• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do unto others...that pretty much covers it for me. If my enemies do not love me then don't expect me to love them. It's not a commandment. It's a bargain.
No, Jesus wasn't suggesting that his disciples "bargain" in their own rationalizations about dealing with an enemy. His language is in the imperative and doesn't leave that option open to "true Christians."
Your call if you don't want to defend any given position. I guess I'll manage without and be so much the poorer for the lack of any examples of 'academic thinking'.

The fortunate thing for me is that while you have your "personalized" version of Jesus, and I have mine. In mine, loving one's enemy doesn't include always giving in to his goading ad infinitum........................................................................................................................................................

Gotta love academic, scholarly hermeneutics. It helps me realize that where human beings are concerned, context is everything whether it's in my attempt to understanding Jesus' difficult commands or even in gaining psychological insight into the causation involved in Sapolsky's feelings of "infruriation" regarding the presence of religion in the world (at least, as he reports his understanding of religion such as it is at the present moment):

Religion Is Nature's Antidepressant | Robert Sapolsky | Big Think​


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,711
16,386
55
USA
✟412,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No, Jesus wasn't suggesting that his disciples "bargain" in their own rationalizations about dealing with an enemy. His language is in the imperative and doesn't leave that option open to "true Christians."


The fortunate thing for me is that while you have your "personalized" version of Jesus, and I have mine. In mine, loving one's enemy doesn't include always giving in to his goading ad infinitum........................................................................................................................................................

Gotta love academic, scholarly hermeneutics. It helps me realize that where human beings are concerned, context is everything whether it's in my attempt to understanding Jesus' difficult commands or even in gaining psychological insight into the causation involved in Sapolsky's feelings of "infruriation" regarding the presence of religion in the world (at least, as he reports his understanding of religion such as it is at the present moment):

Religion Is Nature's Antidepressant | Robert Sapolsky | Big Think​


I'm kind of surprised believers of any stripe post things like this video. If I had to summarize the video it would be that religion serves as a coping mechanism or salve for the mental health of humans. If there wasn't a religion available to serve that purpose, they would invent a new one. It really doesn't put any argumentative power behind the truth of any religion, but rather erodes it for all.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm kind of surprised believers of any stripe post things like this video. If I had to summarize the video it would be that religion serves as a coping mechanism or salve for the mental health of humans. If there wasn't a religion available to serve that purpose, they would invent a new one. It really doesn't put any argumentative power behind the truth of any religion, but rather erodes it for all.

As it is, the video wasn't for you, Hans. Of course you're right: a video from atheist neuroscientist, Robert Sapolksy, isn't going to bolster the value of Christianity to the world, especially to a world that's working overtime to alleviate itself of the figure of Jesus Christ, as if He was just so much used toilet paper.

I already know the video isn't useful for that. But thanks for your input.

As for Sapolsky's "infuriation" over the presence of religion, you're free to comment on it if you so wish.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Niels

Woodshedding
Mar 6, 2005
17,345
4,666
North America
✟424,460.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think it is useful here to print out the text of the Mayflower Compact. It's quite short and we can all see for ourselves how well it lives up to the claims made for it.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal Subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant, and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11. of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini 1620.

In particular, I have a hard time seeing how a colony established specifically tor "the advancement of the Christian faith" can be regarded as a beacon of religious freedom. As to being pioneers of democratic government and the rule of law, the Jamestown colony elected it's first legislature in 1619, the year before the Plymouth colony was founded.
Right. It was one of many early documents that laid groundwork (note that I didn't say it was the only one) for what we have today. The Mayflower Compact, along with other documents, were referenced and built upon as the US formed over time. You also mentioned the Jamestown colony. Although there were many differences between them, they were also predominantly Christians rather than predominantly deists.

The following line is key:
"combine ourselves together into a civil body politick"

It's worth reiterating that the separatist puritan Plymouth settlers didn't think the Church of England was redeemable and wanted to live their faith as they saw fit. More than half of them were "strangers" who were not part of the core religious group. Also, the Plymouth colonists seemed to get along well enough with the natives.

