Our Judeo-Christian nation

[Shooter]

[video=youtube;dpQOCvthw-o]

 

[Haakzilla]

...a lot has happened since America was founded..."God" Bless America!!!

[video=youtube;MeSSwKffj9o]

[video=youtube;qYW2xXxFVtU]

[video=youtube;8RV46fsmx6E]

[video=youtube;ZiZcKomzHaU]

 

[Minstrel]

So, in conclusion, the answers to his questions seem to be:

1. No
2. n/a (see 1)

 

[PapaG]

My Youtube is bigger than your Youtube.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

To be sure, we may now be a country that is no longer based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is how we were founded and sustained for a long time.

 

[julius]

Don't we have more important things to worry about than this tripe?

We were also a nation "birthed" on taking over many sovereign entities, killing millions of it's inhabitants, a destroying their culture. We're a nation that was birthed discounting a large portion of it's inhabitants (done by the North actually), and allowing those people to be considered property.

I'm not sure if we should really be relying on going back to how the country used to be. Unless of course, you want to white wash all of the bad and glorify only what you want to be proud of.

Heh, 5 bucks says some flat brain accuses me of only remembering the negative and hating America.

 

[mook]

To be sure, we may now be a country that is no longer based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is how we were founded and sustained for a long time.

I think our leaders are much, much more religious now than many of our founders were. Imagine Gore or Gingrich saying this:

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all." - Ben Franklin

Imagine Obama or McCain saying this:

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Here's Jefferson's unscientific poll about including Christianity in the constitution:

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. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

[Shooter]

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

When was the last time you heard any of our present leaders say something like this?? If you can find a single quote from a present leader of the Democratic party who has said something this strong about God, I'd love to see it.

In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds . . .

This is where people like Jefferson go wrong. Christ could not have been merely "an extraordinary man." He claimed to be the son of God, and a divine being. If he wasn't, then he was a lunatic with serious delusions. You can't have it both ways.

. . . It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

Hardly. Some of those "inferior minds" were people who knew Christ personally, and saw his miracles. Much of the New Testament is written by men who lived at the same time that Christ did, and who filled in the blanks about His life. To compare their accounts to "dunghills," as Jefferson does, is an example of his hubris more than anything else.

 

[mook]

This is where people like Jefferson go wrong. Christ could not have been merely "an extraordinary man." He claimed to be the son of God, and a divine being. If he wasn't, then he was a lunatic with serious delusions. You can't have it both ways.

You can't be extraordinary and insane? Seems like history is littered with the wreckage of extraordinary and insane people.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Penn and Teller absolutely nail it.

Like in a previous thread, 16% of the nation, bigger than any other minority, are anti-religion. There is no way to validate any of the claims in the bible. We just have to take the word of a bunch of random human beings?

 

[hasoos]

Religions are thinly veiled methods of controlling people. Once people figure that out, then this world will be a lot better place. All they are about is money, power, and controlling the masses. You are seeing that in Iran right now, and our religions here in the states are no different. They have tried many times to take over our government and push religion through the government institutions. They want to make us all live as they would live. While I acknowledge a lot of folks in religious based groups do a lot of good things, I would remind you that you don't have to be in a religious group to do good things. There are good folks all over the place. You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

 

[Shooter]

You can't be extraordinary and insane?

Something tells me that's not what Jefferson meant.

 

[Shooter]

Religions are thinly veiled methods of controlling people. Once people figure that out, then this world will be a lot better place.

Oh, my. I think a lot of people have trouble controlling themselves, and religion actually helps to center them and give them peace. I've seen it more times than I can count.

All they are about is money, power, and controlling the masses.

You're confusing the modern institutions of religion with their founding principles. Christ was certainly not about "controlling the masses."

While I acknowledge a lot of folks in religious based groups do a lot of good things, I would remind you that you don't have to be in a religious group to do good things. There are good folks all over the place. You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

What you don't realize is that religion shapes culture in many subtle and indirect ways, and that the "good things" we do are often the product of the environment we have grown up in, and the religious and moral-ethical beliefs that have been handed down to us. No one grows up in a vacuum.

