Christian nation? Not US.

[Jack Sprat]

Not even close. We cannot resist a good war. We reject peace in all its forms. Rather than sharing with our neighbors, we express contempt for their state of poverty. Our churches preach intolerance as a way of life. We had a Christian for a president once. He is still trashed for being a pushover. He warned Iran's Shah of human rights abuses in the treatment of Iranian dissidents. Before the revolution came, he warned Americans living in Iran to leave immediately. When the hostages were taken he wanted them released unharmed. He did not know that Reagan's campaign was bargaining for their release after the election of 1980. Carter did not cook the financial books to remove fuel costs from the inflation index. Fed chairman Volker raised the prime rate to historical levels to keep inflation in check. Anyway, Carter will always be blamed for double digit inflation, too. In truth, wouldn't today's interest rates be as high or higher now, if the Fed operated under the rules it did in the late 70s? I'm just saying our United States is a Hypocrite Nation. When our CIA learns that some poorer nation has a benevolent leader who isn't willing to play ball with American corporations, don't they go to work immediately to depose him? Hasn't that been our history? When you stand back and observe the actions of our nation through an impartial eye, we are not the most uncivilized nation on earth. But, we rank up there very high for sure. My opinions, of course.

[Angela Shelley]

1. Go Jack Sprat!

[PDJane]

2. I have a problem with a Christian Nation

when the people living there don't read the bible...even though they profess to be christians.

[MNDemNY]

61. I have a problem with a christian nation.period.

[PDJane]

62. Yes, that too......

but ignorant Christianity seems to be a special breed of cat.

[beam me up scottie]

3. What would we need to do in order to be considered a "christian" nation?

Start another Inquisition?

Round up some heathens and burn them at the stake?

Imprison scientists whose theories contradict the stories in the bible?

[moggie]

8. ...

[varkam]

11. !

:spray:

[beam me up scottie]

12. Yay!

Microwave porridge for Scotsmen!!!

[moggie]

56. No true porridge is microwaved

Welcome back! So, I hear you're a repub now! Presumably you're supporting Mike Huckabee? :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

65. But is it okay to put artificial sweetener on it?

"So, I hear you're a repub now! "

Busted! I'm a rabid right wing conservative in drag. Me and Huck, we go way back! He's just the kind of theocrat we need to turn this heathen nation around.

Missed ya!

[varkam]

64. Uh-oh...

BMUS is back...

:hide:

:P

How ya doin'?

[beam me up scottie]

66. Sound the alarm! Apparently my evil ways have already inspired one new R/T thread

I think I may have broken my previous record; 12 hours and 16 minutes after my first post - and I wasn't even trying.

[uberllama42]

16. We would be Chritian

if we ate our porridge without any sugar....

[Jack Sprat]

13. I would think that you would need

to adhere to the teachings of Christ, or make some kind of pretense to. What we have is a predator nation that preys on the weakest internally and externally. When I make reference to the nation, I am referring to our people, of course, not simply our elected representatives. If the people are not inclined towards peace, brotherhood, sharing, then our elected representatives certainly are not. Some inclination towards Socialism would be a good start. Loving one another as ourselves, treating other peoples as we want to be treated. For example, attacking Iraq was a bad idea unless we like the idea of being attacked ourselves. Another might be demanding that other nations give up nuclear weapon development unless we plan to destroy our own vast arsenal. Strategically, I'm sure you would say that's a bad idea. But, there lies the utterly ridiculous hypocrisy that we Americans assume. My conjecture is that the allusion that some of us make of being a Christian nation is completely contrary to anything known of the teachings of Christ. In reality, we as a nation have absolutely rejected those teachings. It is the ultimate insult of Christ to call ourselves a Christian nation and behave as a rogue national bully. If Jesus Christ landed at Reagan Intl for a tour of the U.S., our CIA would very likely attempt to assassinate Him before He could catch a cab for His hotel room. What say you?

[beam me up scottie]

14. Please list the moral standards that are used to differentiate christians from non.

I would like to know how I should modify my behaviour so that I can live up to those standards, you see, since the word "christian" is used as a label to describe only the best human attributes.

[Jack Sprat]

18. You seem to have missed my intent

and direction. I was not differentiating between Christian and non-Christian morality. As far as I am aware of, there is no difference. Why should I want you to modify your behavior at all? It was the hypocrisy that I found deplorable. Scottie, you seem to be itching for some kind of argument, but I have none with you. Unless you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Now, that would indicate some need for a behavioral change on your part. Not that you may be Christian on non-Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

20. I doubt it. The fallacy in your op is extremely common on DU.

"We had a Christian for a president once."