The colony was indeed a beacon of religious freedom from governmental overreach. We need to consider these events in their historical and cultural context. It may not have been open invitation to those with whom they might have disagreed with, but was an exercise in religious freedom in and of itself. One that helped set the tenor for subsequent social trends.
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

The pickles are up to something
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
22,317
18,278
✟1,443,180.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'm kind of surprised believers of any stripe post things like this video. If I had to summarize the video it would be that religion serves as a coping mechanism or salve for the mental health of humans. If there wasn't a religion available to serve that purpose, they would invent a new one. It really doesn't put any argumentative power behind the truth of any religion, but rather erodes it for all.
An opiate by another name would....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,084
15,708
72
Bondi
✟371,199.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, Jesus wasn't suggesting that his disciples "bargain" in their own rationalizations about dealing with an enemy. His language is in the imperative and doesn't leave that option open to "true Christians."
If someone wants to be my enemy then I will try to resolve the matter. To the point of trying to rehabilitate rather than punish. Repent and I'll grant you a certain degree of forgiveness. If they continue to do me harm then continuing to forgive is the action of a fool. The bargain has been broken.

You can tell him that you love him each and every time he beats and robs your family. That's your call.
 
Upvote 0

Niels

Woodshedding
Mar 6, 2005
17,345
4,666
North America
✟424,460.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I am very seriously underwhelmed.

All they did was 'combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick...' and said they'd make laws and ordinances such as required. Short of reverting to some sort of Lord of The Flies scenario, what would you really expect?
Seems like common sense today, doesn't it? Well, it wasn't so common back then.

The post that I replied to erroneously dismissed the colony as a theocracy while also lumping them in with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The latter was more aligned with the Church of England and arranged their government as such. A bunch of Christians (or Jews, or Pagans, or whatnot) who agree to self govern isn't a theocracy just because they happen to be one religion or another.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,084
15,708
72
Bondi
✟371,199.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Seems like common sense today, doesn't it? Well, it wasn't so common back then.

The post that I replied to erroneously dismissed the colony as a theocracy while also lumping them in with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The latter was more aligned with the Church of England and arranged their government as such. A bunch of Christians (or Jews, or Pagans, or whatnot) who agree to self govern isn't a theocracy just because they happen to be one religion or another.
I agree. But if you have any group of people leaving one society to form another, then they will undoubtedly set up rules and regulations for how that society should work. If they didn't then they wouldn't have a society.
 
Upvote 0

Niels

Woodshedding
Mar 6, 2005
17,345
4,666
North America
✟424,460.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I agree. But if you have any group of people leaving one society to form another, then they will undoubtedly set up rules and regulations for how that society should work. If they didn't then they wouldn't have a society.
There would be some form of governance. We agree on that.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If someone wants to be my enemy then I will try to resolve the matter. To the point of trying to rehabilitate rather than punish. Repent and I'll grant you a certain degree of forgiveness. If they continue to do me harm then continuing to forgive is the action of a fool. The bargain has been broken.

You can tell him that you love him each and every time he beats and robs your family. That's your call.