 

[Minstrel]

You're confusing the modern institutions of religion with their founding principles. Christ was certainly not about "controlling the masses."

I agree with you on this, actually. I don't believe Christ was "son of God," but I think he had very worthwhile things to say. Organized religion is the problem. Personal quests for spirituality (which can certainly include following Christ's teachings, if one is so inclined) are perfectly reasonable. But in its organized form, religion seems to foster a lot of groupthink and "us against them" sentiment.

 

[Idog1976]

When was the last time you heard any of our present leaders say something like this?? If you can find a single quote from a present leader of the Democratic party who has said something this strong about God, I'd love to see it.


This is where people like Jefferson go wrong. Christ could not have been merely "an extraordinary man." He claimed to be the son of God, and a divine being. If he wasn't, then he was a lunatic with serious delusions. You can't have it both ways.


Hardly. Some of those "inferior minds" were people who knew Christ personally, and saw his miracles. Much of the New Testament is written by men who lived at the same time that Christ did, and who filled in the blanks about His life. To compare their accounts to "dunghills," as Jefferson does, is an example of his hubris more than anything else.

Actually you can have it both ways. If you believe as I do that the Roman Empire changed critical parts of the Bible for it's own purposes to create a political religion. Jesus may very well have said "I am the son of god, just as you are the sons and daughters of god, for there can be no one within creation who is not the son and daughter of god." Indeed this is what translations of the ancient greek (pre-council of Nycaea) show us.

That would go far more towards the peace he wished to bring us then the deification (like the roman PAGAN gods) of a man who was bringing a truly radical message. I believe without a shadow of doubt that Jesus Christ was a man who was born of a woman and who came to know the divine within himself and broke free of the bondage of this world and wished to show others the way. He did not say "Worhsip me" he said "Be as the flowers, be as the little children, the body is a temple, before you enter the temple forgive, the kingdom of heaven is AMONGST you." He was teaching us to find our holy connection to god he did not wish to be worshiped this was a mistake that came later. Jesus is the son of god a truly realized divine being. We are all capable of this and it is what will allow us to transcend our repetitive mistakes that the ego/mind (the voice of satan if you like) that tells us the lie that we are seperate from god. How COULD we be seperate from god if god is Omnipresent? How could we not be a part of god if god is Omnipotent? You can never be seperate from god find solace in that.

 

[Answer_AI03]

HAAK72, i hate people who bash religion, just as much as i hate people who are extremists. I myself am agnostic, but i think a really huge misconception that people have about religion, is that religion has absolutely no influence on people, but really bad/idiotic people use religion to influence other people or for personal gain. If there was no religion, people would find something else to fight about, or use for self gain. Religion doesn't cause people to be ignorant, or start wars, or become violent, people are just inherently made that way, mostly contributed by the way they were brought up or their surroundings. religion or no religion, people are stupid arrogant violent fucks.

 

[Idog1976]

HAAK72, i hate people who bash religion, just as much as i hate people who are extremists. I myself am agnostic, but i think a really huge misconception that people have about religion, is that religion has absolutely no influence on people, but really bad/idiotic people use religion to influence other people or for personal gain. If there was no religion, people would find something else to fight about, or use for self gain. Religion doesn't cause people to be ignorant, or start wars, or become violent, people are just inherently made that way, mostly contributed by the way they were brought up or their surroundings. religion or no religion, people are stupid arrogant violent fucks.

I absolutely agree. The blueprint for destruction lies within every human being: The ego which makes us feel seperate from everything, The mind which is a wonderful servant but a terrible master leading us to things like nuclear weapons as a master but things like dentistry as a servant, and the collection of psychological pain that is the "story of our life". From those three psychic entities ego, mind, pain legacy all of humanities horros come. Animals are without these problems except in rare cases.

This is what Jesus meant we he said look at the little children (meaning a child 1 year old or less) be as the little children (free of ego and transcending the mind - making it a servant - and forgiving of the pain suffered). This is his message which makes us free. Know the truth and it will set you free!

If you find that intriguing I can point you towards some books that will help elucidate.

If you are from a christian background I highly recommend "The Mystical I" by Joel Goldsmith.

