Christian Nationalism; The Right-wing Addiction

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 07:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Could you provide an example of anything God has had to say on any topic over the past 2,000 years? More to the point, can you prove that a God has ever had anything to say, period?

Respectfully, how would belief in an entity that can't demonstrably be accessed, observed or communicated with be at all relevant to the actual reality that we all experience?

Why?
I don't think your beliefs are based on anything factual either

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 05:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: or science or really anything that doesn't see eye to eye with your stance.

It's cool i get it. Bigotry comes in many shapes and sizes.

Verifiable science doesn't care about anyone's feelings or beliefs. Much like fact, it just IS.

If you want to live in a country ruled by a religion, feel free to go to a place where a separation of church and state isn't mandated by the founding laws. Matter of fact, last I checked we fought an entire war to get out from under the thumb of a government run by the Church.

I hear Afghanistan needs a bunch of help and is ruled by an Abrahamic religion. I bet it's a utopia for Christian nationalists.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 08:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why?
I don't think your beliefs are based on anything factual either

That's a lot of words for 'no I can't'.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 08:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why?
I don't think your beliefs are based on anything factual either

This statement is completely vacuous. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 09:36 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Verifiable science doesn't care about anyone's feelings or beliefs. Much like fact, it just IS.

Exactly, someone said, give a non-Religious reason about something?

"For instance - if you can give me a valid reason to ban gay marriage that isn't 'ThE bIbLe SaYs', then you have a chance. But as soon as God or Jesus comes into your reasoning, you lose all footing and your bill is ignored."

I believe I gave you one. A same-sex couple can not reproduce. Is that a true statement or not? And you didn't give it much of a chance anyways kinda skirted around it.

(07-10-2022, 09:36 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: If you want to live in a country ruled by a religion, feel free to go to a place where a separation of church and state isn't mandated by the founding laws. Matter of fact, last I checked we fought an entire war to get out from under the thumb of a government run by the Church.

I hear Afghanistan needs a bunch of help and is ruled by an Abrahamic religion. I bet it's a utopia for Christian nationalists.

Never said i did, but you and the OP need to learn to respect others ideas even when they don't agree with yours. Outright dismissing theirs, means others can outright dismiss yours. 

And telling others if they don't like something to leave the country is pretty childish in my opinion. The goal is for everyone's voice to be heard and make decisions that try to respect ALL of those voices.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 10:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: This statement is completely vacuous. 

LOL so what are your beliefs based on? 
Obviously dismissing Religion and Science, so what's left?
Feelings??

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 10:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Exactly, someone said, give a non-Religious reason about something?

"For instance - if you can give me a valid reason to ban gay marriage that isn't 'ThE bIbLe SaYs', then you have a chance. But as soon as God or Jesus comes into your reasoning, you lose all footing and your bill is ignored."

I believe I gave you one. A same-sex couple can not reproduce. Is that a true statement or not? And you didn't give it much of a chance anyways kinda skirted around it.

It's not a valid reason simply because many heterosexual couples can't reproduce either, yet no one is calling for a ban on them getting married. The argument is self-defeating.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 10:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Exactly, someone said, give a non-Religious reason about something?

"For instance - if you can give me a valid reason to ban gay marriage that isn't 'ThE bIbLe SaYs', then you have a chance. But as soon as God or Jesus comes into your reasoning, you lose all footing and your bill is ignored."

I believe I gave you one. A same-sex couple can not reproduce. Is that a true statement or not? And you didn't give it much of a chance anyways kinda skirted around it.





Never said i did, but you and the OP need to learn to respect others ideas even when they don't agree with yours. Outright dismissing theirs, means others can outright dismiss yours. 

And telling others if they don't like something to leave the country is pretty childish in my opinion. The goal is for everyone's voice to be heard and make decisions that try to respect ALL of those voices.

I didn't skirt your question - I flat out ignored it because others had answered it. Unless you want everyone to tell you the same thing - even some male/female marriages don't end in children being born either through choice or biological issues. So that point is moot and doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny.

It's easier to respect someone's opinion when they're not coming to your door and ramming it down your throat or trying to force their religion on everyone in the country. Point of fact - I'll give you all the credit in the world if you can guess what my religion is.

I don't go around shitting on Judaism or Buddhism, mainly because I don't have to throw away their flyers every other week or see some super church's pastor rant incoherently about Jesus not returning because his parishioners haven't donated enough money. When that religion quits scamming people and bothering everyone, I'll quit shitting on it. Until then, I'll enjoy watching them play the perpetual victim card because they can't keep their pews filled.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 10:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL so what are your beliefs based on? 
Obviously dismissing Religion and Science, so what's left?
Feelings??

