Would a contradiction make the Bible not true?

[Mathetes66]

BigV: "But you know what else is crazy? Joseph was not even Jesus' father! So what is the point of all these genealogies if they ultimately mean nothing?"

I gave you abundant evidence for the reasons WHY genealogies are important & they are very relevant, especially for the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Messiah, He must demonstrate that He is both the legal & the biological descendant of King David, to fulfill the Davidic Covenant. (2 Sam 7:10-14) He must also have a genealogy that ties Him to Abraham, to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. (Galatians 3:7-29)

And the genealogy ties Him to existing BEFORE the creation of Adam, the first man that was created, being the eternal Son of God. (see Psalm 2)

Jesus in John 8:58, again asserts He existed even before Abraham, because He is the eternal God of Israel, using the memorial name of God as His identity, that the Jews wouldn't even pronounce for fear of blaspheming the living God.

No person claiming to be a Jew, can be registered legitimate or move to Israel unless they give evidence that they are indeed a Jew, based on genealogy, historical records, genetically, etc.

"I can't believe Tovia would not have taken it apart had they debated this point. Of course, Dr Brown WON'T EVEN TRY, because his explanation works for the Christians while Tovia's arguments work for the Judaism practicing Jews."

Again you apparently didn't view or ignored the multitude of appeals that Dr. Brown has given to Tovia SINCE THE EARLY 1990'S, to debate him anytime, anywhere, at Tovia's own choosing. Not only did Tovia not debate Dr. Brown again, but cut him off in emails, wouldn't answer the phone to set up a time to talk again, etc. There are witnesses to verify these things.

Also are you aware that Dr. Brown is a Jew, just as Tovia is a Jew?

"The Gospel is not easy to comprehend. Majority of Christians have no clue what it takes to be saved."

An atheist is telling a Christian--let me make it abundantly clear from your own words & vast experience, the MAJORITY of Christians have no clue what it takes to be saved.

First of all your definition of repentance is incorrect. Your presupposition of what it means & what it is, negates any meaningful legitimacy to what you are asserting.

"And isn't repentance a work? After all, you are required to change your behavior in order to repent."

The MAJORITY of Christians know by Scripture & by experience & by definition what it means to be saved & how that is accomplished by God.

The biblical word, repentance does not mean a 'change in behavior.' It does not mean you feel sorry for your sins. It does not mean you 'work' for your salvation, thus making it a work.

STRONGS NT 3341: μετάνοια (meta-noia):

from G3326 (meta-), with, after (-ward), hereafter--a primary preposition denoting accompaniment (together with-)

& from G3539 (noeo), to perceive with the mind; to think upon, heed, ponder, consider & thus to gain or have understanding. To exercise the mind, observe & thus consider so as to comprehend, understand & perceive.

Thus the compound word means to change one's mind; to think differently after exercising the mind & thus gaining understanding. As a result of the change of mind, this can then LEAD a person to exercise their will & bear 'fruit' in keeping with one's repentance or change of mind after the initial act of repentance.

It is used in the NT 22X. The best way to show or express its meaning is found in 2 Corinthians 7:9-11

And now I rejoice, not because you were made sorrowful, but because your sorrow--LED YOU (UN)TO REPENTANCE. For you felt the sorrow THAT GOD HAD INTENDED & so were not harmed in any way by us.

For the sorrow that is GODLY (according to the will of God) PRODUCES a repentance WITHOUT regret, LEADING (UN)TO SALVATION, but the sorrow of the world PRODUCES DEATH.

Acts 20:21 ...Testifying to both Jews & Greeks about REPENTANCE TOWARD GOD & faith in our Lord Jesus.

Godly sorrow over one's sins & rebellion against a holy God can produce a genuine 'change of mind' toward God--deciding to no longer go our own way but turning to faith in Christ, in order to receive forgiveness of our sins, be spiritually born again & given the eternal life of God.

Godly sorrow ISN'T repentance; it PRODUCES repentance & the genuine change of mind. Godly sorrow is what the Apostle Peter felt. He changed his mind from denying He knew the Lord & going back to fishing for fish & chose to feed & shepherd God's sheep, turning back.

