America's Christian Heritage (Just in time for July 4th!)

[the Avatar]

Look at it this way. As Christianity has faded in this country more laws have become necessary to control the conduct of our citizenry as they are incapable of controlling their own conduct. I read--somewhere--that 100,000 new laws are voted on each year at the various levels of government which are aimed at nothing more than controlling our behavior.

Our police forces have been militarized and this was before the rash or riots we've all witnessed over the course of the last year.

The desire is to return to a more moral, safe and wholesome time when even neighbors weren't a threat to each other. Christianity provides that.

More laws are not strictly due to lower morals of the people. For one thing, the world is getting more complicated more quickly than ever before. Technological innovation requires legislation. Additionally, going from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy (and later a service-based economy) created a lot of socioeconomic changes in general society. The change of life for most people in the gilded age couldn’t really persist without the government also adapting with the times. I would argue that if America transitioned from a society where almost everyone built their own house, grew their own food, and worked for their own livelihood to a society where you worked for a company and paid companies to build your house and provide your food and there wasn’t a huge change in laws, the U.S. government would be more inefficient and removed from the needs of the people.

I do agree with you about the militarization of the police. But in my own perspective, I see all these additional laws and militarized police not as the government dictating morality, but the government dictating order. I don’t view governments as moral institutions: merely ones of order. The status quo is generally defended, even if it’s understood at least some people are suffering under it or that the government is doing someone immoral, it will continue for as long as it maintains order in society. If enough people are agitated, only then might policy change.

I also totally agree with the desire to have a moral and safe public, and I can understand how a Christian society can create something like that. What I don’t understand is how a government is able to create a Christian society. Isn’t it the Holy Spirit that makes an individual a Christian? I’m also not sure that this ideal society ever actually existed in history. Can we even definitively point to the perfect year, or is it just nostalgia? I just can’t see where in the past we can find utopia, so I prefer to look to the future.

Also, am I missing something? It seems like you had a lot more post than I'm seeing right now.

Post 172, I think.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You’re assuming a lot about me, you know that?

Maybe you're one of those honest liberals (excuse the use of an oxymoron) that appreciates Donald Trump for the liberal that he really is.

Most of the content in the pdf is a forward and an introduction. Both of which made their religious beliefs quite clear, but in terms of actual historical study, it was lacking. The actual first chapters are not much better: no citations or explanations for why the quotes are trustworthy.

For those that don't read atheist, what pacifism here is saying is that the boys and girls over at the communist founded ACLU are not impressed.

As it currently stands, a pastor from the 1860s saying that the founders of the U.S. made a Christian country and you right now saying the founders made a Christian country are equally unconvincing to me if neither provide proper evidence that that is case.

Wait, do you actually think that I'm here trying to convince you of the truth? LOL!!! My posts are for those that are interested in the truth, not those that live a lie. BTW, maybe you could find an atheist from that era that could write a 1,000 book showing evidence that the US didn't have an overwhelmingly Christian population, Christian culture and Judeo-Christian laws, i.e. making it a Christian nation?

Jefferson was recommending a reduced penalty that was opposed in the Virginia legislature.

From the death penalty to castration. Let's just say if ole Thomas were alive today, he wouldn't be asked to be the Grand Marshal at one of your 'gay' pride parades.

. Although it’s worth pointing out that Baron von Steuben and other staff officers in George Washington’s army were gay men who received pensions for their service, so there is clearly a persistent question of enforcement of those laws.

Ah yes, revisionist history. I'll guarantee had the devout Christian General George Washington even speculated that Von Steuben was a 'nancy boy', he would have chased him out of the Continental Army like he did Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin.

You kind of seem to have it out about other people’s sexual behavior.

I enjoy immensely showing how the 'father' of the LGBT movement, Alfred Kinsey, was a pedophile.

 

[the Avatar]

Maybe you're one of those honest liberals (excuse the use of an oxymoron) that appreciates Donald Trump for the liberal that he really is.

Maybe you don't actually know who you're talking about.

For those that don't read atheist, what pacifism here is saying is that the boys and girls over at the communist founded ACLU are not impressed.

Mr. aCultureWarrior, if you knew how ridiculous that sentence was, you most certainly would not have said it.

