Does Christianity align with US values?

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk No, I have set an impossible standard for one thing and one thing only, that is the religious views of the founding fathers, and this standard impossible as it may be, is necessary for two reasons: The first is that it is not ever clear what goes on in anyone's mind, living or dead. The words and publications of an individual are not adequate to justify as such. The second is that there is much ambiguity in the works of the founding fathers, which is undoubtedly intentional.

What went on in the minds of the founding fathers, and whether they were total Christians, or Deists, or agnostics is irrelevant.

The challenge that I set for this debate is achievable, There is one way I know and only one way which it can be solved, and I recon you are also aware of it, even if you don't want to admit what the single truly Christian idea which was made a staple of the US at it's foundation.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - There isn't an argument in a so-called list, as such, but there is a foundational argument in law and it is this:

The "Western" culture was imported from Israel.  Every "Western" culture identifies with a single ethos, the Judeo-Christian ethos.  The U.S., like Israel, like Canada, like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe all share this common precept.  What then IS the Judeo-Christian ethos?  I suppose you could call it a "list" in a way, a list of laws certainly, but also a spiritual and moral embodiment of values enshrined in firstly our system of law and secondly in our Western culture.  The system of law which every Western nation adopted is based on the original laws which created the Judeo-Christian ethos in the first place and these  are:

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, (lie), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife.

Culturally that same Judeo-Christian ethos was also adopted with Thou shalt have no other gods before me., (The Western culture is identified as a monotheistic society, unlike a pagan society of many gods). Thou shalt make no graven image of worship, (idolatry).  Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain, (blasphemy). Honour thy Father and thy Mother, (respect authority), love thy neighbour, (respect fellow citizens), keep holy the Sabbath, (regularly reinforce the spiritual moral code of the Christian Western culture).  You could say it is a list of 10 values upheld by Christianity - The Ten Commandments, but also upheld by our legal system and cultural norms.

We see this confirmed on the facade of our Court Houses, particularly in the English-speaking nations with the words: "In God We Trust" engraved on the exterior of every Court House and also inside our Court rooms with these same words set on the wall behind the Judicial benches.  As well, over centuries, handed down by the Western system of governance, the custom has always been to take an Oath, both inside and outside of the Courts, including when accepting an office of governance, by placing our right hand on the Christian Bible and swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God".

We also see the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethos in our culture of celebrating Christmas, (Christ's Mass), communion (the Last Supper), baptism and marriage in churches, monogomy enshrined in our Marriage Act, the Easter holiday and vigils, (Christ's Crucifixion), Sunday a declared holiday, (holy day) set aside for worship and even naming ceremonies called "Christenings".   To pretend our society's Western traditions did not come from the Judeo-Christian ethos is abject ignorance. Israel is the only Western nation in the Middle East.  Our government is prohibited from enacting religious laws into law, while the Constitution protects them.

Grafix

Moderator, kindly delete this post.  I was a duplicate of another.

Grafix

Moderator, kindly delete this post.  It was a duplicate of another.

Grafix

Moderator, kindly delete this post.  Aarong answered the query.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your list of U.S. "values" are not values per se, but rather are legal concepts which REFLECT moral values.  Our moral values are embodied in the Christian Ten Commandments, even if we are not a Christian and are atheists, even if we don't accept them per se.  Nevertheless, they are enshrined in our cultural norms and legal norms. 

Even if the U.S. nation became predominantly atheist and our system of laws did not change, we would still be defined as a "Western" nation, which ultimately defines us as a Christian nation.  The foundational origin of a nation's system of law is what defines it both as a Western nation and a Christian nation in the same breath.  Historically speaking, a nation with our system of laws, a Western nation, cannot be defined as not being a "Christian" nation, by virtue of the fundamental origins from whence those laws came  - The Ten Commandments.  That is what we mean when we say we are a "Christian" nation.  It has ZERO to do with how many in the populace are actually Christians and everything to do with our system of law, their origin and our cultural precepts.  We celebrate Christmas as a major holiday period, Easter likewise and reserve Sunday as a holiday, (holy day), for worship.

We take our Oaths, both in Court and when accepting an appointment to an official government office by placing our right hand on the Christian Bible.  It is such a pity these things are no longer taught in schools and your brand of religion, atheism, is actually responsible for this ignorance, academic atheist "regressives" taking over our bureaucracy.

Grafix

@YeshuaBought - The law does support you.  Happy_Killbot's arguments do not reflect either the factual history of the origin of the system of law in all Western nations or what defines them as Western nations.  The system of law and their culture both define the U.S. as a "Western" nation.  It is the reason Israel is the sole Western nation in the Middle East.  Like all Western nations its people and system of law reflect the Judeo-Christian ethos, which America inherited in its culture and foundational laws.  You are protected by the Constitution to practise the religion of your choice and to practise it publicly.  The Constitution clearly states that the Government alone must be secular, but not the people.  The Founding Fathers protected our right to any faith we chose by prohibiting government from making any law which affected religious beliefs, unless of course the beliefs led to breaking the law, subject to that law not over-riding the Constitution.  If any law should be imposed, which over-rides the Constitution then it is a breach of the Constitution.  The Constitution is the supreme law and cancels over-rides any legislated law which conflicts with it.  Such laws which conflict with it should never be legislated, but there are some, believe it or not, passed by errant lawmakers.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Does the Atheism align with United States values?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Denying that atheism is an ideology is tosh.  It's ideology is the rejection of divine intervention, instead accepting the notion that life sprang from an explosion of rocks and gases.  Atheists still worship at an altar of creation, just a different one, which does not require them to pay homage, i.e., no need to walk around saying thank you rocks for giving me the gift of life.

Happy_Killbot said:

TKDB said:

@Happy_Killbot

"Does Christianity align with US values?"

Does the Atheist Ideology align with US values?

Because a part of the Atheist Doctrine, is use Separation of Church and state, to Publicly sterilize, this or that Public property from any Religious themes right?

So basically, your Atheist values should maybe be placed above all U.S. values?

Why just judge US values through the lens of your anti Religious stance, and include Atheist values as a part of the conversation as well?

An equal and fair debate?

That depends on what you mean by "atheist ideology" because to my knowledge, no such singular thing exists.

Separation of church and state is an American value, the non-sense sentence you wrote doesn't really grasp what is meant by separation of church and state.

