Does Christianity align with US values?

Dee

@Grafix

More nonsense and you resort to the hilarious  “out of context “ ruse to evade what’s clearly written in your bible, no where in the Bible does it say please refer to other verses to clarify my words .

Sex slavery as approved by god ........ 

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Jesus on slaves 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

How to purchase slaves as approved by god and Jesus 

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)

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)

Grafix

First para - a bald-faced false claim.  Nowhere do I claim the biblical text says anything of the kind.  Another temper tantrum?.

Subsequent paras -  All irrelevant and even if accurate quotes, then yet still they are past customs repudiated by the New Covenant with God, i.e., the wrongs of old barbaric Hebraic customs corrected in the new law of the Ten Commandments.  We are discussing the Ten Commandments as the Judeo-Christian laws alone, here. They alone are accepted in the undisputed, historical scholarly record as the influence upon the Founding Fathers in their primary law-making.  We are NOT discussing ancient customs thrown out by the Abrahamic God.   How many times must this be re-iterated??????

NO OTHER  Biblical text is relevant in this argument, for these are beyond undisputed scholarly consensus and outside of the context of this topic.  The undisputed  historical scholarly record agrees that The Ten Commandments were the founding principles used by all Western cultures in their primary system of laws and are therefore what define the word "Western" when applied to any Western nation or Western culture, described as the Judeo-Christian ethos.  So let's just confine the discussion to only what is relevant in the Biblical text - The Ten Commandments and nowt else.  That means your arguments are pointless.

To indulge your irrelevance, just for a brief paragraph - I showed you how modern and unreliable interpretations of the Biblical text replaced the word "servant" with "slave".  Checking against the original version, first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, which I keep to hand on my desk, I can give multiple examples of the same subterfuge and misrepresentation done repeatedly - replacing benign terms with pejorative terms to skew the intent and meaning. I see too, that you fail to provide the context of the whole Chapter, which absence scholars abhor and never accept as a viable basis for accurate interpretation.  Neither do I.  I could waste further time on this irrelevance of yours and check the verses you quote in irrelevance, but as it does not advance this discussion, it is wasted energy.

Dee

@Grafix

***** We are discussing the Ten Commandments as the Judeo-Christian laws alone, here. They alone are accepted in the undisputed, historical scholarly record as the influence upon the Founding Fathers in their primary law-making.

Happy asked you and everyone else .....

Does Christianity align with US values?

So yet again your Christian ancestors from the top to the bottom accepted biblical slavery and used the Bible to back their claims up that it was approved by god , tell me now were they also taking the Bible “out of context “ 

I left my last piece in as it’s the very verses your Christian relations used to justify slavery as Jesus approved 

More nonsense and you resort to the hilarious  “out of context “ ruse to evade what’s clearly written in your bible, no where in the Bible does it say please refer to other verses to clarify my words .

Sex slavery as approved by god ........ 

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Jesus on slaves 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

How to purchase slaves as approved by god and Jesus 

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)

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)

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

I think it's ironic that you bring up George Orwell's 1984 and then claim we are twisting history when the reality is that you are doing this by claiming that god and the US government should be intertwined.

Aren't you aware that mixing government and religion is a sign of fascism?



It is a fact that the US was in no way founded as a Christian nation based on Christian principals.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

You keep bringing up the ten commandments like you are going to prove anything. The ten commandments stand IN OPPOSITION TO the US CONSTITUTION or are NOT UNIQUE to JudaeoChristian values

1. "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me."
 - stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

2. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
 - stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

3. "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day."
 -  stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

4.  "Honor thy father and mother."
 - The US does not require that you do this. There is no law, no ordinance, no tradition in the US requiring as such nor were there any since it's founding, therefore it is not a US value.

5. "Thou shalt not kill."
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

6. "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

7. "Thou shalt not steal"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

9. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife"
 - The US constitution nor any of its founding documents forbid this practice. Therefore it is not a US value. It is also not enforceable as a law.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods"
 - The US constitution nor any of its founding documents forbid this practice. Therefore it is not a US value. It is also not enforceable as a law.


As you can clearly see, none, not one, of the ten commandments is a founding principal of the US, and many of them stand IN OPPOSITION TO the US CONSTITUTION!

Being a Christian and taking its values and lessons seriously is Un-American!

Grafix

@Dee - My reply to your penultimate response above your last one, is the same.  Irrelevant to this discussion.  I remind you that James Madison did not think context was a "ruse".  Such a foolish attitude by you and it only discredits your credibility.  Context is king, as scholars say.  Heed it or be forever consigned to the dustbin. Unless I research these quotes for their accuracy of interpretation and the context in which they have been made, I cannot accept such pedestrian responses as viable arguments in any debate.  No scholar would.  You are wasting your time.  In case you did not "get it" the first time, here it is again, at risk of boorish repetition:-

Grafix

Yes, I do keep referencing the Ten Commandments, because the scholars do.  Your argument is with them.  Not with me.  I have already addressed their relevance in my opening post under this topic.  Go check it out on page three hereof.

Dee

@Grafix

I get it you detest what it actually says in your bible so you resort to childish denial , it’s all there in black and white your god and Jesus totally supported slavery . You also cannot answer the simple question I asked as in “ were your Christian ancestors taking the Bible” out of context “ while buying slaves for their plantations?

You seem to think debate is asserting something and saying it’s right because you say so , this is why you’re now scrambling around looking for an “honorable out “ there is none we have roundly put your assertions to bed 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Quote back to me where I claim that God and the U.S. Government should be intertwined.  I seriously mean for you to properly quote me.

Look Killbot, we have been over this already.  Both myself and Vaulk have made it quite clear to you that in literary expression prepositions matter.  The vagaries of your original question are disruptive enough, without your now adding further deceit and obfuscation to this discussion.