Wait, do you actually think that I'm here trying to convince you of the truth? LOL!!! My posts are for those that are interested in the truth, not those that live a lie. BTW, maybe you could find an atheist from that era that could write a 1,000 book showing evidence that the US didn't have an overwhelmingly Christian population, Christian culture and Judeo-Christian laws, i.e. making it a Christian nation?

You're not trying to be convincing? That explains a lot.

Look, I accept that America at the time of its founding was (and still is) predominantly Christian. That's a matter of historical record. Under the First Amendment, you are also free to have whatever theological opinions about the founding of America that you wish. But I'm talking about history here. I've tried to engage with you on the fifty-page pdf you shared and its shortcomings as a work of historical analysis. But it seems like you are more attached to the idea of this book and don't seem to be interested in discussing its actual merits. Seriously, have you even read it? At no point does it explain how the founders of the U.S. were inspired by the Bible to write the Constitution and actual found America as a Christian country. It just shows that they loved Christianity. That's not the same thing. The American revolution was arguably not even biblical, seeing how the Bible says to obey the government except where the government tells you to disobey God, and the revolution was caused by colonial subjects angry that they lacked parliamentary representation.

What I don't accept is your asinine claims that the separation of church and state is literally communism when there is evidence to the contrary. What I don't accept is your claim that America was founded with Judaeo-Christian based laws against abortion, pornography, or recreational drug use when there is evidence to the contrary. Although it seems like you aren't making a rebuttal against that anymore. Nor are you addressing when America supposedly lost its greatness. You're defaulting to sex. I'm not interested in taking that bait.

Is it worth it for me to continue this discussion with you? Do you even care about what I'm saying enough to actually consider my basic objection that you aren't substantiating your claims?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Maybe you don't actually know who you're talking about.

Let's just say that your comment "Oh goodie, yet another round of what I hate about Soviet Russia" spoke volumes about you. What kind of person would joke about mass murdering babarians?

Mr. aCultureWarrior, if you knew how ridiculous that sentence was, you most certainly would not have said it.

When the communist founded ACLU isn't representing the homosexual founded North American Man Boy Love Association, they're defending communists.

You're not trying to be convincing? That explains a lot.

Surely you don't think that you're the first atheist that I've debated are you? You would have embraced the truth long before I came around if you were really interested in it.

Look, I accept that America at the time of its founding was (and still is) predominantly Christian.

Drop the "still is" unless you think that those that embrace Cheap Grace Theology can still call themselves followers of Christ.

What is cheap grace? | GotQuestions.org

What is cheap grace? Who was the originator of the phrase cheap grace? What does the cheap grace concept argue against?

www.gotquestions.org

That's a matter of historical record. Under the First Amendment, you are also free to have whatever theological opinions about the founding of America that you wish.

Of course the First Amendment allows that, but it has nothing to do with the fact that during the first hundred plus years of this nation, it's people and hence it's culture and laws were overwhelming Judeo-Christian based.

But I'm talking about history here. I've tried to engage with you on the fifty-page pdf you shared and its shortcomings as a work of historical analysis. But it seems like you are more attached to the idea of this book and don't seem to be interested in discussing its actual merits.

Looking at the link that I sent you, I see that I didn't send the detailed one. Try this one:
https://archive.org/details/ChristianLifeAndCharacterOfTheCivilInstitutionsOfTheUnitedStates

Seriously, have you even read it? At no point does it explain how the founders of the U.S. were inspired by the Bible to write the Constitution and actual found America as a Christian country. It just shows that they loved Christianity.

Gee, I wonder where that love of Christianity came from (sigh, atheists these days).

That's not the same thing. The American revolution was arguably not even biblical, seeing how the Bible says to obey the government except where the government tells you to disobey God, and the revolution was caused by colonial subjects angry that they lacked parliamentary representation.

#3 on the list of those that ahteists HATE with a passion (God of course being #1, ex homosexuals being #2 and David Barton of Wallbuilders being #3) refutes that.
https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003...ion was indeed a Biblically justifiable act.

What I don't accept is your asinine claims that the separation of church and state is literally communism when there is evidence to the contrary.

Obviously you're basing your lie on Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church, which has been used by the forces of evil to push secular humanism in this once great Christian nation.
One only need look at government buildings to see that the Church (i.e. the Christian religion) was not separated from government, as seen here in David Barton's (#3 on the atheist hate list) ofthe Capitol Builiding.