Here is something for you to ponder instead of trying to change the discussion: Can there be freedom of religion without freedom from religion?

That definitely is not a principal of Christianity, the first of the ten commandments says: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”

That is the opposite of what the first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Therefore the first amendment is not also a Christian value.

You have muddied the waters with a question which is a non sequitur for the reason that you fail to qualify exactly what you mean by "United States".  Are you referring to The State, (government) or to the people?  Both can be referenced as "the U. S.".  Are you asking, does Christianity align with the values of the U.S. State, or with the values of U.S. law, or with values of the American people?  If you are asking whether Christianity aligns with either the State or with U.S. law, each of these is also a non-sequitur, because law has no persona nor does the State and each are required to reflect the Will of the People.

The U.S. State or U.S. Law merely express, or should, the conduct required by the people of the people and for (the benefit of) the people  to PROTECT the values of the people in order to maintain a cohesive, moral and prosperous society.  So the question is arse about, in that if our U.S. State, our government, has legislated laws which do not reflect the Will of the people, then it has failed the people and something is seriously wrong.  The question is completely unintelligent, demonstrating a complete ignorance of American history, American law, the purpose of Congress, of the Legislature and of the fundamental precept of democracy.

Your views are quite Communistic, in that you think the law and the State are supreme, that they have the final word on the moral values, principles and desires of the people.  They don't.  The people do.  The State is a servant of the people, not the other way around. The Constitution makes that VERY clear.  The singular purpose of the Constitution is to protect the people from the tyranny of government, from the tyranny of the State, the tyranny of oppression and subjugation by tyrannical laws. You actually are attempting to transfer the power of the people to the State and then bend their Will to the State.  That's Communism or Totalitarian Socialism or Fascism.  All three are equally autocratic, they just use different structures of government. If this is what you were taught in school, then it confirms Conservatives Mums' and Dads' gravest fears, a system of education which is de-educating our kids, as opposed to educating them.  Worse, putting Marxist ideas in their heads.  You appear to be a victim of that.

Edit:  In answer to the Marxist trope of "Can there be freedom of religion without freedom from religion?"  The answer is a straight up and down "YES!"  Freedom FROM  religion means ZERO religion be permitted to be practised in the community and, in particular, in public.  If Congress even attempted to ban public practise of religion, it would be violating the First Amendment and should be sacked, shackled and thrown in a dungeon.

Happy_Killbot

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - There isn't an argument in a so-called list, as such, but there is a foundational argument in law and it is this:

The "Western" culture was imported from Israel.  Every "Western" culture identifies with a single ethos, the Judeo-Christian ethos.  The U.S., like Israel, like Canada, like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe all share this common precept.  What then IS the Judeo-Christian ethos?  I suppose you could call it a "list" in a way, a list of laws certainly, but also a spiritual and moral embodiment of values enshrined in firstly our system of law and secondly in our Western culture.  The system of law which every Western nation adopted is based on the original laws which created the Judeo-Christian ethos in the first place and these  are:

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, (lie), thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife.

Culturally that same Judeo-Christian ethos was also adopted with Thou shalt have no other gods before me., (The Western culture is identified as a monotheistic society, unlike a pagan society of many gods). Thou shalt make no graven image of worship, (idolatry).  Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain, (blasphemy). Honour thy Father and thy Mother, (respect authority), love thy neighbour, (respect fellow citizens), keep holy the Sabbath, (regularly reinforce the spiritual moral code of the Christian Western culture).  You could say it is a list of 10 values upheld by Christianity - The Ten Commandments, but also upheld by our legal system and cultural norms.

We see this confirmed on the facade of our Court Houses, particularly in the English-speaking nations with the words: "In God We Trust" engraved on the exterior of every Court House and also inside our Court rooms with these same words set on the wall behind the Judicial benches.  As well, over centuries, handed down by the Western system of governance, the custom has always been to take an Oath, both inside and outside of the Courts, including when accepting an office of governance, by placing our right hand on the Christian Bible and swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God".

@Grafix

Actually, none of this is correct, and allow me to correct your misunderstandings.

First thing is first, my challenge requires that the value be unique to Christianity, so as to make a solid argument that those values did in fact come from Christianity and not some other source.

This immediately removes Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not steal, These came from ancient Sumerian culture and pre-date Christianity so they do not count.

Second, many of these values are not US founding values. "thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife" can be found no where in the US constitution or in any of the amendments to the constitution. Therefore it doesn't count either.

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Therefore the Christian value "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is blatantly anti-American! The US is a Secular nation, not a Christian one!

Here is the thing about "in god we trust" How do you know which god it is? You assume this is the Christian god, but couldn't a Muslim assume this is talking about Allah? or a Hindu about Vishnu? or a satanist about Satan? The constitution makes this ambiguous, and although the founding fathers were predominately Christian, they likely would have welcomed any of those from other beliefs and let them be free to worship as they saw fit.

In the US, no one is forced to be any particular religion. If you want to argue that only Christians can be US-citizens, then you stand against the constitution and freedom of religion.

There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Grafix said:

What's going on?  Now after disappearing three times, my post suddenly appears three times.  How do I delete repeat posts?  Cannot see a delete button.

There is no way to delete claims without asking the moderators to delete them. Sometimes they can take a minute to upload and the changes are not reflected until you reload the page.

If you are worried about it, you can click on the gear in the upper right hand corner and the delete all the text so it isn't taking up space and you can then scroll down to the bottom faster.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

I'm talking about the values of the founding fathers as it is embodied in the US constitution, bill of rights, and other documents critical to the foundation of the US, such as the federalist papers. US values are those principals on which the US was founded.

This doesn't have much to do with the law, especially not as it stands today.

Grafix

Happy_Killbot said:

@Grafix

I'm talking about the values of the founding fathers as it is embodied in the US constitution, bill of rights, and other documents critical to the foundation of the US, such as the federalist papers.

This doesn't have much to do with the law, especially not as it stands today.

