Is there a war on Christianity in America's Left?

[IndigoChild5559]

I did not miss the fact that you are Jewish. The fact that you are Jewish does not mean that you can't incorrectly believe that Christians in the US are being persecuted against. The very fact that you think that calling the victims Easter Worshipers instead of Christians is in any way shape or form persecuting Christians suggests that you don't comprehend what true persecution is. After all, how many NON-Christian 'Easter Worshipers' do you know of?

You don't seem to understand. There are normal ways to refer to people. I wouldn't refer to Republicans as Privatized Healthcare Advocates even though they are advocates of Privatized Healthcare. They are simply called Republicans. And *I* am not called a Passover worshiper. Such a phrase does not exist in English. I'm a Jew. That is the proper designation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Aside from your ridiculous claim that calling Christians Easter Worshipers, can you provide me with some examples of the horrible persecution that Christians are subjected to in America?

I never said it was "horrible" in America. I said the left discriminated here in America. It is horribly persecuted around the world. And i.e. the media doesn't really wish to cover it, because Christianity is considered a priviledge religion, not a persecuted religion. THAT is an example of the left discriminating. I am for Christianity being treated equal.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, Trump didn't mention Christians OR Easter.

Why do you think that's a euphemism, especially coming from two people who are also Christians?
Someone else on the thread already demonstrated to you that suggest phrasing is not weird or unusual.

I really don't understand your position.

No, skeptic. You are one of the people I'm sure wouldn't understand.

 

[Spartan]

Yes, and as I've pointed out, it's certainly been inconsistent. One "objective morality" for the left, and another, highly relative "objective morality" for the right.
You can't "see it" because I haven't made an argument for moral relativism. Your request to "see it" makes that fairly obvious.

You applied one measuring stick for Hillary and Obama, questioning their Christian faith, and then applied a completely different measuring stick for the Trumps. You went so far as to split the body of Christ into left and right political halves, and appear to be asking me why I haven't done the same. I simply don't find any biblical rationale for doing so, but that doesn't prevent me from asking you about yours.

You then confuse things further by citing Romans 13, which states:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."​

But you cite this after telling me you didn't vote for Hillary. How you voted is of little concern, it's the WHY you voted that I find more interesting. Since it is God that establishes the superior authorities, why bother to vote at all? Wouldn't He have established it with or without your vote, or is this one of those cases where God couldn't do it without you? Do you believe Christians show lack of faith by voting?

Also, do you believe this extends only to America's "superior authorities", or does it extend to Iran, North Korea, and Syria? To left leaning governments, or only those of the right?

What about George Washington? Didn't he rebel against King George? What does scripture say? "Whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted". Wouldn't continued obedience to the King be a fine example of God's "objective morality" and strict adherence to biblical principle, or does the bibles say we can insert a bit of "relative morality" when a "Founding Father" is involved? Do your pastors prefer we change our history books, or that our schools stop lauding unbiblical revolutionaries because of their "objective morality" or are they out there celebrating Macy's President's Day sale with the rest of us?

Why criticize any authority that God establishes at all? If Hillary was Secretary of State, then God wanted her to be Secretary of State, correct? Likewise liberals are crazy for questioning Trump's wandering eye, much like conservatives were crazy for criticizing Obamacare.

Lastly, is it wrong for one superior authority to criticize another since "there is no authority except that which God established"? If so, should we or the President be in the business of establishing our own "superior authorities" (think Argentina, or Afghanistan) or should Christians call it a day, and tell these folks they can gleefully thank God for whatever leader or despot is in charge of their country now?

_____________________________________

I ask you these questions because of the way you responded to my question @Spartan. I specifically asked why you argued against moral relativism earlier and then embraced it the next. Instead of giving a straight forward answer, you dodge and cite Romans 13.

Romans 13 does not give Christians license to make a moral relativism, whether between the Clinton's, Obama, Trump or anyone else. It doesn't matter whether they are in power or out. God is no respecter of persons. What I don't see is how you see it, or at least your biblical rationale. You cite "objective morality" when talking about Obama but strangely build a "relative morality" case for Trump, then cite Romans 13 to explain it all.

