-
Your posts are basically out of touch with reality at this point. You've never effectively refuted any of my points, you've only made straw men of them to refute. Then you accuse me of being intellectually disingenuous. If you're so rigorous, try responding to the actual point written. Quoting helps if your memory isn't good enough. What was the precedent for this argument in the first place? You're just a hater and you have to try to invalidate the Christians on this thread's beliefs, and mock them while you're at it, while using a double standard to validate yours?
Originally Posted by Tal_175
For the third time, I'm not posing Christianity as proven am I? I'm posing it as a model that I believe in, same as atheism or General Relativity etc.General Relativity is not proven in the strict sense only because the standards of proof in physics is infinitely higher than in religious faith.
So is religion. With the acceleration of technology it's possible that spirituality could be proven one way or the other within our lifetime. Whether there is God or not, etc.General Relativity is a falsifiable, testable theory.
Yet they have to make up unobservable dark matter to account for the orbital behavior of galaxies, and they won't reconcile with quantum mechanics.Both special and general relativity have been tested exhaustively, repeatedly, and with extremely high precision, across more than a century of experiments. No credible experiment to date has contradicted their predictions.Last edited by Strat-itis; 05-23-2026 at 04:21 PM.
-
05-23-2026 03:51 PM
-
Yes, serious. Originally Posted by Aiq
Might want to read in statistics how correlation and causation aren't the same thing. If Christianity says thou shalt not kill, and people kill, did the religion itself cause the killing? Hrmm.. I'm sure you'll find some sort of preschool logic to reply with.Might want to read the Federalist Papers promoting separation of church and state due to 900 years of religious war during the so called Middle Ages. Or The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
Pro tip: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The phrasing is:Worship your whatever but keep it out of my government and schools.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
in the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. So you can't establish a state sanctioned religion, AND you can't prevent free exercise of it either.
-
Neither do capitalists and Christians. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
You are playing the common semantics game, the Separation Clause - yes, called this in court cases and legal papers - dictates that the government cannot establish a national religion, unduly favor one faith over another, or entangle government affairs with religious institutions. Originally Posted by DawgBone
Many court cases and, again, the historical writings of the mofos who wrote the Constitution speak in the exact terms of “a wall of separation”.
The Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom even protects nonbelievers.
You can worship flying pigs should you wish but cannot compel me to do so. Inquisition, anyone?
The Talking Yam proclaiming the US is a christian nation is a violation. Wanting to hold a religious meeting in his billion dollar ballroom boondoggle would be a violation. Of course he violates on the daily.
Posting 10 Commandments in a public school room, being done here now, is a violation. Public school field trips to the Ark museum in KY is a violation.
-
I'm not playing any games at all. Those specific words are not found in the constitution. Originally Posted by Aiq
-
I’m not quite sure what you mean by natural sixth? Could you be more specific? Originally Posted by Tal_175
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That would explain why Trump is selling out to China. Why wait for Newsom to do it? Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I don't know what communism is. China is a dictatorship.
-
I quoted you but I can remind you what I was responding to. It was your comparison of the rigor of Christianity's and the a theory of physics like General Relativity. In fact, you repeated here again: (DO NOT REPLY UNTILL YOU READ ALL THE QUOTES BELOW) Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Originally Posted by Tal_175
That's a highly speculative claim that religion and existence of God will be scientifically falsifiable within our life time. But at least you must admit that it isn't yet. Therefore you cannot claim that it is a model same as General Relativity or other falsifiable theories. That part should be a no brainer. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Last edited by Tal_175; 05-23-2026 at 05:31 PM.
-
I'm glad that you have the freedom to follow what you believe, everyone should have that freedom. Including those of us who who have different belief systems. I know some people believe peace can only happen if their specific brand of faith dominates, personally I believe peace can only happen if no single faith dominates. But I am glad you have that. Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
The phrase you reference originated the Prussians which the Nazis were embracing as part of their identity. Christianity was not a part of their ideology. Originally Posted by frabarmus
-
Thomas Jefferson opined that the establishment clause of the 1st amendment created a wall of separation of Church and State and in fact, many SCOTUS opinions have held that there is an impermissible line that cannot be crossed by the State in matters of religion. That said, the SCOTUS has also held that ceremonial Deism is permissible. Still, while it is true that the Constitution does not explicitly state that there is a separation of Church and State, there is a de facto separation to a large extent. Where that line is, is still being figured out over 200 years later. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
On an ancillary note, the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams explicitly states that America is in no way. founded upon the Christian religion. I would argue that some of the values of Protestant Christianity heavily influenced the American experiment, particularly the idea of decentralized power.