@Happy_Killbot -  I wonder if you know what you are talking about at all.  The values of the Founding Fathers, I've already explained.  It matters not, as I said previously, whether they were atheists, Deists or Christians, the Judeo-Christian ethos was firmly established in the "Western" culture and is what defines "Western" and is what the founders of the U.S. inherited from Britain.  You say your ideology is atheism, but in a Western culture, even an atheist is inculcated with Christian values, which are reflected in our fundamental psychological and moral value set, despite our religious beliefs.  How do we know this?  We know it from great philosophers, from ancient history, from the pre-dawn of man in the record of evidentiary savagery, cannibalism, paedophilia, rape and incest etc. being "normal" practices, cultural practices of certain historically barbaric societies.  It ain't rocket science. The Judeo-Christian ethos civilised humans.  You are trying to deny history and this is the problem, because you have not been taught accurate history at school.  The dumbing down of it and most other disciplines is the teaching of distortions of it and many revisions of it.  Fortunately, the original records still remain, which is what our fathers and grandfathers learnt. 

I don't think we shall be returning to an era of the burning of books, by the way, so just go to your library and study factual ancient history and see how barbaric tribes did not value life.  Not even the Romans did.  They put the Christians in the arena of the Colosseum with predatory animals such as lions and tigers for the enjoyment of the Roman citizenry to watch them mauled to a very bloody and cruel death.  It was standard public entertainment, provided free of charge to the masses ex gratia the Emperor with great regularity.  Look up the definition of "gladiator".

Look up the definition of "barbarian".  Look up the history of the hordes of the Dark Ages.  Look up the practices of indigenous native barbaric tribes in various cultures 200 or 300 years ago and tell me that without the Judeo-Christian precepts of law and order, how society looked and behaved.  You claim the Sumerians had these laws.  Sure they did, but if God created the world, which Christianity accepts and created the first human life, then how CAN the Sumerians be the origin of what God taught to the first living man and woman, when the Sumerians did not even exist?  The Judeo-Christian ethos, did not begin with Christ.  It began with Adam.  It fragments the board when you add more than one reply to the same comment.  There is an "edit" button, if you omitted something in the first post, so this post covers all of your replies to my previous post on this subject.

Edit:  Again you say "the U.S. is a secular nation", without qualifying "the U.S.".  Do you mean the government or the people?  The government is secular.  The people are NOT. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Do you have evidence to show that western values came from Christianity, and not from other sources, for example, the Ancient Greeks and Romans?

Perhaps you should formally accept my challenge then and give specific values which are unique to Christianity and founded the US.

I assert, that there is only a single Christian value which was a part of the US.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Your argument is mostly predicated on the assumption that western civilization is based on Christian values. However, most western values, indeed many western values were the foundation of the US.

It would then follow that if western values are based on Christianity, that then the US values would come from Christianity. However, if there is no connection between western values and Christianity, then it would not follow.

Democracy, liberalism, religious freedom, and equality, are all examples of western values. However, none of these came from Christianity:

• Democracy: source is the Ancient Athenians and the thought of their philosophers.
• Liberalism: the ideas followed from the age of enlightenment following the rediscovery of Rome and Greek culture. It is the rejection of authoritarian ideas
• religious freedom: The bible is very much opposed to religious freedom. Christianity demands that everyone follow their god in the first of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before 
• Equality: The bible is not strictly opposed to equality, however it does not exactly support it either. The bible has been used to both support equality and detract from it, such as through justification of racial slave labor.

None of these ideas came from Christianity specifically, although many of the proponents were themselves Christians. This is apparent from the long stretch of time following the collapse of the Roman empire until the Renaissance. If these values came from Christian values, we must account for this lost time.

In one of your above statements, you have argued that the Sumerians could not have been responsible for the ideas of Christianity because they had to have descended from Adam and Eve. There are multiple problems with this, first being the lack of evidence that such people existed, the second being that a close reading of the bible will reveal that other humans existed after creation.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; -  The ancient Greeks and Romans were pagans.  You've never heard of Zeus, Aphrodites, Venus, Apollo, etc.?  It's ridiculous to suggest the Judeo-Christian values came from them.  They routinely practised incest, bigamy, rape and paedophilia.  I gave you a classic example of how they did not value life.  The value of life is a core Christian and Western value - thou shalt not kill.  Bigamy and polygamy - outlawed - reflects the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage - the Hebraic tribes the first and only tribes in the Middle East to adopt this moral law of a single spouse - no harems.

I have already accepted your challenge, resoundingly, in my very first post to you - the scholarship which defines "Western" having its origin in our primary laws and system of laws founded in the Judeo-Christian ethos of the Ten Commandments.  These are precisely what define "Western".  It has nowt to do with geography..  This definition IS the official and accepted scholarship, taught for centuries in academia until recent decades. Why do you suppose Israel, smack bang in the centre of the Middle East, is described as a "Western" nation?  How do you suppose a nation, thus situated could otherwise have become a "Western" nation?  For the same reason we are - their system of law reflects the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments.  We inherited our Western identity from Israel. How can you claim that words like "predicate" and "assumption" describe this information?  It is confirmed scholarship.   Go to your local library and look up anything printed before the 1960s on ancient history.  If you seek to argue with scholars, by all means, but I rest my case on their greater knowledge.

Democracy and liberalism are not moral values.  They are societal systems of governance.  Yes we did borrow our system of democratic government from the Greco-Roman model - the Roman forum. The Judeo-Christian ethos is not authoritarian at all.  It is completely voluntary, every single bit of it and most certainly does not demand that anyone follow the Christian God.  If one chose to be a Christian, but then chose to reject  its doctrines and instead worshipped some other God, then immediately one is no longer a Christian. Your statement is an oxymoron in itself.  Cricket is Cricket, not baseball.  Rules lend identity to any system or contest, just as the Ten Commandments lend identity to "Western", by virtue of our system of law reflecting those values.  Applying other anti-Christian rules of law would not identify as Western.  The Bible clearly states that every man is equal in the eyes of God - a direct rebuttal to your claim.  As originally the Judeo-Christian ethos came from a theocratic system of government, then it translates to also mean equal in the eyes of the law.

The understanding that our primary laws and system of law had their foundation in the original theocratic society of Judaism does not require that  ALL of the Ten Commandments must therefore be reflected in our law.  To argue otherwise is nonsense.  Those Commandments which aren't reflected in our Statutes, are firmly embedded in our Western culture, as already outlined to you.  Evidence of the origin of Christianity lies in many of our cultural customs - Christmas holidays, Easter holidays, Sunday a holiday, (holy day), reserved for worship, oaths taken on the Christian bible in our Court system, including appointments to government high office.  In God We Trust the motto of our Courts. Arguing that adultery was not in our Statutes is similarly inaccurate.  It is not now, but it was as recently as the 20th Century and right back to the beginning of Mosaic law.  The term "adultery" came from that legal precept. As I pointed out, it is futile to argue that our Judeo-Christian ethos could came from some other civilization because, Adam pre-dates them all.  How hard is that to grasp?