On the contrary, most of our presidents have been christians, including the current one.

[Jack Sprat]

23. You are right there, scottie.

And I am turning the other cheek. Right you are, scottie. There have been more than one for sure. My op is not infallible. What gave you that opinion?

[beam me up scottie]

26. Infallible? What are you talking about?

Do you understand what a fallacy is?

[Jack Sprat]

28. It must be something awful whatever it is, scottie

What is it? Don't make me look it up.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Look it up.

This forum is called The Arena for a reason. If you wish to participate, be prepared to do some homework.

[Jack Sprat]

32. Now scottie. I have not been

forbidden to participate and I don't take orders from you. If you were reasonable, then you would know that. Really and truly, scottie, you do seem combative for whatever reasons. I tried to be agreeable and turned the other cheek. I did all I could do and it wasn't enough. I rest my case with you. I'm convinced that you would argue with the sun over its' decision to set in the west.

When you make the rules over who can participate and what they can say, let everybody know. It's only fair.

[beam me up scottie]

34. So you're unable to back up your statements?

Just as I thought.

A pity, really. I was hoping this forum had attracted some worthy opponents during my absence.

[Jack Sprat]

40. Here it is in summation, scottie

A pity, really. I was hoping this forum had attracted some worthy opponents during my absence.


This is all about your ego. This forum, that is. It's about your need to have opponents and win arguments. During your absence, King scottie? You mean, your domain?

Don't waste anyone else's time, scottie. Your ego is not worth our time. I know it isn't worth mine and you have wasted it.

[beam me up scottie]

43. You don't need to answer my questions. In fact, since you appear to be unable to back up your claims

you probably shouldn't get yourself in such a tizzy trying to decipher my posts.

FYI, this forum was dubbed The Arena by my friend IMModerate. It is where DU'ers come to discuss and debate matters of theology.

Threads can and frequently do get pretty rough in here, but many (if not most) of us enjoy it immensely.

I've been here a long time and I'm not going anywhere, Sprat.

Get used to it.

:hi:

[Jack Sprat]

48. Your pal Mr Wiggles fessed up, laddie.

The gig is up. You are Bushies. You're afraid of some kind of eternal condemnation for being Rethugs. That's you. Live with it. Nobody can help you.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Hate to dis your deity, but these are the only beings who can eternally condemn us:

And I have no intention of missing out on that beer volcano.

[Jack Sprat]

53. From now on scottie

Just save us all some time. When you make the scene here, just preface your remarks like this:

I, scottie, am a greedy, war for profit Rethug. I am lacking in morals, ethics, and self-respect. I am worthless and sniveling and bound for eternal punishment for my sins against humanity.

Had I known this early on or if you had been man enough to admit it, then I would have told you up front that no Rethug, more especially any Rethug president, has the slightest hint of a soul.

[cosmik debris]

54. A lesson in the rules

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.

Now I don't alert on newbies to this forum because you haven't figured out how to play well with others yet. But if you can't get it together, you won't make any friends here.

[Jack Sprat]

55. If you read the thread, you would

see.........never mind. You can't make peace with someone determined to war.

[Meshuga]

57. I now understand that you see Jesus was a sucker

for being such a peacenik.

With your OP one would think that you see "Christ-like behavior", or being a "true Christian", to be a virtue. But now I see that you think it isn't a virtue based on your own conduct. Well, good luck with your BS defining who is Christian and who is not based on standards that you don't even subscribe to yourself. If you are not a Christian then who the fuck are you to disqualify Christians and if you are a Christian how can you demand a certain set of principles from other Christians when you cannot even follow these principles yourself?

You are better off worrying about your own principles first before going around telling people how to behave in order to be considered Christians. Otherwise you give us reason to come to the conclusion that you are just another hypocrite.

[cosmik debris]

60. I read the thread and what I saw was that you repeatedly

violated the rules.

I'm not the DU police. I was just trying to give a little free advice to a person who doesn't seem to understand that when you show up in a forum where the veterans are well known and liked, it is just bad form to use childish attacks to avoid the subject being discussed.

You lost the argument, you lost the respect of many regulars, and you lost your own dignity when you lowered yourself to that level. It is too late to change that.

The up side to all this is that the R/T regulars now have a new "chew-toy" to play with. So when you get teeth marks on your ass, remember, It didn't have to be that way.

[beam me up scottie]

67. cosmik debris! Where are your manners?

