Is the US a Christian nation?

[Agnostic75]

I did not claim he did not believe that. I had and still have no idea what he believes concerning Hell.

In an article at Can a Loving God Send People to Hell? The Craig-Bradley Debate | Reasonable Faith, Craig says:

Thus, in a sense, God doesn't send anybody to hell. His desire is that everyone be saved, and He pleads with people to come to Him. But if we reject Christ's sacrifice for our sin, then God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell--but we will send ourselves. Our eternal destiny thus lies in our own hands. It is a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity.

So there is no doubt that my interpretation of the other article was correct.

Ravi Zacharias also believes that God will punish skeptics for eternity.

1. If for some bizarre reason you think it important whether I am and other Christians agree. I will concede the point even if is not true.
2. If you claim is God is unjust then let's stick with that.
3. Or you can show that I am inconsistent with the Bible concerning Hell.

That is another issue. I was replying to your claim that God will not punish skeptics for eternity.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming it is justification of it in general.

Would you say that low risk heterosexual groups are at fault? If not, why would you say that low risk homosexual groups are at fault?

Low risk heterosexuals are a subsection of heterosexuals. You do not believe that they are at fault since they have low risk, but you believe that lesbians are at fault even though their risk is less than that of heterosexual men and women. Why is that?

Heterosexuals are far more to blame for health costs than homosexuals are because of their much greater numbers, which means that if they accepted their responsibility to lower health care costs, they would be able to reduce the costs far more than homosexuals ever could. You should spend more time criticizing those heterosexuals than you spend criticizing homosexuals since they could reduce health care costs far most than homosexuals ever could.

I could keep saying that heterosexuals should act differently, and you could keep claiming that homosexuals should act differently, but if we may, let's be practical for a moment and discuss what will happen instead of what ought to happen. Hypothetical arguments are often useful, but as you yourself have said, they do not change anything. What will happen is that the majority of heterosexuals will not live up to their responsibility to eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise, which will continue to result in far more medical expenses than homosexuals could ever cause because of heterosexuals' much larger numbers, and the majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. In the long run, the only homosexuals who will have been at fault will be those who caused a good deal more harm for themselves, and for other people, by having sex than they would have caused by not having sex. Even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having had any serious medical problems, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

As I said, "let's be practical for a moment and discuss what will happen instead of what ought to happen." Indeed, since you know that most homosexuals will never practice abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity, what need is there to discuss further what they ought to do? You have a valid argument against homosexuals who practice unsafe sex, and get, and spread STDs, but many homosexuals will die without ever having any STDs. You definitely do not have any valid secular arguments against those homosexuals. You have even admitted that yourself.

 

[Buraaq]

I believe prior to the independence, the colonies and territories settled by Europeans were christian, but the majority of the founding fathers of the US were deists.

The most notable christian that comes to mind is John Adams The question is the US a christian nation? I 'm not being pedantic, but the word " is " has relevance. Yes, the US was and " is " a majority christian nation. No, i don't believe the founding fathers based the constitution upon Christianity.

Proof? Nowhere in the constitution, the declaration of independence or the pre amble is Jesus' name mentioned.

 

[1robin]

I believe prior to the independence, the colonies and territories settled by Europeans were christian, but the majority of the founding fathers of the US were deists.

The most notable christian that comes to mind is John Adams The question is the US a christian nation? I 'm not being pedantic, but the word " is " has relevance. Yes, the US was and " is " a majority christian nation. No, i don't believe the founding fathers based the constitution upon Christianity.

Proof? Nowhere in the constitution, the declaration of independence or the pre amble is Jesus' name mentioned.

No, all but less than ten were Christians. Even some of the few deists were not strict deists. Many were sort of hybrids. Jesus is usually not mentioned in secular declarations about a nation's objections to another nation or within documents dispersing rights and restrictions on state institutions. Washington and Lincoln definitely insisted God was (They both were Christians) an integral part of our foundations. God is mention in the deceleration (though in a general form which is what any nation that respects the right of other theologies would have used). Even deism is far closer to Christianity than secularism. Scripture is literally carved into the capitol. To remove references to God from Washington would require it to be torn down and built again. The closest I can get to secularism in this context is to say our state institutions are secular in respect to equality and access, but have Christian foundations and a Christian heart.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering.

