Is it me or are liberals now routinely anti Christian and anti Semitic?

most people in Prison are Christians in this country, so the facts are not on your side there

can't be a truly free country if the government mandates the religion, religious freedom is something America stands for

 

why not tell us what subject is? are you afraid to debate so want to talk about debating but not actually debate??

 

if liberalism is based in ignorance how would a liberal know when a point has been won? Why not prove it to us. Say something intelligent in defense of liberalism or admit its impossible?

 

obviously they didn't act Christian to get into to prison. OMG!! Do you understand??

 

why not cut the BS and point our something intelligent about liberalism?

 

And governments not based on theocracy are good like Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot's who had their own non religious philosophies. Do you think the 200 million killed would have preferred HItler Stalin and Mao to be Christian?

 

do you see anybody trying to make govt mandate religion? Who?? show us the quote or admit you are goofing.

 

you seem anti-American if your against religious freedom

I already told you I am not anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, you must have problems comprehending

Christians that thought they had a God given right to own slaves were the slave owners in this country - most of those were southern Christians... the northern Christians did not support slavery

what religion are the people that burn the Christian cross to shine it's light on people.... kkkChristian... they were also the ones chanting "blood and soil, Jews will not replace us"

there are good and bad Christians

do you denounce the people chanting "blood and Soil, Jews will not replace us" or think they are "fine people"?

 

some keep trying

"Huckabee: Amend Constitution to Reflect God's Standards "



"The Palin Principle – Bible trumps Constitution"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." - Palin

 

Hitler was a Christian, born and raised

being a christian did not help the man or his country any though imo

"Hitler's Christian Beliefs and Fanaticism"

https://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

"Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture."

there are good and bad people of all beliefs....

Hitler was a christian, one that many Christians believed in and supported as he was spreading their dogma (even the pope whom some believe is picked by god)


now to be fair, Christians of the time probably had issue with Hitler much the same way modern Christians have issue with Trump, but supported him because he was advancing their cause and because he was Christian, like Trump

 

So, slavery? Killing people who wear cloth of two types of thread? Terrorism such as at Jericho? Ethnic cleansing/genocide as with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Midianites (except for the virgin girls who were divided among the Israelite generals)?

Have you EVER read the Bible???

 

I was not supporting their views, just proving to the other poster that some on the right indeed are trying to push their religion via our government, and we have to be ever vigilant and slap them down when ever they try to destroy religious freedom for all

 

Well I didn't catch on fast enough

And, you're right on target as usual!

 

The claim made in your post silly - you only made one so it should be easy for you to figure out. You generally do not support any of your claims but in this case - it was the claim that the transformation from "Nazi" Roman to Christian was a good one.

Why you would use the term "Nazi" in relation to Romans is bizarre fallacy to begin with but - regardless .. you give no justification for this claim. It is no secret that during the 1000 years of horror under Christianity - they were far more Nazi that Romans ever were.

 

You give no back- up for your "anti semitic" claim. Should we just take your word for it ?

I do not see Liberals going around praising anti -Semites - calling these people upholders of individual liberty. You on the other had have held steadfast to your praise of Luther who was a raging anti Semite .. someone who believed in conversion by force.

How you figure that this is somehow - teaching individual liberty - is beyond bizarre but .. this is what you believe.

Your posts are so full of unjustified claims "Socialism = anti american" it is hard to know where to begin.

1) do you know what Socialism is ? the pure definition - how are you defining Socialism as there are many definitions.
2) using your definition of Socialism, explain how Liberals are "Socialists" and how this makes them "anti american"

And do try to keep your answer in relation to socialism to one post - rather than cherry picking in order to deflect.

 

Of course they did. Read John Lockes "The Reasonableness of Christianity" . Or "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine in America, using the bible to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of monarchs, and the legitimacy of government, of, by and for the people.

 

The ideas of the enlightenment thinkers with respect to classical liberalism (which was actually the topic - the poster keeps trying to deflect and move the goal posts by changing things to - foundation of the modern world) were not founded in Christianity.

I have written papers on Locke. It is cool that Paine uses the bible to demonstrate the illegitimacy of divine right. This is sensible as the Bible - in particular Romans 13 - does in fact and was used to justify divine right. It is called fighting fire with fire.