You didn't offer our new little friend one of these:





(I thought they might like a choice of colours- what do you think?)

[cosmik debris]

69. I was saving that

But I got to the party late. It seems you already dispatched that interloper.

I keep telling you folks to play gently with your toys. If you break them on the first day, nobody else gets to play with them.

[beam me up scottie]

70. I'm sorry.

It's those cheap toys from overseas. I wish they'd get us some good old fashioned toys like Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys.

[TZ]

58. Name calling= lost argument

BMUS is an outspoken atheist. Somehow I doubt SHE would be welcome in the other party. Or are you saying atheists have no morals?And how is calling all republicans soulless any better than fundies calling me a soulless heathen?
I'm no bible scholar but isn't there something in there about not judging lest ye be judged?
Also, I've met fundies. Some of them are really nice people. And they do actually know the bible pretty well...to the point of finding every little petty quote to justify their bigotry.
The argument that only YOU know what a "true" christian is, is just as arrogant as those that preach I am doomed to hell as an atheist/secularist jew.
I have much more respect for the christians on this board that are honest and admit that they use the bible as a moral guide and not as the literal word of GOD.
The Pope bashes people as choosing ala cart religion. The truth is many Catholics do play fast and loose with official Church doctrine. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with others dismissing memebers of their religon who do things they don't approve of as "not true believers". You are living proof this judgementalism does not exist only on the other side of the aisle.

In other words: GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE and ADMIT THAT MANY CHRISTIANS DO UNPLEASANT THINGS IN THE NAME OF GOD.

[Meshuga]

59. The problem is that Jack Sprat cannot admit that Christianity...

...has its share of bad apples. I asked him/her whether he/she thought GWB was a Christian but according to Jack Sprat there are no bad apples in Christianity therefore I must be a Republican Bush lover for saying or implying that Bush is a Christian.

At first I thought Jack Sprat was playing dumb trying to insult me but I am starting to realize that I might be giving him/her too much credit for thinking he/she is "playing" dumb.

[beam me up scottie]

68. I think it's funny when posters assume I'm a dude and insult me accordingly.

Especially when they do it over and over and over again... :rofl:

[Jack Sprat]

27. Where did I say I was right about anything?

In the last line of my op, I said "my opinions, of course". Now, scottie, why fuss so much? Turn the other cheek for once in your life. Give peace a chance just one time in your life. Tune out and turn on.

[beam me up scottie]

33. If you're going to post your opinions be prepared to back them up, because you will be challenged.

What's this "fuss" you're referring to?

You are not a victim, your cheeks are unblemished, all I did was ask you to clarify your statements.

If my softball questions upset you this much, I can't wait to see you mix it up with the EAP.

[Jack Sprat]

36. I am a victim of you. If you would just get to whatever is

in your craw over what I said, I could have defended them. But, the only point that you have brought up is that I singled out only one president as a Christian. In fact, I knew there were other presidents who identified themselves as Christian. But I thought that was understood by any reader who possessed a shred of common or book sense. You didn't, of course, but anyone else would.

I have a question for you. Did you kill your Mother or were you born from an incestuous relationship?

[beam me up scottie]

38. So I've persecuted another one. Zeb was right, I am going to burn in hell.

[Jack Sprat]

46. Why didn't you tell me that you and your pal were

Bushies? That explains everything. I hurt your feelings because you thought I said Reagan was in hell and the Bush Crime Family was on their way there. Hey, don't blame this on God. Zeus, Hercules, any of them would have done the same thing. That I do know. :party: :bounce: All the deities will be bar-b-queing Rethug ass.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Actually, the odds and evidence would seem to put them in your club, not ours.

I'm invoking the NTA fallacy.

We put the blood of christian babies on our porridge, after all. ;)





edit: had to smite a rogue apostrophe

[Meshuga]

15. If Christians followed everything Jesus taught perhaps there would be no Christians today

For example, turning the other cheek would get a lot of Christians killed. Loving your enemy would make it easier for the enemy to kill you and wipe you out. Do you have to be a martyr to be a true Christian?

The question is, who is worthy to be a Christian if to be a Christian one would have to follow every teaching of Jesus? How many principles can you ignore without the fear of getting the membership card revoked?

[Jack Sprat]

19. That is why there is only one Christ

among the believers in Christ. Turning the other cheek is a far cry from busting somebody's chops for no reason. If you want to aspire to the principles, then you can certainly attempt to go in that direction. Because you can't be perfect doesn't mean you need to kill people out of frustration at not being perfect.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Where are the goal posts?