Your presentation makes no more sense than this thread's premise, and that's the way I "see it". The problem to me is not one of "left" or "right" Christians, but simply Christians who peer down their nose at other Christians. If you're going to advocate "God's objective morality" then you must first ditch any "relative morality" and be prepared to apply this to yourself, and I think your response to questions asked about Romans 13 are a good place to start.

George Washington fought against a CORRUPT King George. There's many examples in scripture where God takes down kings when they are in rebellion against his authority (King Nebuchadnezzar is another example).

And we also see in scripture examples of when God acquiesces to the desires of the people and lets them have a king, instead of God (i.e. King Saul). God will also give people what they deserve on occasion, which is an evil leader, to teach the people a lesson so they might repent and turn to God.

As for God's objective moral laws, that's what appears to work better than man's subjective morality. Just take a whiff of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah as your first example. So, you believe what you want and I'll believe what works better.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nah. What YOU did was weird. You referred to Easter as an "euphenism".

This is not honest. I referred to "Easter Worshipers" as a euphamism. I didn't refer to Easter at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We just happen to have mostly Christian fundamentalists in this country

You have a misunderstanding what fundamentalism is, if you think that Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc., are fundamentalists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

\What is the war on Christians, and who perpetrates it to your mind?
Why is the word 'war' appropriate?
What does persecute mean?

That would be my three questions.

1. This was answered in the OP.
2. I think that vandalizing and burning down Churches, not to mention imprisoning and torturing Christians, qualifies as war.
3. Persecute can be as horrible as the above, or it can be as little as presenting a skewed image, discriminating against, and bullying, as we have in the US by the left.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don't worship on Passover?

"Passover worshipper" = "worshipper participating in a Passover service"

"Easter worshipper" = "worshipper participating in an Easter service"

Seriously - this isn't that hard to comprehend. Do you also think that the "Mother's Day brunch crowd" eats Mother's Day at brunch, or that "Halloween trick-or-treaters" go door to door asking for Halloweens?

Don't play silly word games. There is no such expression in the English language as "Passover worshipers." I am a Jew.

 

[QuestioningMind]

nsive is completely beyond me

You don't seem to understand. There are normal ways to refer to people. I wouldn't refer to Republicans as Privatized Healthcare Advocates even though they are advocates of Privatized Healthcare. They are simply called Republicans. And *I* am not called a Passover worshiper. Such a phrase does not exist in English. I'm a Jew. That is the proper designation.

Well, you certainly CAN be referred to as a Passover Worshiper... and anyone who knows anything about Passover would be able to identify you as Jewish. And if a group of Jewish people were gathered together to celebrate Passover they most certainly could be referred to as Passover worshipers. Just like a group of Christians attending an Easter service could quite correctly be identified as Easter worshipers. Why you would possibly find either term offensive is completely beyond me. Do you consider being called an Easter worshiper some sort of an insult? If so, why?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I never said it was "horrible" in America. I said the left discriminated here in America. It is horribly persecuted around the world. And i.e. the media doesn't really wish to cover it, because Christianity is considered a priviledge religion, not a persecuted religion. THAT is an example of the left discriminating. I am for Christianity being treated equal.

If you were talking about Christians being persecuted around the WORLD, you probably shouldn't have titled your OP Is there a war on Christianity in AMERICA'S left. That said, you failed to provide a single example of 'the left' discriminating against Christians in America.

THAT is an example of the left discriminating.

Actually it isn't. All you did was make a claim that Christians are being horribly persecuted elsewhere in the world and that the media has refused to cover it because Christianity is considered a 'privileged' religion. Again, you failed to cite any actual examples. I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part and that you'll be sending me those examples ASAP.

I can't wait.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, it is.

Convincing argument.
For clarity, my post was a linked article, not my personal opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1. This was answered in the OP.
2. I think that vandalizing and burning down Churches, not to mention imprisoning and torturing Christians, qualifies as war.

So...taken together and considering your thread title...you believe the US left is vandalizing and burning down Churches, not to mention imprisoning and torturing Christians?