Why would I dismiss science?

My foundation is methodological naturalism and the Laws of Logic; identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-09-2022, 09:51 PM)Lucidus Wrote: God, the Holy Bible and interpretations of the Word; all things that lack grounding in reality as it pertains to their ability to be verified by any demonstrable method. That is to say -- propositions for which faith necessarily serves as the foundation for belief.

When it comes to the the political process -- religion should carry no more weight than astrology, telepathy, numerology, the paranormal, Flat Earth theory or Q-Anon conspiracies; all suffering from the same absence of naturalistic / scientific evidence.

However, the American political landscape is saturated with religious ideology and influence on the right; from the Republican voter base all the way up to the SCOTUS conservative majority. That saturation is fueled, in large part, by the notion that religious moral authority should supersede church - state separation; including the legislative and judicial process.

Pew Research polling has provided some rather disturbing results:

When asked whether the Bible should influence laws -- either greatly or somewhat; 67% of Republicans said yes, 68% of Christians, and 89% of White Evangelicals (who have become an incredibly vocal and powerful faction on the right).

In addition, 45% of Republicans believed that teachers should be able to lead students in prayer, and 60% thought religious symbols should be displayed on public properties.

Religion, and it's adherents / advocates, enjoy a privileged status that is wholly undeserved and nonsensical. It should zero place in the political - legislative - judicial arena, as it offers nothing more than affirmations of it's own validity, sans any real-world attestation. Yet, alarming numbers in one political party -- and their acolytes in all governmental bodies -- are not only accepting of the power and influence wielded by religion, but are actively pursuing ways to make it even greater.

The invocation of religion by anyone and in any aspect of lawmaking, legal interpretation, constitutional foundation, secular education, civil rights, bans, restrictions, environmental issues, etc., should be widely and profoundly rejected by all who value church - state separation and reality-based forms of evidence. 

This is a most important time in America's history, as there is a very real desire for Christian Nationalism. The means for achieving said desire have been pursued and put in place in a very methodical fashion over the years. However, the effort is no longer one taking place in the shadows or behind closed doors; it's now very much out in the open and unapologetically brazen. 

The goal of the religious right is to impose their morality on everyone; with that morality being derived from barbaric antiquities. 

As a Christian myself, I have to say I find the idea of legislating sin to be quite a dilemma I currently find myself battling with.

When I was younger, I always believed that we should have laws that try to stop things like abortion from happening. But as I've gotten older I've found myself questioning this belief.

This really came about when I started thinking about sin as a whole and why ALL sin isn't legislated and why Christians such as myself seem to only cherry pick certain sins like abortion and why we don't look at legislating things such as premarital sex or even something as simple as just lying.

It got me wondering..... Does God really want Christians to legislate sin, or are we off base here? And if we as Christians are to believe that God wants us to legislate sin, I think that leads to a second question, which again I find myself struggling with, which is what is the appropriate punishment? That to me is a very important question I believe a lot of Christians might not ponder.

If you're going to believe that God wants you to legislate sin, you also then have to know what God considers an appropriate punishment, otherwise are you really asserting God's will, or are you simply following your own?

At this point, I'd say I don't really have a belief on the matter of legislating sin, but rather I have put my previous beliefs on hold until I feel I have a satisfying answer.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-10-2022, 10:55 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: As a Christian myself, I have to say I find the idea of legislating sin to be quite a dilemma I currently find myself battling with.

When I was younger, I always believed that we should have laws that try to stop things like abortion from happening. But as I've gotten older I've found myself questioning this belief.

This really came about when I started thinking about sin as a whole and why ALL sin isn't legislated and why Christians such as myself seem to only cherry pick certain sins like abortion and why we don't look at legislating things such as premarital sex or even something as simple as just lying.

It got me wondering..... Does God really want Christians to legislate sin, or are we off base here? And if we as Christians are to believe that God wants us to legislate sin, I think that leads to a second question, which again I find myself struggling with, which is what is the appropriate punishment? That to me is a very important question I believe a lot of Christians might not ponder.

If you're going to believe that God wants you to legislate sin, you also then have to know what God considers an appropriate punishment, otherwise are you really asserting God's will, or are you simply following your own?