How are we supposed to disqualify people if you don't post the rules?

[Jack Sprat]

24. Disqualify them for what?

[beam me up scottie]

25. MrWiggles asked a pertinent question. Who is worthy?

"How many principles can you ignore without the fear of getting the membership card revoked?"

[Jack Sprat]

29. You are not Mr Wiggles, scottie, but I will answer the question

just the same. I don't know who is worthy.

[beam me up scottie]

31. If you don't know who is worthy, how can you disqualify all presidents but one?

[Jack Sprat]

35. I didn't disqualify anybody. Where are you

getting this stuff about me disqualifying anyone for anything. Disqualified for what? I asked you that before and you still haven't answered. You make the wildest assumptions and assertions. Disqualified for what? Heaven? the Pro Draft? What are you arguing about? I don't want to argue with you when I don't even know what you are arguing about. Take your medication if you need it. Stop worrying me. I only have so much patience. I'm tired of this and want to do read something else besides you, scottie. You have tied me up with a bunch of arguing and I don't even know what we are supposed to be debating over. I don't even know what you believe in or what you don't believe in. All I know is that you are obsessed with talking to me.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Your exact words were: "We had a Christian for a president once."

By using the qualifier "once" you inferred none of the other presidents were christians.

Nice try for a rookie, but this is a political forum, remember? I'm used to weasel words.

What were all of the other presidents if they weren't christians?

[Jack Sprat]

41. Cajuns, young lad. They were cajuns.

[Meshuga]

39. BMUS was not the only one to get the impression from the OP...

..that you were trying to disqualify some Christians just because they don't follow all teachings of Jesus. I also understood the OP as saying that Carter was the only Christian president when the current president (like many others before him) is a devout Christian.

So, to make things clear and so there is no more misunderstanding, can you tell us if you agree with the assertion that George W. Bush is a Christian?

[Jack Sprat]

42. George W Bush. You mean "W"? *?

Are you out of your mind? Hell no. He may profess to be. What didn't you and the other little lad, scottie, just come out and say you were Bushies. I'm no mind reader. No, you're hellbound, scottie is hellbound, and the Bush Crime Family is hellbound. That I'm certain of.

Now get along little dogies.

[cosmik debris]

44. Well, I'm glad to know that you are the ONE who decides

who is Christian and who is not. That must be a mighty burden on you, playing god and all.

[beam me up scottie]

45. He's the anointed one?

pht! :eyes:

I stayed up late for that?

Beloved Boyfriend is calling, I have to go sin now.

[Meshuga]

49. There is no need for the insults

I was just asking you a question to make sure I know your position. I would expect you to try to defend your position but instead you chose to be an ass. How disappointing.

[beam me up scottie]

51. I hope the rest of your evening is pleasant, MrWiggles.

As usual, I enjoyed your company and look forward to seeing more of my friends in the coming days. :hug:

[Meshuga]

52. I am glad to see you back!

:hug:

[BurtWorm]

77. Does Jesus tell you who is and isn't hellbound?

Or does God tell you directly? Is that how you know for "certain?"

(And you're calling Mr. Wiggles out of his mind? :eyes: )

[PoiBoy]

4. Very well said, Jack Sprat...

...very well said... thanks for your post...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. peace and love be with us.

[Hydra]

6. I'm sick of people who use Jesus as a get out of jail free card calling themselves "christians"

We are a world superpower, much like the former USSR and China. We crush people under our boots "for their own good."

Still, we may very well be a "Christian Nation" as a true reflection of most of the adherents of that faith: Spiteful, intolerant, greedy, sadistic, nihilistic, militant, paranoid, racist, abusive, domineering and destructive.

[vickitulsa]

7. Hey Jack, must be a GMTA day for us!

Not ten minutes ago as I watched the Weather Channel's forecast news for the nation, they showed a picture of the White House as they gave the DC weather report for today. The angle of the shot was not the usual one and this time happened to show the entire roof of the building.

Instantly what came to mind for me was the solar panels which Carter had had installed there, in what now seems to be almost prescient anticipation of the energy crisis slash global climate change events of present times.

Of course, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 had rudely awakened most Americans to the perils of so much dependence on other countries for our energy needs, as gasoline-at-the-pump prices soared to record levels and, even more alarming, many gas stations simply RAN OUT of fuel. Many of us remember well the very long lines of cars that wound around the block, where some folks inevitably ran out of gas in their own tanks while waiting for hours to purchase limited amounts.