Prepositions matter.  As already documented in reply to this claim of yours, influence upon  our founding lawmakers' attitudes in no way amounted to any legislating of religion, God or faith in  our nation's laws.  What is accepted historically is that the Judeo-Christian ethos was the influence for their decisions regarding right from wrong.  That's all.  In lawmaking that's what we do, distinguish rights from wrongs and legislate to punish those who commit the wrongs.  How hard is that to understand?  There is no mention of God in any law.  How hard is that to understand?  There is only the undisputed scholarly evidence, included also in the Founding Papers that the law of the Christian God influenced their understanding of right from wrong and they relied upon that law as a foundational basis for writing the nation's primary laws.  That's all that has been claimed, stated and written by me in here.  Why does it put leftie Luddite, Socialist, Communist, Marxist brain cells and knickers in such a twist?  The answer to that is the most telling of all.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

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".

You say it in your very first comment.

You argue that our laws are based on Christian values when they are not.

You argue that law and Christianity are to be intertwined when they should not.

You argue that the governing bodies should look to Christianity for moral guidance when they should not.

"in god we trust" should be removed from our currency and our courtrooms. It should be kept out of schools. It should not be displayed in public. Religion should be a strictly private affair. It should apply to the individuals who choose to live their live in accordance with the scriptures and not to everyone. People should be free from the tyranny of theocracy!

Grafix

@Dee You appear to "get" zero, while right into "digging" personal analyses of other's characters and dispositions, which you cannot possibly know.  A major credibility gap there.  I don't claim I am right at all.  I claim the scholars are.  Please try to "get" that.  You personalise everything.  I personalise nothing and merely align with the scholarly evidence.  I referred you to my opening discussion in this topic on page three, so that I would not need to repeat it, but as you cannot bring yourself to discuss it, but only instead resort to personal insults, then I have pasted and copied it below, discussing the relevance of the Ten Commandments in our culture, in our lawmaking and in the definition of a "Western" nation:-

"Vaulk has argued the correct answer, without realising the origins of his argument.  It is found in the definition of the descriptor "Western" and the system of law which every Western nation shares in common.  The very definition of a "Western" nation is that it identifies with the Judeo-Christian ethos.  So what IS the Judeo-Christian ethos?  It is the ethos upon which every Western nation founded its system of laws, the very first and original laws of the Western culture, imported from Israel, namely, the Ten Commandments.  These were the laws we inherited from an originally theocratic nation otherwise known as a theocracy.  The U.S. is not and never has been a theocracy, but nevertheless the laws of the original Christian and Jewish theocracy are what we inherited as our cultural norms, brought out of Israel across Europe and ultimately vested in the psyche and moral fibre of our Founding Fathers.  Whether Deists, atheists or Christians, it matters not, because the ethos was already embedded in our culture, their culture.

This ethos is inextricable from our historical beginnings, is the very foundation of what defines a "Western" nation, just like Israel is a Western nation, so too are the U.K., Canada, Australia, Western Europe and New Zealand.  All share the same Judeo-Christian ethos in their systems of law and in their cultural background and history.  These primary laws are:

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

Those which identify us as our Western culture are these cultural and moral precepts:

Thou shalt have no God before me, (a monotheistic culture - a single God, as opposed to polytheism - the worship of many gods = paganism). Thou shalt not make a graven image of worship, (idolatry).  Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in vain, (blasphemy).  Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath, (regular reinforcement of the common spiritual moral code).  Honour thy Father and thy Mother, (uphold a respect for authority).

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".  It is also confirmed in our celebration of Christmas, (Christ's Mass), also in the Easter holiday celebration and Sunday as a holiday set aside for worship, even in the word "holiday" = holy day."

Dee

@Grafix

Questions Grafix has no answer for below .....No “scholars “ agree with your assessment and no credible Historians take the Bible as a “scholarly piece of work .....

I get it you detest what it actually says in your bible so you resort to childish denial , it’s all there in black and white your god and Jesus totally supported slavery . You also cannot answer the simple question I asked as in “ were your Christian ancestors taking the Bible” out of context “ while buying slaves for their plantations?

You seem to think debate is asserting something and saying it’s right because you say so , this is why you’re now scrambling around looking for an “honorable out “ there is none we have roundly put your assertions to bed 

Grafix

@Dee - On America’s founding, the evidence is overwhelming that everything about it was premised on the Judeo-Christian worldview of the American Founding Fathers and reflected in its system of law.  There are many thousands of books of scholarly research in this regard.  Among these many noted writings discussing the Judeo-Christian ethos in American history are the prodigious works of Edwin Gaustad, Mark Noll, George Marsden, David Barton and Nathan Hatch, a mere few of the many in the prolific output of historians who have spoken at length on it.

The trilogy by Peter Marshall and David Manuel is another.  Matthew Spalding’s We Still Hold These Truths, as well, the title distilling the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.  All of these prominent authors so solidly and thoroughly make the connection between the Judeo-Christian origins of the American founding and its identity as a "Western" nation, leaving no doubt on the matter.

In the 1960s Vernon Hall wrote a massive two-volume set detailing the nature of the American system and its biblical origin.  This 500 page tome, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, consists mostly of a compilation of the numerous documents discussing the Christian heritage of America, ranging from noted political commentary in their time, to State Constitutions, speeches, memoranda, letters, diary entries, the Federalist Papers, the original founding document, the record of discussion and debate concerning the wording of the three primary documents, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and much more.  Reading that dispels all doubt and evaporates all argument to the contrary.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot

You say it in your very first comment.

You argue that our laws are based on Christian values when they are not.

You argue that law and Christianity are to be intertwined when they should not.

You argue that the governing bodies should look to Christianity for moral guidance when they should not.

"in god we trust" should be removed from our currency and our courtrooms. It should be kept out of schools. It should not be displayed in public. Religion should be a strictly private affair. It should apply to the individuals who choose to live their live in accordance with the scriptures and not to everyone. People should be free from the tyranny of theocracy!

