Putin defends Christianity

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

YOU ARE SO WRONG. They were ANTI-KING AND ANTI-CATHOLICISM!!!! Catholicism was dirty and one and the same with the power of the King, they DESPISED IT.

The drafters of the US Constitution were Englishmen, or men of English origin. They came from a country where the Roman Catholic church had almost no representation, where another faith (Anglicansim) was the state religion, and where Catholics suffered various civil disabilities and were generally discriminated against.

Anglicanism is a Protestant religion.

As for being antimonarchist, it is probably true to say that the king (George III) was more against the American colonists than they were against him. He had a certain nostalgia for absolutism, which he could not indulge in Britain. The colonists’ problem was not the monarchy but lack of parliamentary representation — hence their cry of ‘no taxation without representation.’

Where did you learn your history? In a church?

a reply to: Astyanax
I believe the anti-Catholic monarchy feelings in a number of the founding fathers was a result of their dealing with the French. They saw clearly that the situation there wasn't going to hold and wanted to avoid finding themselves in a similar mess.
In one bio or another other of Ben Franklin I read, he referred to going to a meeting of Bishops (in the course of his duties) as "entering a den of vipers." He was raised a strict Puritan, had a brief flirtation with Deism as a teenager but returned to his Calvinist roots at the end of his life.
He knew firsthand what happened to people who made fun of the clergy under a government that didn't support religious freedom.

a reply to: diggindirt

I believe the anti-Catholic monarchy feelings in a number of the founding fathers was a result of their dealing with the French.

The French Catholic monarchy was allied to the American revolutionaries, albeit that their support was disappointingly ineffectual. There is, as far as I know, absolutely no evidence to support your assertion.

Your reading of Franklin’s reaction is ahistorical. The bishops in question weren’t Catholic but Episcopalian, that is, bishops of the Church of England in America.

Protestant bishops.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
Some members here are in LOVE with Putin and Russia

Putin this,putin that..reminds me of

Really, you dare to compare the Putin lovers to the Putin haters on this website... that's like comparing masturbation to a complete orgy... excuse my language mods, but it's in the context of the post I'm quoting.

People hate on Russia just for the sake of hating on Russia because the country isn't considered to be PC. It must be that old cold war programming still taking effect.

The fact is Russia hasn't invaded any countries on our borders. Russia hasn't destabilized an entire region giving rise to Sharia Law and birthing the most radical hate group in modern history. And Russia seems to be doing America's job when it comes to ISIS, considering they have done more damage to the group in 1 month then NATO had done in almost 2 years.

So by your logic... you support the group that created ISIS and condemn the one doing the most damage to them? I really hope you thought this through.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin, as with many other things, lying, looking at a friends wife lustfully, there are plenty.

One thing to remember back in that time it was pretty much a norm for heterosexual men to have sex with each other. Whether it was with boys or the spoils of war it was a part of many cultures. The bible pretty much says any sex outside of marriage is a sin, so I do not think the bible addresses two gays in love with each other, or even a person who just happens to be gay. You talk about sexual acts and I'm asking if being gay is a sin in the bible?

As for the state, the NT part of the bible does not say that its wrong for the state to make laws, it says Christians are not to sin.
Marriage is a state/legal issue, its spiritual to the christian, its legality to the state

I guess my question is if you got married by the justice of the peace is that marriage within the eyes of the church?

Jesus was a Jew, its not about other empires that I was eluding to, this is a Christian understanding

Judaism is clear
Old Testament
The book of Vayiqra (Leviticus) is traditionally regarded as classifying sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can, very theoretically and not in practice be subject to capital punishment by the currently nonexistent Sanhedrin under halakha (Jewish law). Wikipedia

So is the New Testament
"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10). Bible-truths

Unfortunately all christians are sinners, I have seen worse in the church.
People are just selfish, homosexuality if controlled and not acted upon is not a sin.



Most (all)? churches will recognise state marriages, I cant see any issue with them from a biblical perspective.
I dont know any churches that dont, there probably are some

a reply to: Konduit

The fact is Russia hasn't invaded any countries on our borders.

Nope they just invade the one's on their borders.

The US hasn't invaded a country on their borders either so what is your point?

Russia hasn't destabilized an entire region giving rise to Sharia Law and birthing the most radical hate group in modern history.

No they have all the love in the world for those of Islamic faith...oh wait no they don't.

And that region has been destabilized longer than the US has been a country, but hey let's just blame the US for something that's been happening for over hundreds of years.