Worldly sorrow is what the son of perdition, Judas Iscariot felt. He felt such remorse over betraying his friend, Jesus, that he went & threw his money he received from the Jewish national leaders into the temple & then went & killed himself.

Genuine repentance toward God is NOT salvation, it leads us to salvation. It is NOT some work we do to earn or get paid or somehow make ourselves on our own, right before God.

It is simply a change of mind that shows God we are sincere & mean business & want to have a right relationship with Him. Once we understand that we are spiritually dead in our trespasses & sins, separated from a holy God & that only One Person is able to save us from our sins, is able to redeem us through His precious shed blood & that we can be reconciled back to a right relationship with the Lord.

The passage you quote out of Matt 25 must not have been read, only pasted. At the very beginning, it shows this is the final judgment. God has already separated the righteous from the unrighteous.

The righteous are the ones who have trusted in Christ's righteousness not their own. No one is saved by their works, no one will boast before the Holy God. The only ones who are saved are those trusting in Christ to save them, not having a righteousness of their own based on works but based on faith in Christ, who IMPUTES righteousness to our account before Him.

Passage after passage shows this throughout the Bible. We are not saved by our works, but we are saved IN CHRIST UNTO good works. Here is another key passage that explains this in a simple fashion.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are you saved through faith & this is NOT from yourselves, it is the GIFT of God--not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. (see also Titus 3:5)

Romans 11:5,6 In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

A gift is not something one works for or can earn. It is given freely apart from works. We can't work for our salvation but we can work OUT our salvation that God has given us. We can by faith trust in Christ's salvation of us. Once we are in Christ, saved by Him & made alive in the Spirit, then we become God's work, His workmanship.

He has already ordained & ahead of time planned how He will empower us to do His WORKS THROUGH US, as we die to ourselves & allow the life of Jesus to live in & through us.

Heb 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the AUTHOR & FINISHER (perfecter) of our faith.

We die, so He can live through us. We become what the Bible says: 'living sacrifices.' (see Romans 12:1,2)

Galatians 2:20,21 I have been crucified WITH Christ & I NO LONGER LIVE, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me & gave Himself up for me. I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.”

Romans 10:1-4 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they are zealous for God, but not on the basis of knowledge.

Because they were ignorant of God’s righteousness & sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes.

Isaiah 53:5,6 But He was pierced for our transgressions,He was crushed for our iniquities;the punishment that brought us peace was on Him & by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way & YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

With John the Baptist, he preached repentance: changing one's mind concerning continuing to practice sin & the evidence of this change of mind lead to confessing their sins publicly & placing their faith in the Lamb of God, Jesus the Messiah, who takes away the sin of the world.

They showed they were serious by being baptized, which meant to identify with the Messiah in following Him. They were then told after their repentance, confession & faith in Jesus, that they should now bear good fruit that demonstrates their change of mind was genuine.

Acts 11:18 So then, GOD HAS GRANTED even the Gentiles repentance UNTO LIFE."

2 Tim 2:25,26 ...In the hope that God may GRANT THEM REPENTANCE LEADING THEM TO--the knowledge of the truth. THEN they will come to their senses & escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will.

Acts 16:15 Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord OPENED UP her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Luke 24:31-33,44 Then their eyes WERE OPENED & they recognized Jesus—& He disappeared from their sight. They asked one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us as He spoke with us on the road & OPENED THE SCRIPTURES TO US?” ...And they returned to Jerusalem.

45Then He OPENED THEIR MINDS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES. 46And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer & rise from the dead on the 3rd day & in His name REPENTANCE & FORGIVENESS OF SINS will be proclaimed to all nations...

The Spirit of God brings conviction to a person's conscience concerning their sin & refusal to believe in the Savior of the world & their impending judgment & their need for the righteousness of Christ, because they cannot save themselves by their works.

God grants a person the ability to repent (change their mind) by opening their mind & heart to comprehend & understand the message of the gospel. Until that happens, the gospel message of the cross will seem like foolishness to someone & he cannot understand it.