Better stated, homosexuals who get, and spread STDs cause massive increases in human suffering. Lesbians, who are a very large percentage of homosexuals, have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense at all.

2. It has no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost it produces.

Better stated, it has no corresponding gain for the level of suffering and cost it produces among homosexuals who get, and spread STDs.

If Homosexuals practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

Better stated, if homosexuals who get, and spread STDs practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

If heterosexuals practice abstinence the human race dies out all together. That is a compensating gain for the risk if you wish to know what one actually is.

But abstinence by heterosexuals is only necessary for those who practice unsafe sex, not for all heterosexuals. The same goes for homosexuals.

You have accused me of using hypotheticals that cannot, and will not ever happen. So, let's discuss what will happen, not what you claim ought to happen. The majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. After they die, even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault regarding getting, and spreading STDs, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having and STDs, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

You have said that it is not up to you to provide solutions for homosexuality, but you provided abstinence as a solution.

Please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming justification for it in general.

You are not making any sense at all since I did not argue, and would never argue, that the safe sex of a low risk group justifies the unsafe sex of a high risk group. The CDC frequently does research on subsections since it is obviously very helpful to identity which subsections are most at risk. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the CDC to develop effective risk prevention programs. The CDC would never recommend abstinence for a low risk group as an effective means of lowing risk for a high risk group. Thus, the CDC would never recommend abstinence for lesbians as an effective means of lowering risk for gay men.

Would you say that low risk heterosexual groups are at fault? If not, why would you say that low risk homosexual groups are at fault? Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do.

You said:

"Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed."

That obviously does not apply to what I just said.

One of your favorite, and dishonest tactics, is to accuse me of doing what you do. For example, you have accused me of refusing to reply to what you said, although in my posts #863, #864, #865, #866, and #867 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-87.html, I prove that you have refused to reply to numerous arguments that I made as direct replies to what you said, including what you said about pedophilia. Another example is that you accused me of composition fallacy when that is what you did. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

You have tried to infer that since gay men are a high risk subsection of homosexuals, all, or the vast majority of homosexuals are at high risk. That is utter nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, all but less than ten were Christians. Even some of the few deists were not strict deists. Many were sort of hybrids. Jesus is usually not mentioned in secular declarations about a nation's objections to another nation or within documents dispersing rights and restrictions on state institutions. Washington and Lincoln definitely insisted God was (They both were Christians) an integral part of our foundations. God is mention in the deceleration (though in a general form which is what any nation that respects the right of other theologies would have used). Even deism is far closer to Christianity than secularism. Scripture is literally carved into the capitol. To remove references to God from Washington would require it to be torn down and built again. The closest I can get to secularism in this context is to say our state institutions are secular in respect to equality and access, but have Christian foundations and a Christian heart.

God does not appear in the Declaration, Lincoln (again) was not a founder, and Washingtong wasn't a Christian. Yes he had ties to the Angelical church, because he had to because it was required before America was independant. It seems he rarely attended church, and he seemed to use more generic or Deist terms for god, such as Providence.
And where is the influence of Christianity to be found in the Constitution? "So help me, God" is not an official part of the oath, but no tests of religious faith is. "One nation under god" was not added until the 1940-50's, "In god we trust" was not used on coin until the 1860's and on paper until the 1950's. And then there were those like Jefferson and Franklin who made it clear they did not accept Jesus as a divine figure, albeit they did see him as a great moral teacher. Jefferson was also often accused of being an Atheist at times.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since this post is large, I will post it in two parts. This is part 1.

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/is-america-a-christian-nation

Is the United States a "Christian nation"? Some Americans think so. Religious Right activists and right-wing television preachers often claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. Even some politicians agree. If the people who make this assertion are merely saying that most Americans are Christians, they might have a point. But those who argue that America is a Christian nation usually mean something more, insisting that the country should be officially Christian. The very character of our country is at stake in the outcome of this debate.

Religious Right groups and their allies insist that the United States was designed to be officially Christian and that our laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity. Is this viewpoint accurate? Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our government believe this or intend to create a government that gave special recognition to Christianity?

The answer to all of these questions is no. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.

