Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

The U.S. was not founded on Christian doctrine


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 125 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 19, 2012 5:40:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 7:06:21 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine"

-- George Washington

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

-- Thomas Paine

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-- Abraham Lincoln

.

With this in mind, all the stink about Ten Commandments being removed from government buildings, etc. shouldn't be seen as an attack on Christianity so much as a restoration of freedom from it.

Thoughts?

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 5:49:50 AM PDT
Totally agree. It bothers me that so many Christians claim that they're being persecuted; yet, name one president since Lincoln that didn't claim Christianity as their moral compass. When an atheist gets into the White House (won't happen in my lifetime) and starts closing churches, THEN they can scream.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 5:27:08 AM PDT
Although I agree with the sentiment, this:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Is not a valid Jefferson quote. Why would he have wasted his time making the "Jefferson Bible" if it was?

There are plenty of good, valid Jefferson quotes to choose from. No need to make up new ones.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 10:56:32 AM PDT
I AGREE

This country was founded on christian doctrine lets see slavery,murder,rape,lies,theft,treachery,bigotry,war,violence yep all of this stuff exists in the christian bible so apparently this country was founded on christian text!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 11:11:22 AM PDT
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- Thomas Jefferson

What Tom didn't consider is that the US trust in many gods. The one, five, ten, twenty, hundred (and so forth) dollar bills. Trusting in them does pick the pocket since they are false gods manipulated by a small group of anonymous bankers of the Federal Reserve Bank. They sought to pick pockets for decades until they finally got the opportunity in the early 1900's. Each time they loan the fiat gods to the USA they extract money from our collective pockets.

That said Christianity has never been involved with the USA or any other country. As soon as an organization professing Christianity gets in bed with a political entity it is no longer Christian just as a pacifist is no longer a pacifist once they start fighting or a nonsmoker is no longer a smoker once they go hang out with the smokers and start smoking.

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 11:27:51 AM PDT
Sorry Cilatron, you are incorrect. It is a valid Jefferson quote. Want another Jefferson quote to make your head spin?

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors."

But this is the really good one:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...
"

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 3:46:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 3:47:38 PM PDT
Some Christians have no qualms about twisting things around in order to suit their agenda. Proclaiming the United States is a Christian Nation and the intent of our founding fathers to set up a Christian Nation is not only unfounded, but also a perverted and warped view.

Too many Christians have Jesus and God on the brain to the point of saturation that even revising history and outright lying is not viewed as being in the least bit vile.

Christianity has a history of claiming things as theirs through deception, coverup and outright disinformation. One example is the pagan holiday known as Christmas which was converted over to become a Christian holiday season.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 4:02:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 4:02:42 PM PDT
ErikR says:
They are basically like a spoiled, only-child who is suddenly forced to share their parents' attention and toys with a new sibling.

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 5:45:00 PM PDT
G. J. Stein says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:33:27 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
While I agree that U.S. law and the Constitution and the system of government the Constitution establishes was not based on Christian doctrine nor any Bible laws and there are many examples that demonstrate this to be the case, there are some problems with some of the quotes you provide:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine"

-- George Washington

K: Though Washington appointed those who worked out the Treaty of Tripoli in which this statement is found, the treaty was not written by Washington, and it was submitted to the Senate by John Adams and ratified under Adam's administration.

-------------------
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-- Thomas Jefferson

K: This is an accurate quote and in context shows Jefferson's belief in separation of church and state and freedom of conscience.

-------------------------
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

-- Thomas Paine

K: While this is an accurate quote, it does not really have any bearing on the foundation of U.S. government or law.
---------------------------

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

-- Thomas Jefferson

K: This is not only a false quote, it is a demonstrably wrong quote, as Jefferson certainly expressed the belief in many redeeming features in Christianity. There is no such quote known in any of Jefferson's writings. And while Jefferson was certainly hostile towards the history of Christianity, dogma, clergy, and established church and religion, he also expressed strong favor in the teachings of Jesus and Jefferson stated that he believed Jesus to be the greatest moral philosopher to have ever lived.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/superstition-christianity-quotation-0
-------------------------------

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-- Abraham Lincoln

K: Though I do not know how accurate or reliable this quote is, it does not have any bearing on the foundation of the U.S. government or Constitution.
---------------------

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:49:39 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
David K. Myers says:
Sorry Cilatron, you are incorrect. It is a valid Jefferson quote.

K: No, it is not. If you have any evidence that it is valid, perhaps you can share citations and the document written by Jefferson it appears in?

