Bill Maher Says Christians Have Neurological

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]So, please, do explain how it is that you are so concerned with the christian foundation of the US without caring about whether or not it's true.[/quote]

I care about the historical and social fact, because I believe in truth, not because I believe in America.

[quote]The United States, when it was founded, was not religious in nature. The founders thereof specifically added provisions to prevent it from being so[/quote]

I stand by what I said. The leaders of this nation, up to the present one, have operated with the Christian foundation of America in mind. This is the summit of the Protestant vision, which is not based on a particular institution, but rather on the individual reliance on the guidance of Scripture. As I said before, America is not a "Christian" nation in the sense that its government aligns itself with a Christian institution, but rather, it is a Christian nation in the sense that it has historically operated under Judeo-Christian principles. Andrew Jackson, for example, asserted that the Bible is "the rock upon which our republic rests". Not as a legal document, but as a foundation.

Edited February 24, 2005 by Eremite

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 24 2005, 03:29 PM'] Faith-based initiatives. (See Bush [comma] George)
[/quote]
Ugh. Repugnant things. Try to forget they exist, mostly.

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

Because, you see, we were talking about rights not equality -- though later that became a right too.

[quote]This is too loaded a comment to even respond to.[/quote]

Good call. Then you don't have to worry about how christians persecute others...only how they are persecuted.

[quote]Right, Jewish. Hence the phrase "Judeo-Christian", and hence the statue of Moses, whence came the decalogue.[/quote]

Oddly enough, there were moral codes before judaism on which some of their laws were based.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Ugh. Repugnant things. Try to forget they exist, mostly.[/quote]

lol. Not much longer before the crusaders liberate Massachusetts.

[quote]Because, you see, we were talking about rights not equality -- though later that became a right too.[/quote]

The issue was with the word "God", not with anything else the Declaration was trying to say. It's a fact that it referenced the rights given by GOD, who is our creator.

[quote]Good call. Then you don't have to worry about how christians persecute others...only how they are persecuted.[/quote]

We can deal with it all you want. Just not in this thread, and not with the loaded premise you proposed. There's something called "specificity".

[quote]Oddly enough, there were moral codes before judaism on which some of their laws were based.[/quote]

It's called "natural law". Don't worry, we have it covered.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 24 2005, 04:29 PM'] I care about the historical and social fact, because I believe in truth, not because I believe in America.
[/quote]
Well, then you have contradicted yourself, haven't you? If you care about truth then you should care whether or not it's true.

[quote]I stand by what I said. The leaders of this nation, up to the present one, have operated with the Christian foundation of America in mind. [/quote]

Go ahead and stand by it, that doesn't make it any more true.

John Adams, James Madison, John Quincey Adams, John Tyler, Andrew Johnson were not strictly christian. Just for example.

[quote]This is the summit of the Protestant vision, which is not based on a particular institution, but rather on the individual reliance on the guidance of Scripture. As I said before, America is not a "Christian" nation in the sense that its government aligns itself with a Christian institution, but rather, it is a Christian nation in the sense that it has historically operated under Judeo-Christian principles. Andrew Jackson, for example, asserted that the Bible is "the rock upon which our republic rests". Not as a legal document, but as a foundation.[/quote]

See, you can't argue that the country is founded on christianity if it isn't. You're changing now to say that the people of the US are christian. The fact that judeo-christian principles align with the principles of many other world religions, including those existing in much of the world before being introduced to christianity, has no effect on you, does it?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 24 2005, 04:54 PM'] lol. Not much longer before the crusaders liberate Massachusetts. [/quote]
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[quote]The issue was with the word "God", not with anything else the Declaration was trying to say. It's a fact that it referenced the rights given by GOD, who is our creator.[/quote]

To [i]you[/i] "GOD" is your creator. By "GOD" you mean the christian god, which is not necessarily the creator or "nature's god" as referenced by Jefferson. And, actually, it's important to note the context. We were discussing who bestowed the unalienable rights. Clearly it's the creator and the law of nature along with nature's god that gave equality. Context is important -- you don't get to just ignore it because it doesn't fit to your view.

[quote]We can deal with it all you want. Just not in this thread, and not with the loaded premise you proposed. There's something called "specificity".[/quote]

Frankly, this whole discussion is a threadjack, but you are just unwilling to go into this because you know that I'm right. The furtherance of christian notions in law would mean persecution of non-christians. There's no way to work around that.

[quote]It's called "natural law". Don't worry, we have it covered.  [/quote]

No, natural law is a set of 'norms' that was adopted by christians and used to repress women and countless other groups. It's disgusting.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]If you care about truth then you should care whether or not it's true.[/quote]

I care whether it's true, but not for the reasons you assume. I'm not much of an American apologist.

[quote]See, you can't argue that the country is founded on christianity if it isn't. You're changing now to say that the people of the US are christian.[/quote]

You might want to pay attention to detail. I've stated MORE THAN ONCE in this thread that the character of America as a Christian nation is one of a general foundation, not a formal Christian creed or institution.

[quote]I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.[/quote]

Much like your remark up yonder, it's a joke.

[quote]By "GOD" you mean the christian god, which is not necessarily the creator or "nature's god" as referenced by Jefferson.[/quote]

Once again, all of this is irrelevant to your objection. You made a point about the wording of the declaration, and you were wrong, period. The declaration uses the word "God", not just "Creator".

[quote]Context is important -- you don't get to just ignore it because it doesn't fit to your view.[/quote]

I'll do what I darn well please.