I think Jesus would somewhat agree with your sentiments here.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,711
16,386
55
USA
✟412,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Thats because you came along well after this transition. We have had 200 years of progression and over the last 50 years we have been more on the No God and secular ideology side with social norms and worldview within the public square.
While I knew you were making a claim about society in general, it does resemble the path out of religion that some people take.
So people are going to be born into secularism.
Not me. I was forcibly baptized before I could hold up my own head.
I think they have good reason to. Endowed by their created is another way of saying God created us.
Any decent historian of the American Enlightenment and Revolution will tell you otherwise.
Thats the point people keep missing that even language is a different metaphycis to secular ideology that makes humans the gods that determine who we are and our worth.
That's not how deism works, which is what is implied in the Declaration.
Thats because God and Christainity is working within a fallen world and so its a gradual process of changing minds and systems. CHristains were working behind the scenes trying to gradually change the system before it happened. They have always been at the forefront in welfare and looking after people.
Classic excusagetics. (We'll come back to this.)
Not really. Theres more than one way to measure progress. Yes rational thinking and science has brought many great things. But
of course there was a "but", there is always a "but" when we equvicate about progress to push an agenda.
at the same time society seems to have lost its moral compass and meaning.
I have the feeling we have different ideas about moral progress and regress...
More people are suffering meental illness and ending their lives. Substance abuse is prevelent and people are struggling to live in suppodely modern advanced nations.
Is that somehow actually changing or new? Can it be demonstrated to being less religious as a society?
Society is divided by identity politics to the point anti-semetism and violence against people is now increasing. The US is at risk from homegrown terrorism and the world is hovering on the bring of war.
Brink of war? Wars have been going on somewhere for a very long time. What's any of this got to do with more secularism?
Climate change is a real concern, where all dreading the next pandemic and thats if its not due to some totalitarian State trying to impose their will on the people as democracy is dying in what use to be free nations.
It ain't western secularists to blame for that.
I don't want to get into the slavery thing as its more contextual than your making out.
There is, but I do know what I am talking about and it isn't a good look for your scriptures.
All I can say is that yes there were aspects that went along with slavery and there were reasons why non Hebrew slaves were treated differently. One was they could not convert to Hebrew.j
I guess people weren't treated equally then.
So even owning them was discouraged. Which then means they were enslaving Hebrews more than non Hebrews.
Something about you may buy your slaves from the other nations.
But slavery was not even what you think it was so your equating todays morals with 1,000s of years ago.
It wasn't as different as you like to think. And it would seem that morals have improved. So much for the degradation of morals under non-Christian influence.
This shows how our worldview and different paradigms can blind us from seeing different points of view.

First there are 100's if not 1,000s of examples of how God had warned or revealed to people their sin or a choice and God allowed them to choose sometimes waiting 100s of years. Allowing them to choose against God. God did not intervene and make them.

God gave Sodem heeps of chances to repent. Abraham pleaded with God if even 50 then 10 and down to 1 person could repent and be saved and Gog gave them that chance each time before he cast His judgement on them.

Revelations 3:20 says "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me". That shows Jesus waits patiently at the door and allows the person to choose to open the door before He will enter.
So, a bunch of stories about choosing sin and punishment or not. Some choice. This is not relevant to the originating comments about choosing government.
The point is that despite the Constitution saying there was a seperation of church and State that did not happen right away and Christainity underpinned social norms and laws for some time. Even up until the 1970's. So the idea of seperation is a bit misleading.
I'm not sure you quite know what separation of religion and government actually means. It's not about social norms or even if people use their religious opinions when they decide on politicians to vote for. Violations are permitted to exist from time to time and they come and go (they are building now), but we have had effective separation of church and state from the beginning. Maybe you should read up on your own section 116 first.
Yes and I said that predominately the early colonies were founded on Christain and biblical beliefs whether Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Quaker, Pilgrim or Puritan.
What Christian/biblical belief were the commercial colonies founded on? which book is "the queen needs more gold" located?
Ah something I read in relation to the period of formulating the Constitution and then it being ratified by all the colonies or states at the time.
The US Constitution was formulated in the Summer of 1787 in a single room in Philadelphia and ratified by enough states to trigger elections by late 1788.
Ok so I have read varying accounts but most state that the majority of colonies were one denomination or another of Christains.
They had state religions (all Christian, most were Anglican) except Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, but that doesn't mean everyone participated or believed. (See modern European nations with state religions.)
So maybe something happened and many people fell out with their belief by 1776. But it doesn't make sense that such a sudden and dramatic change should happen like that especially with belief.
What sudden dramitic change? All we have is some vague data spaced out over decades and generations. Things can move much faster than that without being "sudden".
If surveys show 90% belief in 1900 then whatever happened in 1776 had then reversed back to pre 1776. So something strange is going on there with the data.
What surveys from 1900?
Also what I find strange is that I am pretty sure I can find norms and laws with that time period of pre or post 1776 that were based on CHristain beliefs and the bible. If there was only 1 in 5 or 6 Christains how can a society and government favor Christain belief to underpin their norms and laws. Thats more or less imposing a minority on the majority.
If that is correct, then yes it is. (Note above almost all had state religions). And as we noted before, membership underestimates, surveys overestimate. That leaves a lot of flexibility to determine the number of "nominal Christians".
What was wrong with the Pew report from the 1900.
It doesn't exist. There was no Pew Research Center (the pubisher) until 1990. The funder (Pew Charitable Trusts) was founded in 1948 with money from an oil man that was a school boy in 1900.
Also the link you have used is about church membership and attendence. As it states the attendence can be underestimated as for example rural folk may not attend church. In fact there may be many that don't attend a church but are Christain.
Wait until you find out how infrequently rural people attended church in the Middle Ages...
Yes I agree that we have seen a decline in the second half of the 20th century and especially say post 2000.
You are skipping right past church membership, participation *rising* in the mid-20th century before it starts to fall. It goes up, it goes down. The past is not a land of monolithic uniform, and complete Christianity even in the "Christian countries".
I think around the Enlightenment is when the decline started which makes sense in that this was when people were questioning the church and then human reason rationalised that people could exist with a God as nature had all the answers.
You can't make this quantitative measure because there isn't good data. Certainly not "do you believe" surveys. Other proxies have their limitations as we have already discussed.
Hum, certainly its important to reason and the bible does tell us to question and use reason in our judgements. Not to just blindly accept something.

