Protestantism

» redback - Natural vs Revealed

Hi Migisi

...any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation."

A reasonable validation to openly question, methinks.

And I suggest the 'scrutiny' needs to be better balanced. For example, there should be no pre-requisites of 'absolute truths' in the process. Would this present a challenge for 'apologists' dependent on the very Bible under scrutiny?
Risk management suggests going to the most biased...for and against...to develop one's views. But those that cry the loudest for either side, aren't always the best versed IMO.

"But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority."

Tis a conundrum I see.

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - Christians, Israel, war, etc.

In response to Christians, Israel, war, etc. posted by pink101:

Christianity is coming very close to demanding a test of religious belief for our political candidates for governmental office.

"Christianity" is doing nothing of the sort.

Many Christians in the United States ARE demanding that Judeo-Christian principles guide our candidates and elected officials, but it is their right to do so. Again, just as any interest group has the right to demand that candidates and/or elected officials advance their agenda.

Oh, and as to "religious belief," every single President in American history has professed some level of religious belief. This is nothing new, Pink. In fact, the overwhelming majority of elected officials in the history of the U.S. have professed some level of religious belief. This should not alarm or surprise anyone, since the majority of Americans - throughout U.S. history - have professed a belief in God. (In fact, Christianity in particular has been the majority faith for American citizens for all of US history).

Individuals have every bit as much right as any other person to promote their interests in public...

...AND they have the right to ORGANIZE into groups, raise money, run candidates for office, push for laws, etc., etc., etc.

... but, when it comes to legal standings they don't have a hundredth of a smidgen more than anyone the most fanatical of Atheists.

When it comes to passing laws, every US citizen has the same rights to free speech, organization, etc. We can (as individuals or linked together in groups) engage the political process to shape public policy, including the passage of laws. That's our right. No interest group should be singled out as being unworthy to participate. That includes Christians and it includes atheists.

Today, Christianity is pushing for legal status in government. It is going to stop!

What do you mean by "legal status"? There are many Christians who are pushing to REVERSE some of the gains made by secular progressives and/or some of the restrictions on the public expression of faith that have been pushed by our courts. But there is no concerted effort on the part of any mainstream Christians to establish Christianity as a "legal" establishment or whatever.

But, frankly, let's bring this back to my earlier point. Christians have as much right as ANYONE ELSE to push for laws that favor their agenda. That's the bottom line.

» Brian Tubbs - Getting back on topic...

A good video on God in relation with pain and suffering...

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/vi...

From the video, which features William Lane Craig: "Pain and suffering in the world are undoubtedly a tremendous emotional obstacle to belief in God for many people." But Craig goes on to show that pain and suffering are not good INTELLECTUAL arguments against God's existence.

Good video. Check it out!

» pink101 - Religious Test For Office

In response to Christians, Israel, war, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I wrote, "Christianity is coming very close to demanding a test of religious belief for our political candidates for governmental office.".
.
Brian responded, "Christianity" is doing nothing of the sort.
.
What mistake did I make here. Was it my choice to use the word, Christianity, instead of the Christian Right? We all know very much that the Christian Right is engaged heavily in our elections and that they ARE ABSOLUTELY DEMANDING a religious test for those candidates they will support.
.
The facts are, Brian, that millions of Americans--in the name of Christianity--are demanding a religious test of each of the candidates.
.
And, you also wrote, There are many Christians who are pushing to REVERSE some of the gains made by secular progressives and/or some of the restrictions on the public expression of faith that have been pushed by our courts.
.
How about giving your statement here some serious consideration for what it is that you are really saying--Secular Progressives?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Secular Progressives

In response to Religious Test For Office posted by pink101:

I'm trying to be kind with the label "secular progressive" - people who believe that the removal of most (if not all) vestiges of religion from public life represents progress.

Obviously, I don't see this as progress. Neither would MOST of the Founders, including and especially the greatest of them - George Washington.

» pink101 - Secular Progressives

In response to Secular Progressives posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Of course, we can't speak for the Founders; but, I imagine if they were alive today, they would be aghast at the way religionism has taken such a powerful role in our political decisions.
.
I dare say that the War in Iraq would never have been possible if it weren't for the religious base that George W. Bush has enjoyed in his swaggering presidency.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Speaking for the Founders

In response to Secular Progressives posted by pink101:

We can't speak for the Founders on specifics, but we CAN let the Founders speak for themselves. And then we can and should take what they had to say regarding principles - and respectfully and favorably consider incorporating those principles into our decisions as voters and citizens.

