PDA

View Full Version : Are we a christian country?......Absolutely not!



JustAlex
08-20-2012, 06:05 AM
So, every time I hear a far right wing person talk about Sharia Law and how he/she fears that the U.S will one day fall under it, I just want to tell them that that would NEVER happen in our country because we are a Secular government with a secular constitution.

We are not a religious country by any means, there is no "national religion" and as long as the constitution stays the way it is, it will NEVER be a theocracy or anything like that.


For the people who love to say that we are a "Christian Country" just because the majority of our citizens are Christians, I have some questions:

#1 Are we also a "White Country"......about 70% of our population is white, so I guess we're a white country, right?

#2 Are we a "Female Country".......about 51% of our population is female, so I guess we're a female country, right?

#3 Which brand of Christianity do we fall under?.....Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal?


The absurdity to call the U.S a christian country is in the same realm of calling the U.S a "White Country" just because the majority happen to be so.

If our constitution really were based on the bible and the christian religion then there would be laws such as these:

You are not allowed to work on "the Sabbath", this goes for every single citizen and business (Sorry guys no more Sunday football), homosexuality will be outlawed for being a sin and therefore a crime (The appropriate punishment shall be death), Fornication and Adultery will also be treated as crimes and of course there is no such thing as divorce.

I could go on and on but hopefully you guys get the point.


Anyone that wants to see how a "religious country" is run, please check out Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.

mrveggieman
08-20-2012, 09:20 AM
So, every time I hear a far right wing person talk about Sharia Law and how he/she fears that the U.S will one day fall under it, I just want to tell them that that would NEVER happen in our country because we are a Secular government with a secular constitution.

We are not a religious country by any means, there is no "national religion" and as long as the constitution stays the way it is, it will NEVER be a theocracy or anything like that.


For the people who love to say that we are a "Christian Country" just because the majority of our citizens are Christians, I have some questions:

#1 Are we also a "White Country"......about 70% of our population is white, so I guess we're a white country, right?

#2 Are we a "Female Country".......about 51% of our population is female, so I guess we're a female country, right?

#3 Which brand of Christianity do we fall under?.....Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal?


The absurdity to call the U.S a christian country is in the same realm of calling the U.S a "White Country" just because the majority happen to be so.

If our constitution really were based on the bible and the christian religion then there would be laws such as these:

You are not allowed to work on "the Sabbath", this goes for every single citizen and business (Sorry guys no more Sunday football), homosexuality will be outlawed for being a sin and therefore a crime (The appropriate punishment shall be death), Fornication and Adultery will also be treated as crimes and of course there is no such thing as divorce.

I could go on and on but hopefully you guys get the point.


Anyone that wants to see how a "religious country" is run, please check out Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.

It's only a christian contry when convenient for christians. Business will never close on sunday and christians will continue to eat pork, shellfish and shrimp. Mabey these christians should get their own houses in order before trying to clean someone elses.

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 11:26 AM
Business will never close on sunday and christians will continue to eat pork, shellfish and shrimp. Mabey these christians should get their own houses in order before trying to clean someone elses.

what does this mean? and what does this have to do with the teachings of Jesus?

AUTaxMan
08-20-2012, 11:30 AM
what does this mean? and what does this have to do with the teachings of Jesus?

No matter how many times we educate mrv on the eating issue, he never lets it go. I really don't understand it. Not sure where it says businesses have to close on Sundays.

mrveggieman
08-20-2012, 11:41 AM
No matter how many times we educate mrv on the eating issue, he never lets it go. I really don't understand it. Not sure where it says businesses have to close on Sundays.


Have you read Exedous 35:2 lately or do you disregard it because it is in the OT?

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Did Jesus teach this? If not, then what does it have to do with Christianity, or did you mean to say Jews or Muslims?

If you or anyone claims to be a Christian they should know what Jesus taught, the rest is a history lesson, unless you are Jewish or Muslim.

And to claim Christians should follow the Bible itself is silly, who put the Bible together? Did Jesus say there would be a bible to follow?

ensbergcollector
08-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Have you read Exedous 35:2 lately or do you disregard it because it is in the OT?

no, for the 10th time, we disregard it because God himself says in acts that all food is eatable now.

mrveggieman
08-20-2012, 11:52 AM
no, for the 10th time, we disregard it because God himself says in acts that all food is eatable now.