 

[Idog1976]

I agree with you on this, actually. I don't believe Christ was "son of God," but I think he had very worthwhile things to say. Organized religion is the problem. Personal quests for spirituality (which can certainly include following Christ's teachings, if one is so inclined) are perfectly reasonable. But in its organized form, religion seems to foster a lot of groupthink and "us against them" sentiment.

I agree with much of this. But it is not religion that creates group think. It is something much closer to us all. It is the human ego which then becomes the group ego through identification with a group. Look at PETA look at either political party in the US. One doesn't need religion to have group think. It is simply an externalization of the human mind/ego complex.

Jesus is but one of many sons and daughters of god who found within themselves (As it is within us all) the connection to the source of all creation (god if you like but that is a fairly loaded term) the infinite (hard to have MY infinite and YOUR infinite). By going deeply within himself ("the body is a temple", " before you enter the temple, forgive") he was able to still his own mind and disolve once and for all his ego seeing it for the illusion that it was. By doing so he realized his transcendent divnity. For we are ALL sons and daughters of god by diving deeply within ourselves and discovering the source we can all dissolve the ego and find true everlasting piece and the connection and profound love we all crave. I have not yet fully had this realization but I am aware of it's existance.

Buddha, Jesus, Krishna all were able to discover the divine power we are all created from and made of. We all exist within the one unified spirit of god. You cannot be seperate from it, you can only feel seperated due to your ego. Physics shows that we are all part of one vast vibratory field this is what god is both the manifested and the infinite potential of the unmanifested which holds within it the manifested.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree with much of this. But it is not religion that creates group think. It is something much closer to us all. It is the human ego which then becomes the group ego through identification with a group. Look at PETA look at either political party in the US. One doesn't need religion to have group think. It is simply an externalization of the human mind/ego complex.

I agree with this, I was unclear. Religion doesn't create groupthink, which is a human tendency, but it creates a vehicle for it. The fewer such entities that encourage groupthink, the better.

 

[Shooter]

Religion doesn't create groupthink, which is a human tendency, but it creates a vehicle for it. The fewer such entities that encourage groupthink, the better.

What is a sports fan, or a Blazer fan, if not a member of a kind of "groupthink"? All of us love the Blazers, are united around them, and defend them from all charges. We die a little inside when they lose, and we celebrate together when they win. This is classic groupthink--but I don't have a problem with it. Do you?

The charge of "groupthink" against religion is ridiculous, in my opinion--mainly because groupthink is rampant throughout society, in all kinds of forms. You can't operate a company without a group of employees who are loyal to it, and will strive together to make it successful, and defend it against its competitors. Every protest group against the Vietnam war was a kind of groupthink, and every person who subscribes to the theory of evolution, or global warming, is a member of groupthink.

This idea that the world would somehow be a better place if we were all completely independant and "untainted" by any kind of groupthink is just a fantasy. We all belong to groupthink of one kind or another.

 

[Minstrel]

What is a sports fan, or a Blazer fan, if not a member of a kind of "groupthink"? All of us love the Blazers, are united around them, and defend them from all charges. We die a little inside when they lose, and we celebrate together when they win. This is classic groupthink--but I don't have a problem with it. Do you?

I absolutely have a problem with "groupthink" about the Blazers. I don't (or try not to) blindly "defend the Blazers from all charges," and I detest the idea that other fans are the enemies and everyone should present a unified front against the claims of other fans.

I also dislike groupthink within political parties. I'm not saying that without religion there would be no groupthink, I'm saying that organized religion is an entity that encourages it, which is my problem with it. As I said, I think personal quests for spirituality are perfectly good, which can certainly mean doing as Christ taught (or as Buddha taught, or as no one specifically taught but your own observations/feelings). I think it gets off track when it becomes organized.

 

[Shooter]

I also dislike groupthink within political parties.

Without groupthink, political parties would fall apart. The very reason a political party is formed is to represent the shared beliefs of a group of people. Same goes for religions. They represent the shared beliefs of a group of people, but they also allow for differences of opinion. I have friends in my church who disagree with me on a number of topics, and yet we all feel comfortable worshipping together. You can call it "groupthink" if you like, but you must apply the same charge to any other group that shares common beliefs, whether it be a Blazer fan site like this, or a group of environmentalists or anti-war demonstrators.