Why are their multiple issues with the Judeo-Christian ethos descending from Adam?   You can't honestly believe the Marxist disseminated furphy that Christians think Adam and Eve were the ONLY single humans created by the hand of God?  Were that the case, then incest would have been necessary for them to "go forth and multiply", as God commanded and in direct contravention of God's own law.  Besides, they would have all had serious health issues.  What do you think "the chosen race" means?  It immediately signals there were other races also created.  We do not know at what time, but clearly, the Biblical text claims the Hebrews were the first and records that they were forbidden to inter-marry with other races, so other Hebrews had to have been also created. The Biblical text has only ever claimed to follow the lineage of a single family, the House of David, the chosen lineage of both Mary and Joseph, the parents of Christ.  After the birth of Christ, there is no further focus on lineage, whatsoever. 

It really is not possible to form informed opinion without accurate information.   A solid study of the Judeo-Christian history is necessary, as with any scholarly subject.  Arguing in ignorance just wastes others' time.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I am not suggesting that Jeudeo-Christian values came from the Greeks and Romans. I am suggesting Western values did.

I have already demonstrated that the ten commandments are incompatible with US values, and particularly the first amendment.

This isn't about moral values, it is about US values.

This isn't about laws in particular, I have already said this.

If you have evidence that all humans came from Adam and Eve, please present it. No, the bible doesn't count.

I think that there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what exactly my challenge is, because your argument doesn't address it at all. What I would like to see is a list of all Christian values and all US founding principals or values, and then show me where the overlap is which is unique to Christianity.

Grafix

Your first sentence has completely ignored the scholarly definition of "Western" then, which I have gone to great pains to define according to scholarship.  I am not going to repeat it a third time.  I will repeat only that you need to research its definition.  Until you do, there is nothing more to add.  Only our structure of government is borrowed from the Greco-Roman concept.  I've already iterated that.  You've demonstrated only a confusion.

How can you now claim the debate is not about law?  Your own question puts law at its core.  Shifting the goal posts, now?.  Christianity cites the Biblical text as it's evidence, a highly regarded accurate historical record which scholars repeatedly reference for details of early civilizations, customs, practices, national boundaries, nomenclature of nations, cultures, wars, historical leaders, you name it.  The lineage of Adam is given in great detail within its text up to the birth of Christ. I don't claim all humans came from Adam and Eve.  I state the exact opposite when referencing the implication of a "chosen race".  It immediately signals the existence of other races.  I've never seen a pure-blooded Israelite who resembles an African or an Asian, an American Indian or Aboriginal Australian.  Science proves that each of these races' DNA is unrelated, entirely separate from all others.

Yes, there is difficulty with what you are asking, because you refuse to pin it down so that it may be debated coherently. You must qualify the term "U.S. values", otherwise your question is a non sequitur.  Already pointed out to you and why it is.  "U.S." has multiple meanings, i.e., the nation as a geographical identity, the nation as a political State, or as a nation of peoples or the U.S. identified in moral codes, the ethics of its peoples.  As you brought the word "Christianity" into the question, most have logically assumed you are speaking of moral codes, which means by natural progression, that we must speak to the origin of those moral codes, which were originally laws inherited from a theocracy with a monotheistic deity, as opposed to a polytheistic deity.  Including the word "Christianity" in your question demands the examination of its history for the debate to even begin.

Yet, you posit its origins are from the most famous of polytheistic societies?? I've stated the 'list' of Chrisian values numerous times - the Ten Commandments, which pre-date Christianity itself, hence Judeo-Christian. Add, the outlawing of polygamous marriage, rape, paedophilia and incest.  Add bestiality, abuse of the human body with drugs or any kind of abuse of it.  The Christian doctrine teaches that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit on earth.  You are avoiding debating my responses, which is rather telling, continually sidelining and shifting goal posts.  I think we're done here, to be honest, unless you start properly debating my responses.

The core problem with your question is you are trying to marry together secular law with moral law.  You can't.  You are also trying to shift the power of the people across to secular law, when the populace is not even secular and although the people are subject to the law, laws cannot be made which do not reflect the Will of the People, so factually, the law is subject to the "organised" Will of the collective - the people.  To suggest then that the people's fundamental moral principle could conflict with U.S. values, aka U.S. law, is therefore a complete oxymoron, yet that is what you are trying to do, the reason I posit it is a non sequitur, that your question is arse up.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You have to prove that western ideas came from Christianity, otherwise you are making a definition fallacy.

There are historians who consider the bible to not be historically accurate since many of it's texts do not align with other texts, indicating they were most likely made up. I don't care to debate this here.

I have qualified the term "US values" they are any of the values from which the US was founded, for example "the right to bear arms" as embodied in the second amendment is a result of the values of self sufficiency and self reliance. I leave it open so that it makes it a little easier and more flexible.

Christianity is a religion, not a moral code. Religions may contain moral codes, however they are comprised of much more than just moral codes. This being said, those moral codes are based on the values which should be contrasted with US values.

I have already demonstrated that the ten commandments are in conflict with US values, and specifically with the first amendment to the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

is incompatible with:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

because Christianity demands that there be no other gods, where as the first amendment says you can have whatever gods you please, thus the first of the ten commandments does not satisfy the challenge.

funny you bring up Polygamy, which is totally allowed in the bible. Also Mormons exist.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/polygamy-in-the-bible/

The bible says rape is okay in certain context.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A23-29&version=NIV

The bible has nothing to say about Pedophilia.
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html

Bestiality is not illegal in all US states.

The US is a secular nation, not a Christian one. religious "nones" are more common in the US than Catholics, and their numbers continue to rise.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

It is therefore, a non-sequitur on your behalf to assume that the US is based on Christian principals and built for Christians, when it is not.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Were you trying to tell YeshuaBought how to see or view her thoughts through your individual thought filter?

"Even at the expense of US values?
I'm not saying you can't be a Christian, just that putting Christ before country is anti-American."

