Happy Birthday, Jesus. Thanks for the gift of American Freedom!

I made that point. (bolded above) I said that the idea was born & was eventually institutionalized into the american constitution, in the 1st amendment. Yes, it was around before that, but not in governmental practice. So how was i 'ignoring' that aspect? Even in my brief treatise, i covered that important issue. Statism does not offer individual freedom. Most religions are statist. Christianity, once it shook off the shackles of statism, brought the concept of individual freedom & responsibility, culminating in the american declaration of independence.

I know this is just a theory, & as such, cannot really be 'proven' nor 'disproven'. These are my own muddled thoughts, from decades of deep ponderings about the meaning of life & history. I do, however, see a progression.. an evolution of thought & expressed in historical events.

Law was important before the magna carta, but still they were not universal. The king was still over them. Even the ubiquitous magna carta was very brief lived, & was retracted after a short time.. but the idea continued, & individual sovereignty became more & more important, finding a collective expression in the american revolution. You will be hard pressed to find any submission to a 'moral law' or any appeal to a universal law in political climates before the magna carta.. it is the seed that grew.

I'm not examining martin luther. I'm talking about the reformation movement, which included the anabaptists, the dutch reformers, & the german palatinate, which my wife is descended from. Louis the 14th persecuted them severely on the border, & her family had to flee to rotterdam & eventually take ship to america.

So yes, it was for freedom.. at least freedom from persecution, both by the quakers in england, the palatinate in germany & holland, & other assorted groups, like the mayflower pact & the puritans.. yes, & roger williams 'enlightenment'. The progression is there to see.. very obvious, to me. It was not like there was an instant switch, from 'divine right of kings' to 'individual sovereignty'. It was centuries in the making, & unique in history in it's germination in the new world. BUT.. and this is the jist of my premise.. it was christianity that spawned this.. it provided the ideological base that freed man from the shackles of statist domination.

Almost all religions are tools of the state. It is used as 'an opiate of the masses' to placate the people, & give them hope in another life, rather than trying to change this one. Christianity was used in this way, too.

I did not misinterpret the quote. That is exactly what it says. The LAW.. the inner, moral law.. .was internal.. even the gentiles keep this law, since it is 'written in their hearts'.

If you read much from the reformers, this was a key argument. The king was also subject to the Law of god, & was not above it. That was a technical point, perhaps, but was the basis for a written law vs edict.

You cut me to the quick, girl... you know i will respond intelligently to intelligent responses. I'll ignore or ridicule the absurd, but i'm totally respectful to thoughtful replies. BTW, this rebuttal was not clear.. the first point was a point i had already made. Then the next point was about law, but i'm not sure how it applied. It's not that hard.. look at the OP, & rebut the points. They are fairly clear & simple, with supporting arguments. ..and, like i said above, my 'theory' is mostly a philosophical extrapolation, not something that can be systematically proven. But i think it helps to see history as a progression of events, rather than isolated, random, & irrelevant things happening with no basis in a historical line.

Too many people, imo, discount the role of religion in history, & especially in europe during the reformation, renaissance, & even the imperialistic eras. They try to define things from a modern, secular viewpoint, & it does not work.

 

the constitution of the United States. I suggest you give it a quick scan. quite the historic document.

 

Awwww.. sorry. Of course religion has been an extremely powerful motivating / guiding element through what we know of history.

Sometimes for the good, usually, imo, for the worse

I think it is pointless to debate things like whether too many people dont do enough of something.

Usually I like to discuss something concrete and limited in scope. Otherwise it widens out like
how they used to describe the Platte river, a mile wide and an inch deep.

Carry on, I wish you well.

 

no comment

 

The problem with debating something 'concrete' is that there is usually not much to debate. Shall we debate the sum of 2+2? We might differ in our answers if we don't have the same base, but most 'facts' are not really open to debate. That's why we call them facts.