I think personal quests for spirituality are perfectly good, which can certainly mean doing as Christ taught (or as Buddha taught, or as no one specifically taught but your own observations/feelings). I think it gets off track when it becomes organized.

Some organized religions may get "off track," but a lot of individuals get "off track" when they're operating on their own instincts and prejudices.

 

[Minstrel]

Without groupthink, political parties would fall apart.

I agree. But then, I'm not a big fan of political parties. I do, however, understand that they're not going anywhere. Just like organized religion. I just am not a fan of the concept of either.

Some organized religions may get "off track," but a lot of individuals get "off track" when they're operating on their own instincts and prejudices.

That's not precisely what I mean. Of course anyone can do "wrong," whether affiliated with a religious organization or not. My point was that adding organization to religion moves it further from actual quest for spiritual understanding, in my opinion, and more toward obedience to the group and the people in charge of the group. That's what I mean by "off-track."

 

[Haakzilla]

HAAK72, i hate people who bash religion, just as much as i hate people who are extremists. I myself am agnostic, but i think a really huge misconception that people have about religion, is that religion has absolutely no influence on people, but really bad/idiotic people use religion to influence other people or for personal gain. If there was no religion, people would find something else to fight about, or use for self gain. Religion doesn't cause people to be ignorant, or start wars, or become violent, people are just inherently made that way, mostly contributed by the way they were brought up or their surroundings. religion or no religion, people are stupid arrogant violent fucks.

...just a pre-emptive comedy strike, a lightening of the mood if you will, as I knew it was about to get thick in here

 

[Stepping Razor]

Honestly, we ARE a Judeo-Christian nation.

AND we are a secular nation.

And we always have been. That's why these kind of debates are so pointless, with both sides pulling out citations from the Founding Fathers to justify one unequivocal view or the other. But the truth is that the Founding Fathers ran the gamut on religion... the gulf between Randy Forbes and Bill Maher is pretty much exactly the same as the gulf between, say, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson back in the day.

Look carefully at the First Amendment. It very carefully defends religion, even as it rejects theocracy. We are a secular Judeo-Christian nation, just as we always have been.

SR

 

[Minstrel]

Honestly, we ARE a Judeo-Christian nation.

AND we are a secular nation.

And we always have been. That's why these kind of debates are so pointless, with both sides pulling out citations from the Founding Fathers to justify one unequivocal view or the other. But the truth is that the Founding Fathers ran the gamut on religion... the gulf between Randy Forbes and Bill Maher is pretty much exactly the same as the gulf between, say, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson back in the day.

Look carefully at the First Amendment. It very carefully defends religion, even as it rejects theocracy. We are a secular Judeo-Christian nation, just as we always have been.

How do you mean that "we are Judeo-Christian?" That a majority of the people are Judeo-Christian? If so, I agree. My take from the video linked in the original post was that Randy Forbes means that the nation bases its identity, in part or in full, on Judeo-Christianity and always has. I don't agree with that.

 

[Stepping Razor]

How do you mean that "we are Judeo-Christian?" That a majority of the people are Judeo-Christian? If so, I agree. My take from the video linked in the original post was that Randy Forbes means that the nation bases its identity, in part or in full, on Judeo-Christianity and always has. I don't agree with that.

I do think that *part* of our national identity is based in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (And I say that as an agnostic who is extremely hostile to what I see as Christianist attempts to take over the government in the interest of theocracy.)

I also think another, *equal part* of our national identity is a long and deep commitment to religious tolerance and, indeed, outright secularism in the public sphere.

Thus I find totally one-sided depictions of our nation's religious history like the one offered by Randy Forbes to be totally misleading and essentially propagandistic... but I would say the same of my left-wing friends who would argue that the United States is completely *not* a Judeo-Christian nation.

SR

 

[Colonel Ronan]

"Groupthink" isn't from the human ego. We used to work in tribes so it's natural for us to want to belong to groups of humans which share something in common. That's why people join gangs, clubs, or hang out with the same people.

