Mike Huckabee: U.S. moving toward 'criminalization of Christianity'

[Darryl1958]

At the heart of Western civilization is Christ.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

How does cultural diversity erect western civilization? Is western civilization absent where Wiccans were not present?

Western civilization is an ongoing process. It’s not something that happened at a given point or ended at a given point. Everything in the temporal world is on a constant state of change and flux, and such changes in western civilization that are happening even now and the fear they are causing among some are the point of this thread.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Finding a route to make trade easier doesn’t mean you are working to incorporate their beliefs and views into yours.

In fact, western civilization is what is causing India to rise up from third world status that is happening now. It is being hampered by Hindu culture and the caste system it created.

You just finished acknowledging the contributions of Greece. Are you aware of the contributions India made to Greek thought and the exchanges between those civilizations? None of this happens in a vacuum.

In return, I would challenge you to say how Christianity single handedly built western civilization.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

from Izzi:

Are two identical sins worse than one sin? Are two murders worse than one murder?

Every life is a world unto itself. The idea that you can quantify the loss of life in numbers is a mental context. Your question is not a question for me, it is a question for you. You are the one who is a proponent of selective rights to life, wherein life can be forfeited by being on the other side of a dispute between nations or being convicted of the right crime in the right state of the right country. I do not share those beliefs and am against all killing. Therefore, your question is like a drunk asking a non- drinker to recite the legal blood alcohol content for driving. It’s not a question for me, but rather a question for you.

Indeed, and there is a caricature that has been created that faithful Catholics have turned off their brains and let the Church think for them. You seemed to allude to this caricature earlier. Do you disavow this false caricature now?

Again, you create your own. I have mine and you have yours.

This is a hodge podge of nonsense. While we can’t FULLY understand Christ’s (Church’s) teachings, we can know them. While I can never comprehend the Trinity, I can know that the Church teaches that God is three persons in one Godhead.

Certainly you can know that’s what it teaches. But that doesn’t mean that anyone really knows anything. I’m sorry, but this is a matter of faith, not verifiable fact. Not by a longshot. We share the same faith Ishii, but not the same delusion about it.

Your paragraph above is just absolute relativism, and is rejected by the Church.

It is not rejected by science or by observation. Good is only known relative to evil. Polar opposites are only opposites in relationship to the other. Likewise, light is known in relation to dark, hot to cold and all the gradations in between. A fish has no concept of water because it spends it’s entire life in water. It only knows something about water if it has occasion to be out of the water for some reason. Before you reply with your customary proclamation about this being some sort of hogwash, take some time and think of everything you’ve ever known and tell me how this isn’t so. That the temporal world is relative is obvious. If however you want to speak of some promised world instead, I would assert that we know nothing about that. We have hopes about that and ideas about that, and that is all.

Any objective view of the history of the Church will see a swath of love, goodness and charity behind it. Sure there are some dark periods and actions of those in the Church, but far and away the Church has been a force for good in this world. It’s sad when a Catholic believes their own religion is a force for evil.

No sinner is bad every minute of their lives and no saint is good every minute of theirs. Likewise, with most institutions. It’s all relative.

Greeks and the Romans definitely created a foundation that Christian civilization was built upon, but it was Christianity that build western civilization. Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Moors, Norsemen, and Pagans did not build western civilization. And it’s laughable to claim that they had a significant (name removed by moderator)ut into it.

Jews contributed a good deal to western civilization, but the foundational skeleton for western civ was the Christian religion. And Protestantism is an offshoot of the Catholic faith, so I fail to see how that strengthens your argument.

It would be helpful if you would at least brush up on some history before you reply. Goths and Visigoths overran the Roman Empire, and by their choosing retained some of it’s better principles, which in turn were handed down to us as part of the legacy of our western heritage. You have The kingdom of Odoacer to thank for that. Conversely, it is broadly accepted, however unpalatable it may be to those who assert the Church’s preeminent role in the formation of western civilization, that the adaptation of Christianity as a state religion actually contributed to the fall of Rome, which in turn catapulted the world into the Dark Ages, where all classical Greco Roman arts sciences and philosophy were lost for some 1300 years, only starting their return with the Proto-Renaissance. Soon after was the invention of the printing press, increased literacy and greater access to information and presto - all the religions you have a noted dislike for came into being. And this of course ushered in the Age of Enlightenment, and this in turn contributed more to the development of the western world in 300 years than anything and all things in the entire 1700 years prior. And in these past 300 years of accelerated cultural development and advancement, our church was not the predominant player on the stage.

