Is Christianity responsible for equality and liberty?

[Gipper]

Hey Numinus, I really enjoyed your many posts in this thread. Most enlightening. Thank you.

It is sad so many Americans like their foolish counterparts in Europe, have turned away from God. The detrimental efforts of this are felt in our nation every day. Particularly with the anti-Christian Marxists running the WH and Dem Party.

Jesus reigns now and forever!

 

[numinus]

Hey Numinus, I really enjoyed your many posts in this thread. Most enlightening. Thank you.

It is sad so many Americans like their foolish counterparts in Europe, have turned away from God. The detrimental efforts of this are felt in our nation every day. Particularly with the anti-Christian Marxists running the WH and Dem Party.

Jesus reigns now and forever!

You're welcome.

From an academic view point, the answer to the thread question is, for the most part, undeniably in the affirmative. Anyone saying otherwise must have slept his way through poli sci 101.

 

[Gipper]

You're welcome.

From an academic view point, the answer to the thread question is, for the most part, undeniably in the affirmative. Anyone saying otherwise must have slept his way through poli sci 101.

If it were only just sleeping through poli sci. It is much more insidious than that. There has been a concerted effort by the Left to undermine all that is good in our culture. Many Americans have been brainwashed by the Left to believe Christianity is dumb and evil. They believe God must be removed from all aspects of our lives. This is straight out of their handbook - "Communist Manifesto."

 

[PLC1]

You're welcome.

From an academic view point, the answer to the thread question is, for the most part, undeniably in the affirmative. Anyone saying otherwise must have slept his way through poli sci 101.

Anyone answering the thread question "undeniably in the affirmative" must have been oblivious to classmates who were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Muslim.

Did the First Amendment come up during that poli sci 101 class you attended?

 

[Gipper]

Anyone answering the thread question "undeniably in the affirmative" must have been oblivious to classmates who were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Muslim.

Did the First Amendment come up during that poli sci 101 class you attended?

Spoken like a true multiculty ^%$^&%&*&*^*.

Anyone who commends Christianity is by liberal logic condemning all other religions. So thinks the liberal multiculty.....................

 

[OldTrapper]

You're welcome.

From an academic view point, the answer to the thread question is, for the most part, undeniably in the affirmative. Anyone saying otherwise must have slept his way through poli sci 101.

Mr. Numinus, the reason I evne got interested in this thread was because of this comment of yours:

"The american fundamentalist 'barn yard' preacher, however, is an entirely different specie of fungus that defies any logical classification -- if that is what you are refering to. "

From this one statement it is apparent you feel the same hatred towards those who believe in the Holy Scripture, not the traditions of men, as those who established the inquizitions, and the oppression of the common man. Of each of the points I have made you have not refuted any. Nor have you provided any evidence that any of the beliefs of the RCC is based on scripture.

So, since I am not going to try and convince you of the heathenistic traits of the RCC, and its similarities to Mohammedism when it comes to expansion of its beliefs, would you mind answering just one simple question:

Name one country where the RCC was a dominent force that it created the same equality, and freedom, we have here in the United States?

Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Guatamala, Mexico, etc. Can you name one?

The predominant religion here in the States was Protestant in nature, and Catholicism was looked upon with suspicion. If Catholicism had been the predominant religion I dare say we would have been little better off then Mexico,

 

[numinus]

If it were only just sleeping through poli sci. It is much more insidious than that. There has been a concerted effort by the Left to undermine all that is good in our culture. Many Americans have been brainwashed by the Left to believe Christianity is dumb and evil. They believe God must be removed from all aspects of our lives. This is straight out of their handbook - "Communist Manifesto."

I've read the communist manifesto. In my opinion, marx's historical materialism is a bit naive and simplistic. Of course it reads more like a diatribe than a treatise (for obvious reasons) but it is sound.

 

[numinus]

Anyone answering the thread question "undeniably in the affirmative" must have been oblivious to classmates who were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Muslim.

Did the First Amendment come up during that poli sci 101 class you attended?

What idiotic nonsense.

How do you suppose is the first ammendment relevant to facts and logic, hmmmm? Would you rather deny (and remain ignorant) the important contributions of christianity to political thought for fear of offending some fanciful and largely imagined principle in your first ammendment?

But to answer your question -- your first ammendment did come up. We even traced its development from early christian natural law to modern constitutionalism to liberal thought and finally, to what it is today in your constitution.