 

[Norbert L]

Never seen debates presented in that fashion, or I certainly never regarded them as such: it's an exchange of ideas and the "winner" is determined by the audience, not that it really matters in terms of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the first place

I've never seen debates presented in that fashion either but I've heard them described and talked about that way. Words are a tool that mankind has used for millennia to persuade for good and for bad.

Freedom to believe does not mean freedom to have your beliefs taken seriously, that's a distinction I feel people don't make often enough

And what makes us so special that either of our words are to be taken seriously? Who's to say either of us are capable of making a distinction and all we're really doing is behaving like two mice on our wheels just spinning endless in our separate directions. There are two things to keep in mind.

-Not all people are geared to think critically on either side of an issue. They do the best they can with what they have. That doesn't make them any less of a human being or should deny them the freedom to choose and express their voice.

-Civil societies and nations have laws that keep the peace and stop violence and abusive behaviors from erupting between differences of opinion.

Not sure why you think even remotely I would suggest a totalitarian society merely because I encourage critical thinking and skepticism

I'm saying no society is perfect and we should be aware of the dangers to the free expression of our views no matter how informed we are about them. If we don't, welcome to China.

 

[BigV]

I gave you abundant evidence for the reasons WHY genealogies are important & they are very relevant, especially for the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Messiah, He must demonstrate that He is both the legal & the biological descendant of King David, to fulfill the Davidic Covenant. (2 Sam 7:10-14) He must also have a genealogy that ties Him to Abraham, to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. (Galatians 3:7-29)

Again, Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. There is no linkage of Jesus to David according to the Gospels of Matthew and/or Luke.

No person claiming to be a Jew, can be registered legitimate or move to Israel unless they give evidence that they are indeed a Jew, based on genealogy, historical records, genetically, etc.

According to Christians, it's very easy to link yourself to David. All you need to do is find a step dad and throw some names linking them to David. You can have two version and the names don't even have to match! And you will have the full force of Christian apologetics on your side if anyone challenges that ancestry.

Again you apparently didn't view or ignored the multitude of appeals that Dr. Brown has given to Tovia SINCE THE EARLY 1990'S, to debate him anytime, anywhere, at Tovia's own choosing. Not only did Tovia not debate Dr. Brown again, but cut him off in emails, wouldn't answer the phone to set up a time to talk again, etc. There are witnesses to verify these things.

Also are you aware that Dr. Brown is a Jew, just as Tovia is a Jew?

I'm aware that Dr Brown is a Jew. But the point you are missing about the debates is that they are not really there to convince the other side. I'm not convinced by Dr Brown and neither is Rabbi Tovia.

Look, I can debate the existence of Santa Claus with you to a point where you will stop answering me. Newsflash, it won't make Santa Claus any more real.

An atheist is telling a Christian--let me make it abundantly clear from your own words & vast experience, the MAJORITY of Christians have no clue what it takes to be saved.

First of all your definition of repentance is incorrect. Your presupposition of what it means & what it is, negates any meaningful legitimacy to what you are asserting.

You are, like most Christians, cherry picking Bible verses. Verses that teach salvation by works are twisted to align with verses teaching salvation apart from works. That's it. There is no secret to this.

Thus the compound word means to change one's mind; to think differently after exercising the mind & thus gaining understanding. As a result of the change of mind, this can then LEAD a person to exercise their will & bear 'fruit' in keeping with one's repentance or change of mind after the initial act of repentance.

Whatever the case, you have just admitted that one must bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Works are required.

What must a practicing homosexual do to be saved? They must repent of their sin and strive to suppress their sexuality.

This is all effort. This is not a gift. But if you disagree, I have a gift for you. It's absolutely free, just like salvation. You must repent in your attitude and bear fruit of financial giving as a proof of your acceptance of my gift.

This is Christian 'free' gift of salvation ina nutshell.

The passage you quote out of Matt 25 must not have been read, only pasted. At the very beginning, it shows this is the final judgment. God has already separated the righteous from the unrighteous.