What I don't accept is your claim that America was founded with Judaeo-Christian based laws against abortion, pornography, or recreational drug use when there is evidence to the contrary.

I've made my point about how homosexuality was detested by the Founding Fathers and how abortion was later made illegal when the baby "stirred in the womb". Go ahead and show me evidence that pornography and recreational drug use was a big part of American culture back in the colonial days.

 

[bomberfox]

It wasn't meant to, but doesn't negate the Christian values in our laws. The only lie is denying the Christian heritage built into the fabric of America. And btw it was an atheist heritage whatsoever.

What christian value is enshrined in the first amendment? None.

 

[bomberfox]

Maybe you don't actually know who you're talking about.



Mr. aCultureWarrior, if you knew how ridiculous that sentence was, you most certainly would not have said it.



You're not trying to be convincing? That explains a lot.

Look, I accept that America at the time of its founding was (and still is) predominantly Christian. That's a matter of historical record. Under the First Amendment, you are also free to have whatever theological opinions about the founding of America that you wish. But I'm talking about history here. I've tried to engage with you on the fifty-page pdf you shared and its shortcomings as a work of historical analysis. But it seems like you are more attached to the idea of this book and don't seem to be interested in discussing its actual merits. Seriously, have you even read it? At no point does it explain how the founders of the U.S. were inspired by the Bible to write the Constitution and actual found America as a Christian country. It just shows that they loved Christianity. That's not the same thing. The American revolution was arguably not even biblical, seeing how the Bible says to obey the government except where the government tells you to disobey God, and the revolution was caused by colonial subjects angry that they lacked parliamentary representation.

What I don't accept is your asinine claims that the separation of church and state is literally communism when there is evidence to the contrary. What I don't accept is your claim that America was founded with Judaeo-Christian based laws against abortion, pornography, or recreational drug use when there is evidence to the contrary. Although it seems like you aren't making a rebuttal against that anymore. Nor are you addressing when America supposedly lost its greatness. You're defaulting to sex. I'm not interested in taking that bait.

Is it worth it for me to continue this discussion with you? Do you even care about what I'm saying enough to actually consider my basic objection that you aren't substantiating your claims?

Reminds me of the quote “when you are so accustomed to privilege, equality can seem like oppression.”

 

[the Avatar]

Let's just say that your comment "Oh goodie, yet another round of what I hate about Soviet Russia" spoke volumes about you. What kind of person would joke about mass murdering babarians?

Two can play that game: how easily you assume things about me and misinterpret what I say speaks volumes about you. This is what I actually said:

Oh, goodie. Another round of "everything I don't like is Soviet Russia".

Just to be safe, I'm going to clarify that what I'm saying here is that just because you don't like something (e.g. the separation of church and state), that doesn't mean that the separation of church and state is literally communism. It can just be something you disagree with.

When the communist founded ACLU isn't representing the homosexual founded North American Man Boy Love Association, they're defending communists.

What in the Sam Hill does that have to do with anything?

Surely you don't think that you're the first atheist that I've debated are you? You would have embraced the truth long before I came around if you were really interested in it.

You do not know that about me.

Drop the "still is" unless you think that those that embrace Cheap Grace Theology can still call themselves followers of Christ.

What is cheap grace? | GotQuestions.org

What is cheap grace? Who was the originator of the phrase cheap grace? What does the cheap grace concept argue against?

www.gotquestions.org

Doesn't that also apply to Christians back when America was first founded? There may be quotes from hundreds of early Americans in this thread about how much they loved going to church, but there were millions of Americans alive at the time, how do you know they didn't have carnal Christianity? How do you know that ye olde Americans were all paying rapt attention and not falling asleep or looking out the window or wondering what the score was in the hunting game or whatever while they were in the pew?

Of course the First Amendment allows that, but it has nothing to do with the fact that during the first hundred plus years of this nation, it's people and hence it's culture and laws were overwhelming Judeo-Christian based.

Where did you get the Judaeo part from? Weren't you just saying how overwhelmingly Christian the American people, lawmakers, and laws were at the time?

Looking at the link that I sent you, I see that I didn't send the detailed one. Try this one:
https://archive.org/details/ChristianLifeAndCharacterOfTheCivilInstitutionsOfTheUnitedStates

Counter-proposal: you tell me where in the book I can find the specific evidence for your specific claims, and we'll go from there. Just for the sake of expediency.