Looks like we're going to need some more citations...
But I am not sure rationality is something we can equate with social issues. Rationalists can reason that inhumane ideas as based on human ideology. There is no basis outside the instrumental and functional. Afterall there were rationalist arguements for slaves just as there were religious ones.

What actually changed was applying the Christain truth principle of human worth being grounded in something beyond human rationalisations. The problem with humans playing God is that we are not all knowing and imperfect and have a tendency to blind ourselves to sin thinking it is nobel when its not.
This wasn't an invitation to bring up your favorite social issues. "Better ideas about society", you know like "elected governments", "human and civil rights", "personal freedoms", and determining the way things work through regularized and rational methodologies (science).

But I agree that The Enlightenment was needed. The Church had become dogmatic and power went to their heads. In some ways this brought the church back down to earth.
Umm. that was the Reformation, not the Enlightenment.
But still the Enlightenment was seen through the prism of a Christain and to a lesser extent a Deistic and natural worldview which is very different from later incarnations and especially today.

It was a gradual de-evolution from the Christain and God worldview to the secular ideological one. The Enlightenment had varying effects. It made Christainity more focused on reasoning faith and understanding Gods creation better in nature thus strengthen faith.
I think you are rambling now. Not sure what your point is.
But at the same time this rational thought led to finding naturalistic explanations instead of some creator God. Thus led to people falling away from the church. Maybe a necessary evil.