Saying "the bible" and saying "Christianity" are two different things. The Bible is the Bible .. Christianity is a bunch of man made nonsense - some of which is based on the Bible of some warped interpretation thereof.

Paine in no way is saying that Christianity was the foundation of Classical Liberalism and the ideas therein. This would be a preposterous thing for any enlightenment thinker ( and Paine was well versed).

"As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments,"

Paine merely states that monarchy can not defended by scripture - and in doing so was attacking the primary defense for Divine right.

It was not just monoarchial Gov'ts that "glossed over" these parts of scripture (meaning kings and queens) - it was the theocracy part of Gov't that glossed over them as well. It was the Popes that were promoting Romans 13. It was Christianity that was promoting - Divine Right.

Christianity was anti- individual liberty - at least during the 1000 years of horror after the Church got power. The idea that the enlightenment thinkers founded classical liberalism on Christianity .. is simply not true. They may have use a few ideas from the Bible - as I have stated in numerous posts on this subject - but, the Bible - and Christianity are two separate things.

The teachings of Jesus were based primarily on the Golden Rule. While this rule is part of the social contract - construct by which Gov't receives authority from we the people - this rule existed long before Jesus. Further while this does not preclude the enlightement thinkers from using this rule of Jesus - from Jesus. Christianity did practice this rule .. certainly not at the time of the founders and it still does not to this day.

Paine used mostly OT arguments .. I think there are a few better ones from teachings of Jesus in the NT- but I digress as this in no way is using Christianity as a foundation for classical liberalism. Using the teachings of Jesus as support does not constitute these teachings being the foundation .. never mind Christianity who ignored these teachings and in fact went the opposite route by using the teachings of Paul in Romans 13 .. teachings which contradict the teachings of Jesus and the OT as per Paine.

Now in relation to Locke and Classical Liberalism - The foundations of classical liberalism are from using logic and reason - not myth and mystery - to come up with a Secular justification for Gov't authority and I can go through that justification step by step if you like. While Locke may use some religious justification via the teachings of Jesus as support (basically saying look look .. your own religious belief supports my conclusion).. Christianity was not the foundation by any stretch of the imagination.

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

 

was Jesus ever mentioned in any of the founders documents? the Truth is, we were escaping a Christian theocracy, so yes, many of the fanatics that came here wanted to push their own flavor of religion, but the founders did not want to live in another theocracy, they did not want the government telling them what to believe, they wanted religious freedom for all

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

""Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." "

 

You have learned 24 times that Luther like many Christians was anti semitic because Christianity was born at war against Judaism, and Founders owned slaves but this does mean they were not on balance great figures advancing civilization on earth. Shall we go for 25 times to help it sink into your very slow liberal mind?

 

wrong of course, each colony was a Christian theocracy. When the colonies joined you had to pick one to be dominant or let each retain its own Christian theocracy. Rather than escaping we were embracing theocracy because without theocracy we were roman barbarian killers. Do you understand?

 

yes they wanted religious freedom so they could be religious, they did not want to be liberal barbarians. Do you understand this?

 

feel embarrassed yet??

Then when anti-religious enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity, Locke
defended it in his book, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered
in the Scriptures. And then when he was attacked for defending Christianity
in that first work, he responded with the work, A Vindication of the Reasonableness
of Christianity. Still being attacked two years later, Locke wrote, A
Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. 8
No wonder he was considered a theologian by his peers and by subsequent generations!

 

Before Christianity men were virtual slaves to the all powerful liberal central govt of Caesar. After Christianity each individual was a king loved by God and judged by God based on what he did as an individual with his liberty and freedom. Simple enough?

Coincidental that liberal Marxists hate religion and want to bring back powerful liberal central govt and destroy liberty?

 

teaching anti semitism and teaching slavery is not teaching liberty. This is your strawman fallacy used in desperation because you lost debate. Do you understand? Its takes character to learn.

 

Your knowledge of history is very weak.. On the colonies Quakers didn't get along with Dutch reformed etc..

And Kings abused people as they chose long after Caesar.