All the things I have just clued you in on are just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the historical truth on this topic, and you can of course verify everything I have said by enrolling in some history courses at an accredited institution, or even just a Google search if you like.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Could you clear up something for me? From your post here, it sounds as if you don’t believe some significant parts of the Christian faith actually happened. It sounds as if you believe they are just stories borrowed from other religions.

How much of the Christian faith do you believe actually happened? And how much do you believe is simply borrowed stories?

Ishii, I am only stating historical facts about the worlds religions. If something I have said is historically inaccurate, then point out where I am wrong and let’s please have a discussion on some specific points. I know some of these points might make you uncomfortable or a little unsettled. This is all the more reason for you to check out these matters for yourself and tell me where you have found me to be wrong. Don’t take my word for it or someone else’s world either. Find out for yourself and come back and talk to me.

On the other hand, what you and I have as Catholics is faith. You and I can discuss history without questioning one another’s faith I hope. I would ask you not to question mine.

All the best,
Gary

 

[ishii]

Ishii, I am only stating historical facts about the worlds religions. If something I have said is historically inaccurate, then point out where I am wrong and let’s please have a discussion on some specific points. I know some of these points might make you uncomfortable or a little unsettled. This is all the more reason for you to check out these matters for yourself and tell me where you have found me to be wrong. Don’t take my word for it or someone else’s world either. Find out for yourself and come back and talk to me.

On the other hand, what you and I have as Catholics is faith. You and I can discuss history without questioning one another’s faith I hope. I would ask you not to question mine.

All the best,
Gary

Gary - I think you meant to respond to zz912, not me. (ishii).

I am not questioning your faith.

Ishii

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary - I think you meant to respond to zz912, not me. (ishii).

I am not questioning your faith.

Ishii

Thanks Ishii

 

[zz912]

You just finished acknowledging the contributions of Greece. Are you aware of the contributions India made to Greek thought and the exchanges between those civilizations? None of this happens in a vacuum.

In return, I would challenge you to say how Christianity single handedly built western civilization.

All the best,
Gary

The Greeks influenced India, there was very little influencing going the other way.

And it simply a matter of looking at western civilization. All significant populations of western civilization are/were Christian. There were no large segment or populations that had significant influence on the building of western civilization. You may have some small pockets where there are some influences, but overall very little. It was Christianity and Christians who built western civilization.

 

[zz912]

Western civilization is an ongoing process. It’s not something that happened at a given point or ended at a given point. Everything in the temporal world is on a constant state of change and flux, and such changes in western civilization that are happening even now and the fear they are causing among some are the point of this thread.

All the best,
Gary

Of course it’s ongoing, nothing is static. Right now we are watching the crumbling of western civilization. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t built. It was, and Christians/Christianity built it.

 

[zz912]

Every life is a world unto itself. The idea that you can quantify the loss of life in numbers is a mental context. Your question is not a question for me, it is a question for you.

I’ll break it down a little more so hopefully you understand the question better. I’ll use an analogy to math to help. I haven’t quantified the loss of a life. I’m comparing the killing of two people to the killing of one. I never said the killing of one person is measureable or okay.

So in this context, let’s change the sin, so we can get an answer from you eventually. Let’s say we are discussing stealing $1000 from Bob. Is it worse if you stole $1000 from him twice? Is it worse if on Monday you stole $1,000 from Bob, and then on Thursday stole another $1000 form him. Or is it the same as just stealing $1000 on Monday only?

You are the one who is a proponent of selective rights to life, wherein life can be forfeited by being on the other side of a dispute between nations or being convicted of the right crime in the right state of the right country.

As I told you earlier, that is the Church’s teaching.

I do not share those beliefs and am against all killing. Therefore, your question is like a drunk asking a non- drinker to recite the legal blood alcohol content for driving. It’s not a question for me, but rather a question for you.

I disagree. This is a question that everyone needs to answer, it is a question that all people need to recognize the objective truth about. Two identical sins are worse than one sin. You are doing two separate actions to injure and offend God.

Again, you create your own. I have mine and you have yours.

I’m not the one who brought this caricature up, so quit trying to evade responsibility for your words and actions.

Certainly you can know that’s what it teaches. But that doesn’t mean that anyone really knows anything. I’m sorry, but this is a matter of faith, not verifiable fact. Not by a longshot. We share the same faith Ishii, but not the same delusion about it.