Lots of very UNChristian behavior going on in those lines, too, as angry and desperate individuals sometimes even had fistfights with others when arguments over a place in line erupted. Hmmm ... I have to wonder how many "Christians," instead of attacking their neighbors, actually helped the ones who ran out of gas by joining in to push their cars along up to the pump?

Just musing of course -- mustn't go overboard with this line of thinking.

But I'm reminded, too, of another Weather Channel program I watched a few days ago (Forecast Earth) which showed how most of the Amish people living in Ohio have for some time embraced solar panel technology, using it on their homes and barns! And TWC has had stories recently, too, about a very few pastors in churches now who are actually "preaching green" to their congregations in a big way -- a very surprising development to me.

Native American tribes, in contrast to "Christian" European settlers in the West, had always believed that human beings should live in harmony with nature and do no harm to their sacred ancestral lands and environment. They were NOT Christian, either -- until, that is, they were evangelized and in many cases forced to adopt the beliefs of the invaders who conquered them violently and brutally.

Of course, all this is interesting food for thought, and we must be careful not to generalize overmuch because that's not really fair (or accurate in most cases). The few Christians I know personally who truly live what they profess, as Jesus taught, are quite opposed to the war-mongering, cruel, and exploitive actions of our government that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation.

I think you have it right, and that "Hypocrite Nation" would be a far more accurate appellation for the United States. Even from the days of the first European settlers -- the Pilgrims and others, many if not most of those religious groups who came here purportedly seeking "religious freedom" immediately set about trying to compel all who chose to live with or near them to accept their belief system and rejected all others!

Talk about hypocritical! Seems to me this country from its very founding has failed miserably to "walk the talk," though there have been periods when the U.S. was certainly far more charitable and peace-loving than it is now. Can't say it would have ever qualified as "Tree-Hugger Nation," though. :(

Personally, I have always noticed that those who actually behave in ways that reflect their professed Christian beliefs do not try to bully or badger others into adopting their tenets. Rather they seem to understand and follow Jesus's admonitions about not praying in public "to be seen of men" and instead pray in their "closets" as he instructed.


Oh, and about those solar panels Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof? Who was it, exactly, who had them immediately removed upon taking office?

[Random_Australian]

9. One the one hand, you mention a number of unpleasant things, and yes, they shouldn't happen.

On the other hand, all of those things can be believed and carried out by someone believes in Jesus' salvation/believes in the divinity of Jesus/is a christian.

So one can't conclude the US is not a christian nation.

One could, however, simply ask people, and find out that yes, the majority of the US is christian.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Christian Nation means something different from 'most of the citizens are Christians.'

They use it to imply that US laws should reflect their beliefs.

[TZ]

17. *gasp* ask people?

You crazy Aussie's might actually do that but here in this country its waaay cooler to just make assumptions.......;-)

[Jack Sprat]

22. On the other hand,

although the majority of the US may identify themselves as Christian, does that mean that they indeed are followers of Christ's teachings? Have they ever read the Bible? If many answered truthfully, the answer would be no. They may be Paulists or Jackians, or even Georgians. They may follow my teachings, but they feel more comfortable telling people they are Christians, instead of what they really are which is Jackians. I don't know why they won't acknowledge they believe in me. They just don't for whatever reason.

[Random_Australian]

71. Are you sure that the test is following Christ's teachings?

Because it seems more than a little subjective to me. Where do you draw the line, for instance? When do you say "ok, you've done enough research, now you are a True Christian"

"What they really are" are people who believe in the divinity of Christ. Is this not enough to make them Christians? Does religion actually require more than faith?

[TZ]

73. Not in this country apparantly

If you are a Christian of one political party..All the Christians in the opposing political party are "not true Christians".
The fundies call liberal Christians sinners..and the liberal Christians call the fundies "not really Christian" and hypocrites (the hypocracy thing is true enough).
This is why religion and politics should NEVER mix. But unhappily in this country, that seems near impossible.

[Meshuga]

74. How about, let's say... in some Latin American countries...

...Where there is a high rate of illiteracy? Some are devout Christians who have faith and Christianity is a big part of their lives. Can they be dissed and not be called "real Christians" just because they don't know enough biblical facts as a result of not being fortunate enough to learn how to read?

It is easy to sit back and judge who is Christian or who is not when you cannot see beyond your own cultural bubble.

If we base who is Christian and who is not based on who knows what Jesus actually said then there is no such thing as "Christian" anyway since anything that has been attributed to Jesus is nothing but hearsay.