At this point, I'd say I don't really have a belief on the matter of legislating sin, but rather I have put my previous beliefs on hold until I feel I have a satisfying answer.

Matthew 7:1 pretty much sums that up for those of a Biblical bent.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 10:55 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: As a Christian myself, I have to say I find the idea of legislating sin to be quite a dilemma I currently find myself battling with.

When I was younger, I always believed that we should have laws that try to stop things like abortion from happening. But as I've gotten older I've found myself questioning this belief.

This really came about when I started thinking about sin as a whole and why ALL sin isn't legislated and why Christians such as myself seem to only cherry pick certain sins like abortion and why we don't look at legislating things such as premarital sex or even something as simple as just lying.

It got me wondering..... Does God really want Christians to legislate sin, or are we off base here? And if we as Christians are to believe that God wants us to legislate sin, I think that leads to a second question, which again I find myself struggling with, which is what is the appropriate punishment? That to me is a very important question I believe a lot of Christians might not ponder.

If you're going to believe that God wants you to legislate sin, you also then have to know what God considers an appropriate punishment, otherwise are you really asserting God's will, or are you simply following your own?

At this point, I'd say I don't really have a belief on the matter of legislating sin, but rather I have put my previous beliefs on hold until I feel I have a satisfying answer.

Thank you for the honest and thoughtful response. I would like to ask a couple questions if you don't mind.

First; Do you believe in God for reasons that you think are verifiable in the natural world?

Second; If God could be proven to exist, how would we know with certainty what he thinks about anything?

[Vas Deferens]

Math is hard

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 10:25 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Neither can a couple where one or both of the parties are infertile. Should we outlaw their marriages? 

Good point, and even with a lot of the medical breakthroughs we have, in some cases there can still be a chance even if it's very slim which is better than zero.

(07-10-2022, 10:26 PM)Lucidus Wrote: It's not a valid reason simply because many heterosexual couples can't reproduce either, yet no one is calling for a ban on them getting married. The argument is self-defeating.

I think it's a much more valid reason, combine it with medical reasons/complications and it has much more substance to it than one based on Religion.  

Going to HELL,, pfffft i think based on their definition of what it takes to get into Heaven, most of us aren't gonna make the cut.

Since you don't respect others beliefs, i see no reason to respect yours.

Good luck with your partner and congrats for adopting. 
You seem like a decent person, just some serious issues with the church for whatever your reason. 

[BigPapaKain]

Imagine not understanding why a gay man would have an axe to grind with the Church.

Holy head in the sand.

[Lucidus]

(07-10-2022, 11:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Good point, and even with a lot of the medical breakthroughs we have, in some cases there can still be a chance even if it's very slim which is better than zero.




I think it's a much more valid reason, combine it with medical reasons/complications and it has much more substance to it than one based on Religion.  

Going to HELL,, pfffft i think based on their definition of what it takes to get into Heaven, most of us aren't gonna make the cut.

Since you don't respect others beliefs, i see no reason to respect yours.

Good luck with your partner and congrats for adopting. 
You seem like a decent person, just some serious issues with the church for whatever your reason. 

My issue isn't with the religious belief in and of itself. People have the right to believe anything they wish, even when it can't be verified to be true. People should be free to believe in any god or and any religion, and they should be able to live their own lives according to that belief.

The problem is when those same people want to impose that belief on others; desiring laws and policies that are based on affirmations of interpretations of recollections of assertions made on ancient parchments.  

I wonder how much "respect" Christians would have if Islam ascended to a position of power and influence within American politics; openly advocating for legislation that's in adherence with Allah, the Quran and Sharia?

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2022, 11:12 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Thank you for the honest and thoughtful response. I would like to ask a couple questions if you don't mind.

First; Do you believe in God for reasons that you think are verifiable in the natural world?

Second; If God could be proven to exist, how would we know with certainty what he thinks about anything?

Good questions.

So, this might be a bit of a long winded answer, but bare with me. I apologize if it seems like I'm lecturing, but I like to discuss in a sort of frame work answer, and I'm not necessarily speaking to you as if you don't already know these things. With that said....

First off, there needs to be a distinction made regarding "proof". There are two ways human beings use the concept of "proof".

1. Undeniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as truth because it cannot be questioned or an alternative answer cannot be provided.
2. Deniable proofs, that is evidence that is accepted as proof but is questionable or an alternative answer can be provided.

When someone asks me to prove God to them, I have to ask, well what do you mean? 
Are you asking if I can provide undeniable proof? Or are you asking me to provide deniable proof?