Gee, I wonder where that love of Christianity came from (sigh, atheists these days).

Do I have to spell it out? I am not an atheist.

 

[the Avatar]

#3 on the list of those that ahteists HATE with a passion (God of course being #1, ex homosexuals being #2 and David Barton of Wallbuilders being #3) refutes that.
https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/07/was-the-american-revolution-a-biblically-justified-act.aspx#:~:text=Only in later years was it called a,Revolution was indeed a Biblically justifiable act.

I'm still not an atheist.

You also severely overestimate how much I think about ex-gays or David Barton. Severely.

Given how little you engage with my actual overall points, this might be pearls before swine (see what I did there?), but I still read through your source. I would be very surprised if you cared what I think of it at this point, but I'm going to share my thoughts anyway.

The main crux of the argument is the 6th paragraph. It gives two choices for how to interpret the New Testament passage of Romans 13:1-7 -- always submit to government, or resist bad government. However, Romans 13 was telling Christians in the city of Rome to submit to emperor Nero. Emperor Nero Claudius "Turn Christians into Candles and Lion Chow" Nero. If there was a bad government for Christians to rebel against, that would've been it.

It also cites New Testament Hebrews passages of Hebrews 11 and Acts 4-5, but both of those passages describe people who refused to obey the government - usually nonviolently - only when the government explicitly told them to disobey God. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were otherwise exemplary servants of Nebuchadnezzar II. Moses resisted Pharaoh because God explicitly told him to, not because of onerous taxes (Romans 13:6, Matthew 22:21). I'm sure the founders of the U.S. wanted to think they weren't disobeying the Christian Bible, but their rallying cry for rebelling against the United Kingdom was "No taxation without representation!" In what way exactly was the Anglican Parliament ordering American colonists to disobey God?

Obviously you're basing your lie on Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church, which has been used by the forces of evil to push secular humanism in this once great Christian nation.
One only need look at government buildings to see that the Church (i.e. the Christian religion) was not separated from government, as seen here in David Barton's (#3 on the atheist hate list) ofthe Capitol Builiding.

I'm sorry, embedded YouTube videos don't really work on my internet browser. What are you trying to say here?

I am not pushing "secular humanism" on anyone. I am explaining that the U.S. government is religiously neutral and it is its policy to neither prohibit nor promote any faith or lack of faith or another faith or lack of faith. This is derived from the right to freedom of thought. Making laws that force other people to pretend to share your religious beliefs is - in my opinion - completely counterproductive to your goals for creating a Christian society. Government threats do not create very good converts.

I've made my point about how homosexuality was detested by the Founding Fathers and how abortion was later made illegal when the baby "stirred in the womb". Go ahead and show me evidence that pornography and recreational drug use was a big part of American culture back in the colonial days.

I do not need to show you any additional evidence about how common drugs or porn was back in early America for you to ignore. You were the one who said that we needed to return to laws "against abortion, homosexual, pornography, recreational drug use" to make America great again. My position is that three out of those four were not even outlawed by the founding fathers, who were apparently the most Christian Christians who ever Christianed in U.S. history. I made my case that those three were not banned at the time the U.S. was founded, and now it's time for you do your thing when someone on the internet says that you're mistaken.

Reminds me of the quote “when you are so accustomed to privilege, equality can seem like oppression.”

Tell me about it.

 

[Grand Mal]

Let's just say that your comment "Oh goodie, yet another round of what I hate about Soviet Russia" spoke volumes about you. What kind of person would joke about mass murdering babarians?


When the communist founded ACLU isn't representing the homosexual founded North American Man Boy Love Association, they're defending communists.

Surely you don't think that you're the first atheist that I've debated are you? You would have embraced the truth long before I came around if you were really interested in it.


Drop the "still is" unless you think that those that embrace Cheap Grace Theology can still call themselves followers of Christ.

What is cheap grace? | GotQuestions.org

What is cheap grace? Who was the originator of the phrase cheap grace? What does the cheap grace concept argue against?

www.gotquestions.org

Of course the First Amendment allows that, but it has nothing to do with the fact that during the first hundred plus years of this nation, it's people and hence it's culture and laws were overwhelming Judeo-Christian based.


