Christianity superior to other faiths for very specific reasons. Awaken to true FREEDOM..!!

originally posted by: rigel4
2: The number of human beings killed in the name of your god or gods of others

Besides the fact that Atheism has been the deadliest dogma per year in the short time it has had political power,

There is also the fact that conflict has underlying issues which people use religion to cope with. If the Umayyads had tried to conquer the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe under a secular unification, and the Europeans had found some other way besides Christianity to push the invaders back, it need not have played out any less bloody than the Muslim conquest followed by the Crusades.

Do you seriously think people would get along better without religion?

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: burritocat
Oh, if you mean like Muslims being violent today, then yeah Islam in that regard is worse. However, the only reason Christianity is not currently as bad as Islam is because it has been been overcome and reduced in power severely. It has had its teeth pulled, so it cant hurt people like they used to.

You're mixed up. Christianity is a good thing to have. Those in power formerly obtained more power by withholding access to it.

Doing so has become more difficult, so it is more difficult to obtain power by withholding access to it.

Typical, Christians trying to take all the credit for something they had little to no involvement. In fact, Christianity is frequently at odds with secular ethics, science, and progress, and has throughout history directly attempted to stop and overturn progress. Western secular thought is frequently at odds with Christianity, and Christians constantly trash secularism, yet now want to take credit for it?

Secular free society exists today because we have managed for the most part to declaw and detooth the predatory lion that is Chrisitanity.

a reply to: burritocat
No, they decided there's really no reason not to tolerate you.

a reply to: Solvedit
Regarding that picture, how did "christian morality" carry "secular western ethics" in the past while it was busy with committing some atrocious acts such as witch hunting?

originally posted by: jofafot
a reply to: Solvedit
Regarding that picture, how did "christian morality" carry "secular western ethics" in the past while it was busy with committing some atrocious acts such as witch hunting?

So you think you'd like ancient Rome or maybe pre-Roman Europe?

a reply to: Solvedit
No, but it really does seem like you are giving all the credit to christianity. Do you want to answer my question now?

originally posted by: jofafot
a reply to: Solvedit
No, but it really does seem like you are giving all the credit to christianity. Do you want to answer my question now?

Oddly you have just answered Burritocat's nonsense about killing in God's name, as well as your own question.

a reply to: Solvedit
Really, how so? I don't see the answer to my question anywhere.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

And the reasons are?

a reply to: Solvedit

Awesome meme, kind of spot on in terms of the claim I'm making. Christianity is the bedrock upon which Western civilisation was constructed. The modern edifice is only possible because of what the followers of Christ achieved over the course of almost two thousand years.

Even though I made several key mistakes in the OP, for reasons that I have explained, I still hold that the legacy culture enabled by Christians is better than the legacy culture of any other group, with the exception of the Jews, who also benefit from the covenant promises of God - the original covenant - they still benefit from that blessing, even though to follow Christ is to follow the One who is the manifestation of the fulfilment of the Old Testament covenant.

The new covenant is superior for the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, rather than being repeatedly made for only the one providing the sacrificial animal/ grain/ wine/ oil offering. The sacrifice of Christ was foreshadowed in the 'scapegoat', which was the literal goat upon which the sins of the nation of Israel were symbolically placed, once a year, by the high priest, thereafter sent into the wilderness to symbolise the taking away of the sins of the nation.

When Christ offered up His life, He took away the sins of the entire world, if only the people would turn, heed His voice, and believe. That is all that is required, followed by a life of learning, holiness & enjoyment of the manifest presence of God.

a reply to: burritocat

Your post is laughable. Do you think it was secular scientists who brought the culture of Christendom/ the West to fruition? No, it was the manifestation of Christian ethics in the collective unconscious of the people of Christendom for two thousand years who were enabled by the blessing of the new covenant to create the circumstances in which rational science was able to flourish. Without Christiantiy, the West would still be a muddy, petty, warring pagan affair in which no civilisational progress would have been enabled, because the squabbles of pagans do not produce a high level civilisation. And at the dawn of the enlightenment, most of the scientists who brought the changes about were in fact devoted Christians. So get your facts straight.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Claiming Christianity is superior to other faiths could also be considered rather humourous given recorded history and all that jazz.

And funnily enough, so is the likes of flat earth theory which i do believe you also choose to entertain.

So it might be best not to call other people's posts laughable.

After all people in glass houses.......

Edit:

And at the dawn of the enlightenment, most of the scientists who brought the changes about were in fact devoted Christians. So get your facts straight.

Come on FlyInTheOintment, at the "dawn of the enlightenment" which i take it to mean the late 17th and 18th centuries, not being a Christian may very well have a somewhat rather profound adverse effect regarding life and status, depending on which nation you hailed from.