What about the principle of separation of church and state did you want to talk about, eh?

 

[numinus]

Mr. Numinus, the reason I evne got interested in this thread was because of this comment of yours:

"The american fundamentalist 'barn yard' preacher, however, is an entirely different specie of fungus that defies any logical classification -- if that is what you are refering to. "

From this one statement it is apparent you feel the same hatred towards those who believe in the Holy Scripture, not the traditions of men, as those who established the inquizitions, and the oppression of the common man. Of each of the points I have made you have not refuted any. Nor have you provided any evidence that any of the beliefs of the RCC is based on scripture.

Nonsense.

I do not feel any more hatred for your fundamentalist barn-yard preachers than particular species of fungi. I am merely pointing out that they DO NOT even come close to representing the intellectual heritage of christian thought.

Nor do I need to refute any of the points you have raised. Refuting them would only lend credence to them. Your opinions demonstrate a painful lack of knowledge of what the hell you pretend you are talking about.

So, since I am not going to try and convince you of the heathenistic traits of the RCC, and its similarities to Mohammedism when it comes to expansion of its beliefs, would you mind answering just one simple question:

Name one country where the RCC was a dominent force that it created the same equality, and freedom, we have here in the United States?

Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Guatamala, Mexico, etc. Can you name one?

So, you think the us is the epitome of equality, eh? Is equality even a quantitative term to begin with?

I once read a curious study to determine the level of equality between men and women in various countries. The survey tried to determine the percentage of women holding upper executive positions in government agencies and private corporations. The result was quite surprising since a small country in southeast asia (philippines) with a population of 80% rc came in more than 50% -- a far cry from the us who came it at less than 30%. Its a country where women are bosses, who had 2 female presidents and almost median female legislators.

It is curious because it is a newly industrialized, relatively poor country that has no gay marriages, criminalizes abortion on demand and euthanasia, routinely grant executive clemency to capital offenses, have a high poverty incidence, is operating on a trade and budget deficit and is having problems containing an islamic separatist movement -- the usual indicators to determine equality in the first place.

Is that what you were looking for?

The predominant religion here in the States was Protestant in nature, and Catholicism was looked upon with suspicion. If Catholicism had been the predominant religion I dare say we would have been little better off then Mexico,

Speculation like this is an exercise in futility.

It is true that the american colonists were largely protestants escaping religious persecution from europe. Whether its economic success is directly attributable to protestantism, on the other hand, is an entirely different question, wouldn't you say?

 

[numinus]

Don't forget context! The "Learned" men you refer to at the time of the foundation of Christianity were practising and preaching in the middle of the dominance of the Roman Empire which was itself a pagan culture and those "learned" scholars were themselves regarded as odd "barn yard" preachers. The vast majority of the Empire's population regarded them much the same as something nasty and smelly that you just stepped in.

Absolute faith is one thing but the context of your faith and where and how it arrived are different; don't forget that these "Christians" you refer to were still just a hokey Jewish sect with myriads of divergent views on what we now call "christianity" most of which have been deleted from the records for obvious reasons.

You must also realise that the interpretations of these "learned" works have been subject to editing, interpretation and alteration as they have been passed down and translated over the ages. The Catholic church in the early day of the downfall of the Roman Empire and during the subsequent Dark Ages was very good at spin. They didn't call it the Dark Ages because the weather was a bit cloudy!!

Good point.

However, you must remember that prior to the council at nicea (where the christian faith was first formalized), christianity was no more than a jewish sect. Christianity was, depending on the apostolic tradition that proselityzed the good news, was a vague, nebulous concept -- hence the proliferation of the gnostics. One of the fundamental questions the early christians grappled with was whether or not to baptize non-jews. There were even christian gnostics who flatly denied jesus' divinity and much rather accept a more metaphorical interpretation.

So, strictly speaking, christianity, as a religion separate from judaism, started out as constantine the great's official religion.

 

[numinus]

The RCC was spawned out of one mans fervor for political power, and from its conception it used the force of government to try and quash any "competition". This was true until the late 1800's.

The "petric tradition" is just as false a teaching as is most of the RCC. There is no evidence to support any lineage back to Peter, or even before Constatine. Even the term "pope" did not come into use till approx. 500 A.D., or even as a reference to the Bishop of Rome.