In the case of religion, George Washington is clear. "Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity." We need to take that principle and apply it to today.

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

And on and on.

Yes, you can pull up a couple Thomas Paine quotes that might (in some ways) contradict Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. - but Paine lost. He was decidedly in the minority on this point. It was his right to be so, but he WAS in the minority.

I'm with the Founders whose ideas concerning religion, morality, and politics prevailed.

» pink101 - Speaking for the Founders

In response to Speaking for the Founders posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Again, I'm not going to argue the points with you.
.
I can call your attention to the ideas the Founders had regarding foreign policy.
.
And, if it weren't for the Founders, we would be stuck with a state religion. I think that is what John Adams had in mind when he made the statement you've quoted. Our Constitution forbids religionists from taking the reigns of government--try as people like you might.
.
But, as you so often say, you've got every bit as much right to speak up as anyone else.
.
But, you also know your claims stop with the First Amendment.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Speaking for the Founders

In response to Speaking for the Founders posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Yes, you can pull up a couple Thomas Paine quotes that might (in some ways) contradict Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. - but Paine lost. He was decidedly in the minority on this point.
.
You imply here that Paine was an atheist, anti-God, anti-religion. That's not true, per his own writings. Paine was a Deist like Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and a host of other 'founders'. Deists DO believe in a Supreme Being, Grand Designer, Creator, First Cause (whatever their title preference). Most just didn't/don't believe that Jesus was/is that Being.
.
George Washington and Deism
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
.
The Declaration of Independence refers to God 4 times...
Nature's God
the Creator
Supreme Judge
divine Providence
(and also refers to the Laws of Nature).
.
Are these titles necessarily references to the "Christian" God? "Nature's God" is clearly a deistic term for God. No Christian would ever refer to God as "Nature's" God - a term commonly used by Deists whose idea of God comes from observations of nature rather than from scripture. Deists also frequently use "Creator" when referring to God. So do adherents of other religions (Native Americans, Muslims, many African religions). The title "Supreme Judge" may be a Christian reference, since Christians did have input into the document. But the full title "Supreme Judge" isn't found in Scriptures. "Divine Providence" was attributed to Washington, per his other writings. He believed God had a hand in worldly events. But again, this title isn't found in Scripture as a name for the Judeo-Christian God.
.
The references to a generic Creator-god in the document are consistent with deism. Nowhere in the document is the Supreme Being addressed by the name "Jesus" or "the Lord" - Biblical terms which would indicate that America was founded as a Christian nation.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Speaking for the Founders

In response to Speaking for the Founders posted by Migisi:
.
The titles might be seen as Masonic.
.
Several of the Founders were Masons.
.
Masonry was an underground movement of Colonialists and critical to the success of the Revolutionary War.
.
Here is an interesting quotation:
NATURE'S GOD

The distinctive religious perspective of the Enlightenment was Deism, a non-dogmatic creed based simply on the idea of an unknowable, largely impersonal Creator God. Charmed by nature's order, the Deists retained and expounded upon the idea of a Creator, but rejected revelation, miracles and prophecy, the doctrines of the Trinity, the Fall and Salvation -and the virgin birth, divinity, resurrection and bodily ascension of Christ. Indeed, nearly everything supernatural was purged in this highly moralistic, natural religion of the Enlightenment (although, usually, a vaguely defined but eternal soul, to be judged in the hereafter, was retained).

That Deism was not a denomination of Christianity was recognized by Protestant preacher Jonathan Edwards, who figured prominently in colonial America's Great Awakening, an enthusiastic, reactionary religious movement. Edwards is best remembered for his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." In his History of the Works of Redemption, Edwards wrote: "The Deists wholly cast off the Christian religion, and are professed infidels. They are not like the Heretics, Arians, Socinians, and others, who own the Scriptures to be the word of God, and hold the Christian religion to be the true religion." True, Edwards conceded, "they own the being of God; but deny that Christ was the son of God, and say he was a mere cheat; and so they say all the prophets and apostles were: and they deny the whole Scripture. They deny that any of it is the word of God. They deny any revealed religion . . . and say that God has given mankind no other light to walk by but their own reason."

-- posted by pink101