The righteous are the ones who have trusted in Christ's righteousness not their own. No one is saved by their works, no one will boast before the Holy God. The only ones who are saved are those trusting in Christ to save them, not having a righteousness of their own based on works but based on faith in Christ, who IMPUTES righteousness to our account before Him.

You are the one who is ignoring the obvious. Why have a text if you refuse to even read it? Jesus is very clear in Matt. 25 that faith had nothing to do with salvation. It's all about what the people did.

Unfortunately for you, Gospel according to @Mathetes66 is non-canonical. You are stuck with Matthew on this one.

Bonus question -what did Jesus tell the rich young ruler who asked him about entering eternal life?

Matthew NIV 19: 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Now, who is the one lying or misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus? Matthew or you? The rich young man was asking about eternal life, and Jesus answered him that it's going to take a lot of effort. If the young man asked you, he would have gone away happy, because he would learn that he can keep all his possessions, just as millions of Christians do today and still enter heaven!

Bonus 2:
Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Even if Jesus is using allegory here, the allegory is the opposite of claiming that salvation is a free gift, yours for the taking.

In summary, I may be an atheist, but apparently know more about the Gospels than you do.

 

[Rodan6]

Authenticity means that the written works reflect what the original writers intended. In large part, the scriptures reflect what the human writers believed at the time they were written. The notion of infallibility implies some sort of divine nature in the book itself. This is a great mistake. A book does not "lie". It does speak at all. It is what it is, a "book". It's great value is in the opinions and accounts of the men who lived thousands of years ago, some of which knew and knew of Jesus.

The greatest truths to be found in the Bible will be forever hidden from those who seek to rationalize every single word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Greetings all, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions, or even a single contradiction, would that prove the Bible false?

Note, although we can discuss contradictions or specifics later on in the thread, I would like to understand the Christian position on this general concept. If there was a contradiction, would it cause you do change your faith?

There's no one size fits all answer, because there isn't a uniform Christian view about the Bible.

Speaking for myself, no, contradictions in the texts wouldn't prove that the Bible is false (in the sense that I'm taking it to mean, that it would all be false); and contradictions in the texts wouldn't make me change my faith.

But a lot of that has to do with the fact that I don't expect inerrancy from the Bible, at least not as is often advocated in certain modern Christian schools of thought. I view the Bible to be a collection of very different books, written by different people; what I take on faith is that in and through these texts is Christ, as St. Augustine said, "There is but one Utterance in all of Sacred Scripture" the Utterance is Jesus, as Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible carries, contains, conveys, and communicates that Word. It's the word about the Word, if you will.

I subscribe to what I would describe as biblical infallibility; but understand that infallibility as an infallibility of purpose; not an infallibility of literary minutia. In other words, the Bible does what it's supposed to do, and it doesn't fail at that. That is what makes it God's word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

I've never seen debates presented in that fashion either but I've heard them described and talked about that way. Words are a tool that mankind has used for millennia to persuade for good and for bad.
And what makes us so special that either of our words are to be taken seriously? Who's to say either of us are capable of making a distinction and all we're really doing is behaving like two mice on our wheels just spinning endless in our separate directions. There are two things to keep in mind.

-Not all people are geared to think critically on either side of an issue. They do the best they can with what they have. That doesn't make them any less of a human being or should deny them the freedom to choose and express their voice.

-Civil societies and nations have laws that keep the peace and stop violence and abusive behaviors from erupting between differences of opinion.
I'm saying no society is perfect and we should be aware of the dangers to the free expression of our views no matter how informed we are about them. If we don't, welcome to China.

The problem is when persuasion is valued far more in common climates than actual substance behind the positions

If you're just going to say neither of us can be absolutely certain, that's a moot point, it's idealistic and not practical to discussions where we can have some reasonable conclusions, tentative as they may be in the long term

I never dehumanized someone because they were ignorant or even stupid, it's the attempt to make them use more critical thinking that's intended to help

I'm also not advocating anything like violence and abuse because of differences of opinion, but I'm also not going to sit by and watch my friends and such be treated like dirt because of people thinking their beliefs are above reproach and try to legislate it. That doesn't represent everyone, but if anyone tries to suggest religion is not damaging, they need look no further than America

The free expression should not be protected to the exclusion of critical thought at all, which includes criticizing beliefs, no matter how deeply held and seen as sacrosanct

 

[Norbert L]

If you're just going to say neither of us can be absolutely certain, that's a moot point, it's idealistic and not practical to discussions where we can have some reasonable conclusions, tentative as they may be in the long term

You certainly believe this, "Freedom to believe does not mean freedom to have your beliefs taken seriously, that's a distinction I feel people don't make often enough" It's not that either of our points are moot but other people are free to make that distinction about our ideas. They have the freedom to believe you or I are full of it.