-
The phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t exist in the US Constitution. However, Christianity is baked into many of the original state constitutions. Originally Posted by Aiq
A moral and specifically a Christian moral people was considered essential to the working of our democratic republic.
By the time of the framing of the constitution, there were many different Christian sects the founders didn’t want to get in the middle of.
-
In my understanding harmonic minor and melodic minor scales emerged strictly as voice-leading solutions in multipart writing (not just melody voice but any of the voices). They were conceptualized as distinct scales much later. The use of leading tone in the minor context is fairly obvious (what we nowadays call the dominant chord). When I analyze small parts of Bach's counterpoint with our modern notions of harmony, it's easy to find examples of what can be called ii-V-I's. In the minor context the ii-7b5 is usually in the first inversion. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
So in the key of D, you got Emin-7b5/G - A7/C# - D minor. I am wondering how does the note B (the nat. 6th) arise in this context as a voice-leading solution?Last edited by Tal_175; 05-23-2026 at 06:22 PM.
-
I cannot argue with that. But I do think that Capitalism and Christianity are better for the greater good, particularly when both have to function under some limitations on their power, then are Islam and Communism/Socialism. Originally Posted by James W
-
I would agree with most of what you stated here. Even if we were all of the same faith there wouldn't be total earthly peace. A simple misunderstanding of intention or motive comes up and there is conflict. Attend a parish meeting sometime with open ears, LOL. Originally Posted by StormyMonday
What I was saying was related to some of the misunderstandings of christian theology i.e "being a good person gets you to heaven" and being proud. Not sure why being prideful or proud has been spun into something virtuous these days but it's among the greatest vices people use to deceive themselves with. "I'm proud of the life I live/d" and "I'm a good person" is 100% coming from a place of arrogance and spiritual self-deception.
-
Capitalism works better because it accounts for the selfishness, greed, and acquisitiveness that dwell naturally in men's hearts. It's easier for most people to own 10 guitars to themselves than to give 10 guitars away to those with none. God loves a cheerful giver, not one who is forced to give reluctantly or under compulsion. If we all found a way to be more Christ like then I think society would by nature have a more "communistic" flair but it would not be because the state demanded it of us but rather because we demanded it of ourselves, if that makes sense. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
No, Christianity is not traditionally accepted because of scrutiny. I personally believe it because of life experience and it's my hypothesis that if it's real then it would be congruent with science. The initial GR prompt was me giving you background that I'm a Christian scientist. I'm currently working on a GR revision within its physics, no relation to Christianity. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Yes, it's speculative. It's not off the table in the future given how much technology is accelerating.That's a highly speculative claim that religion and existence of God will be scientifically falsifiable within our life time.
I look at Christianity as a working model for reality given the available evidence. GR is also a working model, has been for the last 100 years. It's still currently inconsistent. That's the parallel I'm making. In science, models don't have to be proven up front for people to run with them, build on them, and scrutinize them. GR wasn't off the table when Einstein introduced it in the early 1900s because it wasn't falsifiable within the near future - it's literally been the accepted theory for gravity for the past 100 years despite being unproven.But at least you must admit that it isn't yet. Therefore you cannot claim that it is a model same as General Relativity or other falsifiable theories. That part should be a no brainer.
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
2 interesting diverging interpretations. I don't have an opinion based on previous knowledge so I hashed it out with the bot: Originally Posted by Kirk Garrett
Yes — secularists often overcorrect by treating Christianity as incidental, which is historically weak.
The subtler version is:
1. Federal Constitution: deliberately nonsectarian.
No “Christian nation” clause, no church establishment, no religious test, and the First Amendment blocks federal establishment. The Constitution “said little about religion” except Article VI’s no-religious-test clause, and that silence was intentional.
2. Founding culture: heavily Protestant.
The moral vocabulary — conscience, providence, covenant, virtue, ordered liberty, suspicion of centralized authority — was deeply shaped by Protestant political culture, especially dissenting Protestantism.
3. State level: much more religious.
Several states had establishments, religious tests, or explicitly Christian assumptions. The First Amendment originally restrained Congress, not the states. So early America had a nonsectarian federal frame sitting on top of much more religious state cultures.
4. “Not founded on Christianity” means not legally founded as a Christian regime.
The Treaty of Tripoli is useful here, but limited. It says the U.S. government was “not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” but it was diplomatic language assuring Muslim powers that America was not waging religious war. It doesn’t prove Christianity had no influence.
5. The best formulation:
America was not constitutionally Christian, but it was civilizationally Christian/Protestant in background assumptions.
So if someone says “America was founded as a Christian nation,” I’d say: legally, no; culturally and morally, substantially yes.
If someone says “Christianity had nothing special to do with the founding,” I’d say: that’s also false.
-
Round and round we go…
As a fond adieu to this thread I will leave this, read it or not.
Establishment Clause | Separation of Church and State
-
Fascinating thread. Interesting to get to know some of us better. Excellent music to start if off.
Speaking of jazz, while following the discourse over the last couple of days, I was for some reason reminded time and again of something Ornette said in an interview:
"Man is the only animal on the barnyard that doesn't know what he is."
-
I assume this view of taking pride in something comes from your faith? I can't fathom why someone would live a life they're not proud of, but I don't follow Christian theology nor do I stress over getting into "heaven". It sounds like a way to cast aspersions on people who don't buy into what their selling. "Johnny does good things, too bad he can't go to heaven because...blah blah blah". Johnny probably doesn't worry about it though Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Pride is a misleading term because it has 2 opposite definitions.
The secular use: Being proud of one's self. Can be positive or negative. Usually used in the positive sense. If you're reasonably proud of yourself for the good you've done then that is not a sin. If you're excessively proud of yourself, have an inflated view of yourself, or proud of your corruption, then that's hubris and is negative in the secular or Christian sense.
The Christian use: Anything that causes you to think you can be defiant of Christian ordinance and make up your own terms. Called the father of the sins because this thinking leads to enabling all the other sins. Say if I thought I knew everything, lust is ok, and checking out AI chicks 24/7 isn't a sin because it doesn't hurt anyone. That's pride in the negative sense.
Or another example. Organized Satanism (posed as good) has the central tenet of making up all your own terms about life: power, indulgence, actualization on your own terms, whatever. This can be good from the secular viewpoint, sin in the Christian view. Because it's saying f u to God's system which can be the only structure for good, and creates a false good structure which is ultimately bad, in our belief. So pride can really be synonymous with defiance in our use.
-
I think that explanation is fairly thoughtful and mostly accurate within a traditional Christian framework, though it mixes theology, philosophy, and opinion together in a way that can blur distinctions. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
A few observations:
- The “two meanings” point is basically true
In English, “pride” does have multiple meanings.
- Healthy pride:
- satisfaction in good work
- dignity
- self-respect
- gratitude for growth or achievement
- Sinful pride:
- arrogance
- self-worship
- refusal to accept correction
- believing oneself above moral law or above God
A lot of Christian discussion about pride gets confusing because everyday speech uses the first meaning, while theology usually focuses on the second.
- The Christian definition is a bit narrower than “defiance”
The quote says pride is “anything that causes you to think you can be defiant of Christian ordinance and make up your own terms.”
That captures part of classical Christian thought, especially in traditions influenced by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. In those traditions, pride is often seen as the root sin because it places the self above God.
But many Christians would phrase it more carefully:
Pride is disordered self-exaltation.Meaning:
- not merely disagreement,
- not independent thinking itself,
- but elevating one’s own will above truth, goodness, humility, or God.
That’s subtler than “you disagree with Christian rules.”
- The “father of sins” idea is traditional Christianity
That part is not invented. Historically, many Christian thinkers did describe pride as the root of other sins because:
- greed says “I deserve more”
- lust says “my desires rule”
- wrath says “my anger is justified”
- envy says “I should have what they have”
So the idea is that pride puts the ego at the center.
- The Satanism example is partly theological rhetoric
The statement about Satanism reflects a particular Christian interpretation:
- “self as highest authority” is viewed as rebellion against God.
Within Christian theology, that argument is coherent.
But philosophically, not everyone would agree that:
- self-determination automatically becomes corruption,
- or that morality requires Christianity specifically.
So that section shifts from explanation into apologetics and worldview claims.
- One thing the quote misses: humility isn’t self-hatred
In mature Christian thought, humility is usually not:
- “I’m worthless”
- “I should hate myself”
- “I must never feel good about anything”
Instead, humility is more like:
- accurate self-assessment,
- openness to correction,
- gratitude,
- recognition that you are not the center of reality.
That’s why many Christians would say:
- “I’m grateful I did something good” = healthy
- “I’m superior and accountable to nobody” = sinful pride
Overall, I’d say the explanation is:
- reasonably intelligent,
- broadly aligned with traditional Christianity,
- but somewhat overstated in places,
- especially where it equates non-Christian moral independence with inevitable corruption.
It’s more of a theological interpretation than a neutral definition.
- The “two meanings” point is basically true
-
There are several different arguments bundled together there — some strong, some debatable, and some that shift from observation into ideology. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
A few thoughts:
First, the opening point about calling beliefs “childish” is reasonable.
If the goal is persuasion or serious discussion, dismissive language usually hardens positions rather than clarifies anything. Calling religious belief “childish” often functions more as social signaling than argument. You can criticize a religion’s claims without reducing believers to immature people.
The writer also makes a historically grounded point that religion has often served social functions:
- creating shared moral norms,
- stabilizing families and communities,
- encouraging sacrifice and restraint,
- giving meaning during suffering,
- binding large groups together.
Sociologists like Émile Durkheim argued something similar long ago: religion is not only about metaphysical truth claims, but also social cohesion.
The comments about Christianity and Islam being more universal than Judaism are broadly true historically. Judaism is traditionally tied to a covenant people and ethnicity, while Christianity and Islam became highly missionary and universalist religions.
The “heaven and hell” point is partly true but simplified.
Reward/punishment systems certainly affect behavior, but many religious believers would object to reducing faith to social control. For them, religion is fundamentally about truth, transcendence, meaning, salvation, or relationship with God — not merely population management.
Where the passage becomes more contentious is when it moves from:
- “religion provides social order”
to: - “without religion society collapses into confusion.”
That’s a much larger claim, and history doesn’t support such a simple equation.
For example:
- highly secular societies like Japan or the Nordic countries can still have strong social order,
- while deeply religious societies can still suffer corruption, violence, or instability.
So religion can contribute to cohesion, but it’s not the only mechanism humans have developed for moral order.
The later section also mixes empirical claims with political judgments:
- gender identity,
- race as a social construct,
- welfare,
- redistribution,
- “laziness,” etc.
Those are modern ideological disputes, not conclusions that automatically follow from declining religiosity. The author is interpreting contemporary cultural changes through a conservative lens.
One thing I find interesting is the writer’s position overall:
- not personally convinced by Abrahamic religion,
- but respectful toward religious civilization and moral structure.
That’s actually a longstanding viewpoint. Thinkers from very different backgrounds — including Friedrich Nietzsche, Jordan Peterson, and Oswald Spengler in different ways — all wrestled with the idea that societies may depend on shared myths, moral frameworks, or transcendent narratives even when intellectual belief weakens.
The strongest part of the passage, in my opinion, is:
- criticizing lazy contempt toward believers,
- recognizing religion’s civilizational role,
- acknowledging that moral systems matter.
The weakest part is:
- treating current social problems as if they flow mainly from irreligion,
- and presenting complex political issues as obvious consequences of abandoning religion.
Human societies are probably more complicated than:
- “religion = order”
- “secularism = chaos.”
But the underlying concern — what holds a society together once shared beliefs weaken — is a serious philosophical question, not a childish one.
-
Tell ChatGPT to stfu with framing the response as a refutation when it just expanded on exactly what I said.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos