Damien Hinds thinks we are a christian country

Not necessarily. I know at least 2 people who are atheists but consider themselves spiritual & believe in ghosts, go to seances etc.

What more evidence do you need than seeing one?

Is that not socialism?

People say, with some justification, that there has never really been a true Communist country.

Has there ever really been a true Christian country?

The early followers of Jesus in Judea pooled their entire wealth into a common fund and then distributed according to need. Nothing whatsoever was held back. They were called Ebionites (The Poor) at the time rather than Christians which was a label attached later. Ebionite is synonymous with Essene who also lived by those values so if we examine the Essene way of life it is effectively the early Christian way of life.

I don't think any country has ever lived by those values.

:(
 


Is that not socialism?

People say, with some justification, that there has never really been a true Communist country.

Has there ever really been a true Christian country?

The early followers of Jesus in Judea pooled their entire wealth into a common fund and then distributed according to need. Nothing whatsoever was held back. They were called Ebionites (The Poor) at the time rather than Christians which was a label attached later. Ebionite is synonymous with Essene who also lived by those values so if we examine the Essene way of life it is effectively the early Christian way of life.

I don't think any country has ever lived by those values.

Is that a genuine question or did you just spot a gap that seemed convenient to unload some conjecture?
 
Is this related to gnosticism?

It was a gnostic practice and the method was carried on for decades after the fall of Jerusalem by Ebionites in exile in Egypt, Syria and Arabia. I am not sure about what has been classed as gnostic scriptures though. The continued popularity of the Ebionites led to the Gospel of John being compiled which is more gnostic in flavour than the three earlier synoptic gospels. Personally, I think the most reliable gospel is Mark even though it is a drama written for recital or performance because contained in Mark hidden under the layer of fanciful story telling based on the Elijah-Elisha cycle is a Manual for Discipleship.

Is that a genuine question or did you just spot a gap that seemed convenient to unload some conjecture?

I think it's a genuine question. There have been Christian communities but I doubt if any country has ever been truly Christian despite watered down attempts.
 
Last edited:
It was a gnostic practice and the method was carried on for decades after the fall of Jerusalem by Ebionites in exile in Egypt, Syria and Arabia. I am not sure about what has been classed as gnostic scriptures though. The continued popularity of the Ebionites led to the Gospel of John being compiled which is more gnostic in flavour than the three earlier synoptic gospels. Personally, I think the most reliable gospel is Mark even though it is a drama written for recital or performance because contained in Mark hidden under the layer of fanciful story telling based on the Elijah-Elisha cycle is a Manual for Discipleship.

Better.

There is certainly a strong case for old testament Christianity to be closer to truth than the reformed accounts that occurred later. Yeshua seemingly learned something (knowledge) for which he was likely framed and killed. That said you shouldn’t hold disdain for followers of modern Christianity, which has arguably been subverted.
 
Better.

There is certainly a strong case for old testament Christianity to be closer to truth than the reformed accounts that occurred later. Yeshua seemingly learned something (knowledge) for which he was likely framed and killed. That said you shouldn’t hold disdain for followers of modern Christianity, which has arguably been subverted.

I don't hold disdain for sincere followers of Christianity even if I think their concepts are debatable.

The struggle that Yeshua became the centre of had been going on for over a hundred years but the Romans clearly saw him as a threat once they came out of the provinces into the centre of population, Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
I don't hold disdain for sincere followers of Christianity even if I think their concepts are debatable.

Cultural Christianity would refer to a form of Christianity that is recovering from atheism. Young lads and lasses in 2019 who live modern lives but want to retain their sence of cultural identity in opposition to atheism or Islam, whilst understanding and paying respects to our grandparents, great grandparents and so on. In order to understand what it is, some slack should be given, young people can see the world as is for what it is in 2019- devoid of meaning and purpose.