"You know, the Christian majority is against abortion, LGBTQ rights, personal freedoms, freedom from religion, and pro capital punishment."

"If you care about god more than liberalism, you will have to accept that these issues will be lost because that is what the Christian majority supports."

Did her thoughts go against the individual grain of your rationale, and maybe this is why you posed the questions to her, in the way that you appear to have done.

I'm pro kids, pro family, pro Adoption, pro Religious Freedom, pro Atheist, pro community, and pro American.

"Does Christianity align with US values?"

And Christianity does align with U.S. values, and that's my position.

Dee

@Grafix

**** Christianity cites the Biblical text as it's evidence, a highly regarded accurate historical record which scholars repeatedly reference for details of early civilizations, customs, practices, national boundaries, nomenclature of nations, cultures, wars, historical leaders, you name it.  

Yes Christianity does so what?  That’s to be expected. The rest of your statement is merely wishful thinking on your part and to be frank absolute nonsense......

Rational Wiki 

The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, eye witness testimony. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.

Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:

• the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,[1]
• using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,[1]
• refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,[1]
• historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,[2]
• lack of corroborating evidence.[2]

Because of this, the Bible cannot itself be used as an argument from scripture that the events it describes actually occurred, including scriptural miracles. This contrasts with the view held by many apologists that the Bible is a reliable source:

******I've stated the 'list' of Chrisian values numerous times - the Ten Commandments, which pre-date Christianity itself, hence Judeo-Christian. Add, the outlawing of polygamous marriage, rape, paedophilia and incest.  Add bestiality, abuse of the human body with drugs or any kind of abuse of it.  The Christian doctrine teaches that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit on earth. 

The Christian doctrine also teaches the owning of people as property is perfectly acceptable as approved by God and Jesus 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Huh?  Ignorance is not an argument.  The definition of "Western" is an historically undisputed fact and on the scholarly record.  I would have thought that it is you who has to prove the historical record is wrong.  Your statement is equivalent to saying that the Gentiles weren't the first Christians  There are just some things which need no debate, that are historically accepted.  I have implored you to research it.  It really is impossible to debate wilful ignorance.  Vaulk showed you that very problem with his "Uh-huh" remark, several times.  You simply can't make brazen claims that Christianity came from the most famous pagan polytheistic society in history with its plethora of fabled pagan Gods and Goddesses, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that for Centuries Christianity was unique for its monotheism.  I mean, it beggars belief, but that is how far your dysfunctional thinking has been led, even encouraged to confuse moral codes with structural systems of government.  They are not the same at all.  We copied the Greco-Roman structure of democracy, not its moral codes.

Next, you will ask me to prove that wheels are round, an accepted "given".  No you have not qualified anything.  You want to argue a hotchpotch - whichever way the wind blows to suit your argument - pitting secular law against moral codes and ethics.  It is not possible, simply because of the separation of Church and State.  You very specifically also need to State whether this "U.S." [values] you coin so glibly refers to U.S. legislated law, the State itself or the U.S. people's values.  As you refuse to clarify that, you keep mixing your arguments across all three, while we work ourselves to the bone pointing out that flaw and the inconsistencies and fallacies it produces in your own arguments.  It is like wrestling with a column of smoke.  You have no logical argument, no facts and no basis set down for a debate, simply a vague non sequitur.

According to you, Christianity is a religion and not a moral code.  Yeah right.  A replay of please prove the wheel is round. God give me strength.  Flat denials of truths older than Methusela is not debating, is not a rebuttal.  It is simply a lining up of a bunch of fabrications to pretend you are mounting a defence, denying accepted truths.  It ain't.  It is a house of cards, based on fallacies from the foundation up.

You stated somewhere the reasons for the Constitution were to protect the government, replaying your underlying flawed approach of turning age-old truths on their head to buttress your argument.  It really is a sophomoric style of bold-faced story-telling. The Constitution was never written for the government.  It was written for the people, to protect the people from the tyranny of government, from the very tyranny of your style of thinking.

I don't need to deny that polygamy is in the Bible.  It is sufficient to know that it is not permitted by the Abrahamic God nor was it under Mosaic law and likewise today, just another of the many influences of our Judeo-Christian heritage.  Again, as in your persistent prove-the-wheel-is-round approach, it is futile to argue this, with scholarly acceptance and established knowledge that the Hebraic tribes were the first to discard polygamy and adopt monogamy, just as they were the first to discard polytheism and adopt monotheism.  These are undisputed historical scholarly truths. You are not advancing a debate, but simply peddling a truck load of fabrications as your foundation. It's cheating to claim that lies are truths or that given truths are lies.  The Bible lays out the purpose of our sexual organs.  In studying the entire teachings, it becomes clear that any abuse of them other than for the purpose for which God designed them, is condemned as degenerate and succumbing to Satanic influences.  The story of Moses killing a man for raping a woman in an act of adultery is just one of the many examples of how the text teaches without specific comment, for the punishment for rape and/or adultery was death, exonerating Moses.  Text after text similar to such stories, must be put together to complete the whole before the message becomes clear.  Text quoting out of the context of the whole is dangerous and no Biblical scholars abide it - but which atheists just love to do.  It does not provide the whole picture to grasp the complete message.  If Hebraic Law forbade rape and adultery, then it forbade paedophilia, just another form of rape and still forbids adultery, removed from our law in the 20th Century by those who do not have Western values.  

Liberals and LGBQT defend all that is filthy, immoral, criminal and destructive, while condemning all that which made our Western culture the strongest and most successful.  They cannot see that they seek to tear down all that which buttressed that very growth and strength.  Instead they persistently argue to introduce all of that which made every other culture weak and destroyed the many, even great Empires.  Only fools would want anything to do with these as culturally accepted norms.  It is Cultural Marxism, seeping into our hallowed halls of academia, into our laws, our Courts, our schools our churches and every institution that it possibly can.  Institutions we once looked up to for their wisdom. It is a politic of stealth, insidious, dangerous and our worst enemy with an Agenda to destroy us, because it cannot compete.  It is the work of Satan himself.

If you need to pretend that these practices are of our Western culture or that those which are fundamental to Western moral codes, somehow are not, then perhaps you are living in the wrong nation. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix
I'm not claiming that Christianity came from Greek or Roman religions, Stop making straw man arguments.