1.  What is your "it" that I supposedly say in my first comment to which you take umbrage and WHY do you take umbrage?

2.  I do argue that, because our laws are based upon the premise of the Judeo-Christian ethos, as expressed in the Ten Commandments. Why should they not be? Please answer that question.  Thou shalt not kill, or should murder suddenly be legal?  Thou shalt not bear false witness, or should perjury suddenly be legal?  Thou shalt not steal, or should theft suddenly be legal?  Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's goods, or should coveting through swindling, extortion, bribery and blackmail now suddenly be legal?  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife or should that now be suddenly acceptable, even if recently decriminalised by lawless lefties?

3.  I claim no such thing.  Wash your mouth out.  Where is the mention of God, faith, religion in any of these laws?  They simply define right from wrong.

4.  I argue no such thing.  Wash your mouth out.  I argue simply that the Judeo-Christian ethos, was the basis for the Founding Fathers' understanding of right from wrong and for confirmation of that they looked to the Ten Commandments.  Would be pretty funny if they looked to the pagan ideology of the Greco-Roman dynasty, or the Golden Age of Islam or the Pharaohs of Egypt, or Fascist wherever, don't you think?  Where else should they have looked in your mind-numbing opinion? You have a better suggestion?  An asteroid in space from one of your rock and gas explosions in the Big Bang?  Laughable.  

5.  "In God We Trust" should be removed?  Why?  Just because it disagrees with your deeply-rooted bias, prejudice and bigotry?  Yeah right.  The Courts are not required to be secular, merely OBJECTIVE in dispensing the law, showing no favor and treating all equally before the law.  Only Government is required to be secular. Separation of powers.  Got that?  The very phrase itself proves my point, the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethos upon our laws in the discernment of right from wrong, that knowledge founded in the Judeo-Christian ethos.  It is where you obtain that moral compass from too, yet unable to admit that you do.  Don't like it?  Bad luck.

Religion should be a strictly private affair?  Really?  So, if you had your way, congregations would not be permitted to gather in God's name and pray together in churches?  Could not pray over their sick loved ones in hospitals?  Could not have Christian funerals?  Christmas would be banned?  Easter holidays banned?  Sundays banned? The Easter vigils honouring Christ's sacrifice could not be held in churches?  Nor Baptisms, nor communions, nor confessions, nor benedictions?  Wow!  I'm sure glad you weren't one of the Founding Fathers.  The First Amendment might never have happened.  

WOW!  Who's the despot here?  I think it's your name on that post above branding Christians as despots.  Go look in the mirror, sunny boy. Do you not see thousands of Christians murdered every year in the news?  All murdered just because  they are Christians.  No other reason. Who are their slaughterers?  Those of an opposing religion, yet you don't condemn them?  Instead you open our borders to them. I don't see a single solitary report of Christians murdering anyone just because of their religion.  I don't know of any Christian who would even WANT to kill someone because of his religion.  You sure you don't need a reality check? 

Dee

@Grafix

You’ve swallowed a popular myth hook line and sinker ,and as anticipated still cannot answer my previous questions ....... 

Steven K. Green teaches law and history at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. He is the author of the recent book, "Inventing a Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding."

If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding "no."

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

In a short span of 16 years (1775-1791), the nation was transformed from maintaining religious establishments in nine of 13 colonies to achieving disestablishment at the national level and in 10 new states (or 11, depending on how one views Vermont).

At the same time, the United States became the first nation in history to abolish religious disqualifications from officeholding and civic engagement. The founders purposely created a nation that based its legitimacy on popular will, not on some higher power.

If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still "no."

Many of the leading founders were theological liberals who approached religion from a rational perspective.

Even though we have come to appreciate that other founders held more conventional Christian beliefs, all of them, including many clergy of the day, perceived little conflict between their religious faith and Enlightenment natural rights.

By the time of the Revolution, ideas of providence and of America's millennial role had been modified, if not secularized, by Enlightenment rationalism.

If Benjamin Franklin, the only self-professed deist among the leading founders, could believe in God's general providential plan for the United States, then the ubiquitous references to God's interposing providence tell us little about the influence of distinctive religious thought on the founding generation.

If, finally, the meaning of the question is whether Christian impulses and rhetoric existed during the founding period and impacted the "great debate" about revolution and republican governance, then the answer is "yes" (although the question would then lose its distinctiveness at this level of abstraction).

Without question, non-Anglican clergy rallied to the patriot cause and justified the Revolution and new government on religious terms. Similarly, political leaders employed religious rhetoric to explain and legitimize their efforts.

However, the use of religious discourse at such a momentous time -- for distinguishing one's cause from the enemy during war and for rallying popular support for one's side -- is hardly surprising.

The majority of the founders also believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian.

But people should be cautious about reading too much into the religious rhetoric during the founding period.

From where did the idea of America's founding as a Christian nation arise? In a nutshell, it arose in the early 19th century as later generations of Americans sought to establish a national identity, one that distinguished and exemplified the founding by sanctifying the nation's origins.

This is the origin of the "Christian nation" myth.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

You really aren't paying attention them. "it" is a response to your request here:

Quote back to me where I claim that God and the U.S. Government should be intertwined.  I seriously mean for you to properly quote me.

Everything that is highlighted is my response to you asking for your own quotes.

I have dismantled your notion that US laws are based on the ten commandments, they are not in any way. Don't bother bringing it up again, you lost that ground. See my above argument.

Laws do not define right from wrong, they define what is not permissible in a society.

Judaeo-Christian values are a filthy perversion of morality. Anyone who requires them to be good is simply put, not a moral person. Those who believe them to be a supreme source of morality clearly have no idea what is contained within the bible.

The courts are part of the government, thus all references to god should not be allowed within for exactly the reasons you state.

Churches are a private establishment. Thanks for the straw man fallacy.

Christians are not being slaughtered by secular individuals in secular nation for their religion. They are being killed by theocracy in deeply religious nations! If you claim that the US is based on Christian principals (it's not with the exception of slavery) then you invite that very same slaughter here.

Grafix

@Dee - The first half of your post merely enumerates the fact that the Founding Fathers installed a secular government.  No-one's arguing that they didn't or that it was not their intention to do so.  It was.

