ppp
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
So back to your original context. Coercion.
Is it fair to say that everyone who has coerced or attempted to coerce a person to live as a Christian was sinning?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity"
- Thread starter Windwalker
- Start date
So back to your original context. Coercion.
Is it fair to say that everyone who has coerced or attempted to coerce a person to live as a Christian was sinning?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
When Paul was basically doing the same in reverse, he wasn't a Christian.
Of course it's a sin.
But there's a difference between a individual sin and an entire institution systematically coercing others with violence because of their beliefs.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Frankly, imo, if we were truly a "Chjristia country" reflecting Jesus' teachings, I think you'd see this:
-universal healthcare
-preventing war and only engaging at last resort [Just-War Theory]
-universal education through most post high school programs
-child & senior citizen day care programs partially funded
-holding politicians accountable for lying and other misdeeds
-warning people about how materialism extreme wealth are not moral
-having a "negative income tax" such as what Milton Friedman advocated
-sharply reducing violence on t.v. and movies
-making guns available only for rare purposes
-helping countries and peoples in need
-etc.
When they are done, then I'll believe we are a "Christian nation". Until then, we're only deluding ourselves if we think we are, imo.
Can't do all of that with so many people leaving the Christian faith... we are still a Republic
Now, if God's people will humble themselves and pray....
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Can't do all of that with so many people leaving the Christian faith... we are still a Republic
So, thanks for admitting that we definitely are not a "Christian nation". And any country that has an estimated excess of 410,000,000 guns, according to the FBI, is not a "Christian nation".
I think we as a people need to insist on moral behavior and compassion for others, and also to work diligently on trying to create new jobs for those without one instead of allowing companies to go with a skeleton force so as to have more profit. IOW, teach one to fish instead of just handing him/her a fish.
LOL... nice one.
It isn't "acting" like a Christian nation but still a Christian nation... like a child that isn't acting like part of the family... but it is still a family.
But not detracting from your valid point of not letting the god of mammon have priority... "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray"... (notice it is God's people and not those who have made their decision)
Pray for an awakening.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But if it doesn't look like a duck, nor walk like a duck, nor quack like a duck, maybe it's not a duck. The U.S. simply is not legally a "Christian nation" per the 1st Amendment, nor do we act like a "Christian nation" per Jesus' teachings.
IOW, we really ain't one.
Amen.
OK... let me throw a wrench in this statement.
When King Ahab was serving other god's and his wife was worshipping Baal... could we say then that Israel was not a Jewish nation because they didn't walk like a Jewish nation and didn't quack like a Jewish nation?
Or was it that they just weren't acting like a Jewish nation.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I am reading as saying, Of course [coercing or attempting to coerce a person to live as a Christian] is a sin. Let me know if I am interpreting your meaning incorrectly.
Are you only talking about coercion through violence? What about financial force, legislative force or shunning?
You say that there is a "difference between individual sin and an entire institution systematically coercing..." What do you see as the most important difference between those two phenomenon?
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I concur that America is not a Christian country. I also agree with the statement posted by another member who said, "America has never stood for liberty," and "It was founded on slavery and expanded itself through genocide." I responded to his comment by saying that I'm glad to see the truth about America's true founding as he accurately described it as opposed to the ongoing fabrications that America was founded on Christian principles, that it is a Christian nation, and that it was founded on freedom, liberty, and justice for all. I also included a quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who stated that our nation was born in genocide (quote source). In my opinion, the United States of America isn't a Christian nation nor has it ever been. I didn't believe it was when I was a Christian either.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Well you claim was that you want to bring the Gospel to your enemies, including ISIS:
"From my signature ISIS should be dealt with the same way God dealt with me. The preaching of the Gospel is the power to change a person's heart and giving the person the freedom to make their own personal choice."
But that is MY point, that they already have a theology, they already have apologetics, they have all the personal experience anecdotes and they are the same as Christian apologetics. The evidence is also basically exactly the same, give or take. Both are also Greco-Roman philosophy and theology given to the masses unknowingly.
59:30 " Christianity is bringing Greco-Roman philosophy and theology to the masses, even though the masses don't understand this is happening"
My point here is Islam also wants to bring the Quran to you. There is nothing in either that would compel either side to switch. Islamic apologetics and anecdotal evidence is as strong as Christian. Both are : pseudo-science but facts do not change beliefs unless a person is emotionally ready to accept evidence or let go of false beliefs.
These are not "my beliefs", these are facts. Both sides have apologetics, personal experience, emotional proofs and so on.
No, no, you must know by now that I am sure religion is mythology and personal feelings towards religious material is rooted in the subconscious and all these "personal experiences" are cognitive bias.