No, we mostly debate things that are not concrete.. they are open to interpretation. We make arguments & provide evidence to support OUR view, & do the same to rebut another's view. No doubt some of us are deeply committed to our opinions, & are very intolerant to diverse views.. but that is a maturing process.. as we age, generally we realize we do not know everything, but there are nuances & details that we've overlooked.

“To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect.” ~Lao Tzu
The end of the day is near when small men make long shadows ~Confucius
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. ~William Shakespeare

 

The problem I encounter with something concrete is usually the head of a fundamentalist who insists something like that the flood was real

They dont debate facts so much as ignore them, and invent others.

 

Not quite. You missed a step, even according to your own reference, and you're misusing the word "transliteration," as that simply refers to rewriting a word in a different writing system, e.g. 'Khristos' for the Greek Χριστός.

From your reference:
... from Greek khristos "the anointed" (translation of Hebrew mashiah; see messiah), noun use of verbal adjective of khriein "to rub, anoint" (see chrism). The Latin term drove out Old English Hæland "healer, savior," as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus.

I left that second sentence in just for kicks; the Germans still use the word "Heiland" as well as "Christus". But anyway, "khristos" is a Greek translation of "messiah," both words apparently meaning anointed (with oil). Since the Septuagint apparently translated messiah as khristos, theoretically at least you'll find that word being used in the Septuagint's Greek translations of old testament texts.

Small wonder, then, if new testament writers and preachers were calling Jesus Khristos - they were simply proclaiming him to be the awaited messiah, and doing so in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic. Of course, the Jews of the time were not impressed. They were fighting a war for independence from Rome - a fanatical war that eventually led to the destruction of their temple and their diaspora, as you no doubt know. The Jesus story came along kind of late in the game already and tried to tell the Jews that their messiah was a demigod who had established a kingdom in the sky above rather than in Israel. Again, it's not surprising that they were not impressed. Jesus is not what they were expecting at all. Instead, he was another Mithras-like figure, a demigod who reportedly offered protection in this life and eternal life to come. The Romans did certainly worship a Christ-like figure (not so much a messiah-like figure, to be clear, but rather one who resembles the character of Jesus Christ in the Christian religion established later) before Jesus had ever come along and become popular, namely in the Mithraic Mysteries, a cult popular among the Legions for its teachings and promises. Christianity eventually came to replace it...

 

Your welcome.

 

Because it's like saying the reason we have freedom is because the cavemen discovered fire. Sure it's true, but the link is too long. Now religion did have an important part in it, but it's the secular reasons why we have the freedoms we have today. You're right, the religious did exist and that manifested in the 30 years war which brought about skepticism which brought about enlightenment. The link is too long, and it's not even the religion completely. It's the fact that there were two seperate religions fighting for control, not the religion itself.

One of my favorite sayings an opinion is never wrong. You're right on this, just it's the link between the two that's the problem. It's the secular causes that got us to define freedom as it is today, that came from the religious conflicts of the 1500's and 1600's.

1. What do you mean by the Magna Carta was retracted? It expanded, especially during the 100 years war.
2. Of course there universal laws. The king being soverign, if you entered into a feudal contract you were expected to fulfill that contract. Those would have been considered universal laws.

The problem is that's not true. It was the secular events that came from the religious upheveals then. What do you even mean by Christianity?

Tell that to the Methodists.

No, it was talking about doing right without the need for a law. Think of it like this. If you don't know the rules of the road, aren't you still going to look both ways before crossing the street?

Name some of these reformers..[/QUOTE]

 

source

no time now to address more.. later..

 

Oh I see what you mean. It didn't have an effect until after John's death. Such as was the case with Medieval Europe.

 

My Christmas message.. a repost! I don't know if it means I'm lazy, or if i just can't improve on this. But, since this is 5 yrs old, and still seems relevant, I'll offer it again for your consideration...

 

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to what the writers of the Constitution meant by the word " men"

 

Why should i do that when i have you to tell me what i meant, and what i need to know?


Or maybe you need to educate yourself, on reading simple statements..