The first relevant statement you make is this:  :If one refines the question to ask whether the Founding Fathers were motivated to act as they did based on their Christian faith, the answer becomes a little murkier, but the response is still "no.".  If one refines the question?  Would save a lot of wasted ink if you could confine your answers to it.  Instead you run down the page with nothing to PROVE your case, i.e., that the Founding Fathers didn't , according to you, look to the Ten Commandments upon which to determine right from wrong in order to fame the primary laws of the nation.  You say nothing about that. 

Killbot's question demands that we at least compare U.S. values and Christian values, but refuses to qualify which U.S. "values" he means.  It could mean the values of Christians don't align with other U.S. citizens' values.  Who knows really, the question is so obscure.  But being gracious, we all assume he means that Christian values, (laws), don't align with U.S. values, (laws).  So we must discuss what the original framers did to frame those primary laws of right and wrong, and how they arrived at determining right from wrong.  You don't even attempt to do that.  Neither does Killbot.  It is mystifyingly stupefying this stubborn unwillingness to address the actual topic.  I've never seen so many posts dive down rabbit holes in my life, trying to avoid discussing a simple question.

The next relevant statement that you make is this: "The majority of the founders also believed that religion was necessary for maintaining moral virtue and assumed that the nation would remain culturally Christian."   Correct.  I have to give you full marks for that honesty, a widely recorded and well-understood fact by the majority of historians and is highly pertinent to where they turned for confirmation of what to frame the law around - the ethos of the Ten Commandments, the foundation of their very own moral compass.

Pure ignorance of the actual academic definition of the expression "a Christian nation" is how the idea that America arose from a Christian foundation began - pure ignorance of history and definition.  The expression a "Christian" nation has nowt to do with the percentage of Christians in the populace, nor the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, nor the practices and customs of the people, let alone any notion of a theocracy.  It specifically and only defines a nation's code of right and wrong - law.  That's all.  It signifies that code is a "Western" system, which is inextricable from the Judeo-Christian ethos, but not enacting that verbatim, entirely, or at all.  All it does is define the moral code of a nation's fundamental laws.  Nothing else. Has only ever been indicative of a system of law.  Has always been about law historically, academically and politically.  Ignorance of the populace, ignorance of academics, perfidy by biased bigots distorting it for political or religious advantage have all contributed to the adulteration of the term.  Subsequently, people war like prized cockerels over the accuracy of a completely erroneous claim. 

Please God provide us with some decent, knowledgeable, wise and intelligent educators in our schools, before the next generation, in its own undeserved ignorance, starts killing one another over mis-information, dis-information, de-education, inculcation, brainwashing and influence peddling.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I have clarified to you what US values means several times now, if you still don't know it is because of deliberate ignorance.

You can't think of a solution to my challenge because you are setting yourself up for failure by ignoring the challenge entirely. I do not mean laws, I mean values. Values are not laws, laws are not values. If I meant laws, I would have said laws. I said values not laws, so why assume I mean laws?

US values are the set of principals of action or judgement on which the US was founded.

These can be derived through analysis of the founding documents and the recorded words of the founding fathers.

The US did not arise from Christian values, unless you can give me specifics which are unique to Christianity. This is my challenge that so far you have not attempted to take.

Dee

@Grafix
 
As I said you’ve swallowed a popular myth and you deny what’s uncomfortable because it doesn’t fit your failed narrative , several times now I’ve asked you to address several questions but you cannot even attempt to do so as you have not the abilty to formulate reasonable responses to reasonable questions .

You claim the Bible is a book held in high esteem for its information by Historians it’s not 

You claim Biblical slavery was not supported by god of Jesus which proves you’ve never read a bible 

You claim Scientists are agreed that the Bible is a valuable resource which disproves Evolution yet another nonsensical claim 

I asked a question you still refuse to answer as in ..... “ were your Christian ancestors taking the Bible” out of context “ while buying slaves for their plantations?


The long sad sorry list could go on and on and you’re doing the very same with H burying your head in the sand whilst wearing your Jesus goggles , 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You have pretended to clarify it by claiming several clarifications and that's the problem.  In one post you wrote this:

"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 ....  "

AND this ...

"The challenge that I set for this debate is achievable ... 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."

In another post you wrote this ...

" ... 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."

In yet another post you wrote this ...

"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."

Then in another post you wrote this ...

"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."

A yet another supposed clarification was this - astounding to say the least ....

"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."

After stating that you're looking for a Christian value to meet your challenge, you then claim this, overlooking the complete inaccuracy of the statement in and of itself ...:

"The US is a secular nation, not a Christian one." 

Rather than clarify your question, it becomes apparent that you simply wanted to play a ridiculous cat and mouse game, evident in this next post ...

"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."

Yet, you claim you have clarified your question.  I really don't think so bud, looking at the above record.  I have asked you to qualify what you mean by "U.S.".  Please qualify the use of that noun.. I also explained that "U.S." can mean four different metrics, even listed them, but you just ignore these requests for a qualifier.

So that you cannot duck, weave, dive and obfuscate with "that's irrelevant to the question" style of crapola, you need to identify who or what you mean by the noun "U.S." and could do so by framing the question differently, for example:  Do Christian values align with U.S. laws?  OR Do Christian values align with the Founding Father's values?  OR Do Christian values align with the values of the majority of the U.S. populace?  OR Do Christian values align with the values of the U.S. government? OR Do Christian values align with the Articles in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights?

Until you choose one of the above, or offer some other similar specification of what U.S. metric you are referencing, it is anybody's guess.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Read:

US values are the set of principals of action or judgement on which the US was founded.

These can be derived through analysis of the founding documents and the recorded words of the founding fathers.