In the instance of providing deniable proof, I suppose one could "prove" God's existence, but that all depends on what it is you're asking as evidence for proof. For example, asking someone to show that they can walk on water as proof for God's existence, If someone actually did this, some people might actually be moved to believe God exists because they value walking on water as proof for God's existence. Others however, who don't value that as evidence would simply either explain it away or say it amounts to nothing more than a cool party trick. 

In the case of providing undeniable proof, I personally don't believe anyone can do this.

I believe that God is all powerful, so the idea that I could somehow prove God's existence is actually contradictory to that. if I could prove God exists, then that would mean I have some sort of control over God, which I don't believe anyone does. In my opinion, the only undeniable proof for God's existence is for God to actually reveal himself. 

That's it. 

There's nothing any human being can say or do to provide undeniable proof of God's existence. We can try to provide evidence for his existence, but this is problematic because again, any evidence that can be provided would fall into the realm of deniable proof, and thus, whether the evidence provided is considered "proof" or not is completely up to the individual looking for proof and how they personally value the evidence provided. 

So, to answer your two questions, I believe only God can truly prove his own existence, and any thoughts he has can only truly be revealed on his own accord. Anything beyond that is left to faith and assumption. I personally believe in God for reasons I don't believe can be verified because again, I don't believe any human being can actually prove God's existence in a way that is undeniable.

So that probably leads to the question, why believe in God then?

Because I believe I have deniable proof for his existence and I value the evidence. It's a personal anecdote.

When I was in highschool I stayed in a hotel for a sports event that I qualified for and decided to go to the pool that was there (in the hotel). No one else was in the pool area with me and I thought it would be a great idea to go to the deep end by myself even though I didn't know how to swim. I was holding on to the side of the pool and thought to myself "Hey, I'll try to teach myself to swim". So, I kept letting go of the side of the pool and would flail my legs, and once I felt myself sinking I would quickly grab on to the side of the pool again to catch myself. I did this multiple times over and over again and successfully caught myself each time I felt my body sinking,

Well..... one time I wasn't so lucky and I felt myself sinking and went to grab the side of the pool and my hand was too slippery and it slipped right off. I fell all the way to the bottom of the pool. 

Man.... even typing this right now I remember how scared I was.

Anyway, my feet touched the bottom and I screamed like an idiot, thinking someone would actually hear me. I quickly realized my situation and got a grip of myself and pushed off the floor of the pool with my feet and started to float back up, but I didn't breach the top of the water and I started sinking again and that's when I completely panicked and screamed again, but this time I remember screaming "God help me". Probably sounds really cheesy, but honestly I don't care. After I yelled that, I'll never forget it. I felt two hands come up under my arms and lift me up to the top of the water and I felt my head come up out of the water and I just reached out and grabbed the side of the pool. 

I pulled myself out of the water and laid by the side of the pool. I remember how shocked I was thinking "What just happened?". Oddly enough I ended up going back to the pool that day with some of my teammates (they all knew how to swim) and I tried to recreate what happened, because honestly, I don't think I believed it at first. I couldn't recreate what happened and to this day I wholeheartedly believe God saved me from drowning that day.

So yeah, that's my story. It's not something I'd call undeniable proof, but it's a deniable proof for me.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-10-2022, 11:43 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Imagine not understanding why a gay man would have an axe to grind with the Church.

Holy head in the sand.

Churches have changed in the last 20 years. Don't let the extremists ruin the work that many others have gone thru

(07-11-2022, 12:15 AM)Lucidus Wrote: My issue isn't with the religious belief in and of itself. People have the right to believe anything they wish, even when it can't be verified to be true. People should be free to believe in any god or and any religion, and they should be able to live their own lives according to that belief.

The problem is when those same people want to impose that belief on others; desiring laws and policies that are based on affirmations of interpretations of recollections of assertions made on ancient parchments.  

I wonder how much "respect" Christians would have if Islam ascended to a position of power and influence within American politics; openly advocating for legislation that's in adherence with Allah, the Quran and Sharia?

There is definitely some stories in the Bible that have roots based on true stories.
How true is anyone's guess. 

Kinda hard to say the Flood didn't happen, when cultures all around the world have references to it in their history. 
Just like cities being destroyed from Fires raining down from the skies, earthquakes, it has been proven that some of those cites lived along faultlines, near volcanoes, or even Meteorites falling from the skies. Cities abandoned because of droughts. These things all happened. No denying any of that from a scientific stance. I think alot of it was man not understanding WHY those things happened, so just easier to say the God(s) were punishing us.