I never dehumanized someone because they were ignorant or even stupid, it's the attempt to make them use more critical thinking that's intended to help

It's hard to be certain how someone else responds to the best of intentions. One man's cure is another man's poison, the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc. What we can't do is try and keep someone from expressing their lack of critical thinking. If there is no ground to use the forums report button, then there should be nothing stopping them from commenting.

I'm also not advocating anything like violence and abuse because of differences of opinion, but I'm also not going to sit by and watch my friends and such be treated like dirt because of people thinking their beliefs are above reproach and try to legislate it.

If you see someone here treating your friends like dirt through their comments, again there's a report button. I'd also add towards anyone on either side of an issue to be careful of not becoming what you hate. One of the most difficult things to do is grasp what is being said in Matthew 7:3-4 and figure out how to word a response.

 

[muichimotsu]

You certainly believe this, "Freedom to believe does not mean freedom to have your beliefs taken seriously, that's a distinction I feel people don't make often enough" It's not that either of our points are moot but other people are free to make that distinction about our ideas. They have the freedom to believe you or I are full of it.
It's hard to be certain how someone else responds to the best of intentions. One man's cure is another man's poison, the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc. What we can't do is try and keep someone from expressing their lack of critical thinking. If there is no ground to use the forums report button, then there should be nothing stopping them from commenting.
If you see someone here treating your friends like dirt through their comments, again there's a report button. I'd also add towards anyone on either side of an issue to be careful of not becoming what you hate. One of the most difficult things to do is grasp what is being said in Matthew 7:3-4 and figure out how to word a response.

People can make distinctions, it doesn't make their basis for it correct, especially if they're not willing to have that standard applied to their beliefs as well

I don't intend to stop people from expressing beliefs, I oppose people trying to suppress criticism of their deeply held beliefs because of some special pleading argument

Not sure where I've indicated I'd remotely support repressive practices in terms of expressing beliefs in a free market of ideas, I've always been open to correction and arguably have become more nuanced over the decade+ that I've been engaging in general discussions on such things

 

[Norbert L]

People can make distinctions, it doesn't make their basis for it correct, especially if they're not willing to have that standard applied to their beliefs as well

What is this standard that people need to believe is correct?

I don't intend to stop people from expressing beliefs, I oppose people trying to suppress criticism of their deeply held beliefs because of some special pleading argument

Pleading arguments like this one? "I'm also not going to sit by and watch my friends and such be treated like dirt because of people thinking their beliefs are above reproach and try to legislate it." Where you cite abusive behavior as an exception towards your side of a discussion, having no recourse other than your voice in protest.

 

[muichimotsu]

What is this standard that people need to believe is correct?
Pleading arguments like this one? "I'm also not going to sit by and watch my friends and such be treated like dirt because of people thinking their beliefs are above reproach and try to legislate it." Where you cite abusive behavior as an exception towards your side of a discussion, having no recourse other than your voice in protest.

Basic critical thinking and skepticism applied to beliefs as equally as possible, particularly those that make grandiose claims about how the world supposedly works with no actual substance behind them. "The world is ending, there's a God that loves us but is going to utterly annihilate it in fire and brimstone and is going to try and convince people to change their minds with violence that it chose not to stop because it has a plan," for instance

Oh, so you think it's perfectly fine to legislate discriminatory ideas in a government that is meant to be protecting the rights of everyone and not just the majority demographic? You can't have it both ways without major special pleading on your part to say the minority just has to deal with it.