The subsequent two quotes you provide are accurate, but context is needed for both.

The following provided context for the first quote, where it is evident what Jefferson meant, and demonstrates that Jefferson did in fact find redeeming features in Jesus' teachings. Jefferson rejected Jesus' divinity, miracles, virgin birth and he believed these concepts to have been fabricated by the authors of the Bible. However, he also believed that Jesus' teachings were of great value and that Jesus was the "most venerated of reformers of human error."

1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

The second quote, while excellent advice and accurate, has no bearing on the foundation of U.S. government, nor does it reflect Jefferson's own belief in God. Rather, it demonstrates Jefferson's strong belief in freedom of conscience and the virtue found in intellectual honesty and critical thought.

While Jefferson certainly encouraged his nephew to develop his own understanding and belief, or lack of, in religious matters, Jefferson himself also believed in a creator god himself.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 11:51:09 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
G. J. Stein says:
To anyone:

If you knew me personally you would find me to be easy to get along with, good sense of humor, giving, willing to listen and learn, able to make my point of view without forcing you to agree, patriotic without giving heed to Jefferson's or the founding fathers indiscretions, (the same as I uphold Martin Luther King Jr. without paying mind to the fact He was a flesh and blood man like myself), hard working, good father, a good neighbor, a good friend, a good husband, (faithful for 25 years)! I like fishing, target shooting, UFC, world traveling, antique pocket knives, rock and roll, etc...

...and, I'm American, of Irish, German, and Russian heritage!

Now, if you knew me, based on this, and you found it was all true, (cause it is), what would be the difference between you and me???

Mr. Anyone (Krinkle): The differences between you and me? Well, I am not of Irish or German, or Russian heritage, to my knowledge anyway. I am an American though. I don't fish, nor think I would particularly like it if I did. I think I might like target shooting. I have only fired a gun once. Well, actually, I fired a single gun about 50 times in one short period when I took a gun safety course. I admit I enjoyed shooting the gun. It was fun and exciting. And though I support the second amendment, I also acknowledge how dangerous guns are and believe that there should be a requirement of a safety course, permit, and test for all gun owners, no different than driving a car.

Though I have enjoyed watching UFC, I find in myself a hypocritical streak here. I appreciate the skill and athleticism involved, and I believe that such contests are part of human nature for a portion of the human species. A "warrior" type personality that exists, and is natural. However, I also find such brutality to be worrisome and not something to be celebrated. As "entertainment" it runs the risk of validating violence, desensitizing the human instinct against such violence, and making "heroes" of the wrong values.

I am not "patriotic", as I see "patriotism" and "nationalism" as barriers to critical thinking and objectivity. I do value and appreciate the U.S. Constitution and what it stands for, and I am grateful and appreciative of what the U.S. provides for me, my family and friends, and the world in general. However, I also acknowledge the failures of the U.S., and the problems it presents for some in the world in general.

I don't understand what you mean by "patriotic without giving heed to Jefferson's or the founding father's indiscretions." While I appreciate Jefferson, and the founders great accomplishments, I find it important to also acknowledge their failures and indiscretions. Though I think it is important to keep their failures and indiscretions in the context of their times, culture, and "zeitgeist", it is also important to recognize them and acknowledge them. Otherwise, we risk whitewashing history, creating a narrative that misrepresents the whole truth, making lies by omission, and deifying great people who though great, were also human. This is not only unnecessary in order to appreciate great accomplishments, it is undesirable as well. It removes controversy, objectivity, and results in "feel good history" that when critically examined, falls apart, and is quite literally see-through and boring, and when the truth is learned, it often results in distrust and resentment.

As for the rest, I have been faithful to my wife for 16 years, though married only 5 years. I could be a better husband, a better neighbor, and a better friend, though I am not a bad husband, friend or neighbor. I value listening and learning, though I find myself at times not doing a great job at either. I am cynical and a pessimist, but I try to be open and have a sense of humor. I am hardworking.

One difference I see, after writing this post, is that you were concise and to the point, while I responded with a verbose, long winded post.

The difference between you and me? Well, I imagine that we are really quite alike in our humanity and values, though we probably differ a great deal in specifics and what the best ways are to realize what we think is important and what really matters. We probably want and value many of the same things, but disagree on what the best way is to make those things a reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 1:26:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 3:56:11 PM PDT
G. J. Stein says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 3:59:07 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
G. J. Stein says:
Mr. Krinkle:

I had been wondering where you were and thought you may have taken a sabbatical when low and behold you show-up to one of my own posts, after it had been there for a few days with zero replies!