I'm sorry but peter was named successor to jesus -- hence the title 'the rock'. Peter was the apostle who established the church in rome, where tradition says he was crucified upside-down.

Now, you might have an argument as to peter's pre-eminence among the apostles, but the fact remains, there is ample evidence to trace the tradition of the catholic church all the way to jesus.

As far as the Pauline traditions as pertaining to the RCC, there is little similarity. Paul, just as Peter, certainly did not support the idea of one "ruler' over all, or even as a "representative" of Christ. Nor would he have supported most teachings of Catholicism.

LOL.

You are probably standing on your head and you have gotten everything backwards.

The criticism, as far as church creed is concerned, is that paul's interpretations had an undue pre-eminence in its formulation.

Get your opinions right next time.

Your reference to the "intellectual capacity" of the listener speaks of the arrogance in which many of the adherents to Catholicism indulge.

Again we see that arrogance of the "catholic", and their hatred for anyone who might protest against the power, and authority, of the RCC. It is bred into them from the time of birth, and is as easily removed as it is to remove the false beliefs of any other cult.

Nonsense.

I am implying the universality of christianity. It started out as the religion of slaves and three centuries later, became the single force with the political and intellectual clout to underwrite the roman empire.

Clearly, the appeal is for everyone, regardless of your intellectual wattage.

Duh?

 

[OldTrapper]

Nonsense.

I do not feel any more hatred for your fundamentalist barn-yard preachers than particular species of fungi. I am merely pointing out that they DO NOT even come close to representing the intellectual heritage of christian thought.

Only in your opinion as it is required to conform to the teachings of the RCC.

Nor do I need to refute any of the points you have raised. Refuting them would only lend credence to them. Your opinions demonstrate a painful lack of knowledge of what the hell you pretend you are talking about.

Do you deny the Jewish halocaust also?

So, you think the us is the epitome of equality, eh? Is equality even a quantitative term to begin with?

I once read a curious study to determine the level of equality between men and women in various countries. The survey tried to determine the percentage of women holding upper executive positions in government agencies and private corporations. The result was quite surprising since a small country in southeast asia (philippines) with a population of 80% rc came in more than 50% -- a far cry from the us who came it at less than 30%. Its a country where women are bosses, who had 2 female presidents and almost median female legislators.

It is curious because it is a newly industrialized, relatively poor country that has no gay marriages, criminalizes abortion on demand and euthanasia, routinely grant executive clemency to capital offenses, have a high poverty incidence, is operating on a trade and budget deficit and is having problems containing an islamic separatist movement -- the usual indicators to determine equality in the first place.

Like all RCC dominated countries it consists of a two caste system, the favored ones, and the poor, and predominately poor. The US, dominated by Protestants, allowed each individual to be what they could be if they so desired. It had nothing to do with the sexes.

Is that what you were looking for?

If that is the best you can do. However, it only exemplifies what the RCC will do for a country.

Speculation like this is an exercise in futility.

It is true that the american colonists were largely protestants escaping religious persecution from europe. Whether its economic success is directly attributable to protestantism, on the other hand, is an entirely different question, wouldn't you say?

Not at all. Christianity, as taught by Protestantism, was the basis for our laws, and much of the Constitution. It actually taught that all men are created equal, and had certain rights which the RCC would deny to man.

 

[numinus]

No I'm referring to this...

Dinosaur poop is poop.

Cow manure is poop.

Old or new poop is poop. You can believe certain poop is supernatural fairy dust if you like. It's all still poop though.

All religion is man made combining the need to explain things that were not scientifically explainable at the time and a need to govern or control groups of people or tribes. Without this man was scared to death by the great uncertainty of everything around him and only the strongest would survive.

Very similar (almost carbon copy) to what governments were eventually set up to do.

LOL. What ignorant nonsense are you talking about, eh?

It is the implied purpose of ANY political association to control the actions of everyone. Law is a form of control. Nothing will have any meaning without law.

Now, if you want to live in a lawless environment, you can gather a couple of morons of similar inclinations and live your ignorant lives in the jungles of equitorial congo or some such place. That way, you need only contend with natural law.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

Only in your opinion as it is required to conform to the teachings of the RCC..

Nonsense. A political science class in an american-established state university would hardly qualify as religious conformism, now, would it?

Do you deny the Jewish halocaust also?.

No. The holocaust is a matter of standard history -- not a question of theology.

Duh?