I was giving you examples of Muslims speaking about the Quran the same way Christians do about the Bible. None of that is unique. Nor is the scripture.
So you cannot fight back? You have to let your family be killed by ISIS? Or more apt by Russia? Should they be allowed to drop nukes on us without similar retaliation? Agustine thinks you can.
Jesus made no blanket statements about being a soldier.
Yes, that is the mandate that Jesus left us.
No, it isn't Greco-Roman philosophy. There was no "Greece and Rome" when Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David were around from where we derive our Gospel.
Which they are free to do so. Changing faith is usually free will. However, fanatical muslims would say "convert or die".
No... I don't agree with it being pseudo-science.
Yes... that is your viewpoint. I may not agree but I support your right to believe what you believe.
No... when I said "protect the innocent", I mean stop them from killing the innocent.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Abraham and Moses are literary creations. The early OT is from the wisdom literature era. Genesis is Mesopotamian and Babylonian
"
The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible. "
Greek Hellenism started in Israel in 327 BC. Here we see Jewish Kings even take Greek names, Jason, Menalaus, the Macabees took names like Antigonus and Alexander and they led anti-Hellenistic Judaean revolts. The OT was even translated into Greek and the Septuagint was used when writing the NT. When Jesus quotes the OT he's quoting that.
The OT wisdom books - Proverbs are pre-Greek (one is a direct copy of an Egyptian book), later books of the Septuagint, Ecclesiastes, Sirach were written in the Greek era.
The NT is all Greek in theology, philosophy. The Logos is a Platonic concept used for Christ in John.
All of the relevant theologians who shaped modern ideas were using Platonic concepts,
Tertullian (who hated Plato) borrowed the idea of hypostases/substance (used by Philo previously) to explain the relationship between the trinity. All are of the same substance.
Origen a Neo-Platonist uses Plato’s One. A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe
Agustine taught scripture should be interpreted symbolically instead of literally after Plotinus explained Christianity was just Platonic ideas.
Thought scripture was silly if taken literally.
In this historical lecture on Plato and Christianity the Pastor says -
59:30
"In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware"
Not to mention the literal ideas about Salvation, souls that get redemption from a dying/rising savior get entry into the afterlife or through the passion of a savior, baptism, eucharist, all Hellenistic theology taking place from 320 BC and on. We covered this last time.
You mentioned Daniel which was written in 3 parts. This is known because each author wrote in a different language and didn't translate the original. The Hebrew and Greek additions are from 167 BC (Hebrew) so that is during the Greek occupation.
Which they are free to do so. Changing faith is usually free will. However, fanatical muslims would say "convert or die".
I broke down an apologist page on this site. He told non-truth after non-truth. It's manipulation for people who don't bother to study scholars. You used some apologetics to say the gospels are not Greek,
"No, it isn't Greco-Roman philosophy. "
Yet I've posted plenty of peer-reviewed scholarship shoing baptism, eucharist, logos, dying-rising saviors, souls going to heaven are all Hellenism adopted by Hebrew thinkers.
-During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]
The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great
Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.
Plato and Christianity
I believe what the evidence presents, I have no choice.
That would make more sense but, it it the advise of Jesus?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
One is a planned assault by an organized group of people. The other may be simply a crime of passion, so to speak.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Jewish" is a nationality, not a religion. "Judaism" is the religion. Also, a reminder that eretz Israel was often punished by YHWH according to the Tanakh for not following the [613] Jewish Laws.
Let's bring it back here, and let me ask you this question: Is capital punishment today in this supposedly "Christian nation" moral under the Gospel? Just yes or no, please.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Probably not even the pilgrims had a purely Christian community. John Alden was a ships carpenter and not an original part of the religious community.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response. But I think you are just providing the definitions of institutional and individual coercion. I assume that when you said, "But there's a difference between a individual sin and an entire institution systematically coercing others with violence because of their beliefs," that you were speaking of some more significant difference than just the number of people?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Yes as I already explained, a planned systematic sin is different than a crime of passion.
"You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11)
Why did Jesus say that one sin was greater than another?
Pilate didn't plot against the Kingdom of heaven deliberately, like the ones who delivered Jesus to Pilate did. He was just caught between a rock and hard place, and trying to make the best of a bad situation. He still sinned by not freeing Jesus, but again, he wasn't plotting evil, he was trying to please everyone and keep his job.
Someone who is just over enthusiastic about his religion might get in your face about it, but it's easy to forgive someone for just being passionate about what they believe, as opposed to someone who uses force, intimidation and violence to fulfill their agenda.