K: Hi G.J.S. How are you? I have been absent lately, for a number of reasons. Three mainly. One being that I have been rather busy. Another is that I have been here long enough to be a bit burned out by the threads. They seem to repeat themselves, in a sort of cycle, with the same old arguments going around with little change. Here and there they seem to find new life with interesting and invigorating topics and discussions, but lately, for me, they have seemed wearisome. And finally, another cycle I have noticed is the "atheists", or "theists/Christians" suck, or "liberals" or "conservatives" suck themes, which though always present to some degree, seems to have cycles where it increases and decreases. Lately, it seems to be on the increase again, in my opinion, and this makes for uninteresting discussion for me. So, I have not felt compelled to surf the threads lately.

G.J.S: That's classic. I like your answer to my question, long winded or not, you actually gave me the honest truth and I agree; it's the particulars that come into question, but in general I have no doubt, most of us in this thread would get along fine in person, in spite of the fact we hold dear to our ideas of theology and immortality, etc.

K: I am glad you appreciated my reply, and it is nice to know we can agree on some things. However, though I agree many of us might get along fine in person in spite of ideological differences, I am often struck by how differing political and theological ideologies can often create a great deal of instant animosity and judging, and generalization/stereotype application by people. People who are relatively close and friendly can sometimes react harshly and critically when they find out the person they have known personally to be honest, caring, compassionate and reasonable is in fact a "liberal", or a "conservative", or of a different theological persuasion.

G.J.S: I meant what I said about myself personally, not to brag; I believe it benefits society no matter what my motivation, and I could have easily gone on to list all the things I "don't do" also, as a benefit to society, regardless of my motivation.

K: It did not appear to be bragging to me, so no worries. :)

Our "motivation" is an interesting thing to think about. Our beliefs dictate our actions, and in that respect, our beliefs certainly do matter. When our actions are motivated by our beliefs, and result in good actions, this is good. But there is something about our beliefs/motivation that nags at me, that says our motivation does matter. For example, if we do things for the benefit of others and or the community out of selfish motivation, then sure, what we do to benefit others and the community is good, regardless of the motivation. However, if the motivation is selfish, then although some specific acts may benefit others, the underlying motivation suggests that we will at times act against the benefit of others for our own benefit, because we are motivated by selfish desires and not by moral ideals. Hence, it seems that motivation does matter, if not necessarily for a specific example of doing good, then for general behavior.

G.J.S: I think the reason no one answered me was because I made that point as a compliment to us all, with or without faith!

K: Perhaps. I don't know, but I did appreciate your sentiment, and I think it would benefit us all to pay more attention to what we have in common at times rather than only focusing on our differences, myself included.

G.J.S: I know the atheist feels misunderstood by the believer, (the believer simply denies the atheist has no doubt), and has a reason to defend themselves;

K: If only that were all of it. First, many atheists don't appear to have any doubts, though some certainly do and don't deny it. Atheists who do doubt simply find no compelling reason to hold a belief in any god, and though they may have their doubts and do not claim to know that a god does not exist, or to be certain in their position, their lack of knowledge and lack of certainty does not compel them to hold a position of positive belief in a god.

Second, many believers don't simply deny that atheists have no doubt. Some do much more than that. Some deny that an atheist can be moral. Some assert that atheists are in denial, and intentionally deny the existence of god in order to live a life under their own terms not beholden to God's dictated morality. Some deny that an atheist can be a good citizen, some refuse to vote for atheists for political office, some say atheists are "unamerican", etc. Some insist on perpetuating a link between belief in the Christian God and patriotism, the security of the nation, the foundation of the U.S. government, etc., which by definition excludes atheists, and even believers in other religions.

G.J.S.: ....and so, it gets a bit tiresome to be told you're crazy, dangerous, antisocial, and delusional for believing in god; especially the God of the bible!

K: No doubt. And because of this, I assume you can understand how tiresome it can be to be told you're in denial, immoral, dangerous to society, unpatriotic, unamerican, evil, etc. for not believing in God, especially not believing in the God of the Bible?

G.J.S.: You didn't comment on my mention of Dr. King!

K: Well, MLK is a complex issue.

G.J.S.: As a Christian believer I sit and watch him give his speeches, and I consider his actions as a man of faith, risking his life for such a noble cause, and I bear witness to his spirit; He was a man being led by God in spirit, yet still tethered to the flesh, and still not able to rise to the standard of Christ.

K: Have you watched or read his later speeches, or read his personal writings? We go back to motivation here, and where you ascribe to MLK a motivation of being led by God, I would make a few points. First, certainly MLK believed in God, and believed his movement to be a Christian one. However, MLK was a very liberal Christian, embracing liberal theology. Also, he was strongly opposed by most Conservative Christians, both political conservatives, and theological conservatives. And, though he was certainly influenced by his belief in God, in the teachings of Jesus as he interpreted them, and his personal liberal understanding of the Bible, he was also strongly influenced by others, such as Gandhi and Thoreau, decidedly not "Christians."

And finally, if we are to believe that MLK was led by God, what of MLK's ideology and belief beyond the immediate concerns of the Civil Rights Movement? I think it is undeniable that as much as King's noble cause to end segregation and begin to heal the rift between whites and blacks and address racism was inspired by his interpretation of Jesus' teachings and his theologically liberal understanding of the Bible, so was his strong and steadfast belief in moderate socialism, social justice, criticism of American capitalism and the immoral inequality he blamed on the U.S. capitalist system.

Were not his very politically liberal ideologies of social justice, moderate socialism, and economic equality also inspired by the very same source that inspired his risking his life for the noble cause of Civil Rights? Whether it was simply his personal understanding of Jesus' teachings and the Bible, or if it was actually inspired by God, his movement was consistently based on the same underlying ideology, an ideology that was opposed by many Christian conservatives at the time whole cloth, and today is still strongly opposed in part, if not in entirety, by most Christian conservatives today. "Social Justice" is a four letter word for most conservatives, as are many of the policies endorsed by MLK in relation to the Civil Rights Movement such as reparations, affirmative action, racial quotas and "set-asides", etc.

And there are other interesting points also. For example, MLK endorsed the Supreme Court's ruling to ban school led prayer. King was a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood and won the "Margaret Sanger Award." These again most conservative Christians strongly oppose.

If MLK was a "man being led by God in spirit, yet still tethered to the flesh, and still not able to rise to the standard of Christ", then in what ways did he fail to rise to the "standard of Christ"? I would gather that he failed in his moral indiscretions, his many alleged affairs, his plagiarism maybe, if he did plagiarize, and certainly in his routine imperfections that we all suffer from. Yet his basic, fundamental ideology was all connected. The same religious ideals, the inspiration he took from his personal understanding of Jesus' teaching and scripture that informed his Civil Rights ideology was the basis and foundation for the umbrella of his greater political and economic ideology. And this political and economic philosophy, founded on his religious beliefs, was decidedly liberal with many socialist aspects and anti-capitalist sentiments. If he was bettering mankind through his accomplishments in the Civil Rights Movement, inspired by, and led by God, was he simply mistaken and not led by God or inspired by God in the foundational ideology that formed the basis of his philosophy behind the Civil Rights Movement? Or, did God also inspire MLK's philosophy that was built around social justice, economic egalitarianism, etc.?

G.J.S: was it indeed an accomplishment for the betterment of mankind, or should it have been disqualified, because it was inspired in the man by his god?

K: Oh, I believe it certainly was an accomplishment for the betterment of mankind, and in no way is disqualified because he was inspired by his belief and understanding of his God. However, like MLK did do repeatedly, I believe that his goals must be argued in secular terms when being applied to government legislation. He was able to take his religiously inspired beliefs and translate them to secular arguments in order to give them legislative legitimacy.

Good to see you again as well, and again, I apologize for the very long winded response. I don't seem to be able to keep things short sometimes.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 7:27:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 5:40:48 PM PDT
G. J. Stein says:
@ Mr. Krinkle:

Hey, Thanks for the reply. I have to agree with you on all points. I personally was on my way out for a breather, (have some vacation time and things to distract me anyway for a couple of weeks), when I read this thread and had to respond to the "automatic" aggression brewing within!!!

I see the repetition and cycling you mentioned and I (personally) don't have the patience for it. While it is interesting to engage and try to share, it's apparent this is not a place of intentional learning, although something has to be gleamed, even by accident!

I have a respect for many a foe here. I'm certain our lives would not be the Hatfield's and McCoy's should we have been neighbors, but that's neither here nor there unfortunately.
Maybe what keeps us both hanging around is our desire to disprove those judgments we reserve for strangers, sometimes cruelly!