..just kidding. I know you're just giving me the usual feedback, and I'd be shocked and apalled if you didn't.

I'd tell you to go ahead and give me a piece of your mind, for the new year, but I'm worried that you can't really spare any...


Or, I'd like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence...

Anyway, happy new year, merry christmas, and joyful debating, heckling, or propagandizing, whichever you do..

 

Jesus = Prince of Peace

Ironically, right wingers who claim to be Christians promote endless war.

 

Yes the golden rule. As long as its only applied to americans. God forbid the concept should extend to 8 year old kids.

Who defines the "inner law"? Seems to me that the 10 biggies are all edicts, since the big guy in the sky is the ultimate authority, no?

I totally agree on the purpose of government. It secures the rights and freedoms granted to the populace by the populace.

 

And I wish you your best efforts at continuing your ignorance well into next year.

https://www.mattbrundage.com/publications/jefferson-equality/

 

I'm not sure if there is an award for how many historical inaccuracies someone can fit into an OP, but if there is . . .

 

Paul had an interesting perspective but - he contradicts the teachings of Jesus in many places.

It was Paul's writings that were used as justification for totalitarianism "Divine Right" Paul went as far as to claim that all authorities were put there by God and as such we should not rebel against them - regardless of how nasty they are.

The idea that this was "inspired" belongs on the crackpot category. I do not even think Paul actually believed this. He was likely trying to get the Romans to look favorably on Christianity - which makes sense on one way. Taking his words literally - or as "inspired" is however, lunacy.

 

...What exactly is the point of the OP?

It doesn't seem to be an account of legal history, I'd expect Old Testament and Hammurabi's code (or earlier documents).
It doesn't seem to be an account of the place of freedom in America or anywhere else, I'd expect Democracy in ancient Greece.
Your summary doesn't seem to correspond to the text that it supposedly summarises, at least not in a way I can follow directly.
You seem to be sniffing at certain specific pro-Christian ideas, like Christianity being integral to the development, your subsequent posts seem to confirm that that's a part of your argument, but those parts are not explicitly argued in the OP.

And just because I can, Christmas is a celebration of Jesus' birth, not his birthday. I'm sure others have argued that in more detail.

Edit: Ah, I didn't realise this thread was 5 years old. Ah well.

 

Just as wrong now as it was back then but you do get points for being consistent.

However points are deducted for not learning from and correcting the errors in the original so you end up with an "F-" again.

Better luck next time.

 

..love the ad hom replies!

Sorry this topic is such a trigger, for some.. progressive Indoctrination has done that to you. Unable to consider things rationally and objectively, you lash out at anything that conflicts with the indoctrination.

If there were rational responses, there would be evidence presented.. arguments and reasoned rebuttals. But not in Progresso World! Demeaning dismissal is all you've got. No problem. I'm used to that, here.

 

All together now 'Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birth . . . come on, join in . . .

that's more like it . . . happy birthday dear Jesoos, happy birthday to you.'

 

There is NOTHING "rational and objective" about a belief in an imaginary deity.

That belief is based upon IRRATIONAL faith alone because there is NO objective evidence to support the irrational belief. Instead this belief stems entirely from being INDOCTRINATED with religious dogma.

However when pointing this out to believers it triggers Cognitive Dissonance as evidenced in the content of this thread.

 

It is a summation of historical events, leading up to the American experiment. And yes, it is a partial celebration of Jesus's birth, since that is the event that we, culturally, celebrate.

The 'point' of the OP is the title.. correlating the principles that Jesus espoused with principles reignited in the reformation, the Enlightenment, and culminating in the American Experiment.

If i were to write it now, i would be briefer.. and i would perhaps clarify some points. But, i could clarify or restate any points that are unclear or confusing, now.. if anyone was interested...

Birth... birthday... all the same to me. Since this is the time that western civilization has set aside, to celebrate the birth of the Messiah, i felt it to be an appropriate time to correlate the gift of freedom with that birth.