"Western civilization" =/= "Christianity" 

My argument is very strong because it is backed with a lot of historic evidence. The US was not founded as a Christian nation, nor was it based on Christian values, because none of the values unique to Christianity are to be found in the US founding principals.

Is Christianity a religion or a moral code?
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotmor.html

Mormons still practiced polygamy and the bible still supports it, so you can not claim that monogamous relationships are a Christian principal, nor are they a foundation of the US.

The bible still permits rape as I have shown above, and doesn't mention pedophilia once. You have not refuted this claim, nor does it matter because preventing rape and pedophilia are not US values, which is why in the US child marriage is still legal, almost entirely for religious reasons at that.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/01/03/why-america-still-permits-child-marriage

To claim that the US is a Christian nation is to be an anti-American destroyer of liberal values. Your entire last paragraph and the following sentence are irrelevant to this debate, besides being untrue. Theocratic societies, states, and countries all have higher rates of violent crime than less religious societies, this is irrefutable truth.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your argument is not strong.  It is founded in fallacy.  You are simply regurgitating fallacies to defend it, which I have already rebutted, going around and around and around.  I have responded to these claims already in previous arguments.  I have no intention of repeating myself for the fifth time.  If you cannot accept historical facts, after four repeated iterations and that is your game, then I don't see a need to demonstrate it yet a fifth time.  See you around Karl, the marks entrenched in your mendacious arguments.

EDIT:  Example of your mendacity.  After suggesting that Christianity came from the Greco-Roman philosophy, now you deny it.  Another mandacity - no-one is claiming that the U.S. was founded AS a Christian nation.  Vaulk already explained to you the literary import of prepositions, but you chose to ignore his very wise and educated counsel.  It was founded UPON the influence of a Judeo-Christian ethos.  There is a big difference, already explained to you.  You argue deceptions, and persist with these again and again, even though already pointed out to you as deceptions or fallacies.

Goodbye, Karl.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The problem is that your "historic facts" are not really facts unless you have some evidence to back them up, and even if you did it wouldn't matter because it would not directly qualify as a solution to my challenge. My challenge is achievable, although no one has yet to successfully suggest the single Christian value which was intrinsic to the US at it's founding.

I never suggested Christianity came from the Greeks or the Romans, I argued that US values came from the Greeks and the Romans.

Judaeo-Christian values were not a factor in the foundation of the US, we know because there is no value unique to Christianity which is also a founding principal of the US.

I have already explained how the ten commandments are out because they go against the first amendment.

Other things, such as love, joy, courage, forgiveness, patience, fidelity, and authority, either are not US values or go against US values.

The US was founded on the principals of religious freedom, and it is impossible to have freedom of religion unless you also have freedom from religion. Theocracies ought to be toppled, and reality ought to be accepted for what it is. There is nothing that has any value unless we say that it does, and childish things ought to be put on the shelf where they belong.

Grafix

@Dee ; Aren't you doing exactly what Killbot is trying on?  Making unsubstantiated claims not supported by historical fact.  The Biblical texts ARE highly regarded by historians for historical evidence to provide explanations and details of past civilizations, customs, practices, place names, rivers, nations, ancient nomenclature, wars, great ancient leaders, cultures and kingdoms.  To claim otherwise is simply appealing to a falsehood to buttress a mendacious argument.  Not on.  Same problem Killbot demonstrates - wilful ignorance due to an inability to accept established truths.  Because it does not fit with your religious and social prejudices is not the basis for a valid defence.  And what do you fall back on?  A second-rate, scholastically unendorsed, unproven, not respected source - Wiki whatever.  Something wrong with the historical records gathered over the meillennia by scholarship?  Wiki is not scholarship.  It is ignorant fluff.

The Biblical text does not "teach" that slavery is the Judeo-Christian ethos at all. It shows it was taught in the ancient barbary of ancient Hebraic law and corrected by the Ten Commandments - by Mosaic Law.  Love thy neighbor as thyself.  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods - teaching a respect for your fellow man's rights and his right to his possessions, including his freedom.

Reliable history is based only upon first eye-witness accounts?  Really?  We shall have to toss out 50% of it, then, according to you.  Much of the historical record is proven by science and archaeological findings in the discovery of manuscripts, steele, monuments, remains, artefacts, etc. centuries after the event.  There is yet to occur a single archaeological discovery of Biblical content which disputes the Biblical account.  Although much of the Biblical account is yet to be proven by archaeology, there is not one discovery yet which has disproven it, despite your fallacious claim to the contrary.  That is very telling.  The more they discover, the more these discoveries corroborate the Bibilical text and the reason it has gained the respect of scholars as a reliable historical source of fact.

Likewise, with science.  The more it advances the more it proves the evidence of intelligent design in Creation.  DNA is that indisputable evidence, which completely destroys the Evolution narrative and the big bang theory, for DNA is unable to be materially created or produced by natural cells, by nature itself, because it is intelligent information.  Nature cannot speak, think, plan or design, so where did it come from?  

Grafix

The Ten Commandments are not historical fact?  Christ is not historical fact?  The founding document which refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not historical fact?  Scholarly definitions and accepted well-documented knowledge is not historical fact?  The Constitution was written to protect the people and not written for the Government is not historical fact?  The Will of We The People must be reflected in our laws is not historical fact and that Will is protected by the Constitution is not historical fact?  That fact by itself which therefore makes your question a non sequitur is suddenly not an empirical fact?  Give me a break.  That's your problem, Karl, you can only deny these truths to buttress a fake argument. Claiming that you "have already explained" something is not an historical fact, either, but somehow you believe that is how to debate, regardless of the fact that your explanation defies historical fact.  God give me strength.

I'm done with the mendacity of this whole scam. 

Dee

@Grafix

Oh my if ignorance is bliss at least you have that to fall back on. Your first attack is typically an attempt to discredit the source but leaving that aside you put forward your subjective viewpoint based on nothing but your childish worldview as perceived though your “ Jesus googles “ , no credible historian takes the Bible as an accurate source of Historical information .

You believe everything the Bible has to say on faith which is based on spiritual conviction and nothing else , I dismiss your assertions as wishful thinking and nothing else.

You say ..... cause it does not fit with your religious and social prejudices is not the basis for a valid defence

Thats a really dense statement , try and back it up bet you cannot?


