Christianity (split from Christian nationalism)

[m_m]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:17 PM, swansont said:

you’d probably see that the Democrats’ policies are better aligned

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

On 1/24/2025 at 7:36 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Modern science doesn’t say anything about God (Christian or otherwise), since the concept is not amenable to the scientific method.

Yes, that's why I am talking about modern science. One of the members of this forum, Trurl, wrote good words, that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us. 

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

Which values do you mean, the ones they espouse or the ones they follow? For instance, the OT quite emphatically urges us to treat immigrants well, and the NT talks a lot about loving thy neighbor, yet Christians in the US are very vocal and supportive of this anti-immigration push, and are often behind all the hateful speech against neighbors who look a bit different or love a bit different. 

For me, it's easy. If the behavior seeks to help others with fairness and not judgement , it's generally ethical. Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we're seeing unfold right now.

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

I don’t see what that’s necessary. It’s a distinction without a difference, and it’s not like Christianity has a monopoly on this.

The bottom line is that Republicans have neither.

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Which values do you mean, the ones they espouse or the ones they follow? For instance, the OT quite emphatically urges us to treat immigrants well, and the NT talks a lot about loving thy neighbor, yet Christians in the US are very vocal and supportive of this anti-immigration push, and are often behind all the hateful speech against neighbors who look a bit different or love a bit different. 

For me, it's easy. If the behavior seeks to help others with fairness and not judgement , it's generally ethical. Religion isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we're seeing unfold right now.

Exactly, "Love thy neighbor".

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. "

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

Just now, swansont said:

I don’t see what that’s necessary

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, m_m said:

Yes, that's why I am talking about modern science. One of the members of this forum, Trurl, wrote good words, that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us. 

One of the main differences between science and religion is this: religion holds its truths to be sacred and unchanging. Science discards that which isn't observable, testable, or falsifiable, so it seems pretty natural that science studied what your god "created for us" and found it wanting as a theory. I mean, look at how much science has progressed compared to religion over the last 500 years or so. So why were Trurl's words good?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

Or my big human brain tells me that constant conflict and persecution is pointless when decency and respect aren't that costly and work so much better where humans are concerned. It makes more sense to embrace diversity than it does to eradicate it. 

13 minutes ago, m_m said:

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

Are you saying this religion is beyond normal ethical and moral concerns somehow?

 

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

I mean, look at how much science has progressed compared to religion over the last 500 years or so. So why were Trurl's words good?

And where has this progress led us? To the Christian nationalism?

His words are good, because there are so much freedom, and aspiration and gratitude in this point of view. 

Just now, Phi for All said:

Are you saying this religion is beyond normal ethical and moral concerns somehow?

No, I am saying that there is the difference between Christianity and ethics. Ethics is people's words, and the Bible is the Word of God. 

Edited Sunday at 10:21 PM by m_m

[swansont]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

That’s like saying “it matters because it matters” -you haven’t given a reason why that’s important.

I was comparing results and you’re discussing motivation. 

Democrats have policies that help the poor. Republicans have policies that help the rich, and hurt the poor. You’ll see that at no point did I discuss motivation. Only that one of those policy sets is aligned with Christian values, and the other is not.

As I said elsewhere, Christianity does not have a monopoly on e.g. “help the poor” That’s an attitude you’d find in other religions, and among decent people who have empathy but are not religious. Whether it’s actually derived from Christian teachings is irrelevant to my argument. Whether it’s important to you is also irrelevant to my argument. If you have some other argument to make, go ahead and make it - but make somewhere other than in response to this.

[Markus Hanke]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

that before 20th century, science studied what God created for us.

The universe that’s being studied by science is the same now as it was before the 20th century, so I don’t quite understand this comment.

[m_m]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s like saying “it matters because it matters” -you haven’t given a reason why that’s important.

I was comparing results and you’re discussing motivation. 

Democrats have policies that help the poor. Republicans have policies that help the rich, and hurt the poor. You’ll see that at no point did I discuss motivation. Only that one of those policy sets is aligned with Christian values, and the other is not.

As I said elsewhere, Christianity does not have a monopoly on e.g. “help the poor” That’s an attitude you’d find in other religions, and among decent people who have empathy but are not religious. Whether it’s actually derived from Christian teachings is irrelevant to my argument. Whether it’s important to you is also irrelevant to my argument. If you have some other argument to make, go ahead and make it - but make somewhere other than in response to this.

"Help the poor" and "Love each other" are different things.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The universe that’s being studied by science is the same now as it was before the 20th century, so I don’t quite understand this comment.

Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method wrote many philosophical and theological works. 

"His portion of the method based in scepticism was a new rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, whose practical details are still central to debates on science and methodology. He is famous for his role in the scientific revolution, promoting scientific experimentation as a way of glorifying God and fulfilling scripture."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon

Yes, the universe is the same, but the methods of studying are opposite.

Science wasn't detached from religion as nowadays. 

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, m_m said:

Yes, but how would you distinguish  ethics from Christian values? 

Ethics exclude slavery from ethical behavior.

16 hours ago, m_m said:

Exactly, "Love thy neighbor".

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another. Whoever does this has obeyed the Law. "

The thing is you are doing this because you are willing in your heart to do so, or you were told to do so. 

This is absolutely necessary, because this difference distinguishes Christianity from ethics and morals. 

Cherry pick much?

16 hours ago, m_m said:

No, I am saying that there is the difference between Christianity and ethics. Ethics is people's words, and the Bible is the Word of God. 

Yes, the word of God asserts that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, slavery is ok, unruly teenage boys should be killed, teasing a man of "God" for being bald deserves being torn apart by bears, getting your father drunk and having sex with him... do I really need to continue about the word of God? 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

"Help the poor" and "Love each other" are different things.

And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, m_m said:

Sir Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method wrote many philosophical and theological works. 

Not the founder.  Ibn al-Haytham five centuries before Bacon was an early pioneer in the scientific method, setting out much of the empirical and experimental framework that later Renaissance scientists adopted.  I really tire of seeing this founder myth of Bacon perpetuated.  

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not the founder.  Ibn al-Haytham five centuries before Bacon was an early pioneer in the scientific method, setting out much of the empirical and experimental framework that later Renaissance scientists adopted.  I really tire of seeing this founder myth of Bacon perpetuated.  

Plus, the overall method was largely empirically derived over a long time period. There really was no founder, but a whole lot of pioneers.

[m_m]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Yes, the word of God asserts that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, slavery is ok, unruly teenage boys should be killed, teasing a man of "God" for being bald deserves being torn apart by bears, getting your father drunk and having sex with him... do I really need to continue about the word of God? 

I think my explanation would be off-topic. I only want to say about slavery.  In biblical times, slavery was more of a social status. And the punishment suffered by the Egyptians shows how God views racial slavery.

 

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, m_m said:

the punishment suffered by the Egyptians shows how God views racial slavery.

Only as far as "the chosen people" were concerned.

[m_m]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

I am saying that Christian nationalism contradicts Christianity and it's values.

It is normal, when people help each other. The matter is in motivation, as you said. One thing, when one helps because it is ethically normal and moral deed, and another thing is helping others because it is your own choice, your first move without thinking. When you are guided by love, compassion. 

[swansont]

Just now, m_m said:

I am saying that Christian nationalism contradicts Christianity and it's values.

So you agree democratic policies are better aligned with Christianity?

[m_m]

Just now, Genady said:

Only as far as "the chosen people" were concerned.

The Bible explains the most subtle aspects of our psych. 

Quote

 

12Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!” Exodus 14

 

I think these lines tell what real slavery is.

Just now, swansont said:

So you agree democratic policies are better aligned with Christianity?

Yes, I agree. 

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, m_m said:

I think these lines tell what real slavery is.

This lines also relate only to the chosen people.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, m_m said:

I think my explanation would be off-topic. I only want to say about slavery.  In biblical times, slavery was more of a social status. And the punishment suffered by the Egyptians shows how God views racial slavery.

 

The Bible clearly states that owning people as property is allowed and beating then as long as they don't die within a day or two is ok. Slaves could also be passed on to your children as property. 

I am quite sure owning slaves was a social status flex but the fact remains that slaves were property, I am sure the people who were enslaved benefited little from the social status it gave their owners. 

We are currently seeing the evil that religion supports, White Christian Nationalism is a racist off shoot of Christianity and shows just how religion can be used to support evil by undermining the pluralistic nature of our culture and the tolerance of our culture or aspects of our culture they do not agree with all with the perceived authority of a god. This authority has been transferred by the leaders of this religion to Donald J Trump demonstrating yet again the danger of an authority driven mindset shared by those who worship an authority figure. 

These people have occupied many positions of authority and influence in our government for no other purpose than bending our government to their own agenda and society falsing claiming the moral high ground for immoral purposes protecting a racist and bigoted portion of our society that only wants control of the population and the wealth that control brings... and you want to defend slavery by doing the very thing they are doing.

