How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Constant questioning and disagreement is what drives new discoveries.

So it was with Covid. We learned a great deal in a very short time, by open discussion. The sheep just kept saying over and over "it's a hoax...it's a hoax..." Once the politicians came up with a "miracle cure", they refused to look at the research results, showing that whatever snake oil they were peddling was actually more dangerous than helpful.

You may have seen Dr. Fauci yesterday claim in an interview that any "attack" on him is an attack on science.

Link? Show us that.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,246
2,918
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So it was with Covid. We learned a great deal in a very short time, by open discussion. The sheep just kept saying over and over "it's a hoax...it's a hoax..." Once the politicians came up with a "miracle cure", they refused to look at the research results, showing that whatever snake oil they were peddling was actually more dangerous than helpful.

Yeah. That's one interpretation. The propaganda has been quite strong. The evidence? Not so much...

Link? Show us that.

Sure thing. The exact quote was;

So if you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.
Fauci: Attacks on me are really also 'attacks on science'
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Don't know about you, but I'm in the world, but not of it. Works for me.



Demagogues do it all the time. The religious wars in Europe were predominately caused by political hijacking of religion. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are examples. The Crusades were so. It's why Madison crafted such a strong Bill of Rights. He cited the hijacking of religion for political purposes as one of the key evils that had persisted in Christianity.

Also, what was wrong with the crusades exactly? As in conceptually, why was it wrong for the Crusaders to want to liberate the holy land from Muslim hands? Do you oppose the Reconquista too?



If so, Jesus would certainly not have advised his followers to let Caesar have what is Caesar's. His way didn't last long for some people. By Constantine, it was overtly seen as a way to power. "In hoc signo vinces."


If Christianity was utterly apolitical it would have remained an impotent cult and the world as we know it would be either Muslim or Pagan.

If we're also going to use the religious wars in Europe as an example of why Christians shouldn't get into politics or why our faith should not inform society's values, should we make secularists give up political power for ww1 and ww2? Or what about modern wars of the American Empire to bring and force democracy on the peoples of the Middle East?

Or are only Secular Republicans allowed to deal with matters of the state, war and law?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If Christianity was utterly apolitical it would have remained an impotent cult

It has an advantage other religions do not. Can you guess what that is?

If we're also going to use the religious wars in Europe as an example of why Christians shouldn't get into politics

If we do, it's all your doing. Not what I said. We just disobey God if we try to impose our religion on others who don't want it.

why our faith should not inform society's values

You don't "inform" by force or by government edict. Think about the time when the apostles were still working for Jesus:

"See how they love one another." That's how Christianity became the major religion of the Roman Empire.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It has an advantage other religions do not. Can you guess what that is?



If we do, it's all your doing. Not what I said. We just disobey God if we try to impose our religion on others who don't want it.



You don't "inform" by force or by government edict. Think about the time when the apostles were still working for Jesus:

"See how they love one another." That's how Christianity became the major religion of the Roman Empire.

It's disobeying God to impose our religion on others? Why did God condemn the Israelites for their tolerance of the High places? Why would God condemn Constantine or any other Emperor for outlawing Pagan Sacrifices or Temples and turning them into Churches? Does God care about the profane rights of the heathen?

As to the one advantage we have that other religions have, that's obvious, we have God. Yet what makes you think that by abandoning all power and political concerns that Christians would dominate in such a world? Especially if a hostile regime against Christianity were to take decisive action against the Church? Did the Orthodox Church benefit under Stalin? Did it prosper under the Turks? What about North African Christianity under Islam? Did being in a position of servitude strengthen the faith in Tunisia or lead to it's gradual erasure? I admire the Coptics for their resilience, but why should we resign ourselves to becoming like they are? An unimportant minority in a country that by rights should have been their inheritance?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So it was with Covid. We learned a great deal in a very short time, by open discussion. The sheep just kept saying over and over "it's a hoax...it's a hoax..." Once the politicians came up with a "miracle cure", they refused to look at the research results, showing that whatever snake oil they were peddling was actually more dangerous than helpful.

Yeah. That's one interpretation.

Informed by actual research and data. Why do you think the hydroxychloroquine promotion went away?

The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15).
Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 - PubMed

For example, he pointed to criticism that "he should be fired because he in the beginning changed his mind about masks," initially saying the general public did not need masks, before later saying they did.

Fauci said he was simply following the science that was known at the time, along with the surgeon general and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Initially, he said there was thought to be a shortage of masks, there was no evidence masks worked outside of a hospital setting with medical-grade masks and the extent of asymptomatic transmission was not known.

