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

Nice deflection. The topic is not about belief in God, but correlating the teachings of Jesus with reformation, then Enlightenment, then American principles of freedom.
The knee jerk responses from progressive indoctrinees and MADA disrupters only reveals the irrational obsession with anti-christian bigotry. Just because 'Jesus!' is mentioned, a psychological trigger is switched, and madness ensues.

 

Ad hom projection duly noted for the record!

Putting that aside it is worth noting that others have already pointed out all of the FALLACIES in the OP and the specious attempts to conflate the NEGATIVES associated with religious OPPRESSION with the positives associated with the Enlightenment and the Concept of Individual Rights.

There is NO freedom of religion in your bible. The concept of freedom religion is ANATHEMA to your religion. The fundamentalist zealots in our nation have been working diligently to remove that Constitutionally protect right.

There is NO freedom of expression in your bible. If you blaspheme or curse the punishment is the DEATH PENALTY.

There are no Voting Rights in your bible. In fact your bible ENDORSES SLAVERY instead which is a VIOLATION of multiple individual rights.

I could continue but that establishes that your religion is NOT the basis for the Enlightenment because it stands AGAINST all of the concepts embraced by the Enlightenment.

What the OP fails to grasp is that the Enlightenment was a REJECTION of your religion. The great minds of that era came to the realization that your religion was nothing more than a tool used by the Powers-That-Be to OPPRESS the masses.

The UNHOLY alliance between Church and State that imposed that status quo for at least a millennia was shattered by the Magna Carta that REVOKED your biblical "divine right of kings" and REPLACED it with the concept of "govern with the CONSENT of the governed".

That was the turning point where your religion lost absolute control over mankind. The subsequent decline in influence has been largely self inflicted. Attempts to regain control by religious wars and the Inquisition all ultimately FAILED because there was no "god on your side" because he does not exist.

The REJECTION of your religion has reached a point where it is now largely populated with CINO's. The dwindling band of fundamentalist zealots may attempt to rewrite history but they will never again OPPRESS mankind.

Religion is effectively dying off and being replaced with scientific knowledge and international communication of ideas.

The relics of religion will persist but they played no positive role in the Enlightenment and have no role in the future of mankind.

 

This whole post is just the phony narrative, CONSTANTLY pounded by Progressivism. It oozes anti-christian bigotry, and revisionist history. It is your belief, based only on progressive indoctrination, not by any facts of history.

I am CONSTANTLY refuting the phony narratives, pounded by the propaganda drums of progressive ideology, done ONLY to smear and demean the competing ideology of Christianity. It is not surprising that these same false caricatures are promoted in a simple thread acknowledging the teachings of the Greatest Man who ever lived, and their influence on the American Experiment.

You can denigeate the Man, His followers, and the Basis for this worldview, but it will not change the Reality of the influence of Jesus's teachings as a positive for the human condition.

You can believe that it was Marx, or Darwin, who provided the basis for human freedom, if you wish. But history and logic do not support that view.

 

This is not quite right.. not at all.

Christianity is in decline, as the majority worldview in western civilization, and the 'religion' of Progressivism, with an emphasis on atheistic naturalism, is growing rapidly, replacing the former majority opinion.

'Science!' and 'communication!', are just propaganda tactics.. orwellian redefinitions, hijacked to promote the progressive worldview, and demean the competition.

Christianity was the majority worldview, when most of our current scientific and communication discoveries were made. There is no conflict with science and Christianity, as the caricature goes. That is just another of the false narratives, promoted by progressive indoctrinees to advance THEIR religion, and smear Christianity.

 

It meant white males.....I guess that’s good with you

 

1. Court Jester should not be referred to as 'it.'
2. Ad hom noted, and expected. That is the 'tell' for progressive indoctrinees.
3. A racially charged smear is not appropriate in a thread correlating the teachings of Jesus and American principles of freedom. (But it is another 'tell!')

 

Do you have any idea how funny you sound ..you have a president Who is on able to consider things rationally and lashes out at anything and everything that conflicts with what he wants and you support him. Or do you think it is rational for the president of the United States to make fun of people and their looks?Yes you think it is rational for the president of the United States To brag that he knows more than the generals? I bet you think it is objective when he chooses criminals to serve under him.I guess you don’t see the humor or should I say irony

 

Yeah, science is propaganda.lol..Orwell was so accurate . Read animal
Farm,
There is no conflict with science and Christianity? Does science tell us that an invisible man in the sky went poof and everything happened?
That’s propaganda to believe that if you don’t worship a guy you’ll go to hell....but he loves you

 

LOL you call what I wrote racially charged?That is so funny because obviously you don’t know that when they wrote the constitution the only people who had all rights were white and male. Blacks and women were unable to vote or hold office. Racially charged is pretending that they didn’t exist.
Why do I noticed that the worst racists accuse those who fight against racism as the racists? It’s word reversal.

 

Sorry but since you presented no evidence no evidence is necessary for a rebuttal.

 

You see no evidence.. quotes, arguments, references.. in the OP?

