A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2012, 06:15 AM
A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
The conversations starts with Christian posing Qualia soup's video on secularism with a commentary:

Christian: Calm voice. Seems logical and reasonable..even made it to 3:12 but when I saw Cross bundled up with other religions...plain wrong from that point on, Christianity is WAY OF LIFE not just any religion. And you would not go to Middle East with your Secularism either. When 'you' apply Secularism in this way, only thing you're really doing is killing good old way west was established: Gospel of Christ. If this is not to someone liking - sad enough. Will I accept this secularism in face of no alternative? No thanks. Communists did the same type of $&?! experimentation with people: did not work. Author should try tasting some Gulag time for confirmation of his secular theories, to see wether they work or not
16 July at 05:01 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: Secularism is the right to believe what you believe rather than what your politicians believe or what the majority believes without sacrificing life, liberty, or happiness. I'm struggling a little in figuring out whether it's the principle you oppose our whether it's a specific application of the principle.
If it is an application of the principle, can you point to specific instances where it has been applied wrongly or badly, and in each case could you consider how you would approach the situation if it were not general "Christianity" that was being separated from state activities but instead "Catholicism", "Mormonism", "atheism" or "Islam".
Does being "right" about what you believe mean you should be able to embed it into government. What about all those people who believe differently but are also sure they are right? Again, are you happy for them to embed their "truth" into government wherever they are the majority?
16 July at 11:50 via Mobile · Like
Closeted Atheist #2: the Taliban is for a theocracy. if they were in favour of a secularist government, you would be free to live as a christian in their society.
16 July at 12:06 · Like
Closeted Atheist #2: most of the communist regimes did not start out as secularist. they started as atheist and tried to force it on people. since those governments have become more secularist, Christianity has had a chance to flourish.
16 July at 12:08 · Like
Closeted Atheist #2: perhaps not most of them, but Russia and China in particular, so, the most visible rather than most in general.
16 July at 12:10 · Like
Christian: Work of God in those countries should not be swapped and explained with some secularism theories that are only good at hijacking -not generating that what is precious in people's lives. Communism fell because of man's stupidity and corruption. Yet Christianity continues to grow in those countries because God Of Jesus IS real..We can't compare blood and water here
16 July at 13:02 via Mobile · Like
Christian: See contrast: South Korea is Christian, whilst North is communist. Yet they are same peoples, families divided. To say secularism provided prosperity for south is hijacking the truth to say the least
16 July at 13:06 via Mobile · Like
Christian: Horse always goes before the cart. It's the only way, so no, secularism is a perversion, not the cause. On the other hand, Christianity indeed is the cause for change-and that for better. I don't believe USA will go down that easy either- I firmly believe people will assert their believes and cut-off their worldly bias currently choking them- and they will do God's will once again
16 July at 13:17 via Mobile · Like
Christian: Korean example, once again: in theory, communism surely is the best thing man has ever devised -yet it fails miserably when compared to Gospel of Christ because it doesn't look into condition of man's heart neither it provides remedy for it. Secularism too- is a dead muscle: more trouble than use from it. I rest my case
16 July at 13:24 via Mobile · Like
Christian: Thanks for comments guys, this is just my personal opinion, do as you see fit, pray God bless always
16 July at 13:28 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: Alternatively we could look to the only nation founded in secular values as an example, a country whose founding fathers embraced the plurality of belief in their citizenry and whose wealth and prosperity while in decline are still the envy of the world. A country where Christians are free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or death. A great country. Often a good country. A country of the deepest moral conviction and the freedom of thought needed to innovate their way out of the direst of circumstances. A country who declared its independence this month only a short 236 years ago.
16 July at 15:58 via Mobile · Like · 1
Christian: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Creator surely being God of Jesus Christ
16 July at 16:14 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: You might be surprised.
Although the declaration of independence contains the words you mentioned, the constitution of the United States does not. The only mention of Christianity or religion is the clause that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". The first amendment extends upon this with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When we get to 1797 we see the following position from the John Adams, a statement endorsed by the Senate: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The majority of people who signed the declaration of independence were Christians of one type or another, that's true... though there were a few notable exceptions at the table and among the thought leadership of the time.
16 July at 22:07 · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: Here are some interesting breakdowns:
Look for the word "Deist", which means someone who believes there was probably a creator but one who isn't around anymore or at least isn't interacting with us by answering prayers and the like. For practical purposes it usually means the same as "Atheist".
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America
List of the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers of America: all signer...See more
16 July at 22:11 · Like ·
Christian: Found term" deist" here too: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html its clear religion was so prevailing, the politicians cleverly used law to separate it for other reasons, secularism being the least at the time. Still is not the driving force. I don't believe it will ever be.

Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.
A discussion of the Constitutional Topic of Religion
17 July at 16:19 · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: Secularism is the separation of church and state. Enshrining this principle into law could have no purpose but the endorsement and enforcement of the principle Smile
17 July at 18:21 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: Perhaps the difference in understanding here is that when you say secular I think you mean atheist, as in an atheist state. Most atheists are secularists, just as most Christians want a separation between church and state. That is a state that neither promotes atheism, christianity, or any religion or discriminates between its citizens on the basis of their beliefs.
The challenge for Christians and secularism I think is not in whether or not the state should be secular, but in how to avoid a secular government that recognises no religion becoming an atheist government that permits no religion. When you say "secular" I think that might be what you are really talking about, a government that allows atheism to be lifted above other beliefs and to displace other beliefs. However, that is not secularism. Secularism is when the government does not endorse any belief (or non-belief) over any other, and restricts itself to activities that don't interfere with the practice of personal faith of any kind.
The line between a government that promotes no faith and one that is hostile to faith needs to be drawn carefully and consistently for secularism to work correctly in the Western and American tradition.
17 July at 20:11 · Like
Christian: ‎"In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, religion did not get a lot of sound bites. It should be noted that without exception, the Framers were Christian or, at the very least, deists (generally, deists believe in a single god who set the universe on its course and then stepped back to watch; some deists believe their deity is the same God of Judeo-Christian tradition, some do not). There were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. Disagreements about style and method of worship between them were nearly as vast and incongruous as any seen today between, say, Jews and Muslims, such that the Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy." End Quote Correction i see as needed in face of the distortion that the disagreements between Christian denominations ARE NEVER as wast as between Jews and Muslims and can be abridged. I can attest that indeed we worshiped God at different times as A Family in Pentecoastal, Alliance, Uniting, Mennonite, Church of Christ, Baptist, Catholic and other buildings and Countries! We simply disagree on some issues, usually non-essential, aware with some certain denominations of their "stumbling" stone, as they are with ours, God helping there. No humble Christian lets conflict on "religious issues" between himself and another believer remain too long in the way of relationship between his own soul and God. Although this should be true for all aspects of our lives and dealings with public, daily and hourly
18 July at 00:08 · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: And what do you conclude from that about secularism and its role in the foundation through to the present day of the United States of America?
18 July at 00:29 · Like
Christian: Secularism's wrong, yet good in a way because it's has so much free stroke. When they time comes, people will seek and find Christ
18 July at 00:34 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: I still don't understand what you mean by secularism when you say that it is wrong, or why you conclude that it is wrong. As a political philosophy the alternatives are theocracy (one sect of one religion governing all, such as we see in Iran) or an atheist state (such as we have seen in various communist dictatorships), or somewhere in-between. A secular state stays out of religion. A theocracy places the religion of the political elite above all others, so for example if Mitt Romney were to gain a place in the white house next election you might be expected to follow all Morman tenets. An atheist state publicly states requires its citizenry to believe there is no God at all.
Which of these alternatives do you see as "right" in contrast to the "wrong" of secularism, or do you have another alternative in mind? If you see the right way as being some balance of these ideologies, where do you see this balance lying?
As for disagreements between Christian sects, in Europe when America was founded there had been violence and war between Catholics and Protestants[1][2] and between puritans and other sects for centuries[3][4].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
[3] http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/...d-quakers/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs

Protestant Reformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Waldensians (12th century)Avignon Papacy (1309–77)John Wycliffe (1320–84)Western...See more
18 July at 09:23 · Like ·
Christian: Yes Protestants 'got away' from Catholic Church in similar matter Catholic Church split with Orthodox approx. 1000 years ago. It's time for Christ to keep us united and not fighting each other, don't you think? Don't you know that for a believer, earthly judge is not acceptable alternative? There is little value we can glean from secularism because Christians are the ones guided with light from above, and certainlt not secular or popular culture -or at least it ought to be so given the magnitude of our precious Gospel and good teachings of the Lord Himself
18 July at 14:37 via Mobile · Like

Closeted Atheist #1: There can be no genuine Christianity when government decides what it means to be Christian. The faith that shines through the lens of today's politics is clouded, murky, and polluted. To abandon secularism for theocracy is to abandon a personal faith and leave it up to politicians like some leave it to their pastors and priests. It is to place an earthly judge between Christian and creator, and one who craves power and control. Separating church and state keeps Christianity from being a political football and a political straightjacket. Christian people are able to vote for who they want on the issues they care about without government getting in the way. Christians are able to believe based on the Bible and their spiritual calling rather than being a tick in a box on a ballot paper.