And Russia seems to be doing America's job when it comes to ISIS, considering they have done more damage to the group in 1 month then NATO had done in almost 2 years.

SO if you mean bombing of civilians while not bombing ISIS then your right, but what do civilian lives matter as long as you kill a few bad guys...right?

So by your logic... you support the group that created ISIS and condemn the one doing the most damage to them? I really hope you thought this through.

Except the US didn't create ISIS, but that fact doesn't matter as long as you defend Russia while they are killing innocent civilians that aren't even near any ISIS fighters...but as long as they say there were fighters near it is okay...right, because that is what they are doing.

a reply to: Konduit

Really, you dare to compare the Putin lovers to the Putin haters on this website... [snip]

People hate on Russia just for the sake of hating on Russia because the country isn't considered to be PC. It must be that old cold war programming still taking effect.

Funny how you jump from people who hate Putin to people who hate Russia, as though Putin were Russia. The fact that some people so identify Putin as being all of Russia embodied in one flesh and blood man is proof that the fascist system he has imposed on Russia is a mockery of the Christian religion. Putin controls the Orthodox Church, the Jewish Chabad, and most of the country's Muslim leaders. Can you understand why people who truly love Russia despise Putin?

a reply to: DJW001

Funny how you jump from people who hate Putin to people who hate Russia, as though Putin were Russia.

I love Russia. The idea that the lives of Russians (even those that might actually support him) and the future of Russia are tied to that worm makes my heart bleed

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You said it.

The poor Russians never had a chance. Mediaeval squalor and misery under the Tsars. Most Russians were serfs — their landlords had rights over their labour, which is the closest you can get to owning someone without actually enslaving them. Even after Emancipation in 1860 they couldn't own their land individually — only as a mir, or collective. And then they had the absolutism of the last Romanovs to contend with. A patriarchal state in which anything that was not specifically permitted was prohibited.

Then 1905. Years of revolt and bloodletting.

Then the Bolsheviks.

Then Stalin and the Soviet State.

Then chaos.

And now Putin.

I really don't think bashing Putin is the same as bashing Russia. Not at all.

a reply to: Astyanax

I've often said the same thing - they've never had a chance to get out from under

Some of the most amazing art, music, literature - and thinking - has come out of Russia

Most of the Russians I've known have an almost profound sense of humor

They are resilient in a way I think most of us (at least here in the USA) can't really appreciate

a reply to: Astyanax
No, the bishops of which he spoke were in Paris---not England. He went to France to gain their support against England after he had signed the Declaration. Where did you obtain your education in history? Perhaps you should do a bit more study? Had he gone to England they would have hanged him as a traitor!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Unfortunately all christians are sinners, I have seen worse in the church.
People are just selfish, homosexuality if controlled and not acted upon is not a sin.

Most (all)? churches will recognise state marriages, I cant see any issue with them from a biblical perspective.
I dont know any churches that dont, there probably are some

This kind of goes in the direction of if two gay people got married in the eyes of the sate only is that a sin without looking at the sexual aspect? I'm kind of trying to understand this through Putin's eyes in he thinks it is OK to open the hunting season on people for just being gay, and that it aligns with the bible. The sexual aspects like you said may be a sin, but EVERYONE sins, so their sin is a sin like anyone else. I guess if a guy picks up a girl in a bar they should have the crap beat out of them too for their sinful ways...hehe

He defends "Christianity" as long as you're Russian Orthodox.

Any other kind of Christian, like a Roman Catholic in Crimea, and you won't necessarily be so lucky.

a reply to: diggindirt

No, the bishops of which he spoke were in Paris---not England.

I see. Would those have been the bishops of whom he made inquiry regarding the means of setting up an Episcopacy in America? It seems unlikely, since he was on rather good terms with those bishops.

I should like to see the source of your assertion.

Where did you obtain your education in history?

Not in a church.

a reply to: Astyanax
That well could have been the occasion of which he spoke. I don't remember the particulars, just the quote. It was in one of the biographies of him that came out a few years back, I believe. There was a whole spate of interest in him. I had just acquired and read his autobiography about that time as well. He didn't hold members of the clergy of the Catholic Church in very high regard. He saw the corruption in both the English and the Roman Churches. (Much the same as we see the corruption in corporate realms today but are helpless to stop it.)