The forementioned verse has nothing to do with food. It is the prohibition of working on the sabbath day. Go ahead and find something in the NT to counter that like ya'll always do.

mrveggieman
08-20-2012, 11:56 AM
Did Jesus teach this? If not, then what does it have to do with Christianity, or did you mean to say Jews or Muslims?

If you or anyone claims to be a Christian they should know what Jesus taught, the rest is a history lesson, unless you are Jewish or Muslim.

And to claim Christians should follow the Bible itself is silly, who put the Bible together? Did Jesus say there would be a bible to follow?

Jesus wasn't around in the OT so obviously he didn't wirte that. You also bring up an interesting point about following the bible. Mostly everyone goes by what works for them int he bible and ignore the rest. Again not saying that it is right or wrong but we are all guilty of it. My concern is if that if we stop going by the bible because jesus never said to follow it then we will be heading down a slippery slope. What will be officially taught as truth? What will be disregarded? At least with the bible we have some type of guidllines. If we get to the point of officially throwing out stuff because Jesus never spoke to it eventually we will throw out what Jesus said as well.

Edit: Also to be perfectly honest I have a problem with the books of acts, timothy, etc. The books written by Paul. How can christians swing by the words of a man who testified of Jesus even though he never saw him in the flesh?

ensbergcollector
08-20-2012, 11:58 AM
The forementioned verse has nothing to do with food. It is the prohibition of working on the sabbath day. Go ahead and find something in the NT to counter that like ya'll always do.

sorry, i thought we were still talking about the food issue. feel free to explain why God overturning the food issue in acts is not valid to you but God saying something in old testament is.

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 12:00 PM
what Jesus taught is the truth and the only important thing to follow as a Christian.

but I do agree it can be a slippery slope!!!

and an update on my juice adventures for you; beets, oranges, carrots, and cantaloupe!!!

mrveggieman
08-20-2012, 12:01 PM
sorry, i thought we were still talking about the food issue. feel free to explain why God overturning the food issue in acts is not valid to you but God saying something in old testament is.

I put more credibility into the words of God/Jesus than of a man who claims to saw him but no one can verify it.

ensbergcollector
08-20-2012, 12:10 PM
I put more credibility into the words of God/Jesus than of a man who claims to saw him but no one can verify it.

if you discredit something peter saw and witnessed then you might as well do away with everything. Peter is responsible for the book of luke as well as large portions of acts.

Star_Cards
08-20-2012, 12:11 PM
does anyone else find it odd to debate what things god or jesus said/taught between what rules man has written to follow religiously? Assuming God existed, how does anyone know what was made said from either three outlets when it's all be documented by man? I find it odd that I see posts here and their claiming what god or jesus taught or ruled on.

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 12:19 PM
Documented by the people that were with Jesus, that trace back to as close as you can get to Jesus, were historically accurate, and made Jesus known to the world, seems like a good source to me.

habsheaven
08-20-2012, 12:24 PM
Documented by the people that were with Jesus, that trace back to as close as you can get to Jesus, were historically accurate, and made Jesus known to the world, seems like a good source to me.

Historically accurate? Who documented the virgin birth, the water into wine, the walking on water, the resurrection? How accurate were these claims?

tpeichel
08-20-2012, 03:00 PM
Historically accurate? Who documented the virgin birth, the water into wine, the walking on water, the resurrection? How accurate were these claims?

As far as being historically reliable, the bible fares quite well compared to other documentation from the period.

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep7.html

John Warwick Montgomery says that "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."



Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum and second to none in authority for issuing statements about MSS, says, "...besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors, and this time the difference is clear gain. In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century - say from 250 to 300 years later.

"This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death."


Kenyon continues in The Bible and Archaeology: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."


F. J. A. Hort rightfully adds that "in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachable alone among ancient prose writings."


J. Harold Greenlee states, "...the number of available MSS of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant MSS of the New Testament were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 03:35 PM
habs, don't know, got what I got, so I have to make do with it

JustAlex
08-20-2012, 06:05 PM
I'm not sure how this got into a discussion about what Jesus said and didn't say.