***** The Biblical text does not "teach" that slavery is the Judeo-Christian ethos at all. 

It does maybe you should actually read a bible some day(  ps spoiler alert ....he dies in the end) the Bible tells how one may purchase , beat and keep slaves for life and also how a man may sell his daughter into slavery , Jesus never once spoke out against slavery .


***** Likewise, with science.  The more it advances the more it proves the evidence of intelligent design in Creation.  DNA is that indisputable evidence, which completely destroys the Evolution narrative and the big bang theory, for DNA is unable to be materially created or produced by natural cells, by nature itself, because it is intelligent information.  Nature cannot speak, think, plan or design, so where did it come from?  

Evolution is fact , only denied by  hard line Muslims , a proportion of American Christians and assorted nuts from around the globe, it’s incredible people like you think truth resides in a book penned by bronze age goat herds but deny Evolution which is based on mountains of solid evidence . Get an education son and get back to me or not 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Congratulations!

You have brought up the single Judeao-Christian value that is also one of the foundation of the US.

Slavery, and in particular selective slavery is the single US value which was adopted from Christianity. The bible makes clear that you are not to take slaves from your own tribe, and this was as far as we can tell, unique to Hebrew culture at a time when slavery was just a free for all. Latter, European Christians adopted the idea of selecting slaves based on religion, and this was modified to racial slavery latter on. Thus it is the only solution to the challenge.

Grafix

@Dee - Yes, the source can be discredited when compared with eons of scholarship.  The fact you even brought it into this debate demonstrates the level of your understanding of the calibre of such a debate - zero.

Your defence is then just a collection of mendacious claims which you have no way of proving, including what you think my beliefs are, which I have never stated and don't need to in an objective argument supported by a plethora of historical record, writings, facts and evidence all out there for you to research.

Then you disagree with an empirically valid fact - that any argument based upon religious bias and prejudice is not a valid basis for any argument.  To defend that it is, is revealing your absence of credibility.

You then reinforce that defence with your "Jesus Goggles" remark.  Well done.  At least you're consistent, all the while overlooking my consistent arguments which have not brought my religious beliefs, personal sentiment or any personally held opinion into the debate, relying solely on the historical record, which proves that the premise of Killbot's question is a non sequitur and his arguments are not based on scholarly accepted facts in the historical record.  How you twisted that into the proverbial pretzel of your own personal opinion is less than interesting.

I don't deny at all that ancient traditional cultures supported slavery as stated in the Biblical text.  I showed how it does not reflect the Law which God gave to Moses in the Ten Commandments, the relevant law reflected in the laws of every Western nation and even cited the two Mosaic laws, which show that the Judeo-Christian ethos repudiates slavery, but out of that you produce yet another pretzel.

Evolution has never been proven as "fact". Claiming it has is a factual falsehood and plain scientific ignorance.  Scores of hundreds of scientists decry that it is even possible.  You are decades behind the science.  Read up on the world's leading molecular chemist and nano technology scientist, Dr. James Tour.  He has proven Evolution is a physical impossibility, that merely small mutations within the same species can only occur, as opposed to developing a completely new species - a physical impossibility, due to the dependency of cell groups upon other cell groups during their formation in accord with the blueprint, the DNA.  As this is off-topic, I can't expand this here and simply used it to illustrate that advancements in both archaeology and science are supportive of the Biblical text, as opposed to refuting it. 

I know what is being taught in modern education and it appears that you and Killbot are products of that.  It is a troublesome observation and extremely worrying for the future of this nation.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Again you introduce unproven claims.  It is not truly known whether the Arabic nations, Egyptians or the Hebrew nations first adopted the use of slaves, but it is irrelevant anyway, as proven by the Ten Commandments which resoundingly repudiate it as a practice in the Christian principle of love thy neighbor, the Biblical teaching of do unto other as you would have them do unto you and also the Commandment of thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods, which translates to his assets and his liberty.  The repudiation by the Judeo-Christian ethos handed down in Mosaic Law is what is relevant here, not early, ancient, corrected, past barbary of the Hebrews.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix
Read em' and weep:

The bible endorses slavery of those from other nations:
Leviticus 25:44-46 "44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

Slavery in Europe declined as Christians refused to accept Christian slaves:
https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/europnea_christianity_and_slav

The ambiguity of the bible was used to justify slavery in the US
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535

The further back you look into history, the more you learn that current assumptions are not always correct.

Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - " ... but it is irrelevant anyway, as proven by the Ten Commandments which resoundingly repudiate it as a practice in the Christian principle of love thy neighbor, the Biblical teaching of do unto other as you would have them do unto you and also the Commandment of thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods, which translates to his assets and his liberty.  The repudiation by the Judeo-Christian ethos handed down in Mosaic Law is what is relevant here, not early, ancient, corrected, past barbary of the Hebrews."

As the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, aka Judeo-Christian ethos, is that which shaped and defined the Western culture and its system of laws, which we inherited, it alone is relevant here, not some ancient barbaric practice, later corrected by Mosaic Law.  This is the third time I've stated this following Dee's post.  Will you ignore it for a third time, which is your trend?  There's no accounting for the incorrigible and it won't deign a response.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Do you want me to refute it again? Dropping the same argument ad nauseam will do you no good.

Have you been paying attention? Do you know what my refutation is?

Grafix

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

So you are saying you don't know then?

Grafix

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Hmmm... seems I have pushed you so far into a corner that you have thrown away your ability to think and make rational arguments.

Usually when this is happening it means my interlocutor is about to give up because they have realized they lost.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Thanks H , this guys ignorance of the Bible and it’s contents is typical they ignore the unpalatable and resort to childish tactics to avoid the obvious , the bible verses I’m referring to were used to justify slavery as you,  I and even he  knows but normally when confronted with this say “ well they weren’t real christians “ which falls into the no true Scotsman fallacy 

Dee

@Grafix

****/Yes, the source can be discredited when compared with eons of scholarship.  

Nonsense , you don’t like the way Historians reach conclusions that’s tough but that makes you wrong not me 

****The fact you even brought it into this debate demonstrates the level of your understanding of the calibre of such a debate - zero.

The fact you don’t know how Historians come to conclusions regards data demonstrates your ignorance which seems to be broad in its range 

*****Your defence is then just a collection of mendacious claims which you have no way of proving, including what you think my beliefs are, which I have never stated and don't need to in an objective argument supported by a plethora of historical record, writings, facts and evidence all out there for you to research.