I have no problem with your dismissal, but i did present arguments..

 

If you are going to "love" ad hominems, you should learn what it means.

So you aren't familiar with the Bible's teachings, ad hominem attacks, or even progressivism. Got it.

I've laid out my argument before for why you can't credit Jesus/Christianity for "American Freedom" and you dodged every argument without even slightly addressing it, preferring to argue that the Bible doesn't actually mean what it says instead. You praise Biblical law when you believe it suits your case but turn a blind eye to the fact that Biblical law outlawed freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for example. And you continue to refuse to read Romans 13, which explicitly defends the Divine Right of Kings, as both Catholics and Protestants agreed. Anyone who claims that the purpose of government is to secure our rights and freedoms either hasn't read Romans 13 or condemns it. I condemn it, whereas you prefer to simply pretend it doesn't exist.

That, together with the fact that it wasn't even Jesus's birthday, was why I called out the historical revisionism.

 

You presented arguements. No evidence.

 

Kneejerk denialism is your #1 response since you could not refute any of the FACTS that I posted.

Furthermore I challenge you to quote anything in my post about Jesus. You can't because I never mentioned him at all so that dishonest allegation of yours is nothing more than a load of bovine excrement. (FTR all of your OP biblical quotes are from Saul/Paul, not Jesus.)

But since you brought Jesus up let's just look at him in the right perspective.

First off Jesus openly endorsed the OPPRESSIVE laws of the OT. Secondly he was selling snake oil since there is no factual and/or verifiable evidence of any afterlife. Most importantly he demanded that everyone must worship your imaginary deity or suffer the consequences. None of the above comes anywhere near to the concepts of the Enlightenment.

Compare that to the 100+ Great Minds of the Enlightenment who actually bestowed upon us the concepts of Individual Rights and Scientific Knowledge that enabled us to discard the yokes of oppression and ignorance that are the hallmarks of religion.

In essence you are hoist by your own OP petard. You began this thread with the intention of trying to make a specious claim that your religion was responsible for the Enlightenment. Instead what has happened is that your OP fallacies have been EXPOSED and the FACTS presented proving that the Enlightenment occurred in OPPOSITION to your oppressive religion.

 

Like so many before, the narratives from progressive indoctrinees are repeated loudly.. with indignation, while simple historical facts are ignored, mocked, and dismissed. The goal from the anti-christian mockers is not understanding, but disparagement. Every thread they wish to hijack, and turn it into a 'Christians vs atheists!', flame war.

I have no interest in participating in a shouting match of religious bigotry, while logic, facts, and history are ignored and dismissed. I can only point out the left wing disruption tactics, used by antifa and others, as well as the many popular fallacies used by progressive indoctrinees.

So, if no rebuttal is offered, and no facts, quotes, or references for history, but only left wing revisionist talking points, all i can do is dismiss the posts, point out the ad hom, and ignore the hecklers. Its become so commonplace in these forums that I'm used to it.

 

Calling arguments progressive and leftist in order to excuse ignoring them, especially when they actually have nothing to do with progressivism or leftism, is intellectually dishonest. I'm not a part of the left and I've pointed out only historical and textual facts as my arguments. If you can't address them then it is time to admit that your argument has no real basis.

 

The OP is lamenting his inability to defend his fallacy by blaming "atheists" even though that has never been mentioned since he exhumed this necrotic thread.

And yes, this puerile ad hom tactic is SOP for the OP whenever he finds himself having to deal with REALITY.

The self pitying content would be amusing if it is wasn't such a sad reflection of the inability to engage in a debate upon the merits of the fact based positions.

Nevermind, there is always 2019 to Rinse and Repeat the abject failures of the past.

 

I agree with you.i prefer the groups antifa oppose They shouldn’t fight against the neo nazis and white Supremacists , after all they are good people (sarcasm alert)

 

I'm a bit confused over how you assign responsibility (or however one might put it). I'm not beyond seeing a link between Jesus and American freedoms, albeit tenuous. Nor am I adamant that Jesus is to blame for, for instance the power abuses of the church during the 1492-1776 period. However, I find it tricky to find a consistent line of thought which offers both of these.

The link between Jesus and American freedom is so tenuous that if we accept that, then Jesus is responsible for all things that were arguably done in his name. I'm happy to go either way, depending on what the argument following that is (although in this case, any following argument is missing, so I'm not sure which one to go with) but probably not both.

In the end, we should start by asking ourselves what the criteria are for assigning thanks/blame to someone for something and then let the chips fall as they may. The argument you have presented here smacks to me more of wanting to identify responsibility in some cases and not others, and placing the goal posts accordingly.

Not to imply that this line of debate carries any sort of importance, but a birthday is the day of the year on which one was born whereas celebrations can happen whenever.

 

we came here to escape a theocracy, and have real religious freedom for all

 

Yup. Its all about Free Will.

 

when our founders refer to God or the Creator, this is to whom they refer - guess that is "proof" we are a Deistic nation if anything...?

http://www.tfd.com/deists

de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.