Plaffelvohfen

@Happy_Killbot

What people can't identify are exclusive Christian values, and that is because Christianity is not an original religion, it's a patchwork of many... Every attempt to meet your challenge will be unfruitful imo... 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I gave you a list of esteemed historians who have written prodigiously on exactly that subject, including naming and identifying some of their works plus identified the most important work, some 500 pages, a veritable tome, compiling not only the documents you just referenced, but a whole lot more, their diary notes, letters, speeches, the record of debate surrounding the framing of Articles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, the founding document, etc. etc. and in so doing this work with all of the others I noted, clearly reference the Judeo-Christian ethos, the Christian values, the importance of the Christian moral fibre being reflected in not only the Constitution but in how the nation's primary laws must be framed - the law reflected in the Judeo-Christian ethos - the Ten Commandments.  it is all there.  It is historical fact that this code of law is the very definition of a "Western" nation and the U.S. is defined as a Western nation.

You can duck, dive, dodge and weave till the sun stops rising and setting, because you cannot acknowledge facts, wherever they disagree with your uninformed opinion, prejudices and bigotry, but you are fooling no-one.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Just re-frame the question, Killjoy or pee off.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - ???

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - These cannot be described simply as the "U.S".though without qualification.. The U.S.can mean the State, its law, its nation of peoples. What you describe are the values of the people and of the Founding Fathers designed to frame a national identity.  Why can't you state that then?  Instead we get a dozen conflicting notions.  It's unintelligent gobbledegook, if you ask me.  You could have asked, Do Christian values align with the U.S. national identity?  It is so illiterate that you even ask does "Christianity" align ....  ?  I mean .... ?  I give up.

Grafix

@Plaffelvohfen - These cannot be described simply as the "U.S".though without qualification.. The U.S.can mean the State, its law, its nation of peoples. What you describe are the values of the people and of the Founding Fathers designed to frame a national identity.  Why can't he state that then?  Instead we get a dozen conflicting notions.  It's unintelligent gobbledegook, if you ask me.  He could have asked, Do Christian values align with the U.S. national identity?  It is so illiterate that he even asks does "Christianity" align ....  ?  I mean .... ?  I give up.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Here, I drew you a picture:



I'm asking: what goes in the dark red area?

Grafix

Well the argument is finished, then.  I have given all of the above in the white circle's definition, including referencing authors and works which fit into the first box and the last box.  The last box, I note by its own definition CONFIRMS EVERYTHING that I have stated.  As for values not found in the founding of the U.S. nation, they are obviously irrelevant and I did not discuss them..  The accuracy of the arrangement of the circles is nonsense, however.

You can't in one breath admit that Judeo-Christian values are the original foundation the Founding Father's relied upon to frame the U.S. national identity and then draw a graph showing that demographic as inconsequential.  Weasel work, weasel words, weasel intent.  You are simply a dishonest debater.

Let me ask you, then.  Which of those demographics in your self-appointed artistic manifestation of what you want to believe, do you claim the Founding Fathers intended to be our national identity?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix There is only one thing mentioned so far that falls into the red area, and that would be racial slavery.

The ten commandments are divided between the purple, grey, and yellow areas.

"western culture" goes in the white, grey, and light blue areas.

You have not named a specific value which would belong in the red area.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Your self-appointed circles of metrics and demographics deny the above, yet you claim you are seeking confirmation of alignment with the founding documents.  This man was instrumental in writing all of them and look what he said about your picture of manipulated circles.  In your question you claim to be referencing the values embodied in the original founding documents, but then draw a graph of metrics based on TODAY's demographics.  Not only was that not the question, but What that graph, if remotely accurate, screams back at us is that we have allowed government to IGNORE the original values expressed in the founding documents and expressed in the above quotation.  

Happy that you have finally discovered that it is your values which are not aligned with the values of the Founding Fathers?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If there is a point to be made to my challenge here it is lost on me.

Is immigration or isolation somehow a Judaeo-Christian value?

I don't think I have once talked about immigration on this site, and definitely not in this thread.

Grafix

Immigration is certainly not a Judeo-Christian value and nor was it a value of the Founding Fathers, who looked to the Judeo-Christian ethos in their framing of an intended national U.S. identity, yet your graph shows immigration has all but over-taken the original U.S. national identity which identity the Founding Fathers sought to protect.  In other words, your graph, if remotely accurate, demonstrates that the the America of today is not the America which the Founding Father's intended or would even recognize. That's my point.

My second point is that you set as the foundation of your question the national identity which the Founding Father's intended - embodied in the Founding documents -  but then draw a graph representing TODAY's demographic of the U.S.national identity, as representative of the question which depicts the original ethos of the Founding Fathers as a mere dot in the graph.  Talk about weasel tactics, merely so that you can claim some sort of victory by declaring, See?  Yeah I see.  The picture does not remotely represent the original question.  Where is the core of your question represented, i.e., the content of the Founding documents?  Why make that demographic or metric a wee dot in the overview, yet it is central to your question, or so you claim?  

Which demographic OR metric do you think, as depicted in the image, accurately represents the founding documents, which reflect the values of the U.S.?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If it isn't a Judeao-Christian value then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

My graph makes no mention of immigration nor does it have anything to do with immigration whatsoever.

It is also not representative of any changes in time.

The graph does not designate demographics.

The graph is a visual representation of the Challenge as originally posted.

It is not my fault if you do not understand.

Grafix

Just delete this please Moderator.

Grafix

Yeah and you made bleedin' sure that your little swindle depicted the Judeo-Christian ethos as a dot on the map.  You're a dishonest debater, pretending you can just whip up a few circles and call it authentic and authoritative data.  It's hogwash and doesn't even accurately represent your question, which was supposedly its purpose, was it not? 

I asked you to point to the metric in the diagram which represents the ethos reflected in the founding documents.  It is your own devised image, so you should have no trouble doing that.  If you are not prepared to do so, then you are a fraud.

Wouldn't it have been a lot quicker, saved a mountain of time and a lot easier, while providing indisputable clarity, if you had just simply re-framed your question?  Why won't you?  Because you are a fraud.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The graph contains no data. It is a graphical representation of an abstract metaphysical concept.

It does represent the question I am asking in a delightfully contrasted eyesore of poor color choice.

Everything in the red-white-and blue circle (USA!) is the values represented in the founding documents.