A lot of scientists of the time may very well have been Christian, as to the devout part, again part and parcel of the religion back then.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

The need to assert your church as the one superior authority over all other metaphysical authorities, is what crosses the line from spiritual wisdom to dogma and cult behaviors. It's extremely off putting, no one of any expertise is going to say "I'm the best" because that's not authority, that's EGO and any informed audience will immediately pick up on it.

Couldn't have said it better!! I raise a glass sir

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: rigel4
2: The number of human beings killed in the name of your god or gods of others

Besides the fact that Atheism has been the deadliest dogma per year in the short time it has had political power,

There is also the fact that conflict has underlying issues which people use religion to cope with. If the Umayyads had tried to conquer the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe under a secular unification, and the Europeans had found some other way besides Christianity to push the invaders back, it need not have played out any less bloody than the Muslim conquest followed by the Crusades.

Do you seriously think people would get along better without religion?

Yes i do

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: rigel4
2: The number of human beings killed in the name of your god or gods of others

Besides the fact that Atheism has been the deadliest dogma per year in the short time it has had political power,

There is also the fact that conflict has underlying issues which people use religion to cope with. If the Umayyads had tried to conquer the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe under a secular unification, and the Europeans had found some other way besides Christianity to push the invaders back, it need not have played out any less bloody than the Muslim conquest followed by the Crusades.

Do you seriously think people would get along better without religion?

Yes i do

The poorest, most unstable parts of the world are also the most religious. The least religious places are also the most peaceful. Religion brings conflict and instability. Especially the Abrahamic religions, which are the most combative, disagreeable philosophies on the planet. They are also the most opposed to science and progress.

originally posted by: burritocat
The poorest, most unstable parts of the world are also the most religious. The least religious places are also the most peaceful.

There aren't many peaceful places which weren't transformed by 2,000 years of Christian ethics. The ethics are ingrained now. Give the poorer places time.

Suppose they had gotten into a rut of not taking it seriously, tolerating a little human trafficking, mixing their Christianity with Pagan gods who may have been dedicated to human sacrifice, etc.

a reply to: Solvedit

it was the manifestation of Christian ethics in the collective unconscious of the people of Christendom for two thousand years who were enabled by the blessing of the new covenant to create the circumstances in which rational science was able to flourish. Without Christiantiy, the West would still be a muddy, petty, warring pagan affair

"Rational science" was able to flourish because people eventually had enough of religious people telling them what to believe and who to kill for their one and only true "god". People have decided to focus on science instead of god.

Also since you have no problem for giving all the credit for west's advancements throughout the history to "christian ethics" I should remind you "christian ethics" were once busy with buying/selling lands from heaven for money and torturing and killing women for being ugly(witch). Those were happening in the christiandom while for example muslims were busy with making advancements in mathematics, chemistry, alchemy, medicine, astronomy, poetry, weaponry. Then christianity learned from them. And now places are switched. Muslims are going down the dark path of religion and christianity is relatively in a good place thanks to people being less religious. To claim "christian ethics" and christianity were responsible for all that progress christians took/learned from muslims and others is utterly wrong.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
...

There is much in the way of attacks against the faith when it comes to the accusation that Christianity usurped traditional pagan festivals & sacred sites, ...

Not an attack, but a warning straight from God's mouth:

Deuteronomy 12:30

Watch out for yourself for fear you may be entrapped after them, after they have been annihilated from before you, and for fear you may inquire respecting their gods, saying, ‘How was it these nations used to serve* [Or, “worship.”] their gods? And I, yes, I, will do the same way.’

Nr. 20 below: "PAGAN RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS: CO-OPT" (16:38)

Coming back to the term "entrapped", or other translations say "ensnared":

“... you must not serve their gods, because that would be a snare to you.” (Deut 7:16)

False Religion is a Snare and a Racket (playlist)

Jesus said: “Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46)

Good question. Also discussed in the video under nr.6: "DISOBEY CHRIST'S COMMANDS". Examples given there:

- Jesus condemned class distinction [clergy vs laity] and forbade the use of religious titles.
- Jesus condemned mechanically repetitious prayers
- Jesus forbade the use of the sword

In light of the last one, Paul said concerning Christians (true disciples of Christ):

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.

“You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matthew 15:7-9)

The End of False Religion Is Near!

...

What Is False Religion?

Are you distressed about crimes committed in the name of religion? Do the warfare, terrorism, and corruption perpetrated by those who claim to serve God offend your sense of justice? Why does religion seem to be at the root of so many problems?

The fault lies, not with all religion, but with false religion. A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

◼ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?

◼ SPREADS FALSE DOCTRINE: Most religions teach that the soul or spirit is some invisible part of a human that survives the death of the physical body. By means of this teaching, many of these religions exploit their members, charging money to pray for departed souls. However, the Bible teaches a different doctrine. “The soul that is sinning​—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Jesus taught that the dead will be resurrected​—an unnecessary action if humans had an immortal soul. (John 11:11-25) Does your religion teach that the soul does not die?