[quote]Frankly, this whole discussion is a threadjack, but you are just unwilling to go into this because you know that I'm right. The furtherance of christian notions in law would mean persecution of non-christians. There's no way to work around that.[/quote]

If you want to discuss principles of religious liberty and the duties of the civil power, and historical instances of this principle, feel free to start a new thread (or wait until we finish this thread). I'll gladly participate.

[quote]No, natural law is a set of 'norms' that was adopted by christians and used to repress women and countless other groups. It's disgusting.[/quote]

You kiss your mother with that mouth? Serious, though, feel free to start ANOTHER thread on principles of natural law.

Not much more can be said here. I'll await any further challenges on another thread.

Or not...

Edited February 24, 2005 by Eremite

[Socrates]

[quote]No, natural law is a set of 'norms' that was adopted by christians and used to repress women and countless other groups. It's disgusting. [/quote]

Really? Before Christianity and related concepts of natural law, women were basically treated like slaves in most cultures.

Before Christian civilization, there was no concept of "human rights."

Edited February 25, 2005 by Socrates

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 24 2005, 09:16 PM']
Really?  Before Christianity and related concepts of natural law, women were basically treated like slaves in most cultures.

Before Christian civilization, there was no concept of "human rights." [/quote]
Not to further de-rail the thread but, I want to add to that. The concept of the modern hospital was brought about during 331 AD, under Constantine's rule, who at the time was a Christian. To quote the [b][i]Encyclopaedia Britannica[/i][/b]:

[i]The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to his fellow man, upon whom rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church.[/i]


Of course hospitals (in one form or another) did exist prior too 331 AD, but not the modern concept of what we have today. This is one of the several things that Christianity has contributed to the world, unfortunately many tend to focus on the evils of certain people in the past, instead of the good.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 24 2005, 05:55 PM'] You might want to pay attention to detail. I've stated MORE THAN ONCE in this thread that the character of America as a Christian nation is one of a general foundation, not a formal Christian creed or institution.
[/quote]
Okay, then we're having a rather pointless discussion, aren't we? You and I are using the word "foundation" in semantically different ways.

[quote]
Much like your remark up yonder, it's a joke.[/quote]

*wiff* Perhaps it's some sort of in-joke. *shrug*

[quote]Once again, all of this is irrelevant to your objection. You made a point about the wording of the declaration, and you were wrong, period. The declaration uses the word "God", not just "Creator".[/quote]

Actually, no, it's not irrelevant. I was arguing over who bestowed the rights and you seem to have missed that. Whether or not the word "god" was used was beyond the scope of my point.

[quote]I'll do what I darn well please.  [/quote]

Now that's a joke that I get

[quote]If you want to discuss principles of religious liberty and the duties of the civil power, and historical instances of this principle, feel free to start a new thread (or wait until we finish this thread). I'll gladly participate.

You kiss your mother with that mouth? Serious, though, feel free to start ANOTHER thread on principles of natural law.[/quote]

Duly noted. Whether or not I'm sticking around is still up in the air, but feel free to start a thread and I'll play for as long as I'm here.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 24 2005, 08:16 PM']
Really? Before Christianity and related concepts of natural law, women were basically treated like slaves in most cultures.

Before Christian civilization, there was no concept of "human rights." [/quote]
Slaves to chattel. What a promotion.

[peach_cube]

If I ever meet Bill Maher I think I'll say










































"Your mom goes to college"

[curtins]

wow bill maher never herd of him

BUT WHO THE BLANK IS HE TO SAY THAT THE FUTURE DOES NOT BELONG TO RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT JUST GETS ME TICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yall are right about the homosexual thing tho. He would get fired and hed get an aclu lawsuit slapped on him. why oh why is it everyone else that gets ridiculed and oppressed are protected by all this but when it comes to religious more specifically Christians more specifically Catholics- its not biggoted to ridicule them or make fun of them etc etc

im sick of it

well just more that we must pray about


God help us

[crusader1234]

I wouldn't say that I agree with him, but I would say he has a point in that religion does justify a lot of crazies. People do all sorts of whacked out things in the name of God - hitting buildings with planes, claiming that trickle down economics are God's idea, cracking people over the head with rulers, etc. People do a lot of ungodly things and tie it into their faith which I feel is an unfortunate aspect of faith.

[MC Just]

He's an athiest now. He loves the hedonistic way.He hates the church because it tells him he cant be bad and go to heaven at the same time . It''s either amend your life and be good or go downstairs. Yeah there are many people especially comedians like him.

[Socrates]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Feb 25 2005, 09:19 PM'] I wouldn't say that I agree with him, but I would say he has a point in that religion does justify a lot of crazies. People do all sorts of whacked out things in the name of God - hitting buildings with planes, claiming that trickle down economics are God's idea, cracking people over the head with rulers, etc. People do a lot of ungodly things and tie it into their faith which I feel is an unfortunate aspect of faith. [/quote]
Crusader, pal, you're starting to sound like one of our atheist friends here. Crazies will do crazy things and find ways to justify it, with or without religion.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the Communists managed to commit the greatest number of attrocities of any regime in history while denying the existance of God.

People will do whacked out things in the name of class warfare, revolution, the "good of mankind," scientific progress, the environment, racial superiority, the crazy little voices in thier heads, or in the name of nothing at all!

(and as to your smirky "trickle-down economics" remark, others claim that a socialistic welfare state is the will of God.)

The fact that people sometimes do ungodly things in the name of faith is not an unfortunate aspect of faith (especially of the True Faith found in the Catholic Church), but of human nature.