I figured based on your profile name you were a visual learner, perhaps I was mistaken in this assumption. Maybe you can understand the question in a more technical way:

1. Compile all US founding documents as usDocs[]
2. Compile all Judeao-Christian texts as jcDocs[]
3. Compile all Laws and philosophies as allDocs[]
4. For each item in allDocs[]: if item == usDocs or jcDocs, remove item.
5. For each ethic in jcDocs[]: if ethic == allDocs duplicate, remove ethic.
6. foe each value in usDocs[]: if value == jcDocs, return value
7. print value

Grafix

I honestly don't give a flying rat's arse anymore what your little diddle dums circles supposedly represent, because they have no relevance at all.  They simply represent your own engineering of a few circles to reinforce your OWN  arguments which YOU  believe in, but yet have failed to prove. Drawing a few circles with coloured sections, depicting a percentage-based analysis, when those percentages are simply in your head and not supported by any factual data, amounts to nothing meaningful.  It is you doodling to stroke your ego and proves absolutely zilch, because it is merely derived from what you believe, not from fact. 

Not meaning to be rude, but how old are you?  This is not how facts are derived.  This is how unicorns are imagined.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Yeah, i'm just going to give out my age online buddy.

It is not my responsibility if you can not understand my question or come up with an answer to it.

The diagram represents the question, so for example we could take any input value and then place it on the graph. Lets do some examples:

"killing is wrong" - grey area
"private property" - grey area
"governance by clergy" - yellow area
"democracy" - blue area
"slavery" - grey area
"religious slavery" - purple area
"racial slavery" - red area
"separation of church and state" - white area

If you still don't understand the, linguistic, graphic, or procedural methods for me to ask this question, then I am sorry but there is nothing I can do. I can lead a giraffe to water but if his neck is to long to drink, it will just have to go thirsty.

Grafix

I understand very clearly that you doggedly resisted re-framing your question and refused to qualify it, that you dodged like a dodge ball player.  Is it any wonder then that I didn't "get" the specific subject of your question when you simply refused to provide a single one, but instead expressed multiple, contradictory qualifiers as demonstrated in my earlier post?  The fault is yours, bud, by virtue of that very fact, in black and white on this page.  Finally, after much loud protest from me you came up with a qualifier, stating that your "U.S." values referenced the moral precepts reflected in all of the founding documents.  Great!

I then pointed you to my already listed esteemed and qualified history scholars, noted historians, naming them and several of their various works, including the most important, a 500 page tome which provides a thorough analyses of all of the founding documents, personal papers, speeches, debates, discussions, etc. of the Founding Fathers surrounding the drafting of the founding documents, which like all of the other historians I noted, clearly reference the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethos in the Founding Fathers' framing of the documents and determining foundational and primary law and the national identity of this nation.  What was your response?  A deafening silence.  A big fat .  N O T H I N G. No response. 

I even posited the historically accepted and undisputed definition of the word "Western" when applied as a descriptor of a nation, culture or peoples, which signals the system of law is founded UPON, (not IN ) the Judeo-Christian ethos.  You just flat-out rejected that established fact, asking me to re-invent the wheel.  You have made no attempt to rebut anything in the proper manner, provided no fact-based evidence, no logical argument, no historical references, nothing, just wriggled, squirmed, addressed few if any of the arguments raised and deflected, every time, just about or obfuscated.  It's so dishonest.

Subsequent to all of that and now the scam of your doodling in circles, then attempting to make it appear to be some highly scholastic presentation with your fictitious USDoc marker, I have come to the conclusion, that it would not matter if the evidence knocked you sideways and catapulted you into infinity, with it indelibly scorched into your forehead, you would still deny it. Classic victim of Marxist inculcation.

I have come to the conclusion that you are not interested in debating knowledge and learning from it, but only in winning..  I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of listening, reading or comprehending anything which disagrees with your own opinion.  I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of opening your mind to the possibility that you just may be mistaken.  I have come to the conclusion that I am wasting my time in attempting to have a sane, rational, logical and enlightening discussion with you. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix There is no contradiction between any of the posts you cite.

The scholars you cite do not answer the question, nor have you made an attempt to.

The word "western" doesn't answer the challenge I have issued. You have to give specifics we have been over this before.

You haven't provided any evidence suffice to the challenge I issued.

You are wasting your own time by writing all these paragraphs which are basically just complaints and not actually trying to answer the question, which I believe you still fail to comprehend or through your own indignant refusal to seriously consider have deliberately avoided.

To complete the challenge, you would only need 4 words tops.

Grafix

Thanks for the immediate confirmation of my criticisms of your approach.  Believing that unsupported, bald-faced, flat-out denials with no references, argument or explanations to support those denials is some kind of valid rebuttal or debating, is pixie dust and crass arrogance.

I can do it too.   Just watch me.  [God help me if I make a habit of it like you do.]

The scholars I referenced do answer the question. 

These scholars all prove a buttress of a Judeo-Christian ethos in the U.S. National identity.

The word 'Western' does answer the challenge.

The definition of the word "Wetern" used in this context, proves the U.S. is a Christian nation - signalling its laws are founded upon the premise of the Judeo-Christian ethos.

I have provided evidence to suffice the challenge.

Naming scholars' works, together with the indisputable identity of "Western" attributed to the U.S. is evidence.

You haven't provided any rebuttals to these proofs, which do answer the challenge.

You waste my time by providing no evidence to support your flat rejections of every valid proof

Setting a tyrannical and despotic lynch-gang style of debating format and then bleating about criticisms of it, is a typical Snowflake wimp out.

You have denied the truths and proofs provided, without a single attempt to justify your denials.

I don't care about your four designated words, because you never made such a condition of meeting your so-called deluded "challenge".

You already exposed the solution you erroneously believe in, congratulating Dee for stating it - that Christianity and Christ support slavery.  They don't.  I proved you both wrong, but still you won't accept anything else.

That validates my criticism of your approach.

You don't mention any of your Gestapo "conditions" in the question.

You pull them out of a hat to hide behind them when you cannot rebut your challengers.

All of the above define you as a fraud.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You didn't list any values though. You need to list a value as a potential candidate solution to the challenge.