When the understanding on those three factors changed, the recommendation changed, Fauci said.

"As a scientist, as a health official, when those data change, when you get more information, it's essential that you change your position because you've got to be guided by the science and the current data," he said.

Fauci: Attacks on me are really also 'attacks on science'

You don't get that? He was following what was known at the time, including CDC guidelines.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,246
2,918
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't get that? He was following what was known at the time, including CDC guidelines.

Nope. I asked in another thread, and was ignored, why Fauci sent this email at the beginning of the pandemic;
Fauci-Masks-Virus Email.jpg


The primary reason he gave for not recommending wearing a mask was that that they are "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material". When pressed on this, Fauci simply said that as the science evolved, so did his recommendations.

So my question is, did "the science" suddenly show that the virus was larger than they originally thought? Nope.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's disobeying God to impose our religion on others?

Yep. He never told you to do that. In fact, He told you to not do that.

Why did God condemn the Israelites for their tolerance of the High places?

Maybe you should take part in the New Covenant, not the old one.

Why would God condemn Constantine or any other Emperor for outlawing Pagan Sacrifices or Temples and turning them into Churches? Does God care about the profane rights of the heathen?

Yes. Yes, He does. It's why He preferred the company of sinners and publicans to the company of religiously-correct Pharisees. It's why he told His follower to emulate a heretic who cared for others, instead of a Levite who did not. It's why He accepted and blessed a Roman army officer who showed faith and kindness.

People of other faiths are not your enemies. They are also motivated to find and serve God. They are wrong about many things, but God does not want you to reject anything that is true or holy in other faiths.

First, He told us, to get the beam out of our eyes before we look for motes in the eyes of others. Jesus was the One who showed us the path out of that cycle of death and revenge. Listen to Him.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yep. He never told you to do that. In fact, He told you to not do that.



Maybe you should take part in the New Covenant, not the old one.



Yes. Yes, He does. It's why He preferred the company of sinners and publicans to the company of religiously-correct Pharisees. It's why he told His follower to emulate a heretic who cared for others, instead of a Levite who did not. It's why He accepted and blessed a Roman army officer who showed faith and kindness.

People of other faiths are not your enemies. They are also motivated to find and serve God. They are wrong about many things, but God does not want you to reject anything that is true or holy in other faiths.

First, He told us, to get the beam out of our eyes before we look for motes in the eyes of others. Jesus was the One who showed us the path out of that cycle of death and revenge. Listen to Him.

You make it sound like Jesus preferred the company of non believers over his disciples or inner circle. Yet this enlightenment reading of our Lord leaves alot of details out. Why did Jesus not tolerate the money changers? Why did he not forgive Judas? Why does Jesus divide humanity into two camps, the sheeps and the goats? Why should we think Jesus's Gospel precludes us from participating in politics? Is it really so dangerous for the Gospel to inform law and society? Is neoliberal secular globalism the only Christian path forward?

If we're to believe this, I could only conclude the Gospel had not been read correctly till secular liberals such as yourself got their hands on it. Why was God so inactive till the enlightenment? Why allow Christian kings at all? Why allow the Augustines of this world to have influence? Or the Theodosius'? God should have protected his Pagan people but he didn't. He let them and their rites die out.

Now I'm not concerned with revenge or hatred, only what the proper role of the Christian in society is. Christians giving up all power, it's simply suicidal for Christendom. A losing strategy since it hasn't been working so far over the last two hundred years.

Has increased secularization helped Christianity or harmed it? Liberal Churches are dying faster than historical and traditional Churches and you want us to embrace your Gospel?
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,246
2,918
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Fauci was also very aware of this systematic review by the CDC published in May 2020.

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

This is a systematic review of 72 years worth of RCTs on masks to stop viral transmission. The section on face masks begins (emphasis added);

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks
You can read the whole thing for yourself, but here are some highlights;

One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group

The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies

None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group

There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission​

So given this systematic study of RCTs of face masks to reduce viral transmission spanning 7 decades, no significant benefit was seen in reducing viral transmission. This is published on the CDC's website.

So what changed? How in the world did all of these RCTs get everything wrong for 7 decades? Are we supposed to believe that all of this rigorous, historical science was wrong?