But still we are sort have come full circle as the biggest issue today despite all the rationality and success oif material science explaining GOd away is that more people than ever are lost and lack meaning. They are still looking. All that rationalism hasn't really explained things.
The function of science is not to explain away any god.
I might cut this one short as well. I like shorter chunks and to break things up lol.
I wish your definition of "short" wasn't quite so long. :)
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,711
16,386
55
USA
✟412,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
As it is, the video wasn't for you, Hans.
i didn't say it was for me. I was just astonished that you posted it.
Of course you're right:
This is how people usually greet me. :)
a video from atheist neuroscientist, Robert Sapolksy, isn't going to bolster the value of Christianity to the world,
why would anyone think that was your purpose in posting it?
especially to a world that's working overtime to alleviate itself of the figure of Jesus Christ, as if He was just so much used toilet paper.
What a nasty analogy. I have no need to refer Jesus of Nazareth in terms even anything like that (even when out of range of the CF mods). He's a long dead preacher/teacher/traveling sage with some good ideas and some bad ideas (if we can take the sources seriously). Like Prof. Sapolsky, I would rather people not deify or worship him or build religions around him or anyone else, but that seems to be humanity's impulse.
I already know the video isn't useful for that. But thanks for your input.
It is the way that the video lays out how humans have an impulse to soothe their savage hearts with beliefs regardless of their truth that I find it perplexing a supporter for a particular belief would distribute it. (It was the knowledge that religions can be artificial and untrue [see the origins of Scientology and Mormonism] that left my own faith vulnerable to collapse when I learned the Bible wasn't quite what I had been told and realized how human its nature was.)
As for Sapolsky's "infuriation" over the presence of religion, you're free to comment on it if you so wish.
I also find it infuriating, but more so a sad commentary on our human deficiencies.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
i didn't say it was for me. I was just astonished that you posted it.
Prepare to be.......................astonished then. I have no problem with trotting out the MOST acerbic atheistic content available; the Sapolsky video I posted is fairly light academic fair as far as I'm concerned, whether it reflects or deflects from the Christian faith. Why do I do this? Because I think that both God, Himself, and the reality He's placed us in are bigger than the Bible alone. So, I'm intrepid.


This is how people usually greet me. :)
Yep. I hope they do.
why would anyone think that was your purpose in posting it?
I don't assume I know what anyone thinks these days. Still, clairvoyance would be a grand thing to have.
What a nasty analogy. I have no need to refer Jesus of Nazareth in terms even anything like that (even when out of range of the CF mods). He's a long dead preacher/teacher/traveling sage with some good ideas and some bad ideas (if we can take the sources seriously). Like Prof. Sapolsky, I would rather people not deify or worship him or build religions around him or anyone else, but that seems to be humanity's impulse.
Yes, it is a nasty analogy, but I've more or less heard most of what the continuum of atheistic ex-Christians has had to say, so I just borrow a few idioms here and there.
It is the way that the video lays out how humans have an impulse to soothe their savage hearts with beliefs regardless of their truth that I find it perplexing a supporter for a particular belief would distribute it.
Well, like Luke Skywalker, I'm sure you'll find me full of surprises ...............
(It was the knowledge that religions can be artificial and untrue [see the origins of Scientology and Mormonism] that left my own faith vulnerable to collapse when I learned the Bible wasn't quite what I had been told and realized how human its nature was.)
That's a whole other thing. Fortunately, I didn't have to suffer from "the collapse." My family didn't engage in Christianity in a way that set me up for that sort of disappointment; instead, I've just had the occasional existential crisis.

Still, I'm sorry it collapsed for you.
I also find it infuriating, but more so a sad commentary on our human deficiencies.

I find it sad that Sapolsky finds it infuriating. But I think I understand why .......................it's a common malady these days among his folk, and I can understand the reasons that play into it.

However, unlike Sapolsky, the Christian faith----------or more precisely, the person of Jesus Christ-----------gave me a reason to want to keep plodding through Mirkwood each and every day. That, and a couple hundred of brilliant Christian minds that I've gleaned from over the years.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,711
16,386
55
USA
✟412,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Prepare to be.......................astonished then. I have no problem with trotting out the MOST acerbic atheistic content available; the Sapolsky video I posted is fairly light academic fair as far as I'm concerned, whether it reflects or deflects from the Christian faith. Why do I do this? Because I think that both God, Himself, and the reality He's placed us in are bigger than the Bible alone. So, I'm intrepid.



Yep. I hope they do.

I don't assume I know what anyone thinks these days. Still, clairvoyance would be a grand thing to have.