About Dr. King; I admit he had his ups and downs, as do I, and I'm not a person to judge, any more than I wouldn't want to be judged. I may see myself as a pillar in the community, but as they say, `ask my wife what I confide in her', ask my God what is witnessed in me by a heavenly host; I don't have a leg to stand on, but my understanding of the bible tells me different; if it weren't so, Christ would not have had to die in my place;...sorry...I'll spare you the sermon, but will say; I think most of the men in the bible were hero's "by accident" as well as those who followed to this day, and that would be fitting since it says the Lord is champion of the weak and despised persons of this earth!

Well, Maybe I'll see you down the line, and please pull no punches with me as you never do. You're the kind of person I imagine is a teacher or something, because you have this integrity coupled with a supreme scholarship which is admirable. I've witnessed it on Amazon, in situations I wasn't even part of, but found it convicting, and something to strive for in my own character. You're up there on my list with Robert A. Saunders, who I call a scholar and a gentleman.

Ok, take care.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 8:02:34 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 1, 2012 8:02:56 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 8:54:48 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
Cilantron, the Jefferson Bible has all the miracles removed. He didn't do it because he thought Christianity was a good thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 8:58:12 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 8, 2012 8:58:28 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 5:47:30 PM PDT
Rick Clarion says:
Jefferson is an interesting person. At different points in his life he believed different things. Early on he was somewhat hateful toward Christianity; toward the end he was sending letters to John Adams signed "in Jesus' name."

Throughout his life he saw the doctrine of the Trinity as a farce yet later in life he was quite devoted to his faith.

He adopted a Biblical Unitarian view, as did Adams and others. He and others were hardly orthodox, but they were Christian.

Yet Christians weren't the only people involved in our founding. We had a Jewish person and an atheist. Alf Mapp's book, The Faiths of our Fathers, shows the variation.

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 6:17:03 PM PDT
Lao Tzu says:
Let me clear this up for everybody (lol). The signers of the Constitution were a collection of Deists and Christians.

The point of whether the writers or signers were Christian is not relevant. The point is that THE DOCUMENT specifically guarantees freedom of and from religion. It is a secular document, intending to create a secular government.

This is the point that Insanegal and other miss. They try to compare the ratio of christians to non-christians among the signers. This is a hopeless exercise.

The Constitution is the most secular founding document created in history to that point. Even the Dutch constitution, which gave the freedom to worship as you please, had a religious test for public office.

Is everyone with me on this point?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:24:13 PM PDT
andy f says:
While I think there was strong Christian element within the colonies,(some of the Brits refered to the American Revolution as the "Presbyterian Revolt")America was never intended to be the Christian theocracy that many of my fellow conservative Christians think.

I think this is the reason Christianity has flourished in America.The state-church model failed miserably.The Church was never intended to mix with the state.It only leads to nominalism.

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 10:00:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 12, 2012 10:20:20 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 10:21:14 PM PDT
karmaman says:
Classical Saxophonist says:
"The United States WAS founded on Christian morality. It's a fact. Get over it."

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so, nor do such lies justify the Dominionists attacking the religious freedoms of everyone except themselves. If it were founded on Christian morality, incidents like the Salem witch trials would have been more widespread... it's because the founders LEARNED from incidents like that, as well as the Enlightenment in general, that they relied more upon rationality than religious favoritism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 8:42:50 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
In fact there are very few selfless values or morals in the Declaration of Independence and none whatsoever in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence touts the very selfish values of the "pursuit of happiness" and so on. If those are signs of "Christian morality", I'll just keep on being a Panentheist, thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 9:57:30 PM PDT
andy f says:
So no moral standard is better than the Christian standard?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
455 12 days ago
We are Living in the Last Days - A Biblical Prophecy Discussion Part Six 5856 2 minutes ago
To what extent do Literalist ID/Creationists End Times fundamentalists threaten Christianity: Part the Third , Would like to change this name to how to save the religions that were established by Moses, Muslim, Christian and Jew 6353 4 minutes ago
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light Part 2 694 4 minutes ago
New Christ Myth Forum - all welcome :) 49 6 minutes ago
I completely understand now why Mormons aren't Christians. 4796 7 minutes ago
Moving beyond atheism 803 18 minutes ago
Mary was Sinless -- Part XXIII 3436 24 minutes ago
Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ- Part 8 2488 30 minutes ago
Is Good Behavior Needed for Heaven? (Part 2) 688 1 hour ago
moment-of-broken-ness, part 2 5898 1 hour ago
King James Inerrancy 720 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  40
Total posts:  125
Initial post:  Jun 19, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions