Silas

Abolitionism in the west was driven by Christians for the most part. There were some secular humanists involved with the project, but most Christians were against slavery. The Epistles of Paul and Book of Revelation (18:13) condemn slavery. And while Islam permits slavery, it encourages emancipation. My point is simply this: without transcendent ethics and commandments regarding the conduct of human beings, morality and ethics simply become a matter of debate, and relativism rules the day. Even my atheist friend admits this --without the "book" we have the capricious opinions of men. I think you over-estimate the nature of man, and the altruistic impulse of those without religion. This is common among atheists and agnostics who imagine a world of philosopher kings and a citizenry motivated by some complex ethic system. The reality is a world of power struggles, selfishness, cynicism, and flawed people.

Lots to unpack here, but let me start with a book recommendation Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages by Etienne Gilson. Gilson tackles the issue between reason/rationality/philosophy and the rejection of these things in favor of pure revelation in the early church (and this connects to Islam as well). There was a tension and dispute between the "Tertullian School" which rejected classical philosophy ("What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"), some of the Neo-Platonics, and the later Scholastics who synthesized and harmonized Aristotle with scripture. The Scholastics and Islamic scholars like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd "won" this battle for the most part, although Augustine still holds a prominent position in the Catholic Church. gender theorists may share some ideas with the Tertullian School and Neo-Platonics, but I reject the idea that they have anything in common with the Scholastics or philosophical realists. Asserting that a spiritual realm exists which is outside of space and time as we understand it, does not mean we subjugate human knowledge to those things which are unknowable or ineffable. Now the atheist will deny outright that the spirit/soul exists, and that God exists. They will also claim to follow "reason-based ethics", but such ethics is simply based on power and preference, without any regard to transcendent, absolute principles, or even first principles. Cold logic and reason may dictate that we enslave populations, engage in eugenics, or even kill scores of people in order to create a perfect society for the people who make the rules. There are no "human rights" without reference to a transcendent and absolute principle --you are entitled to nothing in such a world. Now it is very true that the layman does not understand the finer points of any of this, and may erroneously reject "science" in favor of scripture, or engage in superstition. This is why the Catholic Church stressed the need for a highly educated clerical class (priests, bishops, etc.) to maintain doctrinal and theological standards and guide the flock. Islam does the same thing with Imams. I am not sure what "relying on science" even means, because human ethics and society are based on culture, values, religious belief, and all kinds of things that are not reducible to science. One is reminded of the distinction between "problem" and "mystery" in the philosophy of Marcel:

I think a lot depends on the philosophical and theological foundations of theism as properly understood. In Islamic and Christian tradition, classical hylomorphism was used to define the reality of being, and this connects to the divine. Working from Aristotle, Ibn Sina (Avincenna) claimed that all substances are comprised of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). Aquinas took this further and made the connection between the form and the soul --with God as the architect of forms. There isn't a hard separation between the spiritual and the material --the material is a reflection and realization of the material. Classical Islamic and Christian scholars and theologians were philosophical realists. As Dr. Gholani remarks: "Realism and Truth in Islamic Philosophy means that truth or reality is something that has an independent existence outside of the human mind. In this view, truth means that a belief or statement is true if it matches or corresponds with what exists in reality." And this connects to ideologically-driven claims made about reality. When a person claims that he is not "male" because his "inner-self" or being is somehow female, he is making a kind of spiritual claim, but that doesn't match with his material form, and contradicts realism and logic. In Christian (at least Catholic) theology, the soul is not at odds with the body. metaphysics property understood simply means "above physics" --not in some immaterial way, but as a nexus between human thought, physical reality, etc. We understand the abstract connections between the arts and sciences through metaphysics, just as we understand our presence in the universe. The idea that we subjugate science under theology in order to verify metaphysical claims is a talking point of atheists. No serious Islamic or Christian scholar claimed that everything around us "isn't real" or that the laws of nature were arbitrary, and that sacred texts were the only thing we can rely on. God gave us a mind and body for reason, the universe is real. Now when we discuss Platonism or the Trinity, this gets more complicated --there are connections and differences between Aristotle, Plato, the Neo-Platonists, etc. --but that is a much bigger discussion

The passage in Acts 15:20 regards James, not Paul. James emphasized keeping in accordance with Mosaic law, while Paul rejected works-based-salvation and emphasized "Christ's Law", which fulfills and supplants the Mosaic. but another interesting aspect to all of this, is that fact that the Noahidic Law is seldom referenced. Noah's son Japheth traveled north from the Levant, and was the ancestor of the Greeks, Indo-Europeans, etc. --he was never under the Mosaic Law. So when Jesus says he has fulfilled the law, is he talking about both laws or only the Mosaic. I have no idea lol

The passage in Acts 15:20 regards James, not Paul. James emphasized keeping in accordance with Mosaic law, while Paul rejected works-based-salvation and emphasized "Christ's Law", which fulfills and supplants the Mosaic. but another interesting aspect to all of this, is that fact that the Noahidic Law is seldom referenced. Noah's son Japheth traveled north from the Levant, and was the ancestor of the Greeks, Indo-Europeans, etc. --he was never under the Mosaic Law. So when Jesus says he has fulfilled the law, is he talking about both laws or only the Mosaic. I have no idea lol

what would an American left even look like? Eugene Debs style left-wing populism?

For purposes of conversation and debate, could we say the following?: Pauline Christianity does not assert that Jesus is one with God, but rather a blessed intermediary for humanity (a great prophet)? there are passages in the epistles which *suggest* Jesus is Messiah and God, and others which make a clear distinction between God the Father and the "Lord" Jesus

It should be noted that Trump supporters (MAGA crowd) are not *conservatives* --they are right-wing populists Paleo-Conservatism, or even neoconservatism, is represented by National Review intellectuals, Mitt Romney supporters, Mormons, and remnants from the Bush coalition. These people are strongly in favor of free speech, rule of law, and the "propositional nation" theory. They are nominally religious Trump supporters make no claim that we must take the ideological or philosophical high-road when it comes to dealing with the political left. They are cynical, opportunistic, pragmatic, and eclectic. This is what the political left in the US simply doesn't understand: they think the MAGA types are driven by abstract principles of liberty, democracy, and Constitutional absolutism. One guy on social media remarked after the Kirk killing "the left in this country needs to be destroyed, and I don't care how it happens" The dissident-right (or Alt-Right) has a similar outlook, but they are actually more principled and ideological. They are ethno-nationalists, not populists. What this all means is that the more the left pushes and embarks on radical measures, extreme activism, violence, etc., the more power the populist right will gain, and the bigger the blowback. Traditional conservatives aren't going to get in the way when these people are rounded up for the political left in the US, I would remind them of the words of Elrond "Our list of allies grows thin"

I don't think Sanders himself is reactionary, but some of his followers are Shortly after the Kirk shooting, Sanders made a reasonable and polite public address on the topic. Some of his supporters on social media praised his efforts, while others said that he should have denounced the "Fascist Kirk" and celebrated his murder. Some called for more violence a good example of a reactionary individual would be this online troll (with millions of followers) who calls himself "Destiny". This guys has said outlandish things, and has repeatedly called for violence against conservatives.