"western" is not a value, and you agree with me on that.

Grafix

I don't agree with you at all that "Western" doesn't express a Christian moral code.  It signals one..  Quote back to me where I agree with you..  But I waste my time.  You won't.

I do cite the Christian value you THINK is the solution - slavery.  You claim slavery is a value of Christianity.  It isn't.  I proved you and Dee wrong on that.

I cited the Judeo-Christian ethos.  How many times do I need to define it?  You know it rests in the Ten Commandments.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix It's not slavery, many ancient cultures used slavery as a means of labor. It's specifically racial slavery which evolved out of religious slavery which is unique to Christianity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml

I eviscerated the ten commandments as a possible value in the formation of the US already. Here are the reasons they do not qualify as solutions to the challenge I issued again:

1. "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me."
 - stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

2. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
 - stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

3. "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day."
 -  stands in opposition to the first amendment: "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 is not a US value.

4.  "Honor thy father and mother."
 - The US does not require that you do this. There is no law, no ordinance, no tradition in the US requiring as such nor were there any since it's founding, therefore it is not a US value.

5. "Thou shalt not kill."
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

6. "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

7. "Thou shalt not steal"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
 - All ancient cultures had this as one of their basic laws. Therefore we can not claim that it came from Judaeo-Christian values because we have no proof. It is also common sense statecraft.

9. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife"
 - The US constitution nor any of its founding documents forbid this practice. Therefore it is not a US value. It is also not enforceable as a law.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods"
 - The US constitution nor any of its founding documents forbid this practice. Therefore it is not a US value. It is also not enforceable as a law.

Grafix

I have ALREADY rebutted this fake argument of yours and you know it too.  Now you demand that I do so all over again.  Trying to wear me down you will never do.  Why not?  Because I have a duty and obligation to defend the righteous teachings which you slur and degrade for no reason than to satiate your ego and pride.  These are so easily rebutted.

1. -  4.  These do not in any way stand in opposition of the First Amendment.  How can they even pretend to?  The First Amendment PROTECTS the right to practise them, to uphold them as tenets of the Christian faith, if any one of us should choose to do so. The only way these can be used in opposition of the First Amendment is if the Government attempted to impose them on the people.  The Government has no power to do so, because it is by law a secular institution and would be violating the First Amendment.  This is why I previously said your views are Marxist-inculcated.  You view the Constitution as an instrument of Government.  It is NOT.  It is the instrument of the people.  LET THAT SINK IN.  How can any American not know this?  It's opening para begins with "We The People..."

5. -  8.  Already rebutted this too.  The Judeo-Christian ethos has its beginnings in the God of Adam.  The Biblical text purports that God created the first human life - Adam and Eve.  He also gave Adam and Eve the designated sacred gift - in union join as one to procreate - Genesis.  God sanctified that act in marriage, with certain prohibitions, including incest. Therefore to go forth and multiply as God commanded them, they would not be expected to commit incest, breaking God's own law, simply inconceivable, so clearly God created other Hebrew families too.. Adams lineage is documented in detail and we see evidence of other families in the names of the women Adam's male descendants married.  Biblical text describes the Hebrews as God's chosen people or race, through whom the Messiah would be born,and specifically documents Adam's line for that reason, as it would father the Messiah, through the House of David, (King David).  That does not mean there were no other Hebrew families.  Clearly there were..

As erroneously as Protestants, Atheists and others claim, it is just not factual to believe that all humans came from Adam and Eve.  It defies logic..The point is that the Hebrews did multiply, legitimately, and their knowledge of God's law pre-dates all other races, as God gave it to them from the beginning, they being His chosen people.  Killing, stealing, lying and adultery were ALWAYS outlawed by the ancient Hebraic tribes as were polygamy and polytheism.  They were the only race in the entire Middle East to practice these moral precepts which are "Western" values.  To pretend that these Western values came from other cultures is ludicrous in the extreme.  Few others, if any, practised them.  Name one that was monotheistic and monogamous at that time and for millennia later?  

9.  Adultery was legislated as a violation of Western law up until as recently as the 20th Century, when it was de-criminalised.

10.  .Oh yes, the law does forbid this practice.  It means to use any illegitimate means to obtain the possessions of another, which could be by extortion, bribery, illegal soliciting, blackmail, swindle, bondage or threat. 

CONCLUSION:  The moral precepts which were not embraced as secular law by Western nations, were embraced as cultural norms, church on Sundays, Christmas, Easter, Oaths on Bibles, marriage in churches, (sanctified), Baptism, communion, (the last supper), etc. etc. etc.. Equally, the West's adoption of monogamy and monotheism is also a reflection of the Judeo-Christian ethos, monogamy enshrined in the Marriage Act.. 

As explained to you, the 10th Commandment is expressed frequently in various ways in Biblical texts and Christian teachings, as in love they neighbour, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which automatically outlaws slavery.  The wisdom of God can be seen in these simple all-encompassing laws.  It is quite astounding, when one pauses to contemplate the breadth and depth of their sagacious efficacy.

SkepticalOne

Vaulk said:

Likewise the U.S. is founded upon Christianity because the Founding Fathers declared (IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT) that God is the ultimate moral authority, that he guides and protects the founders in their act to declare independence and they rested the justification for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in God's name. In their founding document when they declared reliance upon "Divine Providence"...which can only be interpreted one way, they identified the Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You're making a huge leap. No where in the DOI is the Christian god mentioned. Additionally, the religious veneer of the DOI was because of its audience not because the founders were drawing from any particular religion. The fact that they called for 'no religious test', accepted the need for the first amendment, the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of god(s), and the Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli which states "the US is not in any way founded on the Christian religion" make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, US values such as freedom of religion, representative government, and equality run contrary to Christianity. I don't see how this can be argued against. Christianity literally holds "you shall have no other gods before me", is authoritarian in nature, and accepts a particular group as "God's chosen people". 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

I completely agree with what you said for item one through 3. Do you agree with yourself? you have to acknowledge now that the first 3 commandments are incompatible with the first amendment, because if you follow the first commandment then you can not say, practice Islam because that is (arguably) a different god. Likewise, freedom of speech guarantees that I can say "God damn it" All I please, or go to work on a Sunday if I want, because it's a free country. Thus they are not US values, in fact they are Un-American. 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the creation story in genesis is literally false, it's supposed to be understood metaphorically. Unless you are one of those nut cases who thinks evolution isn't real and world is flat... If you want to assume it is true, that is your prerogative. However, science still says that it's not so you would have to deny reality to believe this. No one can prove anything in the bible is literally true any more than they can prove Harry Potter is true.

We have Sumerian texts that are older than the Hebrew tribes. It just happens to be the text from which Noah's ark was ripped off from.
https://www.history.com/news/what-is-the-oldest-known-piece-of-literature

Adultery was illegal in many older cultures, many of which pre-date all Hebrew texts. Thus it falls into the grey region and not the red and is insufficient to satisfy the challenge.
https://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/23/ancient-egyptian-sexuality/

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods" -"It means to use any illegitimate means to obtain the possessions of another, which could be by extortion, bribery, illegal soliciting, blackmail, swindle, bondage or threat. "
Yeah... I think you are making a bunch of dots and connecting them... Anyways, all of the things you mentioned can be found in other cultures so they still wouldn't count.

You can revel against reality to your hearts content but you will still be wrong.

The ten commandments were not the foundation for the US in any way, those who say different blatantly disregard reality

Dee

@Grafix

*****  I argue simply that the Judeo-Christian ethos, was the basis for the Founding Fathers' understanding of right from wrong and for confirmation of that they looked to the Ten Commandments. 

Again you’ve swallowed a popular narrative hook line and sinker and your arguments are very similar to the B S Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro peddle.

There is no coherent historical , ethical or political project one can refer to as “the west”.  Your Judeo-Christian narrative makes assumptions not founded and you still refuse to answer that part of the Judeo-Christian ethos that permitted slavery. 

How do you go about proving the founding fathers looked  to the 10 commandments for guidance ? 

The next piece destroys your politically driven narrative once again .....

A piece by Andrew Seidel ......

First Commandment: “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me.” This obviously conflicts with the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, but it also conflicts with Article VI of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that it, not God, is the supreme law of the land.

This commandment conflicts with the constitutional Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment. So it did not have an influence because it conflicts.

Second Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol.” But read the unabridged commandment, which continues, “for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God punishing the children for the inequity of the parents until the third or fourth generation.” This conflicts with the First Amendment again. You can make as many idols as you want, but the Constitution also directly prohibits punishing children for their parents’ crimes. Article III: “No attainder of treason shall work a corruption of blood.” That means if you are guilty of treason, only you will receive punishment, not your children, and certainly not your grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

This also conflicts with our principle of justice that only the guilty are punished.  

Third Commandment: “Thou shall not take the name of thy Lord thy God in vain.” I claim that this is void for vagueness. Under the 14th Amendment, laws have to be simple enough for people to understand them, so that they know what action is being prohibited.

I’ve asked this of a number of people and get different answers. The best I’ve heard is that it prevents people from swearing an oath and then violating that oath. It fails to give adequate guidance. Quite obviously, this also runs afoul of freedom of speech.

Fourth Commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Again, read the whole commandment: “You shall do no work neither shall your male or female slave. In six days the Lord made the heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them.”

First of all, we’re supposed to be celebrating because a God who is all-powerful took six days to make the earth and on the seventh day he had to rest? I call this celebrating lazy omnipotence.

Most importantly, this commandment sanctions slavery. We do have to concede the bible has had a severe influence on the history of slavery. Every original justification for continuing the practice came from the bible. We can concede that to the Christian nationalists. They are welcome to this shameful influence.  

Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and mother.” I don’t really like this commandment, not because I don’t want to honor my mother and father, but I think it should be simply to honor people. This really didn’t have an effect or influence on our nation’s principles, unless somebody can correct me later.

Six through nine

I’m going to group these next few together and come back to adultery at the end: “You shall not kill; don’t steal; and don’t bear false witness against your neighbor.”

These commandments are not Judeo-Christian at all. They are universal principles that apply to absolutely everyone. All successful societies have discovered them.

Secondly, the Judeo-Christian interpretation is actually less moral because it is not universally applied, but applied only to one’s “neighbor.”  

In the original Hebrew translations, there are no punctuation marks, no paragraph breaks, no line breaks. These commandments could be read so that “against your neighbor” applies to all the preceding commandments starting with “you shall not murder.”

So it could mean, you shall not murder your neighbor, you shall not steal from your neighbor, you shall not lie to your neighbor. I submit to you that that’s actually the better reading. 

Who is your “neighbor?” In Leviticus, “any of your people” is how they define neighbor. “Stand against the blood of your neighbor,” “your people,” “the sons of your own people,” “your countrymen.” It’s only the people who believe in the same God as you, your co-religionists. That’s what neighbor means in the Old Testament.

Immediately after getting these commandments, the Israelites commit genocide after genocide. But none of the slain are Israelites. So they are not actually breaking the “don’t kill” commandment if it only applies to Israelites.

“You shall not commit adultery.” The Seventh Commandment actually did have an influence. I don’t think there can be any doubt that Christianity has an incredibly powerful history influencing legislation concerning sex in the U.S. It’s also a shameful history.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court in 1967 overturned miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage. One law was justified like this: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents.”

Condemnation of homosexuality is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian “moral” standards. Finally, a Supreme Court ruling in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws in 14 states. Again, Christianity had a very shameful influence.  

Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” Again, read the commandment fully: “or fields, nor his male or female slaves, nor his ox or , or anything that belongs to him.”

Women are chattel. Slavery is condoned. This is thought crime. Big Brother is watching. Christopher Hitchens was very fond of pointing this out. This completely conflicts with the First Amendment. 

To sum up the Ten Commandments and their influence on our nation’s founding: they either have no influence, being in conflict with our founding principles or have a shameful influence.