If your argument against keeping church and state separate is that it isn't that way in the Bible, I'd point you back to the days of the judges before the kings. When we put Christianity into the business of government and government into the business of Christianity we make the government and we make the king the intercessory between us and God. Surely that's the place of Jesus, not of Barack?

Unfortunately I don't think you have pointed to any instances of secularism being either wrong in principle or even applied badly in practice, so I fear you are arguing a strawman where you have made this picture for yourself of secularism and demonised the idea to the point where you aren't looking at it for what it is but only for what you suppose it to be. Learning that we needed to keep religion and politics separate was a lesson earned by the shedding of blood. It is a foundation of modern era of Western civilisation. But I would go further than that: It's a foundation for modern Christianity, not shackled by the missives of a pope or some king or president as the head of the church. It is the foundation for a personal Christianity. It's necessary to put Jesus in that place that theocracy reserves only for government. Only separation of church and state grants Jesus that place at the head of the church.
19 July at 01:24 · Like
Christian: That first line is great. Let's remember that Catholic Church in medieval times and before was sole carrier of faith in Christ in West for a long time, wether we like it or not -with all it's faults and blemishes. Corruption creeped in because like in today secularism just as well banks do sell wealth and exchange it for debt, hospitals do sell health and exchange it for death and disease, legislators do sell justice and exchange it for $, politicians do sell power and exchange it for $ -or more power...it's almost natural that man, like universe itself, constantly goes from order to disorder. Spilling blood usually- you're right, brings equilibrium and order again. We know the highest rate of personal freedoms were in years after ww2: one could do more things than average teen can do today and get away with it. If it seems otherwise, watch out. Today state of our freedoms is not comparable with theirs. Back to CHurch, although its role is defined and explained in Bible, men were willing to exchange it gradually for whatever benefit -or sin- they could get away, because it seemed it was easier that way.Visiting any Cemetery is a sobering thing to do: where are all these people? Why did they all die? Protestants formed and broke away because of corruption, not because of blinding holiness of Catholic Church leaders. This was certainly initiated by the Holy Spirit, for sure. Fault isn't in Christ or Gospel teachings..indeed, they are our safety deposit that when a dictatorship (displayed in an individual or collective form) shows its ugly face up, or any other form of human government goes too far with ITS ideals- we can go back to basics, we know our way home. Greatest prosperity and peace comes from trusting God (of Jesus) first and foremost, not an elected MP -and that is clear to many. Jesus speaks of entering Kingdom of God, and comparisons between those who Wish to be first etc. Secularism is never better option vs knowing your Scriptures. Do you believe Church happens and is when 2 and more men (believers) speak about God in Holy manner true? It all must start with God so no one would boast. I'm noticing good swing here, well done. Democracy too, with all it's faults and shortcoming, still seems better option than many others that we humans tried. With technology advancing, things may change for better and for worse. Time will show
20 July at 01:04 · Like
Christian: God wanted to rule Israel lovingly, but Israel wanted earthly king, good looking, tall and strong. So He gave them Saul, the donkey header. Even prophet Samuel was mistaken with David's brothers, when he came to choose next king "after God's own heart" - lesson learned? Yes and no, depending where we are in our walk with God, not our count of votes at local elections as an MP or whatever

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
Pitiful, isn't it?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2012, 05:46 PM
RE: A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
He's a nice guy. It's just a pity about the mode of thinking. He sees the devil in a word or a concept, probably because a preacher has spoken on the subject. Now that he's conditioned that way he can't even acknowledge that separation of church and state was instituted for the purposes of enforcing secularism - ie separation of church and state. It must have been for a another reason.
I think he looks at the word and feels that if he accepts it into his thinking he'll be contaminated by it. That in seriously considering an idea like this he will put himself in danger of hell fire.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 01:34 AM
RE: A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
Terrible theocracy lover. One of the dangerous ones, that want to destroy what little freedoms we have. I hate people like this guy.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2012, 03:11 AM
RE: A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
I just want to correct Senor Fucktard here. A deist never worships the Christian God, or any other specified fairy theorized (poorly at that) by any Church.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 05:50 AM
RE: A facebook discussion on secularism with a fundamentalist
Facebook... discussion....


[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: