Is the US "a Christian country"? And

While Google does have some hits for "infected by Original Sin," it has far more hits for "guilty of Original Sin," and the hits on "guilt" seem to talk more historical religious perspectives about the nature of people and especially babies than the "infection" hits do.

Yes, but these same "Christians" have a strong tendency to look away, when that valuable human life worthy of protection is guilty of the "crime" of being born in a country whose government in in conflict with the United States. They look away when saving lives would mean reducing military spending by just 1% and directing it toward effective social programs. They look away when there is some question about the actual guilt of that human life that has been charged with and even judged guilty of a terrible crime. And they look away when that human life is a struggling young woman trying to make private and difficult reproductive health decisions and then just be left alone.

But hold up a poster with a 1000x magnification of a zygote in a test tube, and they are up in arms! Try to let a woman who has been completely brain dead for ten years with absolutely zero chance of any recovery whatsoever rest in peace, and they are up in arms! Try to allow immobilized elderly people slowly dying of agonizing diseases end their lives with dignity to spare their own suffering and that of their families, and these "Christians" are up in arms! Present any theoretical human life, that is "innocent" largely because it is merely theoretical (perhaps "virtual" would be a better word than "theoretical"), and weigh it against the struggles of real people who are actually alive, for these "Christians" there is no question which human life needs protecting--the theoretical.

I would never claim that all men should be free, only that their freedom has instrinsic value, which may or may not exceed the value of society's need for protection. If you mean to suggest that by comparison, most Christians find instrinsic value in all human life, I would have to respond that I just don't see it. I find that most "Christians" find intrinsic value only in theoretical/virtual/abstract human life, and much less value, if any, in the lives of humans who are actually here and alive.

 

Its funny how equality and justice are so hard to understand for some. If I steal your bicycle, I owe you a bicycle to replace plus extra to compensate for my grief.

The law not only demanded payback but to restore seven fold in some cases as an added punishment. If you take one life, you owe one life. If you take many lives, you owe many lives.. but you only have one to give.

People hate judgement because they dont' want to be judged themselves.
Usually the most liberal leaders are also the most corrupt as they sympatize with criminal activity.

Crimes of malice are rewarded with liftetime housing free of taxation and the burden of going to work every day with free food .


There is always confusion as to "what is life".

Its a bit funny how hollywood depicts life. You can clone yourself in the movies and live eternally!

This is so foolish! Cloneing is merely another genetic duplicate of another body.
If I clone myself and I live, and my clone lives too, are they're two of me?

No!.... each body encases a spirit and a soul. Therein is the key to life.

A body is merely a suit to wear while here on earth.
If you cut your arm off... are you still you?
what about all your limbs?
What about if you get a heart transplant, are you now someone else?
Self is not comprised within the tissue in and within the body.

Every live entity on the planet got here by being born.

Any entity that exists on the planet without being born "demons, Angels" , also has no authority to have dominion on the planet, but is subject to and under subjection to those who do have authority.

Every soul on the planet has a right to live within thier own body.

Until we learn how to kick someone out of their body and possess it ourselves, we are in no danger with cloneing.
And even if we could figure out how to possess someone else's body, it would not be relevant that it was a cloned body we were possessing. A normal body of "anyone" should be just as difficult to posses as would a cloned one.

Fortunately we don't have to right to Possess anyone elses body any more than a demon does.

No one has the authority to overtake anothers body.

Cloneing is not a violation any more than playing with genetic to alter things to get a boy, or blue eyes etc... a body is just a body.... nothing more.... but in order for it to live, it has to have its "own soul and spririt". Without that, its a lump of dead flesh.

Why did I say all that?.... to show the rights of authority to live on this earth without someone else usurping that right by thier own.

This is the reason if you take a life, you owe them yours.

If it was an accident, then we have the issue of "mercy".. the courts understand little about mercy. We are not perfect and subject to mistakes and accidents.

We we violate someone elses rights without intent of malice then mercy should be considered.

Now a days, if you plead guilty.. that means "hang em high".


So when is a human a human?

You'll have to figure out at what point a spirit and soul is implanted into the fleshly union of sperm and egg.

Is it at conception? At what point does the union become more than the combination of mere chemicals and suddenly becomes a soul and spirit thus a human being?

Hard questions, but I think its fair to say that once you have a heart beat its more than chemicals, but an entity of self and shouldn't be killed by the will of another human.

I'm not saying this to bring guilt or condemnation of acts of the past... what we reap from those acts are enough punishment... I'm simply talking about the beliefs of this country and why we are so split and our viewpoints. There are so many different teachings, and so many without teaching at all that just come up with their own conclusions out of the air.

 

And that would include unwanted pregancies.

And that would include abortions.

It's important question. You say heartbeat. Some people say conception. In history, it was sometimes thought to be the age of two (upon the onset of the "terrible twos," when a baby learns to say "no"). Personally, I am quite comfortable with saying "ensoulment" (or personhood) happens upon birth. But in the end, so long as the pregnancy is dependent upon taxing the prospective mother's body, this question and the reproductive choices that are influenced by it must remain the private decision of the prospective mother in consultation with her doctor.

Don't like abortion? Then don't have one.

 

Bravo. Well said. At least the sort of self-professed "Christians" that seem to dominate the public debate in the US.

 

Very interesting point and one that is rarely brought up. One early morning I watched a TV "Preacher"(I use the term loosely), explain why his ministry needed a Citation X jet plane to do God's work. I think his "teachings" are about how God rewards the faithful with material success.

The funny thing is, he was based out of New Orleans and his church was destroyed by Katrina, but he says he prayed for it to be diverted and then he starts saying that CNN is reporting Katrina is moving. I don't remember how he claimed his prayer helped, but he swears it moved the hurricane. Then he talks of how he needs more money to rebuild his church.

I find watching TBN to be quite "entertaining".

 

Well now you have an interesting point!.....
there is always good in any system or it would never become popular in any arena.
However, Socialism takes away alot incentive for "responsibility" and creativeness and most of all, the incentive to be "excellent".

Strong Unions can simulate alot of the socialistic environment by protecting the weak or the lazy and pay them the same as the strong and the energetic ambitious ones.

I think if I had to take one or the other, capitalizm genders better lfestyle for all.
Since it does encourage the strong and ambitious, those are ususally the ones that benifit the most.

However we have integrated "in many ways" too much socialism by the fact that we provide for those too lazy to shake themselves and go to work.

I could sit at home and be depressed for all the things I don't have and how life is not treating me good and see the socalistic doctor and get my free meds and my free food and my free housing etc. which only encourages me more to not go to work and become independent because then I lose all that subsidy?

We need both!..

Lets break this down to make it simple. Because this is what we do on a wide governmental level.

If you loan a 1000.00 to someone in need, it takes 1000.00 from what you could have spent?

They take it and buy a few clothes, food etc but never go look for a job or give excuses after excuses why they can't, and even go to a doctor who is in the system to say how they are incapable of working and providing for themselves and thier children? Then of course they never pay you back!!!!!!!!
Does the government ever asked to be paid back?..... no!

Now lets talk about children. The children "know" if the parent is faking or really debilitated! They see what goes on behind closed doors and hear the comments made and the witness of lifestyle.
If the parent is truly "faking" and milking the system for all its worth, don't you think they too will also learn to get for free what they would have to work for?

The days of peer pressure where family, kids and friends scoffing those who lie to get subsized are over. Now its almost a rape and pillage mentality that says "take all you can, and can all you get" from the big guy.

Meanwhile someone has to pay for it?.. you guessed it... the honest hard working American that makes it work for everybody.

We need some of the ideas of socializm in play to make it more of an even playing field, but not so much that I don't want to work harder because I will only get less?

How many times do I hear folks at work who could serve the community more, but won't because the taxes start eating them alive?
Why should we get taxed more if we make more?

Why this Robinhood mentality to take from the rich to give to the poor?... isn't that stealing?

Why can't everyone pay thier equal service?

We need a system that keeps a constant tax bracket the same for everybody?

Why not?... the reason why not, is that government capitalizm got into that too!..... they want to have the power to give what they call "incentives" and "breaks".

The idea of a 10% or even 5% across the board tax still appeals to me, but it would turn capitalizm on its ear because the government would have not power of incentive to motivate this way or that?

The government has realized that we need incentive to excell and do more than our lazy neighbor. We need incentive to "save", to start new companies, to go to school, on and on.... bascally anything that helps support the system and others are rewarded with brownie points.