No, it’s a verifiable fact what the Church teaches. The Church went through the process of creating the Catechism as an easy reference so people could actually verify what the Church teaches. You seem to be confusing the idea of not knowing a Church teaching, and proving a Church teaching is correct. Do you need me to explain the difference in this further?

It is not rejected by science or by observation.

It most certainly IS rejected by science. Science is predicated and FOUNDED on the idea of an orderly universe that follows rational rules that we can comprehend and know. Otherwise there is simply no basis for even testing something, if the laws of physics are flexible or don’t exist. Science is founded on the notion that we can observe things like two objects falling in a vacuum, and determining that gravity effects the objects the same no matter the mass or density.

Good is only known relative to evil.

This is heretical and false. God existed before all time, before all creation, as just the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There was NO EVIL. Even after the angels were created, there was no evil. Evil only entered into creation through the rebellion of satan and the demons. Before all that, good was known, fully known, to the Godhead.

Polar opposites are only opposites in relationship to the other. Likewise, light is known in relation to dark, hot to cold and all the gradations in between. A fish has no concept of water because it spends it’s entire life in water. It only knows something about water if it has occasion to be out of the water for some reason. Before you reply with your customary proclamation about this being some sort of hogwash, take some time and think of everything you’ve ever known and tell me how this isn’t so. That the temporal world is relative is obvious. If however you want to speak of some promised world instead, I would assert that we know nothing about that. We have hopes about that and ideas about that, and that is all.

As noted above, good was known before evil ever existed. Evil is the absence of good. Good doesn’t need evil to exist. Evil only exists in relation to how far away from good it is.

No sinner is bad every minute of their lives and no saint is good every minute of theirs. Likewise, with most institutions. It’s all relative.

An objective review of the history of the Christian faith and the Church would conclude that it is, has been, and will continue to be a huge force for good in the world. It’s not relative at all.

It would be helpful if you would at least brush up on some history before you reply. Goths and Visigoths overran the Roman Empire, and by their choosing retained some of it’s better principles, which in turn were handed down to us as part of the legacy of our western heritage. You have The kingdom of Odoacer to thank for that.

The Goths and Visigoths converted to Christianity.

 

[zz912]

Conversely, it is broadly accepted, however unpalatable it may be to those who assert the Church’s preeminent role in the formation of western civilization, that the adaptation of Christianity as a state religion actually contributed to the fall of Rome, which in turn catapulted the world into the Dark Ages, where all classical Greco Roman arts sciences and philosophy were lost for some 1300 years, only starting their return with the Proto-Renaissance.

Not even close. The Roman Empire was crumbling long before that. The problems with the empire were one of the reasons for the persecution of the Christians in the first 3 centuries of the Church. It was a way of distraction and scapegoating for the empire. The empire finally fell for the same reasons that virtually all empires fall. Decadence, corruption, debt, bloated govt/spending, etc.

And it was the Christians who kept civilization from completely falling apart during the Middle Ages, and it was Christians who kept learning and culture alive by tirelessly copying literature and learning by monks.

Soon after was the invention of the printing press, increased literacy and greater access to information and presto - all the religions you have a noted dislike for came into being. And this of course ushered in the Age of Enlightenment, and this in turn contributed more to the development of the western world in 300 years than anything and all things in the entire 1700 years prior. And in these past 300 years of accelerated cultural development and advancement, our church was not the predominant player on the stage.

That’s certainly the slant given by the Protestant and atheistic history books. Actual history was different.

All the things I have just clued you in on are just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the historical truth on this topic, and you can of course verify everything I have said by enrolling in some history courses at an accredited institution, or even just a Google search if you like.

 

[zz912]

*Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
Could you clear up something for me? From your post here, it sounds as if you don’t believe some significant parts of the Christian faith actually happened. It sounds as if you believe they are just stories borrowed from other religions.

How much of the Christian faith do you believe actually happened? And how much do you believe is simply borrowed stories?*

Ishii, I am only stating historical facts about the worlds religions. If something I have said is historically inaccurate, then point out where I am wrong and let’s please have a discussion on some specific points. I know some of these points might make you uncomfortable or a little unsettled. This is all the more reason for you to check out these matters for yourself and tell me where you have found me to be wrong. Don’t take my word for it or someone else’s world either. Find out for yourself and come back and talk to me.