But at least I'm glad that no one is refuting the fact that we are indeed a secular country.

BTW, the word "secular" is actually a very tame word......some far right wing people like to think it's a "Liberal word" or something ridiculous like that.


Secularism is just a neutral way of thinking about government and religion, it's not favoring anyone.....it's the CORRECT way to think of our country.

Wickabee
08-20-2012, 06:11 PM
Secular means not religious.

Correct?

JustAlex
08-20-2012, 06:32 PM
Secular means not religious.

Correct?
Absolutely.

So if we say that our country is secular that means that the laws and government are not dictated by religion.....which they aren't as I showed in the OP.

If we were a real "christian country" than I suppose Biblical law would trump constitutional law and any other law.

There would be a mandate to accept christianity as the national religion just like the way they have it in many islamic countries.

Wickabee
08-20-2012, 06:40 PM
Absolutely.

So if we say that our country is secular that means that the laws and government are not dictated by religion.....which they aren't as I showed in the OP.

If we were a real "christian country" than I suppose Biblical law would trump constitutional law and any other law.

There would be a mandate to accept christianity as the national religion just like the way they have it in many islamic countries.

You're absolutely right.

What's your point?

JustAlex
08-20-2012, 06:46 PM
You're absolutely right.

What's your point?
To refute anyone that continues to perpetuate the nonsense idea that we are a christian country or that our constitution was founded on christian ideals.

Just the other day there were 2 threads on here by you-know-who that was making the argument that our founders created a christian country, this is to disprove that notion and to inform anyone else who might question whether or not we are a religious country.

We are not.

Wickabee
08-20-2012, 06:54 PM
But your country is largely Christian and it was founded on Christian beliefs. It's just that Christian beliefs have changed over time.

There was a time when Christian belief was about tolerance, harmony, respect and love while spreading the message of Christ. One was to follow the laws of the land until they went directly against the laws of God.
Now Christian belief is largely about intolerance, disrespect and segregation while attempting to impose one's interpretation of the message of Christ on everyone else through secular law.*

When your country was founded, it was done by mostly Christians who were working on Christian beliefs. Love, tolerance, harmony and respect. Tolerance was a big part of it, with "all men created equal," "freedom of speech" and may other parts of the Constitution. It's not that the country wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, it's that most of today's noisy "Christians" hold beliefs the founding fathers would find confusing at best.


* - NOT a slam on all Christians. Don't even start.

shrewsbury
08-20-2012, 07:48 PM
wickabee, very nice post!

drtom2005
08-20-2012, 11:54 PM
But your country is largely Christian and it was founded on Christian beliefs. It's just that Christian beliefs have changed over time.

There was a time when Christian belief was about tolerance, harmony, respect and love while spreading the message of Christ. One was to follow the laws of the land until they went directly against the laws of God.
Now Christian belief is largely about intolerance, disrespect and segregation while attempting to impose one's interpretation of the message of Christ on everyone else through secular law.*

When your country was founded, it was done by mostly Christians who were working on Christian beliefs. Love, tolerance, harmony and respect. Tolerance was a big part of it, with "all men created equal," "freedom of speech" and may other parts of the Constitution. It's not that the country wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, it's that most of today's noisy "Christians" hold beliefs the founding fathers would find confusing at best.


* - NOT a slam on all Christians. Don't even start.


I disagree Wickabee. Based on their writing, most of these men were diests (Heck, Jefferson even made a Bible without all of the supernatural things in it about the life of Jesus). Also, the form of democrary/republic was based on the Greek design. Or maybe the British system with a President replacing the King. But looking back on British history, the system started without the Catholic Church involved. Nothing Christian about that.

Wickabee
08-21-2012, 12:40 AM
I disagree Wickabee. Based on their writing, most of these men were diests (Heck, Jefferson even made a Bible without all of the supernatural things in it about the life of Jesus). Also, the form of democrary/republic was based on the Greek design. Or maybe the British system with a President replacing the King. But looking back on British history, the system started without the Catholic Church involved. Nothing Christian about that.

No one is talking about the system's base. We're talking about the ideals.

mrveggieman
08-21-2012, 08:54 AM
I agree with the ideals. Gov't is corrupt by nature. Why in the hell would christians want to combine the church and the gov't unless they want the church to be as corrupt as the gov't. If that happens I will stop going to church and look for a new religion.

habsheaven
08-21-2012, 09:19 AM
I disagree Wickabee. Based on their writing, most of these men were diests (Heck, Jefferson even made a Bible without all of the supernatural things in it about the life of Jesus). Also, the form of democrary/republic was based on the Greek design. Or maybe the British system with a President replacing the King. But looking back on British history, the system started without the Catholic Church involved. Nothing Christian about that.

Actually, I have heard it argued that the modern system of government is based on the Iroquois nation's system of governance.

shrewsbury
08-21-2012, 09:22 AM
veggie, the Catholic church seems to perhaps already be there. they have their own country and set rules for millions of people

drtom2005
08-21-2012, 09:55 AM
No one is talking about the system's base. We're talking about the ideals.

And those ideals were what a good person would live by at the time. If people want to say the Founding Fathers ideals were Christian based, they are painting themselves into a corner. I will not name them, but there are several issues I hope Christians wouldn't want any part of in the early governement.

drtom2005
08-21-2012, 09:55 AM
Actually, I have heard it argued that the modern system of government is based on the Iroquois nation's system of governance.

I haven't look into that before. I'll need to read up on it.

Wickabee
08-21-2012, 12:23 PM
And those ideals were what a good person would live by at the time. If people want to say the Founding Fathers ideals were Christian based, they are painting themselves into a corner. I will not name them, but there are several issues I hope Christians wouldn't want any part of in the early governement.

And there are many things done by Christians in the name of Christ I would sincerely hope no true Christian would do. Those people still consider them "Christian ideals", so what's your point?

drtom2005
09-16-2012, 06:13 PM
And there are many things done by Christians in the name of Christ I would sincerely hope no true Christian would do. Those people still consider them "Christian ideals", so what's your point?

You could say the governemt was secular with secular ideas for the time. Or you could say it is Christian based. According to most Christians, the bible is the word of god. When people say the government was Christian based, all the bad things could be blamed on the religion. Better to blame a secular governement that had not evolved.

A general rule I have heard is governements change, not religion (of course, I know some religous people will disagree with me and some will not).

ALADOG
09-16-2012, 08:39 PM
YOu display the left wing arrogance again. There is a distinct difference between a Christian nation an an Oligarchy based on Christianity

drtom2005
09-16-2012, 10:25 PM
YOu display the left wing arrogance again. There is a distinct difference between a Christian nation an an Oligarchy based on Christianity

How is anything I said left wing? Here's a history lesson. Being a Christian was not a requirement to be a Republican until Reagan. When the Repubilcan party started, they were the radicals. Maybe, current Republicans should take a history lesson from Lincoln and change something.

ALADOG
09-17-2012, 12:16 AM
reply was to the original post by alex, who knows more than anyone on earth and if you don't believe it, just ask him.

JustAlex
09-17-2012, 02:02 AM
YOu display the left wing arrogance again. There is a distinct difference between a Christian nation an an Oligarchy based on Christianity
GO ahead.....SHOW ME!

Show me how this is an Oligarchy based on Christianity!

NO WHERE in the Constitution does it mention the word "Christian", the Founding Fathers NEVER said or used the term "In God we Trust".

The Treaty of Tripoli is a perfect example of the U.S REJECTING the notion that this country is "Christian".


BTW, I'm glad you think that believing that we are not a Christian Nation = "Left Wing".

Please educate yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs&feature=g-u-u

AUTaxMan
09-17-2012, 10:25 AM
GO ahead.....SHOW ME!

Show me how this is an Oligarchy based on Christianity!

NO WHERE in the Constitution does it mention the word "Christian", the Founding Fathers NEVER said or used the term "In God we Trust".

The Treaty of Tripoli is a perfect example of the U.S REJECTING the notion that this country is "Christian".


BTW, I'm glad you think that believing that we are not a Christian Nation = "Left Wing".

Please educate yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs&feature=g-u-u

In your mind, is there a difference in saying that we are a "Christian nation" and that we were "founded on Christian principles"? I agree with the latter phrase but not the former.

JustAlex
09-17-2012, 12:54 PM
In your mind, is there a difference in saying that we are a "Christian nation" and that we were "founded on Christian principles"? I agree with the latter phrase but not the former.
Which Christian principles would those be???