Like all RCC dominated countries it consists of a two caste system, the favored ones, and the poor, and predominately poor. The US, dominated by Protestants, allowed each individual to be what they could be if they so desired. It had nothing to do with the sexes..

Wrong.

Poverty is an evil in itself and it most certainly has nothing to do with being protestant. The point is that women enjoy the same career potentials as men in that country -- unlike your women (who are the more individualistic and career-oriented). Is that not the equality you were looking for?

Now, you might want to try the argument that certain religions systematically bring about poverty. Buddhism for instance, teaches people to accept suffering as a necessary component of life. But then again, how are you going to reconcile this with japan, china, and the little asian economic tigers?

Obviously, you are committing one of the most common error of logic -- that you often find yourself immersed in thought at the onset of a fart, you stupidly conclude that your fart occurs as a logical function of thought.

Duh?

If that is the best you can do. However, it only exemplifies what the RCC will do for a country..

Yes, that is the best I can do considering the vagueness of your query.

Now, is that what you were asking -- a level of equality equal to that of the us in a predominantly rc country?

Not at all. Christianity, as taught by Protestantism, was the basis for our laws, and much of the Constitution. It actually taught that all men are created equal, and had certain rights which the RCC would deny to man.

Good god!

Modern constitutionalism rests on the existence of natural law. Natural law was first coined by aristotle to refer to the immutable laws of nature. To my knowledge, natural law was first used within the context of political science by augustine then thoroughly explained by thomas aquainas.

Now, granted that the social contract philosophers and modern constitutionalists were protestants, the idea they were using came directly from the work of DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.

The significance of early christian thought in political philosophy rests on the distinct and traceable evolution of the concept of natural law FROM PURELY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FRAMEWORK.

Is that clear enough?

 

[OldTrapper]

Nonsense. A political science class in an american-established state university would hardly qualify as religious conformism, now, would it?

Who, aside from you, has insinuated such?

No. The holocaust is a matter of standard history -- not a question of theology.

As is the Inquizition; the slaughter of the Huguenots, Albingeses, etc.; what is called the "Midnight of rhe Dark Ages", and the "Rule of the Harlots" in reference to the papacy; etc.

Poverty is an evil in itself and it most certainly has nothing to do with being protestant. The point is that women enjoy the same career potentials as men in that country -- unlike your women (who are the more individualistic and career-oriented). Is that not the equality you were looking for?

More deception. What has the RCC done to eliminate poverty? In every country in which it has had an immense amount of influence poverty has grown. Look at Brazil, Argentina, Guatamala, Mexico, Spain, etc. NONE have risen to the wealth of the US under Protestant influence. In the meantime, the coffers of the RCC have grown beyond belief, and the priests live quite comfortably regardless of the poverty around them. Not quite what Christ had in mind.

As to equality, you again avoid the discussion by pleading ignorance. You try to limit it to a qualifier being the sexes when you know quite well that my question was not that at all, unless you are such a dolt that common sense cannot permeate your brianwashed mind. Is there even equality within the RCC if you want to use the sexes? Is there a famale "pope", or a female "bishop"?

So, whether you want to use poverty as a measure, or equality, the RCC is lacking.

Now, you might want to try the argument that certain religions systematically bring about poverty. Buddhism for instance, teaches people to accept suffering as a necessary component of life. But then again, how are you going to reconcile this with japan, china, and the little asian economic tigers?

Has nothing to do with Christiandom.

Obviously, you are committing one of the most common error of logic -- that you often find yourself immersed in thought at the onset of a fart, you stupidly conclude that your fart occurs as a logical function of thought.

Obviously you are the scent of the fart.

Modern constitutionalism rests on the existence of natural law. Natural law was first coined by aristotle to refer to the immutable laws of nature. To my knowledge, natural law was first used within the context of political science by augustine then thoroughly explained by thomas aquainas.

Now, granted that the social contract philosophers and modern constitutionalists were protestants, the idea they were using came directly from the work of DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.

Guess it is something the RCC has determined it need not practice. Or, could you just be full of BS. In any event, Jefferson, Locke, Rosseau, Smith, and many others, would strongly disagree with your conclusion.

The significance of early christian thought in political philosophy rests on the distinct and traceable evolution of the concept of natural law FROM PURELY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN FRAMEWORK.

Is that clear enough?

Well, it certainly explains your braindead attitude when it comes to the influence of Protestantism on the "American experiment".