The Founding Fathers did not create a secular government because they disliked religion. Many were believers themselves. Yet they were well aware of the dangers of church-state union. They had studied and even seen first-hand the difficulties that church-state partnerships spawned in Europe. During the American colonial period, alliances between religion and government produced oppression and tyranny on our own shores.

Many colonies, for example, had provisions limiting public office to "Trinitarian Protestants" and other types of laws designed to prop up the religious sentiments of the politically powerful. Some colonies had officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them, whether they were members or not. Dissenters faced imprisonment, torture and even death.

These arrangements led to bitterness and sectarian division. Many people began agitating for an end to "religious tests" for public office, tax subsidies for churches and other forms of state endorsement of religion. Those who led this charge were not anti-religion. Indeed, many were members of the clergy and people of deep piety. They argued that true faith did not need or want the support of government.
Respect for religious pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.

While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all.

Jefferson and Madison's viewpoint also carried the day when the Constitution, and later, the Bill of Rights, were written. Had an officially Christian nation been the goal of the founders, that concept would appear in the Constitution. It does not. Instead, our nation's governing document ensures religious freedom for everyone.

Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."

Some pastors who favored church-state union were outraged and delivered sermons asserting that the United States would not be a successful nation because its Constitution did not give special treatment to Christianity. But many others welcomed the new dawn of freedom and praised the Constitution and the First Amendment as true protectors of liberty.

Early national leaders understood that separation of church and state would be good for all faiths including Christianity. Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."

Please note:

"Religious Right groups and their allies insist that the United States was designed to be officially Christian and that our laws should enforce the doctrines of (their version of) Christianity. Is this viewpoint accurate? Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our government believe this or intend to create a government that gave special recognition to Christianity?"

In that context, the U.S. is not is not a Christian nation.

James Madison said many things in support of the separation of church and state.

 

[Agnostic75]

Part 2

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/is-america-a-christian-nation

Other early U.S. leaders echoed that view. President George Washington, in a famous 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., celebrated the fact that Jews had full freedom of worship in America. Noted Washington, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."

Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion......."

Admittedly, the U.S. government has not always lived up to its constitutional principles. In the late 19th century especially, officials often promoted a de facto form of Protestantism. Even the U.S. Supreme Court fell victim to this mentality in 1892, with Justice David Brewer declaring in Holy Trinity v. United States that America is "a Christian nation."

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1797)


It should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one.

A more accurate judicial view of the relationship between religion and government is described by Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling. Commenting on the constitutional right of all Americans to choose their own religious belief, Stevens wrote, "At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

A determined faction of Christians has fought against this wise and time-tested policy throughout our history. In the mid 19th century, several efforts were made to add specific references to Christianity to the Constitution. One group, the National Reform Association (NRA), pushed a "Christian nation" amendment in Congress in 1864. NRA members believed that the Civil War was divine punishment for failing to mention God in the Constitution and saw the amendment as a way to atone for that omission.

The NRA amendment called for "humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, [and] His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government." Ten years later, the House Judiciary Committee voted against its adoption. The committee noted "the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World" and said in light of that it was felt "inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine."

Similar theocratic proposals resurfaced in Congress sporadically over the years. As late as 1950, a proposal was introduced in the Senate that would have added language to the Constitution that "devoutly recognizes the Authority and Law of Jesus Christ, Saviour and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of liberty." This amendment was never voted out of committee. Efforts to revive it in the early 1960s were unsuccessful.

Today, America's religious demographics are changing, and diversity has greatly expanded since our nation's founding. The number of Jews has increased, and more Muslims are living in America than ever before. Other religions now represented in America include Hinduism, Buddhism and a myriad others. In addition, many Americans say they have no religious faith or identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or Humanists. According to some scholars, over 2,000 distinct religious groups and denominations exist in the United States.

Also, even though most Americans identify as Christian, this does not mean they would back official government recognition of the Christian faith. Christian denominations disagree on points of doctrine, church structure and stands on social issues. Many Christians take a moderate or liberal perspective on church-state relations and oppose efforts to impose religion by government action.

Americans should be proud that we live in a democracy that welcomes persons of many faiths and none. Around the globe, millions of people still dwell under oppressive regimes where religion and government are harshly commingled. (Iran and the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan are just two examples.) Many residents of those countries look to the United States as beacon of hope and a model for what their own nations might someday become.