The first amendment allows me to VIOLATE 8 out of the 10 commandments.

Like I said no where on our Constistution (the only document that matters) is there a referrence to any god much less the Christian one.

In fact the only thing the Constitution said about religion is how it should be EXCLUDED from government and while we all have the freedom to believe whatever we want....having faith in religion shall NOT be used as a test for public office.

Having checks and balances is not Christian.

Saying that we can't murder or steal is also not Christian.

Those are societal matters that have been around long before the christian religion.

I don't need any god to tell me what is right and wrong....as a human that comes naturally.

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 01:07 PM
Which Christian principles would those be???

The first amendment allows me to VIOLATE 8 out of the 10 commandments.

Like I said no where on our Constistution (the only document that matters) is there a referrence to any god much less the Christian one.

In fact the only thing the Constitution said about religion is how it should be EXCLUDED from government and while we all have the freedom to believe whatever we want....having faith in religion shall NOT be used as a test for public office.

Having checks and balances is not Christian.

Saying that we can't murder or steal is also not Christian.

Those are societal matters that have been around long before the christian religion.

I don't need any god to tell me what is right and wrong....as a human that comes naturally.

Umm, what?

JustAlex
09-17-2012, 01:42 PM
Umm, what?
I think you know what I mean.

Some christians really believe that up until Moses was given the ten commandments, murder and stealing were perfectly acceptable.

No, it was not.

Murder has always been counterproductive to any society or group.

When humans were in hunter-gatherer groups they knew that a strong group was more advantageous than killing each other off.

Humans have always been selfish, but at the same time they need one another in order to survive, and the only way that's going to happen is to tolerate each other and cooperate.

In other words.....do NOT murder.

This is a societal principle, christianity just saw it as a moral giving from god, but it's not.

God didn't tell us to eat food or breathe air, we do those things in order to survive.

Wickabee
09-17-2012, 02:06 PM
I think you know what I mean.

Some christians really believe that up until Moses was given the ten commandments, murder and stealing were perfectly acceptable.

No, it was not.

Murder has always been counterproductive to any society or group.

When humans were in hunter-gatherer groups they knew that a strong group was more advantageous than killing each other off.

Humans have always been selfish, but at the same time they need one another in order to survive, and the only way that's going to happen is to tolerate each other and cooperate.

In other words.....do NOT murder.

This is a societal principle, christianity just saw it as a moral giving from god, but it's not.

God didn't tell us to eat food or breathe air, we do those things in order to survive.

I get your logic in the second bit, but the first bit is wrong. Stealing wasn't "okay" and murder definitely wasn't, or else Cain wouldn't have been ostracized and sent away.

shrewsbury
09-17-2012, 02:39 PM
alex, hunter-gatherers, not only killed eachother off, but killed off the neanderthals. killing and stealing have been around since we have.

drtom2005
09-17-2012, 09:46 PM
alex, hunter-gatherers, not only killed eachother off, but killed off the neanderthals. killing and stealing have been around since we have.
This is my point. Society(in the Western World) has evolved to the point where this is not acceptable.
The early government allowed slavery, irradication of Indians, not allowing women to vote, etc. Christians do not get to pick and choose what is a Christian principle or belief about the early U.S. government. People need to accept it all or say the country was not founded on these Christian principles.

shrewsbury
09-17-2012, 10:47 PM
so it's all or nothing?

how about they were influenced by christian beliefs, which were influenced by jewish beliefs, which were influenced by egyptian beliefs, which were influenced by sumarian beliefs, which were influenced y aliens?

drtom2005
09-17-2012, 11:08 PM
so it's all or nothing?

how about they were influenced by christian beliefs, which were influenced by jewish beliefs, which were influenced by egyptian beliefs, which were influenced by sumarian beliefs, which were influenced y aliens?

Most Christians I have talked to take the word of God as absolute. If people are saying the government was Christian, how am I not allowed to say this statement?

I attempted to not bring this aspect into the conversation, but I believe I was forced to say it.

Saying the early government was Christian based degrades Christian's beliefs. I would hope most Christians would see that calling the governement Christian leads to this logical conclusion.