Excellent questions, and they have been a topic of much debate in Christianity let me try to tackle this with a few examples from Paul's missionary activity, starting with his sermons to the Jews in Antioch (Acts 13:13-52), in which he declared: “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.” --note the insufficiency of Mosaic Law. this connects back to Jesus' statement that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. But I interpret his words a bit differently than many scholars--the correct word should be "supplant" the law, because merely to fulfill something is to carry out an agenda. Christ did not simply do that, he established a "new and everlasting covenant" based on divine truths and his own substitutionary atonement, and this new promise is to be extended to the Gentiles (and the whole world) but back to Paul: after his sermon at Antioch, many Jews rejected his message, and Paul endeavored to turn his attention exclusively to the Gentiles, remarking " "For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth'" (Acts 13:47) In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul makes it clear that converts to Christianity do not need to follow Jewish cultural and (old) religious practice (dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc.), and in Colossians 3:11 Paul remarks " "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." Some modern Biblical scholars contend that Paul believed adhering to Jewish tradition (Law) after the resurrection was a formality and a way to give thanks to God --not a religious requirement or obligation. The Gentiles didn't know the Law and were under no obligation to follow it, save for the principles put forth by Jesus and his disciples (which of course connect back the Commandments, etc.) Now the question as to whether Jesus intended his message for people other than the Jews is a trickier one. His earthly ministry did feature miracles directed towards the Gentiles (Matthew 8:5-9 for instance), and he did proclaim himself to be the Messiah to a Samaritan woman. If we accept that the Samaritans were NOT one of the lost tribes of Israel, and therefore not of the "lost sheep of Israel" Jesus claims he was sent to, we are left wondering why he did this? I don't have a good answer lol

It will be good when Sanders is finally gone he has this cultish following among ignorant and reactionary people in the US. Guy has never accomplished anything save for stirring up tribalism, class-warfare, and resentment (which he then uses to gain more political power)

Some clarification here Evangelical Christians are mostly indifferent when it comes to Israel. Some support Israel, but many do not. This is because most Evangelical denominations and congregations are not dispensationalist and instead follow what we call "covenant theology" --I think this is somewhat consistent with Islam in the sense that God makes agreements/promises with humanity and we are expected to fulfill our side of the bargain Dispensationalism, which calls for the restoration of a national Israel, is found in some Baptist congregations (maybe 40% of SBC churches are dispensationalist), Pentecostal churches, and non-denominational. Lutheranism, Catholicism, etc. are not dispensationalist so only 10-20% of Christians in the US follow this nonsense about the restoration of Israel (at best). I am of the school that the Apostle Paul and others clearly stated that we are to break entirely with Judaic tradition, custom, and governance. Paul's epistles had to tackle these backsliders who wanted to go back to Jewish legalism, custom, etc. The "new and everlasting covenant" (Luke 22:20) establishes a new promise, and the great commission (Mat 28:16) extends it to all nations and people (as Islam is intended for all of humanity) What this means is that as a general-principle, Christians and Muslims are under no obligation to support the state of Israel, its rulers, or its religion. Jews are heretics and their "country" is a gangster state similar to Russia and I would add that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values, ethics, etc.

There is this absurd notion in some sectors of Christianity and the American body-politic that this thing called "Judeo-Christianity" exists The disciple Paul made it very clear in his many epistles that Christians were not beholden to the Talmudic law or Jewish custom, and that Christ had supplanted the "Law" not simply fulfilled it now many can argue this point, and much has been written, but even among Muslims who deny the divinity (trinity) of Jesus would agree that his ministry on earth was not designed to uphold and codify Jewish law, but to basically supplant it. No one here is beholden to ancient Jewish tradition

The guy who shot Kirk is a degenerate with terrible ideology and morals, and is an equal enemy to Christianity as he is to Islam many of us have issue with Kirk, disagree with much of what he has said in the past (my complaints have to do with Kirk's support of Israel and his grifting), but it really isn't about him it is about lost souls in this country (the US) gunning down people they disagree with. those people are not allies of anyone

Charlie Kirk was shot to death today by a gunman from over 200 feet away --one shot through the spine Shooter escaped, but then was arrested. Kirk has a lot of enemies, and it could have been a left-wing activist, but in the last few weeks, he openly declared that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to Israel and Mossad --and the criminal's protected status was a result of his involvement in the intelligence community. His remarks and interviews were condemned by the Jews and today he gets shot dead https://www.dw.com/en/us-conservative-pundit-charlie-kirk-shot-dead-in-utah/a-73954370