"When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." (Justice John Paul Stevens}

Only the principle of church-state separation can protect America's incredible degree of religious freedom. The individual rights and diversity we enjoy cannot be maintained if the government promotes Christianity or if our government takes on the trappings of a "faith-based" state.

The United States, in short, was not founded to be an officially Christian nation or to espouse any official religion. Our government is neutral on religious matters, leaving such decisions to individuals. This democratic and pluralistic system has allowed a broad array of religious groups to grow and flourish and guarantees every individual American the right to determine his or her own spiritual path or to reject religion entirely. As a result of this policy, Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any people in world history. We should be proud of this accomplishment and work to preserve the constitutional principle that made it possible separation of church and state.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that the Bible should be legislated? If so, which parts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that the Bible should be legislated? If so, which parts?

I really don't think people would be very happy if they did legislate the Bible into law. Parts of it either for being too harsh, and even with what Jesus had to say because that would mean giving up most of what we have. If the Bible were the law of America, then there would not be a single rich person, there would be no upper-class, and then would be no lower class. If the laws focused more on Jesus' teachings, America would probably be the closest thing to Marxist Communism the world would ever get to see.

 

[Agnostic75]

Let me summarize these months’ worth of claims:

1. I have no need of a solution to claim something is wrong.

2. Once you introduced that irrelevant issue I suggested that abstinence was possible and has been often enough to prove it could be done. That was not my solution nor do I have any need for one.

3. Just to waste more time I will give you my official solution. God should be searched for by a homosexual or anyone who is doing what is wrong. His solution should be adopted and has been countless times successfully.

I also have an argument to your genetic rationalization. I just heard on the radio yesterday that of all things genetic causes for a woman’s likelihood of beating their children during hard economic times. No one would argue that is reason to allow it to occur and on that basis genetics is no argument that homosexuality should be accepted even if it was true. There are genetic factors associated with all kinds of behavior that is not acceptable.

I will transfer what you said to the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-90.html#post3446528, and reply to it there.

Edit: I just finished my reply at the other thread, and I added some more of your utterly absurd, and illogical arguments to it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think that it would be a good idea to go back to the opening post. Here it is.

Is the United States a Christian nation?

It depends upon the context.

Was it founded on Christian ideals, or secular ones?

It depends upon which Christian ideals you are referring to. In 1776, many non-Christians in the world opposed murder, and theft. Buddha gave the world a version of the Golden Rule before Christ, and some Greek Stoics strongly opposed slavery before Christ.

Were the founding fathers predominantly Christians?

Yes.

Is the Constitution a Christian document, or a product of the Enlightenment era thinking?

Please define "Christian document."

Our nation was formed on the idea of freedom, in this case, religious freedom. The founding fathers separated from England because of state religion, so does it make sense to think that they would enact the same ideas here?

What do you mean by "does it make sense to think that they would enact the same ideas here?"

Judge John Jones III presided over the Dover trial. He is Republican, and a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president. In his ruling, he said:

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion.

The following U.S. Supreme Court cases upheld the separation of church and state:

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

It could be argued whether or not the majority of the Founding Fathers would have approved of those court rulings, but if enough Americans had strongly opposed those court rulings going back to 1948, if they had wanted to, they could have changed the rulings through voting for federal, and state legislators who supported their objections to the rulings.

James Madison was a U.S. president, and is sometimes called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution" since he wrote a lot of it. There are not any doubts whatsoever that he would have agreed with the judge at the Dover trial, and that he would have agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that I mentioned.

 

[Agnostic75]

Let me summarize these months’ worth of claims:

1. I have no need of a solution to claim something is wrong.

2. Once you introduced that irrelevant issue I suggested that abstinence was possible and has been often enough to prove it could be done. That was not my solution nor do I have any need for one.

3. Just to waste more time I will give you my official solution. God should be searched for by a homosexual or anyone who is doing what is wrong. His solution should be adopted and has been countless times successfully.

I also have an argument to your genetic rationalization. I just heard on the radio yesterday that of all things genetic causes for a woman’s likelihood of beating their children during hard economic times. No one would argue that is reason to allow it to occur and on that basis genetics is no argument that homosexuality should be accepted even if it was true. There are genetic factors associated with all kinds of behavior that is not acceptable.