Looking at the link that I sent you, I see that I didn't send the detailed one. Try this one:
https://archive.org/details/ChristianLifeAndCharacterOfTheCivilInstitutionsOfTheUnitedStates



Gee, I wonder where that love of Christianity came from (sigh, atheists these days).


#3 on the list of those that ahteists HATE with a passion (God of course being #1, ex homosexuals being #2 and David Barton of Wallbuilders being #3) refutes that.
https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/07/was-the-american-revolution-a-biblically-justified-act.aspx#:~:text=Only in later years was it called a,Revolution was indeed a Biblically justifiable act.



Obviously you're basing your lie on Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church, which has been used by the forces of evil to push secular humanism in this once great Christian nation.
One only need look at government buildings to see that the Church (i.e. the Christian religion) was not separated from government, as seen here in David Barton's (#3 on the atheist hate list) ofthe Capitol Builiding.



I've made my point about how homosexuality was detested by the Founding Fathers and how abortion was later made illegal when the baby "stirred in the womb". Go ahead and show me evidence that pornography and recreational drug use was a big part of American culture back in the colonial days.

Christianity was entrenched in the lives of everyone then for the same reason slavery was. They didn't know better. Now we do.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm still not an atheist.

I dealt with libertarians at another forum who after I exposed how Godless libertarianism is, swore that they weren't associated with libertarianism (I told them that they didn't have to pay the 25 cent Libertarian Party membership fee to believe in libertarian ideology). In any event, I referred to them as "I am NOT a libertarian!" libertarians. Can I call you a "I am NOT an atheist!" atheist?

You also severely overestimate how much I think about ex-gays or David Barton. Severely.

If you don't come forward with your open HATRED of Ex homosexuals and David Barton, I'm afraid that your "I am NOT an atheist!" atheist status will have to be revoked.

Given how little you engage with my actual overall points, ....

The core tenet of Romans 13 is that God created civil government and that unless the civil magistrate rules favorably as seen through the eyes of God, then he is not a legitimate ruler.

"...for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

It also cites New Testament Hebrews passages of Hebrews 11 and Acts 4-5, but both of those passages describe people who refused to obey the government - usually nonviolently - only when the government explicitly told them to disobey God

Act. 5:29

I'm sorry, embedded YouTube videos don't really work on my internet browser. What are you trying to say here?

Find a computer that allows you to view David Barton's "Capitol Tour"; you'll find that God played a huge role in the nation's founding and for years thereafter.

I am not pushing "secular humanism" on anyone. I am explaining that the U.S. government is religiously neutral and it is its policy to neither prohibit nor promote any faith or lack of faith or another faith or lack of faith.

That lie was refuted posts ago.

This is derived from the right to freedom of thought. Making laws that force other people to pretend to share your religious beliefs is - in my opinion - completely counterproductive to your goals for creating a Christian society. Government threats do not create very good converts.

Engaging in sexual perversion is more than "thought". Sexual anarchy has destroyed many a nation and laws against perversion are necessary especially when a nation has no moral compass.

I do not need to show you any additional evidence about how common drugs or porn was back in early America for you to ignore.

Why waste your time on something that isn't there. I thought for sure you would have gone with the secular humanist lie that the Founding Fathers were big dope smokers, but then we'd have to go back to their Bible teachings, which they were raised with in school and in church, and show that intoxication is immoral.

You were the one who said that we needed to return to laws "against abortion, homosexual, pornography, recreational drug use" to make America great again. My position is that three out of those four were not even outlawed by the founding fathers, who were apparently the most Christian Christians who ever Christianed in U.S. history.

A moral nation doesn't need laws against things that rarely happened. Again, show me where there was pornography and recreational drug use back then. Those laws weren't legislated until they became a problem in the US in the 1900's.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Christianity was entrenched in the lives of everyone then for the same reason slavery was. They didn't know better. Now we do.

Now mankind is enslaved to sin because they refuse to allow God into their lives and into a once God fearing nation.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Doesn't that also apply to Christians back when America was first founded? There may be quotes from hundreds of early Americans in this thread about how much they loved going to church, but there were millions of Americans alive at the time, how do you know they didn't have carnal Christianity? How do you know that ye olde Americans were all paying rapt attention and not falling asleep or looking out the window or wondering what the score was in the hunting game or whatever while they were in the pew?

