Is there a war on Christianity in America's Left?

[sooda]

Hatred between religions, and hatred OF religion has been growing steeply for some time now. It's a complicated matter. This thread hits on just one element. I could have, for example, started a thread on the rise of anti-Semitism.

Arabs are semites too, Indigo.

 

[Spartan]

I don't understand you at all. This is another appeal to "moral relativism"! You were arguing for God's objective morality just a few posts back, and now you've completely abandoned it here!!

You argued vehemently against "moral relativism" so It DOESN"T MATTER what the Founding Fathers or any American Christian believed was right back in the day. What matters is what GOD TOLD US IS RIGHT in scripture. That is GOD'S objective morality... what GOD reveals in scripture.

So when someone says "let's rebel against the authority" we don't go to Wallbuilders.com to see if it's okay, and we don't go to the Founding Fathers. We go to scripture! You claim to have 2 degrees in theology. Do you not understand the difference???

If you had read the article instead of giving it the bum's rush you would have seen that the arguments made were based on SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES.

Just one example from the article:

"The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers."

I've made my case - from scripture. If you're still hot under the collar about it then go vent to somebody else. I'm done with trying to reason with you.

 

[Spartan]

"Also, I'm not exactly sure why you think this is pertinent to what's being discussed If you want to take this to a more appropriate forum, I'm quite willing to do that. Set it up, notify me where, and I'll go there".

OK, metis. Here's the appropriate forum. Please go there like you promised and answer the question (in depth) about who YOU say Jesus is.

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

When someone goes out of their way to avoid calling me a Jew, it's no different than saying that I'm a Jew with a smug tone of voice.

How do you know that's what happened? So somebody didn't word something exactly as you personally would have wanted, and you automatically assume they had some weird agenda wherein they were actually trying to insult you? Why?

When you get a condolence card from someone in your life, do you pick it apart and criticize the wording if it doesn't say things exactly as you would like them to be said? Or do you thank them for thinking about you and being kind enough to offer their condolences in the first place?

 

[metis]

OK, metis. Here's the appropriate forum. Please go there like you promised and answer the question (in depth) about who YOU say Jesus is.

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Got it.

 

[Shad]

Arabs are semites too, Indigo.

The term is about Jews and Jews only. You are conflating a language grouping with a specific form of racism. Racism under the older idea of race mind you.

 

[sooda]

The term is about Jews and Jews only. You are conflating a language grouping with a specific form of racism. Racism under the older idea of race mind you.

Only for you.. Up until 1956 most people thought Arabs were also Semites because they spoke a Semitic language .. Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, Aramaic and Syriac. Are you saying Jewish people are a race? That makes no sense at all. Arabs sure aren't a race.

 

[Shad]

Only for you..

Wrong. In the dictionary, in wiki, in history, in encyclopedias. More so your specific use is pointed out as a distortion of the term in each subject I mentioned. Heard of google? This is common knowledge. Try again. Maybe read my post next time as it include some keywords which you are ignoring.

Up until 1956 most people thought Arabs were also Semites because they spoke a Semitic language .. Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, Aramaic and Syriac. Are you saying Jewish people are a race? That makes no sense at all. Arabs sure aren't a race.

Antisemitism isn't about a language grouping.... Try again

 

[Oeste]

If you had read the article instead of giving it the bum's rush you would have seen that the arguments made were based on SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES.

I'm looking for consistency in your argument @Spartan

Just one example from the article:

"The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.).

The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers."

You still don't understand the difference between moral relativism and God's absolute morals do you? You were railing against the "Christian Left" through the lens of "God's absolute morals" a few posts ago, and now you're arguing for the Revolution based on "a point of spiritual appeal for the Founding Father's", all after bringing up Romans 13!!!

What kind of theology degree do you have?

Look, a white police officer shoots an unarmed black civilian, the fifth such shooting this year. After decades of red zoning, gerrymandering, and disproportionate representation in the government, the black population in this neighborhood feels disenfranchised and oppressed. Based on Nehemiah 4:13-14, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, the same three verses you cited above, is the civilian population now authorized to shoot back at the police officers as an act of "civil self-defense" ? Are they now given God sanctioned authority to call for the overthrow and establishment of their own government? Can they take their solace and rationale from the fine example you gave of the Founding Fathers? And lastly, do you think we would see whole-hearted support for such a move from the John Ankerberg Show or the Wallbuilders.com web site you cited earlier?