The real question here is how do we have our cake and eat it too?

I think its possible, but would have to be thought out implimented over time.

There is already too much power that leans the other way... too much big money that would not advantage, too much influence that has no motivation to go backwards when they are flourishing.

Its like the stock market.. if you fight the flow and the game, you get squashed.... if you can figure out the game and play it, you win!

 

Well, Jesus did say that one could not worship Mammon (i.e., be a capitalist), and God at the same time, and he walked a path of humble poverty. At the same time, I believe he acknowledged that there would always be poor and one can't help everybody.

So personally, I suspect that as in Buddhism, Christianity allows for a "middle way." I think as was briefly suggested below but then not really fleshed out that well in my opinion,

 

You made me smile. I was using an analogy that I thought fit what I perceived as your misconception. I'm surprised you found any hits on it.

Seriously, "original sin" is never used theologically to show the cheapness of life, but rather that all humans share the same traits, that we are all "equal" in our distance from perfection. You could never take a life based on "original sin". Your comment that Christians should find killing fetuses acceptable because they are not baptised, therefore guilty of original sin and bound for hell anyway, shows a complete lack of knowledge of Christian theology. I'm a pretty well informed layman, and not a theologian, but I can't think of any basis for that kind of comment.

Looks like a couple of things mixed in here. Many Christians are conservative politically, but I think you blur the line between the two. For instance, the Pope strongly discouraged the invasion of Iraq, spoke against the embargoes against the country prior to the invasion. And yet you don't get more pro-life than the Pope.

Christians can hold any political view, including very liberal or very conservative. Theology is separate from politics. I suspect you don't mind the liberal activism of the United Methodist Church because you agree with it.

 

Socialism is compatible with Christian theology. We find it experimented with in the book of Acts, as well as by the Puritans landing on the Mayflower. In both cases, however, holding "all things in common" proved to lead to a poor economy, and converting to a private property, personal freedom model led to greater wealth for everyone.

The economic model used to be that private charities (mostly religious) took care of the poor. Governmental social welfare programs started in some larger cities before, but for the most part, before the 1920's, there was no governmental aid. We have moved away from that model for the most part, but religious charities still play a large role. Charitable giving is a sign of a people's concern for the less fortunate among them, and is common among people of faith in this country. There are formal programs such as the Mormon's aid to their members, and less formal ones such as the missions giving every sunday in churches across the country.

There's always a balancing act in a society to make sure there are enough laws to prevent exploitation yet keep incentives for the general advancement of society.

 

I hate to resurrect such an old thread, but I think its important that I offer you an apology and clarify where I may have been wrong in my assertions. My excuse is that its been 12 - 15 years since I researched this issue, but alas, that is a poor excuse when promoting accuracy, isn't it?

I can't find the footnote, as I can't find a library in my county with the official, printed government record. The library where I used to live had the entire US Government Printing Office set of US Treaties, but they evidently don't publish them anymore. Or at least my area doesn't carry them. If I can get back out to the old neighborhood, about 100 miles away, I can photocopy it once again. Even with my mea culpa, I think you would find its wording interesting.

I did turn to some other sources, and found a bit more evidence that the inserted phrase was not only known to the Senators who voted on it, but was published in the public newspapers as well. That fact ... the simultaneous publishing in a public newspaper ... has changed my mind on the quote. I think its perfectly acceptable to use to show the mindset of the Senate at the time, and the public at large.

Its not just an obscure phrase with an official footnote, its a publically printed treaty with what is in effect an error that the contemporaries ... the Senators and even the public ... didn't mind. It didn't matter to them because they understood the Federal Government was secular, having disestablished religion.

I still think its incorrect to isolate that phrase and use it as a bludgeon in debate, because the "Christian Reconstructionist" crowd can still knock it down pretty easily based on political expediency (differentiating the US from the European governments to the Barbary Coast pirates) and the removal of the phrase some years later when the treaty was renegotiated. But that's a tactical objection, and not one based on accuracy, as I argued before.

 

fshagan, you're an honorable man. You could have let this one lie. I, for one, had forgotten about it, though I was intensely interested at the time you and dan were arguing.

 

That pretty much settles that. Thanks for the quote Dan.