After that, the stories are left open to interpretation. Four of us might read the same story and likely come away with four different interpretations.
As far as what Jesus/God thinks? we will likely never know, best i take away from all of it, is be kind and treat everyone respectfully and live a good life and be true to yourself and others. Anything else you take away from it, likely is what some MAN's interpretation is of some story. Guess there is only one true way to know the answers for sure, but i'm not in a big hurry to find out.

[Lucidus]

(07-11-2022, 01:10 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There is definitely some stories in the Bible that have roots based on true stories.
How true is anyone's guess. 

Kinda hard to say the Flood didn't happen, when cultures all around the world have references to it in their history. 
Just like cities being destroyed from Fires raining down from the skies, earthquakes, it has been proven that some of those cites lived along faultlines, near volcanoes, or even Meteorites falling from the skies. Cities abandoned because of droughts. These things all happened. No denying any of that from a scientific stance. I think alot of it was man not understanding WHY those things happened, so just easier to say the God(s) were punishing us.

After that, the stories are left open to interpretation. Four of us might read the same story and likely come away with four different interpretations.
As far as what Jesus/God thinks? we will likely never know, best i take away from all of it, is be kind and treat everyone respectfully and live a good life and be true to yourself and others. Anything else you take away from it, likely is what some MAN's interpretation is of some story. Guess there is only one true way to know the answers for sure, but i'm not in a big hurry to find out.

I'll avoid the temptation to delve into the flood, as I could discuss the subject for quite awhile and assuredly put everyone to sleep in the process.

You are certainly correct when you say there are factual things in the Bible. For example, real places that we can verify; in much the same way that people a thousand years from now can read ancient Spiderman comics and verify that New York was a real place. 

As to your last paragraph; that's certainly a fair assessment. Although I think it's far more likely that no God exist or has ever existed, even if God could be proven, we would still be dependent on the assertions and interpretations of men until that God decided to speak to everyone in a way that each could believe. 

I just don't think we should allow those assertions and interpretations to influence legislation. I believe we should make those important decisions based on what we all can experience and and evaluate in real-world terms. 

I appreciate the response; as you brought up some good points. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-10-2022, 05:27 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Use your beliefs to right policy, but have an actual reason for it other than 'ThE bIbLe SaYs'. When science flies in the face of faith, science wins because it has a basis that isn't feelings.

(07-10-2022, 06:36 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Science is demonstrably real and verifiable in the real world.

God is not demonstrably real and not verifiable in the real world.

One is a method of determining the most accurate explanations.

One is a concept that can't be accessed for any explanations.

That aside; how can we see eye to eye on any stance in which the assertions are justified by a foundation that can't be proven right or wrong? It's utterly useless until there's a way to prove a God is real and has ever said anything. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of people stating as fact what aliens have said, think or instructed, when there is no absolutely no evidence to support the claims.

Not even religious, and I fully believe two consenting adults should be able to marry each other without any other kind of qualifiers needed.
- - - - - - - -

That said, this whole "you need science to back up your feelings/beliefs/decisions" hardline you're trying to take here is just absolutely faulty. If science was required for laws, we'd end up with genetically matched marriages partners, conceiving bans for people with extreme family histories of cancer and the like. Just sink into a terrible swamp of eugenics... the laws would be made so we'd be bred like farm animals rather than things like love, passion, connections... all things that aren't really scientific.


We believe people should marry for love. Why? Not science.
We believe that children even if they're born with special needs are precious and deserve a chance at life. Why? Not science.
We believe that marriage is between only 2 people. Why? Not science.

We believe in a right to privacy, no illegal search and seizure. There's no science to that, that's just because we don't want to be bugged. That's not science.


Governing solely by the "it must be backed by science" mantra would lead to an eradication of all languages but one. After all preserving culture isn't science, and it's inefficient to have more than one language exist. Heck, for that matter we should start invading and occupying all third world countries. They aren't using their resources or managing their land to it's peak, so we should do it for them.

We feed the poor because of compassion, not science.

We keep having rescue efforts, disaster relief, and rebuilding in disaster prone areas because of compassion, not science. Logic would dictate that it'd be better to just have forced relocation and ban habitation in areas likely to be destroyed by floods/fires/earthquakes/tornadoes.

All hyperbole, obviously, but my point remains that if you want a government governed, led, and inspired by science and ONLY science, you're going to have a dystopic hellscape.