Their laws and culture showed that they weren't "carnal Christians".

Where did you get the Judaeo part from? Weren't you just saying how overwhelmingly Christian the American people, lawmakers, and laws were at the time?

Your ignorance of the history of US laws is noted. Where do you think laws against adultery, stealing, etc. etc. came from?

 

[Somerville]

Their laws and culture showed that they weren't "carnal Christians".


Your ignorance of the history of US laws is noted. Where do you think laws against adultery, stealing, etc. etc. came from?

English common law, some aspects of which can be traced back to days before Xtianity was delivered to the Brits and Celts.

 

[Grand Mal]

Now mankind is enslaved to sin because they refuse to allow God into their lives and into a once God fearing nation.

God doesn't care about you. And He sure doesn't care about an artificial construction called America.

 

[the Avatar]

I dealt with libertarians at another forum who after I exposed how Godless libertarianism is, swore that they weren't associated with libertarianism (I told them that they didn't have to pay the 25 cent Libertarian Party membership fee to believe in libertarian ideology). In any event, I referred to them as "I am NOT a libertarian!" libertarians. Can I call you a "I am NOT an atheist!" atheist?

You decided in your head that I must an atheist because I disagree with you on the separation of church and state. First of all, it's kind of silly that apparently there are only Christians and atheists in your world. What about, I don't know, every single other religion? Second, I think I've done a pretty good job opening up the Bible and figuring out what its trying to mean so far in this thread: so how do you know that I'm not just a Christian who concluded that the U.S. was founded as religiously neutral State?

The core tenet of Romans 13 is that God created civil government and that unless the civil magistrate rules favorably as seen through the eyes of God, then he is not a legitimate ruler.

"...for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

"Not a legitimate ruler"? Sounds a bit like the divine right of kings, don't you think?

I can't help but notice that the passage in question does not make the exception you make. It takes the view that all governments are willed to exist by God. That certainly sounds in line with the book of Habakkuk, where the cycles of revenge and conquest are actually a divinely orchestrated plan of sinners unwittingly punishing sinners. How could it be any other way? How could God's will be foiled?

That very letter was being circulated in an area of intense persecution of Christians, and it tells them not to rebel and pay your taxes. 2 Peter 2 even says "honor the emperor" of a government that claimed emperors achieved divinity when they died. Other passages that describe civil disobedience, like what you mentioned in Acts 5, are not cases of Christians resisting an evil government because it's evil, it's Christians resisting a government that is outright ordering them to disobey God's commandments. It's the same thing that happens with Moses and several people in the book of Daniel. It's pretty clear when you read the entire chapters in question.

Find a computer that allows you to view David Barton's "Capitol Tour"; you'll find that God played a huge role in the nation's founding and for years thereafter.

The computer is not the problem, it's how I access the internet. Google websites think I'm a bot.

That lie was refuted posts ago.

I must have missed it. Which post was that?

Engaging in sexual perversion is more than "thought". Sexual anarchy has destroyed many a nation and laws against perversion are necessary especially when a nation has no moral compass.

Spoiler

This... is starting to sound like an obsession.

A moral nation doesn't need laws against things that rarely happened. Again, show me where there was pornography and recreational drug use back then. Those laws weren't legislated until they became a problem in the US in the 1900's.

My position is that your idea of an ideal U.S. does not line up with the founders' because you believe that there is an existential need to outlaw things that they never bothered to outlaw. That's my claim, that's all I need to provide evidence for.

Their laws and culture showed that they weren't "carnal Christians".

Like what?

Your ignorance of the history of US laws is noted. Where do you think laws against adultery, stealing, etc. etc. came from?

Neither of those are unique to Christianity. In fact, it's quite normal to think that both of those are wrong.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCultureWarrior said:
Their laws and culture showed that they weren't "carnal Christians".


Your ignorance of the history of US laws is noted. Where do you think laws against adultery, stealing, etc. etc. came from?

English common law, some aspects of which can be traced back to days before Xtianity was delivered to the Brits and Celts.

You mean like The Ten Commandments and the Laws of God? Correct, they were around long before Jesus Christ came to save mankind from himself, but go ahead, attempt to make your secular humanist case.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCultureWarrior said:
Now mankind is enslaved to sin because they refuse to allow God into their lives and into a once God fearing nation.