You claim the Bible has ethics, I'd have to agree if by ethics you mean normalization and tolerance of immoral behavior by the ruling class. By claiming the Bible is ethical while ignoring the immorality and lack of ethics allowed by this religion you are supporting the agenda of these dangerously amoral, power, and money hungry people who want to set up an authoritarian society and take away the freedoms, rights and protections of the people. 

Personally I think the things I mentioned as unethical in the Bible are spot on topic and show just how morally bankrupt the Bible is as a moral or ethical guide and show how religions should never be allowed to dictate governments.  

I think this is quite pertinent to this discussion...

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson

Edited Monday at 09:35 PM by Moontanman

[m_m]

36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The Bible clearly states that owning people as property is allowed and beating then as long as they don't die within a day or two is ok. Slaves could also be passed on to your children as property. 

I am quite sure owning slaves was a social status flex but the fact remains that slaves were property, I am sure the people who were enslaved definitely little from the social status it gave their owners. 

We are currently seeing the evil that religion supports, White Christian Nationalism is a racist off shoot of Christianity and shows just how religion can be used to support evil by undermining the pluralistic nature of our culture and the tolerance of our culture or aspects of our culture they do not agree with all with the perceived authority of a god. This authority has been transferred by the leaders of this religion to Donald J Trump demonstrating yet again the danger of an authority driven mindset shared by those who worship an authority figure. 

These people have occupied many positions of authority and influence in our government for no other purpose than influencing our government and society falsing claiming the moral high ground for immoral purposes protecting a racist and bigoted portion of our society that only wants control of the population and the wealth that control brings... and you want to defend slavery by doing the very thing they are doing.

You claim the Bible has ethics, I'd have to agree if by ethics you mean normalization and tolerance of immoral behavior by the ruling class. By claiming the Bible is ethical while ignoring the immorality and lack of ethics allowed by this religion you are supporting the agenda of these dangerously amoral power and money hungry people who want to set up an authoritarian society and take away the freedoms, rights and protections of the people. 

Personally I think the things I mentioned as unethical in the Bible are spot on topic and show just how morally bankrupt the Bible is as a moral or ethical guide and show how religions should never be allowed to dictate governments.  

I think this is quite pertinent to this discussion...

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson

First of all, I am saying that ethics is people's words. Atheists, I believe are not immoral folks, they also help each other. 

The bottom line of the Bible is 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"Matthew 22

Christianity teaches that you help others not because somebody told you to or it is written somewhere, but because you love people. 

Also I mentioned that Egyptian were punished for enslaving Jews. The key question is that slavery in the Bible is in no way similar to the racial slavery that our world has suffered from for the past few centuries. 

"8 We know that the Law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the Law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:8-10

36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

White Christian Nationalism is a racist off shoot of Christianity

False. Because the ideas they support are against Christianity.

"You then, who eat only vegetables — why do you pass judgement on others? And you who eat anything — why do you despise other believers? All of us will stand before God to be judged by Him. 11 For the scripture says:

“As surely as I Am the living God, says the Lord,everyone will kneel before Me,and everyone will confess that I Am God.” Romans 14

 

Edited Monday at 11:10 PM by m_m

[zapatos]

27 minutes ago, m_m said:

The bottom line of the Bible is 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"Matthew 22

Who made that determination?

28 minutes ago, m_m said:

The key question is that slavery in the Bible is in no way similar to the racial slavery that our world has suffered from for the past few centuries. 

So if two slaves got together from different eras you are suggesting they would have nothing in common wrt their social standing. I am dubious.

[m_m]

Just now, zapatos said:

Who made that determination?

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another.Whoever does this has obeyed the Law." Romans 13

 

Just now, zapatos said:

Who made that determination?

So if two slaves got together from different eras you are suggesting they would have nothing in common wrt their social standing. I am dubious.

This is the question. Slavery in the Bible is not similar to the slavery on a race or skin colour.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

"Be under obligation to no one — the only obligation you have is to love one another.Whoever does this has obeyed the Law." Romans 13

 

Why don't religious types actually answer questions?

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Slavery in the Bible is not similar to the slavery on a race or skin colour.

Thanks for repeating yourself. Why do I bother?

[Markus Hanke]

20 hours ago, m_m said:

Yes, the universe is the same, but the methods of studying are opposite.

But my point was that whether you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, something else entirely, or nothing at all, makes no difference - it’s always the same universe, so experiments performed on it have the same outcome, meaning you always find the same laws of nature, irrespective of any god concepts.