But the original Christians are the people who believed in the anecdotes they were told about a supernatural son of god who rose from the dead and who was going to bring about eternal life to all who accepted him. The religion has developed new components since its original form (or forms) but all the changes and the different variations are still considered Christianity. Not accepting the different "flavors" (just because they leave a bad taste) borders bigotry.

On edit: change italicized

[cosmik debris]

75. You are beating a dead horse.

It has already been established that Jack Sprat alone has the wisdom and knowledge to decide who is Christian and who is not. He alone can see into the hearts and minds of people and know with certainty whether they are Christian sinners or completely apostate. Who are you to question his divine enlightenment?

And how dare you imply that bigotry is involved? Just because he says that his people are better than other people that doesn't mean....oh wait, yes it does. Never mind.

[Meshuga]

76. My closeted republican self (itching to come out)

is causing me to be unfair to the new anointed messiah.

[knitter4democracy]

63. History's made it pretty darn clear that there can't be Christian nations.

First of all, Jesus didn't die for nations but for souls. There's a difference. A collective entity like a nation or a college or a state doesn't have a soul, even though people make up its smaller parts. Jesus didn't die for the USA or England or Greece or Mount Vernon Nazarene College (my alma mater, sadly).

Secondly, look at all those nations and empires in history that claimed they were Christians. I say this as an Eastern Orthodox Christian--look at those nations and tell me how they're "Christian." They all fought wars (even taking icons into battle where they could get shot or destroyed--yeah, that's smart), they all tortured people, they all imprisoned innocents, and they all royally messed up the poor. Having an official state icon and putting a cross on your flag doesn't make it a Christian nation.

Instead, see what Jesus told us to do. Pray and fast in secret. Love our neighbors (even those we hate). Take care of the least of these in our community. That's something we all can do individually and even collectively up to a point. When profit and money get involved, though, it all falls apart (which is why Jesus warned us about that). Nations run on money, and corporations run on profit. They can't be Christian in behavior. It's that dang Mammon getting in the way.

I just wish more Christians were Christ-like. I'd settle for that.

[varkam]

72. You seem to have trouble understanding why some might take issue with your claims.

I'll try to break it down for you.

If I get what you're saying, then you're essentially co-opting moral principles like love and tolerance as specifically Christian principles - thereby leaving non-Christians twisting in the wind. The implication is that Christian = good person, non-Christian = bad person.

Moreover, you're denying even the possibility that a Christian could perpetrate hatred, intolerance, or bigotry. Not only does that miff the logic-lovers (as it's an example of a fallacy called the No True Scotsman fallacy), the language-lovers (as Christianity as a generally agreed upon definition - one who accepts the notion that Jesus is the son of God is generally regarded as a Christian), but also the history-lovers being that Christianity has been either a primary or ancillary factor in some of the ugliest chapters of human history (many of which are still being written in blood).

Finally, I've had this conversation before. Only it wasn't with a progressive Christian, it was with a SoBap fundamentalist preacher. He was advancing your conclusion (that the USA is not a Christian nation) albeit for different reasons: we permitted abortion, did not execute homosexuals, allowed women into the workplace, et cetera.

I'm not comparing your position to his. For what it's worth, I agree with you. Jesus said a lot about love, helping others, and caring for the poor and the infirm though looking around I don't think a lot of people take him seriously. What I am saying, though, is that everyone has their own parochial definition of Christianity and it's all based on the same source material. While many here agree with you, I submit that there are many others elsewhere that do not agree with you (more than that, they would charge heresy).

In the end, you've no more right to claim you know the truth than the SoBap preacher. This is the stuff that wars have been fought over, because that's how many religious disputes are ultimately settled: at the point of a blade or barrel of a gun. You're both arguing from the same material and, unfortunately, there's no ultimate authority to appeal to.

[heidler1]

78. IMO part of why you got burned on this post is because of the difference between Jesus and Christ.

Jesus was a generous guy who fed the poor and supposedly performed miracles for the poor's benefit and his life style set the example for a whole new religion. To me a whole lot of conflict comes up when Jesus is called Christ (Mr Wiggles hints at this difference in several previous responses.) Why the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Christ was due to the fact that Jesus, as told in the NT, did not set out to restore Jewish power as promised in the Christ legend. I believe the majority of humans want a powerful leader who will kick ass even though this attitude has consistently lead to the downfall of all governments that did it. Labeling Jesus as the Christ brings love of warfare into church and of so called Christian Nations.