I have transferred what you said to the thread at why can't we have a relationship with other men?, and I have replied to it there, along with some more of your utterly absurd claims.

 

[alviataylor]

Most people believe in it soo..1

 

[1robin]

Most people believe in it soo..1

The Stephen King book, the cousin on the monsters, or what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where in the world did you get this? A Christian started the fight against US slavery. Another Christian had more to do with winning it than any other person on Earth and 300,000 died along the way to obtain it. In what way is that deficient? Hospitals exist by the hundreds because of Christians, the most successful public school system in history was began by Christians, and the most generous demographic on Earth is conservative Christians. I can go on forever but instead want to know how much is enough and how you know? I imagine it will always be whatever exists plus an arbitrary X.

Can you name one American public figure who argued in favour of slavery who wasn't Christian? Just one... in the whole history of the US. One.

Fun fact: at one point, by number of slaves owned, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was a Christian church, the Church of England.

 

[1robin]

Can you name one American public figure who argued in favour of slavery who wasn't Christian? Just one... in the whole history of the US. One.

Fun fact: at one point, by number of slaves owned, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was a Christian church, the Church of England.

Pile all of the slave owning Christians into one pile and just the Christians who died to free them in another and it would be more than 30 times as large. I defend God and the Bible. I do not defend sinful or wayward humans nor what they get wrong. I have at least several hundred times so far condemned Christians when wrong. Why are you drawing lessons from the exceptions as an argument against the rule? Is it valid to judge a teacher by the students who never show up in class, never follow instructions, and defy his authority or those that do show up and do apply his lessons? Your argumentation is its self an argument against the sincerity and validity of its self. I doubt there is a data base with people who argued for slavery but I will find 5 non-Christians who supported slaver but only if on supplying 5 you concede the point. Deal?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pile all of the slave owning Christians into one pile and just the Christians who died to free them in another and it would be more than 30 times as large. I defend God and the Bible.

So you'd support slavery as long as it followed the rules given in the OT?

I do not defend sinful or wayward humans nor what they get wrong. I have at least several hundred times so far condemned Christians when wrong. Why are you drawing lessons from the exceptions as an argument against the rule?

Abolitionism was the exception in Christianity for most of the history of Christianity. It wasn't until humanism had a chance to influence Christianity that abolitionism became mainstream.

Is it valid to judge a teacher by the students who never show up in class, never follow instructions, and defy his authority or those that do show up and do apply his lessons? Your argumentation is its self an argument against the sincerity and validity of its self. I doubt there is a data base with people who argued for slavery but I will find 5 non-Christians who supported slaver but only if on supplying 5 you concede the point. Deal?

I'm not judging the qualities of your god; I don't even think your god exists. I'm judging the qualities of your religion, and a religion is defined by the beliefs of its adherents.

 

[1robin]

So you'd support slavery as long as it followed the rules given in the OT?

Once again this is not an argument. It is a leading question designed to trap and condemn the theist. I doubt the sincerity of this stuff. No I would not because the OT does not apply in the new covenant. FAULT was found with the old covenant and it was terminated. Also the conditions that made servitude necessary no longer exist. We have welfare, global relief, and debt is no longer a crime. I have no way to know but judging from your argumentation I am certain your are a liberal. Is that true?

Abolitionism was the exception in Christianity for most of the history of Christianity. It wasn't until humanism had a chance to influence Christianity that abolitionism became mainstream.

Oh good lord man. You could not know this even if true. It is also very complex. First prove this and then I will contend it.

I'm not judging the qualities of your god; I don't even think your god exists. I'm judging the qualities of your religion, and a religion is defined by the beliefs of its adherents.

Our religion is self admittedly composed of very fallible people. It's adherents are not the basis our foundation. Christ, the Bible and God are. Maybe you think it is meaningful to point out humans are screwed up but I don't (it is a cornerstone of our doctrine). It would be meaningful to know why secularists do not so often admit this obvious fact. Do not bother condemning Christians. We have already condemned ourselves and sought forgiveness. No a religion is not defined by the beliefs of it's adherents (or I should say a true religion). It is defined by the revelations of it's source. God said all men were made equal. Is that the more meaningful issue or a Christian who denies it?