On the other hand, what you and I have as Catholics is faith. You and I can discuss history without questioning one another’s faith I hope. I would ask you not to question mine.

All the best,
Gary

No, you’re NOT stating historical facts. It seemed you were implying that many parts of the Christian faith are borrowed mythology from other religions. That is not fact, it is conjecture and speculation (faulty speculation at that). So based on your post, I asked you if you do not believe parts of the Christian faith or if they were simply borrowed from other religions.

That’s not questioning your faith, that is asking for clarification of your own statements about the faith.

Now please answer the question.

 

[DCNBILL]

Not even close. The Roman Empire was crumbling long before that. The problems with the empire were one of the reasons for the persecution of the Christians in the first 3 centuries of the Church. It was a way of distraction and scapegoating for the empire. The empire finally fell for the same reasons that virtually all empires fall. Decadence, corruption, debt, bloated govt/spending, etc.

And it was the Christians who kept civilization from completely falling apart during the Middle Ages, and it was Christians who kept learning and culture alive by tirelessly copying literature and learning by monks.

How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role From the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe

amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Not even close. The Roman Empire was crumbling long before that. The problems with the empire were one of the reasons for the persecution of the Christians in the first 3 centuries of the Church. It was a way of distraction and scapegoating for the empire. The empire finally fell for the same reasons that virtually all empires fall. Decadence, corruption, debt, bloated govt/spending, etc.

There are a number of reasons for the demise of the Roman Empire and the social changes and lessening of authority of the Emperor that attended the adaptation of Christianity were certainly factors in this. This is the history that is broadly accepted by most historians. And as is the case with most things, yes, there were a lot of factors, but this was in fact one of them.

That’s certainly the slant given by the Protestant and atheistic history books. Actual history was different.

No, it’s actually history, and saying, “no, no, that’s not true” is not a counterpoint. If history was otherwise it would be up to you to say how it was otherwise in response to my saying how it was.

All the best
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

No, you’re NOT stating historical facts. It seemed you were implying that many parts of the Christian faith are borrowed mythology from other religions. That is not fact, it is conjecture and speculation (faulty speculation at that). So based on your post, I asked you if you do not believe parts of the Christian faith or if they were simply borrowed from other religions.

Now please answer the question.

Good Morning ZZ: It is tiresome to be on a thread with people whose only counterpoints are “no, no, that’s not true” without having the slightest information to offer in reply. The traditions I have noted are as well documented as having been the lore of other religions, and they in fact came first. The fact that this disturbs you is not my problem. I have told you before that my faith is not based on fact or reason. It’s based on faith and that is all.

That’s not questioning your faith, that is asking for clarification of your own statements about the faith.

Those are not my statements about my faith. They are statements about the history of the world’s religions. Don’t make the mistake of trying to support faith with fact, because you’ll lose the former in search of the latter. This is because the latter does not support the former. Do you understand? Just have faith.

All the best,
Gary

 

[zz912]

Good Morning ZZ: It is tiresome to be on a thread with people whose only counterpoints are “no, no, that’s not true” without having the slightest information to offer in reply. The traditions I have noted are as well documented as having been the lore of other religions, and they in fact came first. The fact that this disturbs you is not my problem. I have told you before that my faith is not based on fact or reason. It’s based on faith and that is all.

I asked you specifically which things you think were borrowed from other religions, so that I might be able to have a conversation with you about it. How EXACTLY am I to respond with a counterpoint without knowing what you believe to be false or borrowed? This is now the third or fourth time I’ve asked you to detail it out, and you have avoided answering the question like it was the plague.

Those are not my statements about my faith. They are statements about the history of the world’s religions. Don’t make the mistake of trying to support faith with fact, because you’ll lose the former in search of the latter. This is because the latter does not support the former. Do you understand? Just have faith.

The Church and I believe that reason AND faith are mutually in support of the Christian religion, and all facts that we have learned help to support the belief in the faith. The Christian religion makes the claim that the accounts of Jesus given by the Church, by Tradition, and by Scripture are real, actual events that truly happened. If they did not actually occur, then the Christian religion is false.

You can seek to separate faith and reason, but I and the Church see no reason to do so.

So now, about those specific things you don’t think happened or were borrowed…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From ZZ:

I asked you specifically which things you think were borrowed from other religions, so that I might be able to have a conversation with you about it. How EXACTLY am I to respond with a counterpoint without knowing what you believe to be false or borrowed? This is now the third or fourth time I’ve asked you to detail it out, and you have avoided answering the question like it was the plague.