 

[FireDragon76]

It doesn't matter because only Christian fundamentalists insist the Bible has to be inerrant. Something can still be inspiring or even authoritative, but not inerrant.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is this standard that people need to believe is correct?
Pleading arguments like this one? "I'm also not going to sit by and watch my friends and such be treated like dirt because of people thinking their beliefs are above reproach and try to legislate it." Where you cite abusive behavior as an exception towards your side of a discussion, having no recourse other than your voice in protest.

Basic critical thinking and skepticism applied to beliefs as equally as possible, particularly those that make grandiose claims about how the world supposedly works with no actual substance behind them. "The world is ending, there's a God that loves us but is going to utterly annihilate it in fire and brimstone and is going to try and convince people to change their minds with violence that it chose not to stop because it has a plan," for instance

Oh, so you think it's perfectly fine to legislate discriminatory ideas in a government that is meant to be protecting the rights of everyone and not just the majority demographic? You can't have it both ways without major special pleading on your part to say the minority just has to deal with it.

I favor a narrow construction of religious freedom. Religious freedom must end where the rights of others begins. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

 

[Norbert L]

Oh, so you think it's perfectly fine to legislate discriminatory ideas in a government that is meant to be protecting the rights of everyone and not just the majority demographic? You can't have it both ways without major special pleading on your part to say the minority just has to deal with it.

Therein is the great achilles heal of democracies. Majorities can become corrupt and become like Noah's generation. It is why mankind needs to follow God Jesus Christ as the only truthful king of Heaven and Earth.

I favor a narrow construction of religious freedom. Religious freedom must end where the rights of others begins. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

I like the idea too but that's no where near as simple as it sounds. There's also the freedom FROM irreligious people believing that Jesus Christ isn't God and who wish to end the freedom to live and worship Him.

 

[FireDragon76]

Therein is the great achilles heal of democracies. Majorities can become corrupt and become like Noah's generation. It is why mankind needs to follow God Jesus Christ as the only truthful king of Heaven and Earth.

That's an assertion without sound evidence in the historical record. Christian dominant societies, like medieval Europe, Reformation Geneva, or Nazi Germany, engaged in their share of evil deeds.

I like the idea too but that's no where near as simple as it sounds. There's also the freedom FROM irreligious people believing that Jesus Christ isn't God and who wish to end the freedom to live and worship Him.

We don't have to be Christian. That is our right as citizens of a pluralistic and secular republic.

 

[muichimotsu]

Therein is the great achilles heal of democracies. Majorities can become corrupt and become like Noah's generation. It is why mankind needs to follow God Jesus Christ as the only truthful king of Heaven and Earth.
I like the idea too but that's no where near as simple as it sounds. There's also the freedom FROM irreligious people believing that Jesus Christ isn't God and who wish to end the freedom to live and worship Him.

Not sure you have evidence that a theocratic society would actually stop a majority tyranny, since we have the Puritans in early American history persecuting everyone else because they were the majority. And the Puritans were convinced they were following Jesus' edicts. And I didn't use the word democracy, you insinuated that, I'm talking a representative republic. What you're describing is ochlocracy, not democracy in its basic form

Except you're describing what would not be remotely a common idea in practice in the first place, as if that's comparable to what is arguably a trend of sorts in wanting at least favor paid to Christians in government, if not outright Dominionist theology and such.

 

[Norbert L]

That's an assertion without sound evidence in the historical record. Christian dominant societies, like medieval Europe, Reformation Geneva, or Nazi Germany, engaged in their share of evil deeds.

Every society has engaged in their fair share of evil deeds and Christianity plainly points out it has its' own flaws. Jude 1:4 Acts of the Apostles 20:30 Also let's not forget Communism in it's war against all religions.

We don't have to be Christian. That is our right as citizens of a pluralistic and secular republic.

You most certainly do have the right not to be Christian. However problems legislating into a fair system for both are still here.

I didn't use the word democracy, you insinuated that, I'm talking a representative republic. What you're describing is ochlocracy, not democracy in its basic form

Don't forget Jim Crow laws or further back to pre civil war America. Then there is the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece.