God doesn't care about you. And He sure doesn't care about an artificial construction called America.

I'll tell you what: I'll start taking theology lessons from a God-hater when Hell freezes over. Looking at my calendar, it doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You decided in your head that I must an atheist because I disagree with you on the separation of church and state.

Your defense of the mass murdering barbarians from Soviet Russia gave you away from the beginning, your denial that America was founded as a Christian nation is just more icing on a putrid cake.

Second, I think I've done a pretty good job opening up the Bible and figuring out what its trying to mean so far in this thread: so how do you know that I'm not just a Christian who concluded that the U.S. was founded as religiously neutral State?

Of course when you use the term "religiously neutral State", you're only referring to the Constititon (which btw is biblically based: http://www.our-hope.org/blog/wp-con...-Basis-of-the-United-States-Constitution1.pdf ) and you're completely ignoring that reference to God was made 4-5 times in the Declaration of Independence; oh, and about the respective States what religion do you think that their laws and culture embraced?

"Not a legitimate ruler"? Sounds a bit like the divine right of kings, don't you think?

It's pretty simple: God set the rules for the 3 institutions that He created for the governance of man: the family (one man, one woman, united in matrmony and the children that come with that marriage) the Church (based on the teachings of Jesus Christ) and civil government (whose role is to punish evil and praise those that do good). When Bruth and Bruth mock God's instittion of marriage and call themselves 'married', and commit the atrocity of adopting children, they are not a legiitmate family in the eyes of God. The same goes with a church that embraces abortion and homosexuality, it goes against Scripture and therefore isn't legitimate. Rainbow flag wavers Donald Trump and Joe Biden aren't legitimate leaders in the eyes of God.

My position is that your idea of an ideal U.S. does not line up with the founders' because you believe that there is an existential need to outlaw things that they never bothered to outlaw. That's my claim, that's all I need to provide evidence for.

As mentioned numerous times, pornography and recreational drug use weren't problems in a nation that was self governed by God's Word. Homoseuxality wasn't either, but it was such an abomination, that laws had to be passed prohibting it. If you have evidence that the Founding Fathers were anarchist and allowed pornography and recreational drug use to be used without the threat of prosecution, make your case, if not, let it rest.

Neither of those are unique to Christianity. In fact, it's quite normal to think that both of those are wrong.

Hence the term Judeo-Christian. Adultery and theft were denounced in God's universal moral code known as "The Ten Commandments".

 

[Grand Mal]

aCultureWarrior said:
Now mankind is enslaved to sin because they refuse to allow God into their lives and into a once God fearing nation.

I'll tell you what: I'll start taking theology lessons from a God-hater when Hell freezes over. Looking at my calendar, it doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.

Considering that 'all is hell that is not heaven', hell has frozen over many times.
What makes you think I hate God? Didn't just make that up, did you? Oops, there's another one on the wrong side of your ledger.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What makes you think I hate God? Didn't just make that up, did you?

Make your case as to how God wasn't a huge influence in the Founding of America. If not, I don't have time for trolls.

 

[Grand Mal]

Make your case as to how God wasn't a huge influence in the Founding of America. If not, I don't have time for trolls.

I never said that at all.
Speaking of trolls, do you always ignore what people actually say and lie like this?

 

[the Avatar]

Your defense of the mass murdering barbarians from Soviet Russia gave you away from the beginning

I did no such thing. I outright quoted myself and explained what I saying in post 207 just in case reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit. If you aren't going to acknowledge what I actually said and claim that I was defending Soviet Russia one more time, you will be lying.

I assume the sentence "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" means something to you.

Of course when you use the term "religiously neutral State", you're only referring to the Constititon (which btw is biblically based: http://www.our-hope.org/blog/wp-con...-Basis-of-the-United-States-Constitution1.pdf )

Correct. Even though the Declaration of Independence is an important document in U.S. history, it's not a legally binding document. It is a philosophical treatise and airing of grievances with the government made by - at the time - rebel leaders who would be executed as criminals had they lost. The Declaration was written even before the Articles of Confederation. So while it does reference God in a very general sense, it hardly advocates for the Bible as the basis for their government. In fact, it advocates for consent of the governed as the basis of any government.