...

And this is one of the most persistent ones that applies to Matt 15:9 ("they teach commands of men as doctrines"), and just like the doctrine of the immortal soul, pagan in origin:

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea (playlist)

Also discussed in the preceding videos in the playlist:


Concerning the pagan origin of that doctrine:

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

... In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

...

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

...

originally posted by: burritocat
The least religious places are also the most peaceful.

Is a government being peaceful when they increase the amount of money spent on military equipment and weapons/arms? Or send military or financial* aid to countries that are engaged in war (such as Ukraine or Israel now)? *: money that for the most part ends up in the hands of US arms manufacturers and those they employ (also referred to as "the US military industrial complex"; millions of people benefit either economically or socially from this entity or similar entities in other countries).

War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

...

Who Make the Decisions?

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” ...

Religion brings conflict and instability.

No argument there, provided this is understood as referring to false religion (see my previous comment).

Especially the Abrahamic religions, which are the most combative, disagreeable philosophies on the planet. They are also the most opposed to science and progress.

Mind you, scientism is also a religion, as is philosophical naturalism and its accompanying religiously rooted and motivated doctrines and philosophies (dogma).

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Religion’s Future in View of Its Past; Awake!—1989)

As soon as modern science was born in the 17th century, ... Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. ...

This attitude toward religion was intensified by the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Stressing intellectual and material progress, ... “Its ancestral roots,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica, were found “in Greek philosophy.” [whereislogic: pagan Greek philosophy to be more exact, again, see my previous comment concerning Babylon the Great/false religion.]

Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

...

Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection on November 24, 1859. But the idea of evolution actually stems from pre-Christian times. For example, Greek philosopher Aristotle pictured man at the top of a line evolving from lower animal life. At first, clergymen rejected Darwin’s theory, but The Book of Popular Science notes: “Evolution [later] became something more than a scientific theory . . . It became a battle cry and even a philosophy.” The idea of survival of the fittest appealed to people striving to get to the top of the ladder.

Clergy resistance soon withered. ...

...

Today, many thoughtful scientists seriously question the theory of evolution. Sir Fred Hoyle, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy and associate member of the American National Academy of Sciences, wrote some ten years ago: “Personally, I have little doubt that scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely believed.”

Striking as it does at the very basis of human existence, evolution robs the Creator of his due. It also belies its claim to be scientific and does no credit to mankind’s ongoing search for scientific truth. Karl Marx was glad to embrace evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ to bolster the rise of Communism. But evolution is a villain of the vilest kind.

Who Are the Victims?

Anyone misled into believing pseudoscientific theories becomes a victim. But even believing scientific truths poses a danger. The spectacular scientific advances resulting from the scientific revolution deceived many into believing that now nothing was beyond reach.

This belief was intensified as scientific progress continued to erode the antiscientific attitude false religion had once fostered. Commerce and politics began recognizing science as a powerful tool to be used in achieving their goals, be it monetary reward or consolidation of political power.

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

...

Coming back to what you said about Abrahamic religions:

Nationalism and patriotism have also been described as religions, for example, back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.”

Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood (Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past; Awake!—1989)

...

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” (Italics ours.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

...

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

...

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

The god of war, conflict and the modus operandi of 'divide and conquer' (nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) Albert Einstein once said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.):

To follow up on my previous comment...

In a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Amen!

War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

...

Down through history the priestly class has been the willing accomplice of the ruling elite. In time of war, religious leaders have piously blessed weapons and armies on both sides in the name of God, while often professing the same religion. This blasphemy has turned many people away from religion and God.

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

Historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the new wine of democracy in the old bottles of tribalism.” In Power and Immortality, Dr. Lopez-Reyes wrote: “Sovereignty is a major cause of contemporary war; . . .” The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.

Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore.

The Hidden Cause of War

...

That last subject was addressed in the last video from my previous comment concerning the god of war and conflict, a.k.a. "the god of this system of things" (2 Cor 4:4) and "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31;14:30) "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev 12:9).

2 Corinthians 4:3-9

If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination* [Or “light.”] of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 5 For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God is the one who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate them with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us. 8 We are hard-pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out;* [Or possibly, “but not left in despair.”] we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1,2).

Coming back to what Professor Galbraith said concerning patriotism and rallying around the flag (I bolded it before), I have some pictures for that (sometimes a picture says more than a 1000 words):

An idol is an image, a representation of anything, or a symbol that is an object of passionate devotion, whether material or imagined. Generally speaking, idolatry is the veneration, love, worship, or adoration of an idol.

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.”