Yes, it is a nasty analogy, but I've more or less heard most of what the continuum of atheistic ex-Christians has had to say, so I just borrow a few idioms here and there.
I wish I could provide you with new content... I lurks inside me.
Well, like Luke Skywalker, I'm sure you'll find me full of surprises ...............
I'll pass on quoting TWOK today.
That's a whole other thing. Fortunately, I didn't have to suffer from "the collapse." My family didn't engage in Christianity in a way that set me up for that sort of disappointment; instead, I've just had the occasional existential crisis.
They weren't weird or anything, just regular, faithful Catholics. No crazy stuff. "The collapse" was more of an erosion so slow I didn't really notice it happened until well after it was over. I wasn't disappointed and nothing serious other than the occasional bit of existential dread when the heat death of the Universe came up.
Still, I'm sorry it collapsed for you.
I'm not. I'm glad it is over. It has liberated me from defending the undefendable.
I find it sad that Sapolsky finds it infuriating. But I think I understand why .......................it's a common malady these days among his folk, and I can understand the reasons that play into it.
There is so much in religions that is hard to justify under the assumption the base beliefs are true, but they become quite intolerable when you assume they are false. Not sure if that's the reason you had in mind for his folk or not. (See your referenced lack of certain skills above.)
However, unlike Sapolsky, the Christian faith----------or more precisely, the person of Jesus Christ-----------gave me a reason to want to keep plodding through Mirkwood each and every day. That, and a couple hundred of brilliant Christian minds that I've gleaned from over the years.
Whatever gets you through the night.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,593
4,298
82
Goldsboro NC
✟260,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Seems like common sense today, doesn't it? Well, it wasn't so common back then.

The post that I replied to erroneously dismissed the colony as a theocracy while also lumping them in with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The latter was more aligned with the Church of England and arranged their government as such. A bunch of Christians (or Jews, or Pagans, or whatnot) who agree to self govern isn't a theocracy just because they happen to be one religion or another.
But the Plymouth colony wasn't the first and only, as was alleged. And that is not to mention the Iroquois League, which was already a representative democracy before the Europeans got here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Niels

Woodshedding
Mar 6, 2005
17,345
4,666
North America
✟424,460.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But the Plymouth colony wasn't the first and only, as was alleged. And that is not to mention the Iroquois League, which was already a representative democracy before the Europeans got here.
I agree with you, but the Mayflower Compact was an influential document (among others) drafted by a group of Christians that inspired US founders on the East Coast. My intent wasn't to suggest first or only. Influential things are rarely the first and only of their kind. That sometimes happens, but ideas tend to float around for a while before getting traction, or are remembered and return at a later date. Similar developments can also occur independently. People assess the state of things and make intuitive connections regarding what comes next. I also think forms of democratic and representational governments can arise naturally wherever people are found. From the Greeks to the Vikings to some native American nations. Unfortunately, this can be an uphill battle as there is also a competing human tendency to seek power at the expense of others.

I do not wish to downplay the Iroquois League. Rather, to address a mischaracterizations of the Plymouth Colony as a theocracy and inconsequential.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I wish I could provide you with new content... I lurks inside me.
I'm sure it does.
I'll pass on quoting TWOK today.
Lol.
They weren't weird or anything, just regular, faithful Catholics. No crazy stuff. "The collapse" was more of an erosion so slow I didn't really notice it happened until well after it was over. I wasn't disappointed and nothing serious other than the occasional bit of existential dread when the heat death of the Universe came up.
Then "collapse" is probably an overstatement. In my own case by contrast, my family didn't build anything religious into me that amounted to all that much, so when I finally did engage Christianity in full on my own power apart from them, it was like I was stepping into a whole new paradigm.
I'm not. I'm glad it is over. It has liberated me from defending the undefendable.
I wouldn't cast the Christian faith as "undefendable." That's a stretch.

Sure, there may be some aspects of Christianity that many of us don't find to be "sufficient," but subjective feelings about sufficiency of evidence aren't really the litmus test of a person's ability to discern whatever reality may reside within an essentially Christian worldview.
There is so much in religions that is hard to justify under the assumption the base beliefs are true, but they become quite intolerable when you assume they are false. Not sure if that's the reason you had in mind for his folk or not. (See your referenced lack of certain skills above.)
No, the reason I was referring is that Sapolsky is Jewish and many, if not most, Jewish people today are inclined toward either atheism or general disbelief.
Whatever gets you through the night.