I think that is the best source you've given yet. But frankly, the main influence it found was the idea of depravity as the ultimate source of things like checks and balances. More than you or your other sources, it definitely takes a more holistic view on the fact that Montesquieu and classical pre-Christian republics were indeed significant influences on the founders of the U.S. And you know what exactly made them concerned about the possibility of corruption or tyranny, whether it was their interpretation of history or their religious beliefs, we'll never know with absolute certainty what was in their minds at the time. We only have their actions to examine. Many of the references some of them would make in regards to their religious belief or their faith in letters and whatnot are just that: references. Unelaborated references.

However, acting like the Constitution is Christian because they share an idea of depravity is a very incomplete description of Christian belief. It also kind of makes it sound like non-Christians believe in the ideas of the Constitution, when they very clearly can. I'm sure you have an opinion on whether or not they do, but they most certainly can.

oh, and about the respective States what religion do you think that their laws and culture embraced?

Where have I heard this before? Oh... that's right, when you didn't answer my question the last time I asked for evidence of that:

Spoiler

Their laws and culture showed that they weren't "carnal Christians".

Like what?

Again: what laws and what culture?

It's pretty simple: God set the rules for the 3 institutions that He created for the governance of man: the family (one man, one woman, united in matrmony and the children that come with that marriage) the Church (based on the teachings of Jesus Christ) and civil government (whose role is to punish evil and praise those that do good). When Bruth and Bruth mock God's instittion of marriage and call themselves 'married', and commit the atrocity of adopting children, they are not a legiitmate family in the eyes of God. The same goes with a church that embraces abortion and homosexuality, it goes against Scripture and therefore isn't legitimate. Rainbow flag wavers Donald Trump and Joe Biden aren't legitimate leaders in the eyes of God.

That is a philosophical belief that you have not shown to be derived from the Bible. Romans 13 very clearly says that all governments are instituted by God. Whether they lead in a moral way and follow God's moral will is completely irrelevant to the question of whether their leadership follows God's sovereign will. If it was not God's sovereign will that Trump and Biden became president, then how did they become president? Surely you don't believe they defeated God!

 

[the Avatar]

As mentioned numerous times, pornography and recreational drug use weren't problems in a nation that was self governed by God's Word. Homoseuxality wasn't either, but it was such an abomination, that laws had to be passed prohibting it. If you have evidence that the Founding Fathers were anarchist and allowed pornography and recreational drug use to be used without the threat of prosecution, make your case, if not, let it rest.

No, I defend the arguments that I choose to make, not the ones you wish I was making. You don't get to tell me what position I have to defend.

Spoiler

My position is that your idea of an ideal U.S. does not line up with the founders' because you believe that there is an existential need to outlaw things that they never bothered to outlaw. That's my claim, that's all I need to provide evidence for.

Hence the term Judeo-Christian. Adultery and theft were denounced in God's universal moral code known as "The Ten Commandments".

Adultery and theft are also denounced in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Islam. If the only Christian laws on the books when the U.S. was founded were so general that they could have been written by members of any of those other religions, how Christian can they possibly be?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCultureWarrior said:
Your defense of the mass murdering barbarians from Soviet Russia gave you away from the beginning

I did no such thing. I outright quoted myself and explained what I saying in post 207 just in case reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit. If you aren't going to acknowledge what I actually said and claim that I was defending Soviet Russia one more time, you will be lying.

I assume the sentence "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" means something to you.

How about we cut this pretend debate short and since you for some reason can't view David Barton's/Wallbuilders video of the Capitol Tour, and don't know anyone that owns a computer or laptop that can, nor know of any place (a public library, an internet cafe, etc.) where you can view it, let me give you a short synopsis of what it says:

Aside from there being numerous Christian themed paintings inside the Capitol Building Rotunda, Christian church services were held in the United States Capitol Building for close to 100 years. (But wait, there's more!). Two days after Thomas Jefferson wrote his supposed Separation of Church and State letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church, he attended church services in that very same US Capitol Building.

Can your browser open links? If not, find a friend that will do it for you.

Church in the U.S. Capitol - WallBuilders

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol’s use as a church, and some of...

wallbuilders.com

 

[the Avatar]

Wait, you want to cut if off now? After everything we've been through together? Can you ple-e-ease at least respond to the rest of my post first?
For me?