Except you're describing what would not be remotely a common idea in practice in the first place, as if that's comparable to what is arguably a trend of sorts in wanting at least favor paid to Christians in government, if not outright Dominionist theology and such.

I don't see how not including the legislation in provincial Canada where they don't allow any religious symbol to be worn in Quebec in the public workforce hasn't favored the irreligious. There are two opposing extremes in a democracy today and finding the balance is probably more elusive than finding out how to genetically re engineer DNA into a living Dodo bird.

 

[muichimotsu]

Every society has engaged in their fair share of evil deeds and Christianity plainly points out it has its' own flaws. Jude 1:4 Acts of the Apostles 20:30 Also let's not forget Communism in it's war against all religions.
You most certainly do have the right not to be Christian. However problems legislating into a fair system for both are still here.
Don't forget Jim Crow laws or further back to pre civil war America. Then there is the ancient civilizations of Rome and Greece.
I don't see how not including the legislation in provincial Canada where they don't allow any religious symbol to be worn in Quebec in the public workforce hasn't favored the irreligious. There are two opposing extremes in a democracy today and finding the balance is probably more elusive than finding out how to genetically re engineer DNA into a living Dodo bird.

An absolutely fair system doesn't exist when some people will insist on their supposed "foundation of American ideals" getting special treatment even if there's no real basis for that in the constitution they selectively interpret

I don't think anyone's claiming those are democratic, ancient Greek democracy was even more basic in mixing aristocracy and such in, iirc (I have Plato's Republic somewhere, I think)

Public workforce seems unclear offhand, not sure if that would just mean anyone or specifically state employees, the latter of which would make sense, the former being problematic in the same vein as banning particular religious exercise on questionable grounds

Democracy as a tradition has fragmented a lot, and communism isn't necessarily universal anti-religion, it's just the more prominent manifestation we see (Leninist, Stalinist, etc)., Christian communism, however minority a position, does exist

 

[FireDragon76]

An absolutely fair system doesn't exist when some people will insist on their supposed "foundation of American ideals" getting special treatment even if there's no real basis for that in the constitution they selectively interpret

I don't think anyone's claiming those are democratic, ancient Greek democracy was even more basic in mixing aristocracy and such in, iirc (I have Plato's Republic somewhere, I think)

Public workforce seems unclear offhand, not sure if that would just mean anyone or specifically state employees, the latter of which would make sense, the former being problematic in the same vein as banning particular religious exercise on questionable grounds

Democracy as a tradition has fragmented a lot, and communism isn't necessarily universal anti-religion, it's just the more prominent manifestation we see (Leninist, Stalinist, etc)., Christian communism, however minority a position, does exist

Marx saw religion as a symptom of peoples suffering and alienation under exploitative economic systems.

There are Christian socialists (which is different from Communism), that's one reason the William Blake poem Jerusalem used to be the anthem of the British Labour party.

 

[muichimotsu]

Marx saw religion as a symptom of peoples suffering and alienation under exploitative economic systems.

There are Christian socialists (which is different from Communism), that's one reason the William Blake poem Jerusalem used to be the anthem of the British Labour party.

Christian communists can ignore the founder's ideas and tweak things in terms of how Christianity supposedly advocates similar ideas in itself. Very selective interpretation, but it's there and apparently has various forms, mostly disagreeing on the achievement of Christian communist society.

And there's also the distinction some Christians would make between religion and their worldview

A lot of the disagreement in general is the inconsistent definition of terms like capitalism, socialism, etc

 

[FireDragon76]

Christian communists can ignore the founder's ideas and tweak things in terms of how Christianity supposedly advocates similar ideas in itself. Very selective interpretation, but it's there and apparently has various forms, mostly disagreeing on the achievement of Christian communist society.

I don't think such a thing actually exists to any significant degree. I have never heard of Christian communists.

There are those that adhere to Liberation Theology, but that's different from being "Christian communism".

A lot of the disagreement in general is the inconsistent definition of terms like capitalism, socialism, etc

On the contrary those things are well-understood by those with education and learning. Polemicists and ideologues like to pretend they mean things they don't.