I am not "religious", and I don't think I have a need for it. Why are you religious? What is your personal gain from it? I just can't even fathom the practice of worshiping something that is simply passed on through words. I meditate frequently, but I don't worship a "higher being" to reach my tranquility...

 

[MrJayremmie]

Very interesting discussion. And its amazing that it is really civilized for the most part.

As for me, i'm not sure about the Judeo-Christian nation. While I think most people say they are "Christian" now, I don't think that really makes us a Christian nation, does it? When someone is a "Christian" nation, I think it means it was founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. IDK if that is the case, but those principles definitely had some effect.

Personally, I'm 100% against religion, but I am "saved" (it feels odd to say this because I don't want to be like "OHHH I'm saved and you aren't you are going to hell... because that isn't how I see it at all). I have a relationship with God, and I do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and the only way to God. But religion turns me off like nothing else, I can't stand it. The hypocrasy, the judgement, the ego, its not right. I mean, seriously, if Jesus were to walk in to 95% of the "Christian" churchs out there, I think He would be very disappointed. I feel very lucky to be in a church that doesn't have those kind of beliefs and the "us against the world" mentality, but rather the "Oh, you think i'm an idiot? Thats ok, man, I love ya anyway" mentality.

 

[ABM]

Very interesting discussion. And its amazing that it is really civilized for the most part.

As for me, i'm not sure about the Judeo-Christian nation. While I think most people say they are "Christian" now, I don't think that really makes us a Christian nation, does it? When someone is a "Christian" nation, I think it means it was founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. IDK if that is the case, but those principles definitely had some effect.

Personally, I'm 100% against religion, but I am "saved" (it feels odd to say this because I don't want to be like "OHHH I'm saved and you aren't you are going to hell... because that isn't how I see it at all). I have a relationship with God, and I do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and the only way to God. But religion turns me off like nothing else, I can't stand it. The hypocrasy, the judgement, the ego, its not right. I mean, seriously, if Jesus were to walk in to 95% of the "Christian" churchs out there, I think He would be very disappointed. I feel very lucky to be in a church that doesn't have those kind of beliefs and the "us against the world" mentality, but rather the "Oh, you think i'm an idiot? Thats ok, man, I love ya anyway" mentality.

I'm right there with ya, man. Plus One on your comments.

While Jesus said, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together", I also think He would be very dissappointed if He walked into a majority of today's churches. Shoot, for that matter, some of His disciples (Paul, in particular) were very dissappointed (even disgusted) with some of the so-called congregations they came across back in the day.

To me, it boils down to my "personal" relationship with Jesus......NOT about what some church has going for it. That said, do i want/need to be part of a group of believers? Absolutely. Someone once said that Christians are kind of like briquettes. Once one is separated from the others, it begins to go out. I think that's a relative truism. The Bible speaks of "iron sharpening iron", which basically means that Christians still need other (like and/or more mature) Christians to help them to grow in the faith. A state of withering faith is a bleak state, indeed.

Bottom-line for me, though. It all begins with actively growing in the Word of God and prayer. Man will let me down (and I will let him down). He does every day. However, my standard isn't man, it's Jesus. He will never let me down......ever. The basis of His teachings is love. I fall way short of that goal every day. Fortunately, I have His Grace which reminds me that, no matter how many times I stumble, he's there to pick me back up every single time...so long as come to Him in honesty and humility. Again, it's all about my relationship with Him. It's such a pure and beautiful thing...I can't begin to describe....especially considering the hell-hole He pulled me out of). I don't have to get all caught-up in the "religion" thing. Religiosity - in and of itself - sucks. In fact, Jesus himself once called a large group (church) of Pharisees a "brood of vipers" for practicing such. They were all high and mighty on themselves (their pious "religion"), yet were lost. Simple as that. Seriously, Jesus told them that the outside of their cups were clean (literally, their hypocrisy), yet, the inside of their cups (their hearts) were dirty.

Again, in my mind, so many people get all focused on religion (how they look) itself, yet fail to recognize the author.

Just my 2-cents.