3. Persecute can be as horrible as the above, or it can be as little as presenting a skewed image, discriminating against, and bullying, as we have in the US by the left.

Well, there is no coherent 'left'. It's such a broad statement I could throw in self-absorbed extremists along with thoughtful social progressives into a single bucket and judge them by the behaviour of the worst amongst them. In short, you're demonizing half the country. These conversations make more sense when selecting defined groups with coherent dogma, or individuals.

Besides, presenting a skewed image and discriminating against is one heckuva broad statement though, right?

Would a President disparaging a group suffice as persecution then?

 

[Altfish]

Uh huh. You DO realize that in the UK, you have a state religion, yes? The Church of England? Queen Elizabeth is the head of it?

Duh, yes! Do you think I live in a vacuum?

You may not LIKE it, but it is a fundamental part of your history. I suggest that you deal with it....and yes, the solution IS to have as many Methodists, Jews and atheists (at least in proportion to numbers) as there are CoE folks.

I don't like it, but she is somewhat benign. It is a part of history and the Queen is basically a tourist attraction and marketing arm of the UK. We wheel her out to impress easily impressed foreign dignitaries.
You obviously don't follow the latest YouGov Polls on religion.
42% of British Adults have no religion. In the 18-39 year olds they are over 50% - it doesn't bode well for religion in the future in the UK.

To do anything else is to, yes, say that you would rather be denied your own representation/rights rather than allow someone you disagree with to have any. That sort of thing tends to leave everybody out of luck.

Representation should be proportional - 24 bishops to None - is not proportional.

 

[Audie]

I never said it was "horrible" in America. I said the left discriminated here in America. It is horribly persecuted around the world. And i.e. the media doesn't really wish to cover it, because Christianity is considered a priviledge religion, not a persecuted religion. THAT is an example of the left discriminating. I am for Christianity being treated equal.

Is there any group that is not persecuted?

In the USA, Christianity has been the de facto
official privileged religion from the first.

Your "dont want to cover coz.." is of course,
just your opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

You have a misunderstanding what fundamentalism is, if you think that Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc., are fundamentalists.

I don't. Mainliners are mostly liberal. Christian fundamentalists are mostly found in Evangelical and Catholic circles.

 

[metis]

Are you a Christian?

Look at the upper right-hand corner of my posts where it says "Religion", and that should speak for itself.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

An alternative word for evil in that scripture in Strong's Concordance is 'calamity'. The gist of that passage is that if people do evil, they will have evil returned to them (i.e. sow evil reap evil). It's up to them how they live their lives and whether they want blessings or curses returned to them. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 for examples.

Immigrants are fine. ILLEGAL immigrants aren't. They're breaking the law in many instances just breaking into the U.S.

So breaking the law = evil, in your understanding?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Man, are you in for a shocker when you step into eternity!

I hope God has a special place in Hell for Pascal's wagerers.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here in the USA, that would be the "right".

Didn't they just "elect" Donald Trump?* He epitomizes greed, lust, and deceit. He promised to Wall out the poor and make the rich richer. He beat out a large field of Republican candidates, including Ted "the Christian" Cruz for the Republican nomination. And he won 80% of the evangelical Christian vote in the "election".

With a little help from Putin and Assange he managed to acquire the office of POTUS.

Members of RF often described Trump as a Christian, as though that's what a Christian looks like and believes in.

That's the True War on Christianity. That is mostly an attack from the Right.
Tom

*I don't want to derail this thread into a thread about Trump. He's just an example. There're many others.

Trumpettes and the Christians who enable him are a far greater threat to my faith than all the lefty atheists in the world.

 

[metis]

ILLEGAL immigrants aren't. They're breaking the law in many instances just breaking into the U.S.

Both American and international law say that this is not necessarily true when there are those seeking asylum. Therefore, they have the right of having a legal hearing with representation if caught.

Also, I would suggest that people are more important than man-made law, so our main concern should be, imo, to try and help those in need as best we can. However, I certainly am not in favor of "open borders".