Cultural Christians will naturally vary on a spectrum of religiosity, from church going to purely maintaining some traditions derived from Christianity. It’s important to understand that we are in remission from atheism.
 
Cultural Christianity would refer to a form of Christianity that is recovering from atheism. Young lads and lasses in 2019 who live modern lives but want to retain their sence of cultural identity in opposition to atheism or Islam, whilst understanding and paying respects to our grandparents, great grandparents and so on. In order to understand what it is, some slack should be given, young people can see the world as is for what it is in 2019- devoid of meaning and purpose.

Cultural Christians will naturally vary on a spectrum of religiosity, from church going to purely maintaining some traditions derived from Christianity. It’s important to understand that we are in remission from atheism.

Interesting points. Personally, I would hope that the humanistic message of Jesus survives and that we strive to find meaning in our inherent humanity, our true nature, with each individual trying to experience their full potential as human beings. The problem with material atheism is that it so willingly throws the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Last edited:
Interesting points. Personally, I would hope that the humanistic message of Jesus survives and that we strive to find meaning in our inherent humanity, our true nature, with each individual trying to experience their full potential as human beings. The problem with atheism is that it so willingly throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Some modern cultural commentators have pointed out that atheism has accelerated nihilism, you can see this when young people have no sense of retaining and maintaining the world (or country) as a place to pass onto their children. Infact many do not want children for purely nihilist reasons. The “live for now” nihilism we’re seeing is likely a direct product of atheism.

The message of Jesus, and man it sounds so cheesey saying that, is one of love and morality. I’m certain at some
point in the near to medium future his story will resonate again.
 
Some modern cultural commentators have pointed out that atheism has accelerated nihilism, you can see this when young people have no sense of retaining and maintaining the world (or country) as a place to pass onto their children. Infact many do not want children for purely nihilist reasons. The “live for now” nihilism we’re seeing is likely a direct product of atheism.

The message of Jesus, and man it sounds so cheesey saying that, is one of love and morality. I’m certain at some
point in the near to medium future his story will resonate again.

Yes, what he was trying to do was in fact more universal to human beings than people give credit for because it centres around our humanity, what we are as human beings. That perspective is as relevant today as it was then and always has been significant. In fact if you look at other religious masters that have lived, the same central core perspective emerges no matter what was created in their name after they died. It will be the same in a thousand years because that's what we are and always will be.
 
Last edited:
Yes, what he was trying to do was in fact more universal to human beings than people give credit for because it centres around our humanity, what we are as human beings. That perspective is as relevant today as it was then and always has been significant. In fact if you look at other religious masters that have lived, the same central core perspective emerges no matter what was created in their name after they died. It will be the same in a thousand years because that's what we are and always will be.

Problematically, the inherent nature of Christianity means it could occasionally fall to atheism because it promotes humanitarianism and is seemingly less tribal than other monotheistic religions. Perhaps how the story is told needs fortification? For sure I do not trust the CoE or Catholicism to stay strong in these times.
 
That perspective can be defined as Truth and it is eternal because it is timeless. Whatever we have to go through as a species in the century to come, Truth will survive as long as there are human beings on this planet and perhaps that is the most important thing, that Truth survives.
 
That perspective can be defined as Truth and it is eternal because it is timeless. Whatever we have to go through as a species in the century to come, Truth will survive as long as there are human beings on this planet and perhaps that is the most important thing, that Truth survives.

We disagree here then. There are clearly people subverting Christianity, there is no guarantee the Truth survives when people are actively looking to erase and rewrite it. Even you yourself talked about gnostic related Christianity, the New Testament made the old into a shibboleth of sorts, if you are too loose, too hippy with our faith it might die. It’s time for the Church to be strong, young people will respect that more in 2019.
 
Truth is that which is real, reality. It is that directly experienced by our consciousness within. Truth is within each human being. It is not external. Someone scientific might laugh and reject such experience and observation but what they are doing is exactly the same except they are observing and experiencing external phenomena that can be measured and compared.
 