It's good to know that I have your support for my efforts to keep myself sane in an ever less than sane world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,593
4,298
82
Goldsboro NC
✟260,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Right. It was one of many early documents that laid groundwork (note that I didn't say it was the only one) for what we have today. The Mayflower Compact, along with other documents, were referenced and built upon as the US formed over time. You also mentioned the Jamestown colony. Although there were many differences between them, they were also predominantly Christians rather than predominantly deists.

The following line is key:
"combine ourselves together into a civil body politick"
How progressive of them. In the meantime Jamestown already had an elected legislature up and running and a charter that detailed how it was to work. But I get it. Jamestown was C of E, the wrong kind of Christianity entirely, we can't have them being first or taking credit for being an influence on our founding fathers.
It's worth reiterating that the separatist puritan Plymouth settlers didn't think the Church of England was redeemable and wanted to live their faith as they saw fit. More than half of them were "strangers" who were not part of the core religious group. Also, the Plymouth colonists seemed to get along well enough with the natives.

The colony was indeed a beacon of religious freedom from governmental overreach. We need to consider these events in their historical and cultural context. It may not have been open invitation to those with whom they might have disagreed with, but was an exercise in religious freedom in and of itself. One that helped set the tenor for subsequent social trends.
The Pilgrams left England because they were being persecuted. They moved to the Netherlands because of the greater degree of religious freedom found there, but disc0vered that under those circumstance it was harder to keep their flock from going astray so they determine to remove to the relative isolation of a colony in the new world. They were seeking religious freedom for themselves, not others as a general principle.

Then there is this, from the Carolina Consitituions of 1669:

"No person whatsover shall disturb, molest, or persecute another for his speculative opinions in religion, or his way of worship."

That was written by John Locke, but his influence on the founding fathers has to be suppressed as well, because he was also the wrong kind of Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,711
16,386
55
USA
✟412,215.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I'll just respond to this bit, the rest need not be stretched out any further.
I wouldn't cast the Christian faith as "undefendable." That's a stretch.
It's the supernaturalism of it that I find the most indefensible, particularly the way that widespread belief in such distorts society and our ability to deal with other supernaturalism and with "magical thinking".
Sure, there may be some aspects of Christianity that many of us don't find to be "sufficient," but subjective feelings about sufficiency of evidence aren't really the litmus test of a person's ability to discern whatever reality may reside within an essentially Christian worldview.
[WARNING: On topic material] To me the biggest problems with Christianity (and why it is a net negative to society) is that because Jesus was a religious figure and this religion grew around him, his teachings are now "holy writ" and the questionable and non-helpful ones can't be edited or discarded.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: MotoToTheMax
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,628
11,486
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,963.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'll just respond to this bit, the rest need not be stretched out any further.

It's the supernaturalism of it that I find the most indefensible, particularly the way that widespread belief in such distorts society and our ability to deal with other supernaturalism and with "magical thinking".
Honestly, I'm scratching my head trying to understand your epistemic implications here, Hans. This compound statement seems too general to be saying anything of much substance, other than: "Yeah, this Christian thing----it's been going on for a while and..........well, it bothers me!"

I don't think it can be said that Christianity™ has done what you imply it has done to, and within, society. Rather, I'm tempted to say that your perception of this is somewhat, even if not wholly, specious. On the other hand, I do think that Scientism™ has distorted society and our ability to appreciate and value other modes of knowledge and well-being, particularly those that are claimed as being a part of Christianity™.
[WARNING: On topic material] To me the biggest problems with Christianity (and why it is a net negative to society) is that because Jesus was a religious figure and this religion grew around him, his teachings are now "holy writ" and the questionable and non-helpful ones can't be edited or discarded.

I'm really not understanding your negative evaluation about how you think Jesus' teachings as "holy writ" is troublesome. How is this a problem? And which "questionable and non-helpful ones" are you referring to?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0