentially says that government shall stay out of religion and religion stay out of state matters you fix the problem both in the present and in the future. When you interpret modern events you need to see it in terms of where the line between church and state exist. Both the state and the church have a nasty habit of overstepping their boundaries. Maintaining these boundaries maintains the freedom of both groups.


Mods don't kill me for a long section that was cut and pasted. I could not link to the web page that had this information.