Truth is that which is real, reality. It is that directly experienced by our consciousness within. Truth is within each human being. It is not external. Someone scientific might laugh and reject such experience and observation but what they are doing is exactly the same except they are observing and experiencing external phenomena that can be measured and compared.

I agree mostly. However morality can be rationalised, beware of charlatans. Don’t take truth for granted.
 
(Via Humanists)
Damian Hinds has made some extremely divisive remarks this morning in an attempt to justify faith schools, unlimited religious selection in admissions, and the Christian establishment generally: 'This is a Christian country.'

Well frankly Damien, we're not. We may have been predominantly at some point, when having the wrong religion was punishable by death, but we're not "A Christian Country" now.

Over half of British adults are non-religious. 71% of 18-25s are non-religious, and only 3% of them are Church of England. How then can the claim that we are a 'Christian country' be used to justify favouritism towards Christianity in law and policy?

The UK is a country which Christians, Humanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Sikh, Atheists, Pagans (et al) live in.
The country was here long before people decided to impose their beliefs in it and on it.

Should you wish, you can tell Mr Hinds where to stick it.

Tell Damian Hinds: Not in my name! We are not a 'Christian country'.

Would you say we're a Christian Country?
He should stick to cutting sharks in half, I wasn't impressed by the first one
 
I think the endless commercialisation of Christian festivals has made people far more cynical. I grew up in a 1950’s village. Everything revolved around the church or the chapel. My best mate’s dad was the vicar, and my brother was mates with the Baptist pastor’s son. My dad was a Catholic, but apart from fish on Fridays we were brought up as CofE. We did so many things that the church was part of, but there was never a pressure in our lives to be strict adherents. I married into a Jewish family, but the kids were brought up without religion in their home lives. I think first, and foremost we strived to be caring, and kind, and encouraged them to be the same. I’ve really enjoyed the humanist ceremonies I’ve been to, but still well up at the sound of a good hymn, or carol.
My fear is the rise of Christian fundamentalism, and the preaching of extreme dogma, which some want to incorporate into laws. We must be watchful that we don’t allow these to take hold here.

The Humanists movement (check their FB page) are all over Christian Fundamentalists, Anti-vaccers and the like

At Fulwell it was "At half past three we go home for tea or maybe at quarter to four"

I bet you can remember the rest of it too. I can.
We had a prayer too but it may have been a Bishop based one.

Because during December the whole country celebrate Christmas. A Christian celebration, is it not?

Depends how you celebrate it. Do you go to church, midnight mass or sing carols etc?
Or do you celebrate "the holidays" as our friends across the pond would say

Because during December the whole country celebrate Christmas. A Christian celebration, is it not?

Depends on what you mean by celebrate Christmas.
And FWIW Christmas is the 25th December to the 5th January.
 
Last edited:
I agree mostly. However morality can be rationalised, beware of charlatans. Don’t take truth for granted.

Truth is a cognitive experience and understanding. It appears we have entered a post-truth era in more general terms. What we perceive to be the truth as an individual is what seems to matter whether that is absolute and universal or not. Our own experiences are dismissed as simply subjective by scientific rationalists whereas it is our interpretation of that experience rather than the actual experience which is limited. There is a paradox that results. Mathematics is rational and deductive. Scientific method is empirical and inductive which creates the problem that any 'truth' is simply relative and never absolute. Such a perspective has made us vulnerable to being deceived. We tend to fall back on our own experiences by default to maintain stability but people are telling us those experiences are not reliable. We become even more vulnerable to manipulation by anyone who claims expertise when in reality it is simply someone else's interpretation rather than Truth which is a cognitive realisation.

In other words we can know Truth through direct experience and cognitive realisation. Any concepts that result are simply interpretation and limited.

PS: Fuck me. Reading that back sounds complex but I hope you can grasp the gist of what I'm trying to say.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top