Why or why not?​

I've made my case - from scripture.

You've made a mishmash of inconsistent assertions, nothing more @Spartan. You certainly haven't made a "case" and you definitely don't answer much when it comes to questions.

If you're still hot under the collar about it then go vent to somebody else.

'Hot' under the collar??? Where did you get that idea? I've been enjoying our conversation immensely, @Spartan! It's been something to look forward to, just after my trip to the local coffee shop.

But yes, I'm not only interested in what you believe but more importantly, why you believe it. That's why I ask so many questions. When your rationale is not forthcoming, I ask more questions. People here have done the same with me. After all, this is a debate and discussion forum and I see nothing wrong with the approach.

I'm done with trying to reason with you.

I just don't see where you've put much effort in that, especially when you decide to take your ball and go home, but that's entirely up to you.

I think too many people think they can "convince" someone to change their beliefs. That rarely happens. The best we can do is give honest and consistent rationale for what we believe and then let people convince themselves. IMO, that's going to be down right impossible if people aren't talking.

 

[PureX]

Read this article, and find that in a discussion of the horrendous attacks on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama cannot bring themselves to use the word "Christian." Instead they use the sanitized euphemism "Easter worshippers." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tip anti-Christian ‘Easter worshippers’ hats

Why? Has being a Christian become too much of an embarrassment for Democrats these days? And is this just a part of the larger picture of the Left disenfranchising Christianity? It often appears these days that you can be Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Wiccan, and even a Satanist (and ESPECIALLY a Muslim) and the ACLU will protect your rights. But if you are a Christian, aren't you seen as the purveyor of prejudice?

I used to think it was we Jews who had it bad. I remember when I lived in North Hollywood, CA and two Jewish men were shot going into morning prayers at their shul -- not a single newspaper or TV media outlet covered the event. And that was typical back then for our neighborhood. Jews were seen as part of the "rich white oppressor" by the Left.

Now the hatred is spreading, and Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, first by Islam, and second by the Left. And I'm sorry to say, but the bigotry extends even to my own country.

I think that when you have the whole world in which to look for 'evidence' justifying your preconceived/preferred conclusion, it's pretty sure that you will find it. However, it is still a fact that there are hundreds of millions of "liberal" Christians all over the world. As well a many millions of moderate and conservative Christians.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Because Christianity has completely disavowed White Supremacy. They actively preach against it.

Obviously not, if there are Christian cells that operate under the flag of white supremacy, and actively back up their actions with biblical verses and Christian imagery.

Yet still, you won't see the Media calling the KKK Protestant Extremists. Calling into question your claim that they are the most persecuted religion in the world these days.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sure. And yes......
Hence the term 'Easter worshippers', I guess.

We need to stand up against all hatred everywhere, and we need to support Equality for opportunity, health, safety, security, freedom and a voice for all.

The difference is, the way I phrased it is the normative way to discuss it, and "Easter worshipers" is not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well that's awkward. Most of my neighbors are Jews.. We are in the same book club and meet for bridge. (I don't play Mahjong.) I see them nearly every day and they are sweet to me. I wouldn't insult them for all the tea in China.. What should I say?

I'm sure you call them Jews or Jewish, right? I would lay you odds that you don't call them Passover worshipers or Yom Kippur worshipers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Arabs are semites too, Indigo.

Oh come on sooda, let's not play at semantics. Yes, Arabs are semites. But the word "anti-Semitic" refers to the hatred of JEWS.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Obviously not, if there are Christian cells that operate under the flag of white supremacy, and actively back up their actions with biblical verses and Christian imagery.

Yet still, you won't see the Media calling the KKK Protestant Extremists. Calling into question your claim that they are the most persecuted religion in the world these days.

I don't want to oversimplify this. I think the Christian church needs to re-examine it's pitfalls -- obviously there is a tendency for SOME Christians to fall into racism/anti-Semitism (I've discussed this in more detail in the thread I started on the subject).

At the same time, every Christian Church considers these white nationalistic churches to be heretical cults.

I am not aware of the same sort of strong language from the Muslim community towards Islam extremism. Sure you have individuals who decry it, "That's not real Islam." But I'm not aware of any overall disclaimer like you have in Christianity.

If that's not true, I would more than welcome any Muslim to document my mistake!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The faux outrage over calling Easter worshippers "Easter worshippers" seems ridiculously contrived to me.

That's exactly what I got.

Let's not forget the simple fact that "Easter" is a Christian religious celebration, and those targeted were at Easter celebrations. Let's also notice what Obama said: "On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal..." especially the word "redemption," which is about as Christian as it gets. "I know that my Redeemer liveth…" and all that.

Fuss over nothing...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Christians in Egypt cannot get a divorce so they convert to Islam, divorce and return to Christianity.

Wouldn't that make them guilty of a capital crime, at least according to Sharia law?

 

[oldbadger]

The difference is, the way I phrased it is the normative way to discuss it, and "Easter worshipers" is not.

What!!! ???

The 'way you phrased it?' How normal is that?

Surely, if you wanted to be absolutely politically correct you could have written 'The difference is, 'Christians' is the normal title, and 'Easter Worshipers' is not.

It looks as if you could not bring yourself to use the title 'Christians' !!

Go on. Go and stand by President Obama and Mrs Clinton. You see? It's so easy to pick at what folks say.

 

[PureX]

The difference is, the way I phrased it is the normative way to discuss it, and "Easter worshipers" is not.

In this instance the latter is the more accurate. I don't know why they chose this phrase and neither do you. It certainly could have been simply because it is the more accurate term in this instance. It could have been because they were hoping not to inflame religious bigotry any further. It could have been because they are politicians that are constitutionally incapable of speaking clearly when they can speak obtusely. Who knows? You're jumping to conclusions based on your own bias.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Christianity has completely disavowed White Supremacy. They actively preach against it.

Not so. Some perhaps, but it's a big church with a lot of different Christians with a lot of different ideologies including white supremacists speaking on its behalf. What fraction of the white supremacists marching at Charlottesville do you suppose were Christian? Three-fourths? What fraction were secular humanists? Zero?

I notice that you steadfastly refused to even try to present any evidence of a war on Christianity by the American left, much of which is Christian, no doubt because you have none, but haven't retracted your claim. I accept that as your concession that you have no such evidence, since you would have been highly motivated to post it if it existed.

I believe that by your standards, I am more that free to claim that you and the people that feed you your anti-liberal bigotry, which you assimilate passively and uncritically, and then volunteer to serve as a vector to spread, have declared war on America's left.

Who do you think is burning and shooting up churches, synagogues, and mosques? Not liberals.

"The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers." I've made my case - from scripture. If you're still hot under the collar about it then go vent to somebody else. I'm done with trying to reason with you.

Your case was rejected because you didn't adequately address these :

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

If one is literate in English, these are very simple declarative statements to understand, so simple that they were no doubt a problem for those promoting revolution against a God-appointed and God-anointed king to a mostly Bible-reading Christian population, and undoubtedly the reason for giving lip service to rights endowed by a creator, newly-minted rights for that occasion.

And you are doing something similar by deflecting to Old Testament scripture trying to justify rebellion as self-defense against a government. I only looked at the first one, Nehemiah 4:13-14, which is irrelevant, since it refers to defending oneself from foreign invaders who prefer that there be holes in the walls of their city. The American revolutionaries simply objected the their king taking so much of the fruits of their labors in taxes without giving them fair representation at court or parliament. The Bible is clear that Christians are expected to submit to the king no matter what, just as man is commanded to submit to God, woman to husband, and slave to master.

It's usually Christian apologists playing the role you're playing here trying to sanitize scripture to make it the moral, historically accurate, and logically coherent account that they want it to be, but is not. The unbeliever is free to treat what he sees in the book at face value, even if that means to consider the scripture wrong or contradicted elsewhere by other scripture, or to deem various acts including those ascribed to the Christian god as immoral or irrational, as with the story of Noah or the story of Job. The unbeliever will give you a more accurate report of what scripture says however incoherent it is because he has no motivation to change that.

If you had read the article instead of giving it the bum's rush you would have seen that the arguments made were based on SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES.

Many of us are not interested in reading the arguments of people not present to defend them. If one agrees with the author, it is your argument as well. If you don't want to make it yourself, then don't, but don't expect others to care enough to look at something that you don't care enough to paraphrase or summarize.

I've lost count of how many times in the past I did that only to discover that whoever left the orphan link (orphan because it is not offered in support of an argument, but in lieu of one) didn't actually read the article, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs responded to on RF wasn't the part of interest to the link poster, and your response is irrelevant to his point that he never made.