You are jumping to conclusions ZZ: I never said anything was borrowed from anyone. What I said was that the overall themes were not unique and that others had similar elements in their traditions before we did. I also listed what those traditions were - virgin birth of incarnations of God, resurrections, and so forth. For instance, incarnations of God in human and even animal form were very prevalent in Hindu lore for many thousands of years and eventually became written accounts that Hindus consider scripture. Two in particular are Rama and Krishna. The cult of Krishna was on oral tradition for about 3,500 years before committed to writing insofar as anyone can account, and the Greeks made reference to it’s presence in India in documents that date a few hundred years before Christ. These are all things you can look up. I am far to busy to act as your intern.

The Church and I believe that reason AND faith are mutually in support of the Christian religion, and all facts that we have learned help to support the belief in the faith. The Christian religion makes the claim that the accounts of Jesus given by the Church, by Tradition, and by Scripture are real, actual events that truly happened. If they did not actually occur, then the Christian religion is false.

That is all well and fine ZZ, however I never said that reason doesn’t support what we believe. I said that history doesn’t support it, meaning it is not buttressed by any documented historical fact. You and I believe that Jesus was God manifest among humankind. History only says that he was crucified for trying to start a rebellion against Rome, and the only historical account of Him from his time was in fact just that. Nothing more. It was recorded by the Roman historian Josephus in passing when logging an event that occurred around the year 66 CE or so. There is no mention of Him other than that in any historical accounts of His time other than gospels and epistles, which are not considered historical records. They are sacred texts. Two different things.

You can seek to separate faith and reason, but I and the Church see no reason to do so.

Nope - never attempted to separate faith from reason. That was you not paying attention to much of what I say.

So now, about those specific things you don’t think happened or were borrowed.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said they didn’t happen. I said there is no historical proof. I also never said anything was borrowed.

Calm down ZZ.

All the best,
Gary

 

[ishii]

From ZZ:

You are jumping to conclusions ZZ: I never said anything was borrowed from anyone. These are all things you can look up. I am far to busy to act as your intern.

I also never said anything was borrowed.

Calm down ZZ.

Well Gary - here is what you said in an earlier post:

do feel free to look up what religions we could be cited as having borrowed some of our traditions that I listed above from.

Ishii

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Well Gary - here is what you said in an earlier post:

Ishii

Yes, we could be cited by others as having done so. Not suggesting that it’s true that we actually borrowed ideas from other religions. That would be conjecture. This was in response to the statement that other religions were knock offs of our religion. I am setting the playing field level on the idea that anyone’s religion is superior to another’s, or could state in fact that theirs is verifiable in some factual way to be true or all that unique. The point is that these themes have been popping up over and over again in religions. Is it because each culture is having encounters with God and that God uses the same basic means of contact with all of them, or are they all borrowing from one another, or is it purely coincidence? Perhaps it’s a little of all three, but I do not have an opinion on that matter. Christianity is certainly unique in the idea of original sin and our inherent need for punishment. In that way we are unique.

All the best
Gary

 

[zz912]

Yes, we could be cited by others as having done so. Not suggesting that it’s true that we actually borrowed ideas from other religions. That would be conjecture.

A fair and clear reading of what you wrote is an interpretation that you were stating Christianity borrowed concepts or stories from other religions. I’ve asked you point blank several times, yes or no, if this is what you believe. You’ve avoided the question or coyly gave an evading answer. How many times does someone have to ask you directly for you to answer what your beliefs are?

This was in response to the statement that other religions were knock offs of our religion.

Are you seriously arguing that Protestant denominations are NOT an offshoot of Catholicism? That was the point I made.

I am setting the playing field level on the idea that anyone’s religion is superior to another’s,

This is NOT a Catholic belief. The Christian faith is explicit that the Christian faith is the ONLY true religion, and is superior to all other false religions. Do you disagree with this teaching of the Church?

The point is that these themes have been popping up over and over again in religions. Is it because each culture is having encounters with God and that God uses the same basic means of contact with all of them, or are they all borrowing from one another, or is it purely coincidence? Perhaps it’s a little of all three, but I do not have an opinion on that matter.

It’s certainly possible for God to use other false religions to point toward the true religion of Christianity.

Christianity is certainly unique in the idea of original sin and our inherent need for punishment. In that way we are unique.

One of the many, many ways the Christian faith is unique.