The subject of the thread is that politics has hijacked science. Here is a primary example. The "guidance" from the CDC is not based on data, and actually runs counter to the established science. Their own systematic review does not support the recommendations and guidance they've made. So the idea that they've "followed the science" is complete and utter nonsense. Their own studies show that's not true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,246
2,918
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
More science that is being ignored due to political pressures;

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

As it turns out, natural immunity resulting from recovering from an infection is a thing. I mean, we've known this about viruses forever, but THE SCIENCE™ has changed so much in this past year, apparently we need reminded of simple facts.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
22,246
2,918
46
PA
Visit site
✟132,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You make it sound like Jesus preferred the company of non believers over his disciples or inner circle. Yet this enlightenment reading of our Lord leaves alot of details out.

Some details...
Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.

Why did Jesus not tolerate the money changers?

They were thieves and hustlers.
Why should we think Jesus's Gospel precludes us from participating in politics?

If you think so, you convinced yourself. No one else suggested that, here. You see, you're perfectly entitled to take part in political issues, so long as you don't try to impose your religion on others. That's not what God wants, and it's contrary to the law. And you are obligated to obey the law, unless it's contrary to God's law. And oppressing people of other faiths, is not God's law.

If we're to believe this, I could only conclude the Gospel had not been read correctly till secular liberals such as yourself got their hands on it.

I'm just taking Jesus at His word. You should, too.

Why was God so inactive till the enlightenment?

Actually, He was there all the time. Even without government support. He neither needs nor wants that. That's not how He works. We'll have a theocracy when He decides to do that. Men who are eager to do for Him, that which He choses not to do, are not doing His will.

Christians giving up all power, it's simply suicidal for Christendom.

Well, let's see what a Christian has to say about that...

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
From James Madison's Against Religious Assessments


Has increased secularization helped Christianity or harmed it? Liberal Churches are dying faster than historical and traditional Churches and you want us to embrace your Gospel?

I fervently hope you will embrace His Gospel.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Fauci, early on, correctly pointed out that masks don't really do a very good job of protecting the people who wear them, but do protect others from the wearer.

The primary reason he gave for not recommending wearing a mask was that that they are "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material". When pressed on this, Fauci simply said that as the science evolved, so did his recommendations.

So my question is, did "the science" suddenly show that the virus was larger than they originally thought?

Nope. A couple of things. First, it turns out that the virus particles tend to stick to fibers by electrostatic forces, which is why non-woven fabrics catch more virus than those with a regular weave. Second, it happens that the site in the respiratory tract most vulnerable to infection is also the site where most of the larger droplets tend to settle. So that helps, too.

It's not like netting fish, although someone without much understanding of the process might be led to think so.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Some details...
Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.



They were thieves and hustlers.


If you think so, you convinced yourself. No one else suggested that, here. You see, you're perfectly entitled to take part in political issues, so long as you don't try to impose your religion on others. That's not what God wants, and it's contrary to the law. And you are obligated to obey the law, unless it's contrary to God's law. And oppressing people of other faiths, is not God's law.



I'm just taking Jesus at His word. You should, too.



Actually, He was there all the time. Even without government support. He neither needs nor wants that. That's not how He works. We'll have a theocracy when He decides to do that. Men who are eager to do for Him, that which He choses not to do, are not doing His will.



Well, let's see what a Christian has to say about that...

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
From James Madison's Against Religious Assessments




I fervently hope you will embrace His Gospel.

You're free to take part in politics, but if you do it must be on the terms which are antithetical to your beliefs. Interesting logic you have there. But it's one that basically relegates Christianity to secondary status. Why do I have to defend a crucifix submerged in urine?

I prefer Augustine to James Madison, Then again I am not an American and don't believe in the Gospel of America. But then again, I prefer the system that actually encouraged the flourishing of Christianity, not it's ultimate degeneration. Can you honestly say Christianity is stronger today than it was 200 years ago?

Also, I never advocated theocracy. You do know that most Christian polities haven't been theocracies in history, right? That there was a delicate balance between the secular and the spiritual law? Now there is absolutely no balance and the consequences have been the continued decline of Christianity in the west. You can offer no solutions to this because your ideology is indistinguishable from the secular culture. Ultimately your Christianity will give up all distinctions, all barriers and when that happens there will be no reason to remain a liberal Christian. Sort of like there's no reason to be a Unitarian today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You're free to take part in politics, but if you do it must be on the terms which are antithetical to your beliefs.

Maybe you. It wouldn't be antithetical for anyone who followed Jesus' commands. He never told His followers to force their beliefs on anyone else. Indeed, He warned them to leave to Caesar that which was Caesar's.

I prefer Augustine to James Madison, Then again I am not an American and don't believe in the Gospel of America.

You should simply accept Jesus' admonitions. Augustine fell from his earlier acceptance of those admonitions (after a rather difficult struggle with some heterodox Christians), but that is not license for us to do it, also. Madison had it exactly right. The corruption of Christians began with them gaining political power, and using it to coerce others.

And how do you propose to force Christianity on people without the coercion of political power?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Maybe you. It wouldn't be antithetical for anyone who followed Jesus' commands. He never told His followers to force their beliefs on anyone else. Indeed, He warned them to leave to Caesar that which was Caesar's.



You should simply accept Jesus' admonitions. Augustine fell from his earlier acceptance of those admonitions (after a rather difficult struggle with some heterodox Christians), but that is not license for us to do it, also.

Jesus didn't offer any advice to those in power period. He offered advice for everyday people and not legal requirements for those burdened with the task of law. Yet law and society requires people to enforce laws, by force and at times violently. You want to say that Christians had no right to close Pagan temples, alright but if the Christians had not done this there would still be Pagans today. The power of Paganism would be unbroken. This isn't even to acknowledge that as Christians we owe our loyalty to God first over man. Why will God be angry with Constantine for banning animal sacrifice when he was mad at the Israelites for ignoring the problem of the high places?

Maybe if God were a libertarian you might be right, but the God of the Bible is clearly not a libertarian.

I do accept Jesus' admonition. What I fail to see is how yours is Jesus' admonition when it is a result of enlightenment attempts to harmonize Christianity with the current secular regime. Why did our ancestors utterly fail to grasp the true meaning of Christianity? Why did it take people who were essentially non Christian to discover the truth? James Madison might have been a Christian but as I understand it a majority of your fathers were not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jesus didn't offer any advice to those in power period. He offered advice for everyday people and not legal requirements for those burdened with the task of law. Yet law and society requires people to enforce laws, by force and at times violently. You want to say that Christians had no right to close Pagan temples, alright but if the Christians had not done this there would still be Pagans today.

There still are pagans today. The period when pagans were rapidly converting to Christianity was precisely when Christians had no political power.

Maybe Jesus had it right?

James Madison might have been a Christian but as I understand it a majority of your fathers were not.

There were some deists. A few were Jewish. But mostly Christian. The key was that they had seen the way Christianity was corrupted and debased by establishment of religion, and they wanted no part of it in their new nation.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
There still are pagans today. The period when pagans were rapidly converting to Christianity was precisely when Christians had no political power.

Maybe Jesus had it right?



There were some deists. A few were Jewish. But mostly Christian. The key was that they had seen the way Christianity was corrupted and debased by establishment of religion, and they wanted no part of it in their new nation.

Jesus always had it right, but when you say there are still pagans today that should be heavily qualified. There are neo pagans or larpagans as I like to call them, but that's about it. European Paganism died with the advent of Christianity. It took Saints cutting down the sacred groves and doing away with the temples to Thor and Wodan. People were not rapidly converting to Christianity before Constantine, rather Christianity grew slowly in an environment of hostility because Christians had the traits necessary to weather potential challenges. Rapid conversion happened after Constantine and by the time of Theodosius' reign he was able to make Christianity the official religion of the empire.

Your American fathers might have had their reasons for doing things but the unfortunate effect of their system has been the liberalization of the individual away from social constraints. Specifically Christian social teachings and standards. Things like no fault divorce could only happen in a society where the wellbeing of the individual adult is paramount, instead of the wellbeing of family unit. Tolerating the individuals right to consume inappropriate contentography I think has had disastrous social consequences, for young men especially. But, per the logic of the liberal, we cannot force our views on them, nor can we prevent inappropriate contentographers from doing their 'trade'. There can be no reversing these liberal gains in the current American system. Hence I'm at a loss as to why I or anyone conservative leaning should be in favour of said system.

Your only argument is tolerance at this point. That we need to tolerate and accept the demise of Christianity or make Christianity bend to the will of this new progressive culture. I don't want to do that, I don't want to see Christianity grafted into liberalism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jesus always had it right, but when you say there are still pagans today that should be heavily qualified.

You're assuming that the only pagans were in Northern Europe. It's an older and more widespread phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Tolerance is what Jesus practiced. He criticized Jewish believers who had the cultural practices, but lacked care for others. And he was tolerant and encouraging to those of other faiths. Christianity is not a contest of wills or a cultural battle. It's the way back to God.

Don't look for anything else.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.