Back on topic, both my husband and I have had students from Russia in our classes. Through them we met several other Russian students. My husband speaks Russian so they seemed to flock to him. This was in the mid '90s until 2006. Several of those kids returned to Russia after graduation and have kept in touch with us. They are all doing quite well under this administration and are, overall a part of the 80% who approve of the job he's doing. Two of those people are in journalism and say they have never encountered any government pressure for criticism of the government. They may not agree with some of his social policies but they are very much in favor of his economic policies.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: diggindirt

I believe the anti-Catholic monarchy feelings in a number of the founding fathers was a result of their dealing with the French.

The French Catholic monarchy was allied to the American revolutionaries, albeit that their support was disappointingly ineffectual. There is, as far as I know, absolutely no evidence to support your assertion.

Your reading of Franklin’s reaction is ahistorical. The bishops in question weren’t Catholic but Episcopalian, that is, bishops of the Church of England in America.

Protestant bishops.

The French Catholics would have sided with lucifer himself to get at the British

Don't think it meant anything else

a reply to: Raggedyman

The French Catholics would have sided with lucifer himself to get at the British

Don't think it meant anything else

It most certainly did. Franklin was on a diplomatic mission on behalf of the American Episcopalian Church (and its bishops). The Revolutionary War had cut the Church off from its parent body, the Church of England. Since Anglicans follow the Apostolic Succession (look it up if you need to), the Episcopalians needed to find bishops to ordain their priests. Apart from priests of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the only available Successional bishops were of the Roman Church. Franklin was meeting them to discuss whether and under what conditions the Catholics might consent to ordain Episcopalian priests. The difficulty being that the Anglican Church was, of course, in schism from Rome and had been for three hundred years.

It didn't work out, by the way.

a reply to: Ghost147

Wow, the truth REALLY hurts doesn't it?

Look, man. Get angry all you want when Mr. Putin (or anyone else for that matter) brings up the ugly truth, you have a right to be mad or happy or whatever your heart desires. But the truth is the truth.

The truth, no matter how ugly, was stated in his video. In order to keep our humanity, to keep progressing as a human race and eventually one day have bases on other planets, for god sake, we need to keep small doses of the ugly and harsh truth. Otherwise the human race will end abruptly and collapse in on itself. We'll be stuck on this planet warring each other forever.

The more we keep catering to everyone's emotional needs by being overly politically correct, or tip toeing around almost everyone for fear of "offending" them, the more we keep dividing ourself into a scared species.

When humans get scared, what happens? That's right, humans lash out in violence when they fear something.

This can tear nations apart.

Right now the ugly truth looks a lot brighter and more appealing then being part of a nation that tears down confederate monuments and strips names from buildings.

How long will it be before old books with the TRUTH and real HISTORY that offends people are destroyed or burned? Well a lot of it is struck from newer school books in print.

The nazis destroyed books in WW2, look how scary those Nazis were, look at what their agenda was.

History will repeat itself, this is how it happens.

originally posted by: Ghost147
There are so many points that are incorrect within that video (by incorrect, I mean factually, not through opinion) that I don't even know where to start.

The fact that you agree with him 'completely', is deeply disturbing.

For those who don't want to watch the video, he basically states that the US is built upon christian values, and that allowing things -such as Homosexual Marriage, and equality- makes the nations that hold this mentality weak. He basically says "acknowledge the minority, but ignore their words and follow what [I] believe Christianity states".

The whole speech is a writhing cesspool of ignorance and hate towards anything that isn't his personal view about his personal religion.

Do we really need to bring up the validity of gay marriage again? Seriously?

Do we really need to bring up how the founding fathers of the US were almost exclusively ANTI-CHRISTIAN/ANTI-RELIGION? Seriously?

Do we really need to bring up the progress that secular-based studies give to humanity, while religion simply divides it? Seriously????

Do we really need to bring up how morality does not stem from religion? Seriously??!?!?!?!?

Sorry, but all the points he made were absolutely ridiculous.

"Do we really need to bring up how the founding fathers of the US were almost exclusively ANTI-CHRISTIAN/ANTI-RELIGION? Seriously?"
Uh, I think you need to go back to grade school history. The founding fathers were not trying to escape "religion." They were trying to escape the terror and claw of a tyrannical King. These man were all in fact spiritual and very religious. When the puritans first came to America, it was to escape the religious oppression within their own countries; in order to have their own 'religious' freedom. Don't act like people who established America were anything like the nihilistic free-loving atheistic emo kids that exist today.

Minorities should never rule anywhere or expect Hitler like stuff to grow out of it.However everyman is a sinner and can do wrong to each other and become evil and corrupt.So cannot tell for 100 % sure what the future holds.
Could be a minority leader who would be a peaceful kind guy.
Got to love others regardless anyways.
I somewhat agree with this if Putin said this.