You seem to think throwing out your claims based on ignorance is “debating” it’s not.

You’ve given zero evidence for your claims wonder why that is?

****Then you disagree with an empirically valid fact - that any argument based upon religious bias and prejudice is not a valid basis for any argument.  To defend that it is, is revealing your absence of credibility.

Yet you cannot prove bias on my part as all I’ve used are something you detest as in facts 

****You then reinforce that defence with your "Jesus Goggles" remark.  

You really need to take them off 

****bWell done.  At least you're consistent, all the while overlooking my consistent arguments which have not brought my religious beliefs, personal sentiment or any personally held opinion into the debate, relying solely on the historical record, which proves that the premise of Killbot's question is a non sequitur and his arguments are not based on scholarly accepted facts in the historical record.  How you twisted that into the proverbial pretzel of your own personal opinion is less than interesting.

All you’re doing is telling us “I’m right your wrong “ based on nothing but your lofty but misplaced opinion of yourself 

*****I don't deny at all that ancient traditional cultures supported slavery as stated in the Biblical text.  I showed how it does not reflect the Law which God gave to Moses in the Ten Commandments, the relevant law reflected in the laws of every Western nation and even cited the two Mosaic laws, which show that the Judeo-Christian ethos repudiates slavery, but out of that you produce yet another pretzel.

Stop it , here is “gods law “ in his own words .....You’re beaten ....Again 

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Here is Jesus on slaves ..... In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

****Evolution has never been proven as "fact". Claiming it has is a factual falsehood and plain scientific ignorance.  

Actually you got that the wrong way around , the only ignorant one here is you as I keep demonstrating 

****Scores of hundreds of scientists decry that it is even possible.  You are decades behind the science.  Read up on the world's leading molecular chemist and nano technology scientist, Dr. James Tour.  He has proven Evolution is a physical impossibility, 

Tour is a clown normally you'd have to be an expert on evolution in order to claim that all other experts are wrong. I wonder why an organic chemist thinks that he is qualified to make such a claim? It seems a bit strange, don't you think?

Tour is laughed at and seen as an quack by those working in the field , why is it you cannot dispute one peer reviewed paper that destroys the theory?

***/that merely small mutations within the same species can only occur, as opposed to developing a completely new species - a physical impossibility, due to the dependency of cell groups upon other cell groups during their formation in accord with the blueprint, the DNA.  As this is off-topic, I can't expand this here and simply used it to illustrate that advancements in both archaeology and science are supportive of the Biblical text, as opposed to refuting it. 

Read that line again it’s hilarious .... science is supportive of the Biblical text, as opposed to refuting it. .....

But yet you cannot prove that claim can you ?

****I know what is being taught in modern education and it appears that you and Killbot are products of that.  

No you actually don’t , what you know is what you learned which can be summed up simply as in .....”Anything you want to know about the world is contained in a book written by Bronze Age goat herds” this is why you are in the position your in as you wear your ignorance like a badge of pride .

Let’s re -cap ......

• You claim God and Jesus were Anti Slavery , bible verses confirm you’re wrong 

• You claim Historians accept the Bible as the most accurate document regarding the times of Jesus .....Again you’re wrong 

• You claim scientists support biblical texts which again makes you wrong , and you cannot produce one peer reviewed paper that discredits Evolution 

*****It is a troublesome observation and extremely worrying for the future of this nation.

Yes better do away with all textbooks and just use a bible to educate the young and you will end up with a nation of people like you who can agree with your assessment “ science is supportive of the Biblical text, as opposed to refuting it.” 

I guess all scientists agree that Jesus walked resurrected seeing as they are so “supportive of biblical text” as you put it ?

Dee

@Grafix

**** not some ancient barbaric practice, later corrected by Mosaic Law.

Yet this “ancient barbaric practice ” was totally approved of by your god and Jesus as I’ve demonstrated by showing you the relevant biblical passages which you conveniently ignore ,....again.

You’ve also acknowledged ( unwittingly) that your gods morality changes from the old to the new testament by implication and also don’t seem to realise that even the New Testament totally supported slavery 

  

Dee

@Grafix

*****   The repudiation by the Judeo-Christian ethos handed down in Mosaic Law is what is relevant here, not early, ancient, corrected, past barbary of the Hebrews.


Jesus on slavery from the New Testament..........

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Grafix

Dee

@Grafix

A sure sign you’re sulking after receiving an education on various different matters , if you’re going to debate at least attempt to back your arguments up with something other that your “ I’m right cause I say so “ type of argumentation 

Grafix

I think I just broke Debra Al Analytics' credibility too.

Dee

@Grafix

Excellent , as anticipated you’re reduced to posting childish memes all because of your lack of education ......

Grafix

Debra Al Analytics is credible?  Poking the textbook Alinsky arsenal is always fun.  It never fails to draw out an underbelly of ad hominem which self-destructs their self-appointed credibility.

Dee

@Grafix

*****   The repudiation by the Judeo-Christian ethos handed down in Mosaic Law is what is relevant here, not early, ancient, corrected, past barbary of the Hebrews.


Jesus on slavery from the New Testament..........

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Grafix

And so it goes an endless information war of deception.  Biblical Scholars warn, text-quoting out of context is not to be abided, as did the wise counsel of James Madison also warn:

  The Douay Rheims Bible, the first version ever printed in English, translated from the Latin Vulgate, records the passage thus:

Eph. 6:5 - "Servants, be obedient to those who are your lords with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ."

Being careful not to text-quote out of background context, it is necessary to know that Ephesians, Chapter 6, deals with the very first Commandment:  Honour thy father and thy mother.  The teaching goes directly to the heart of law and order, respect for authority, the maintenance of a stable and cohesive society.  The fact that God placed this Commandment at the top of the list of His Ten, says it all, yet what do we see today?  Children disrespecting their parents, disrespecting the law, trashing the property of others, torching cars, smashing in shopfront windows, looting, raping, pillaging and assaulting any who disagree with them. Little spoilt and undisciplined tyrants throwing tantrums until everyone agrees with them.  Distorting truths is no different, simply a tantrum of a different kind, in order to deceive others into accepting fake arguments, which would fail were they to rely on the truth, so instead, truth is distorted.  It is cheating and scamming the people, as is altering Biblical text to cheat in debate, in order to win - a tantrum.  Madison's words must be heeded.