So define "Christian". Is it Methodist or Baptist? Protestant or Quaker? Catholic or Othodox?

The Founders believed in the Judeo-Christian version of God, but you are correct in that most did not specifically associate with any professed creed. But I think it a bit two-faced to try to assert that simply because most did not ally themselves with the various sects of their time, they did not believe in a Judeo-Christian God and that such a belief did not heavily affect their deliberations and foundational beliefs.

I know you don't. You and I have been over this one before, I'm just calling out those who DO do that.

"nobody is a Christian unless they interpret the scriptures exactly as you do."

Fortunately, Christians don't rely on man to interpret the scriptures for them. They have the Spirit of God and inspired men called prophets to help out when there is any ambiguity. Those who choose to interpret scripture for themselves reap their own rewards.

"your argument above leads to the conclusion that the other is not composed of 'true Christians.'"

A Christian is someone who follows Christ - not someone who merely professes such. Just as you would not have an Objectivist who believed in the welfare state. Does that mean that there isn't some allowance for imperfection? Of course not. But self-profession in my mind is of little value - it is the actions that matter. Christ Himself said such on more than one occasion. The other matter gets into authority, and I won't get into that right now.

"I think you can probably see that proposition is fallacious and is of the "Scotsman" variety because it confuses a mere attributes with defining characteristics."

But that is exactly what we are talking about, is it not? Is one a Scotsman who speaks with the appropriate brogue, but can not trace his lineage? No. Such is an impostor and all true Scotsmen will call such out - kilt or no kilt, haggus or no haggus.

One can not lump all Christian denominations together in the same pot because they all have different ideas about what "being a Christian" even means to themselves! A Baptist will not call a Mormon a Christian. The Protestants object to the Catholics. Thus the Scotsman fallacy is inapplicable in this circumstance. That was what I was trying to point out.

"Are you trying to say that non-Christian Objectivists are to be despised by God as somehow "worse" than non-Objectivist Christians?"

On the contrary, Christ castigated the Pharisees (Jewish rulers) because they were those who professed to believe in and look forward to the coming of Christ, yet were the ones who openly opposed Him when He came! The criticism was because they were hypocrites - they were blessed with a knowledge above others and when the time came to act on it, they allowed their own desires and lust for power to trump their own religion. A second example is when he cast the money-changers out of the temple. They knew what they were doing fell contrary to their own beliefs. Christ further instructed these very leaders that the publicans (tax-collectors - universally despised because of their tactics and known dishonesty) and harlots (no explanation needed there) would go into the Kingdom of God before them. Why? Because the harlots and publicans had not been educated as to Christ's doctrine and so could still repent and change their ways. The Pharisees and scribes knew what they should have been doing, but didn't do it. They were in a state of open rebellion rather than ignorance. The scribes and Pharisees knew the path, but not only refused to walk it themselves, but prevented others from walking it. The publicans and harlots didn't even know about the path.

I would also mention that God despises none. We are His children and He loves us as such. That does not mean that when our children choose a path we know will harm them that we are not concerned and displeased. What parent does not make an effort to try to correct a disobedient child - sometimes by allowing them to suffer the consequences of their own actions in the hopes they will learn from the experience? And it is out of this love and His respect for us that He allows us to choose our own paths - without coercion. Does He try to educate us on the path available? As far as we will allow, yes. For we can not open the door at the end of the path unless we follow it. But those who knew about the path and choose not to follow it will not have the excuse of ignorance in the end. They will know that they could have had everything and they consciously chose otherwise. That will be their Hell.

we are all individuals here. I rarely down vote. Just because someone does not believe in a Diety-does not mean they take "pride" in the rejection. Mostly, they don't think about it unless the topic comes up. Some go out of their way to be vocal and even go as far as to force their views on others. We see this strongly in the public education system. .

I won't press the point here--not in this question. But if you're interested, I'm prepared to show scientific evidence for a major, nearly planet-busting event in Earth's past that not only explains much that remains unexplained, but corroborates the testimony of that higher power.

Anyone who wants to know more, reply to me privately--unless I hear enough demand for me to post that as a public question.

"Faith is the opposite of reason"
Prove it ewv

I love how people down-vote something on here because they disagree with it. What else would I expect from a community that on average takes pride in rejecting God?

"Most" is a wishy washy term. Certainly many were deists. Deism is the natural result of God's revelation through nature. But nature alone isn't sufficient for salvation. That's a deep subject, not going into it.

But what you said there, that they were deists, even if I gave you the "most" (which I'll contest some other time), you just said that they had sufficient evidence through reason and observation to determine that there is a Creator. But, they themselves choose to rebel against that creator.

The world they lived in, they didn't have the archaeological and historical evidence that backs up the accuracy and historicity of the Bible. They could "reasonably" (though not really) reject the claims of the Bible by making the assertion that it isn't accurate, and/or was corrupted.

Today, we don't have that luxury. It seems that almost every time a spade is turned in archaeology, it supports the accuracy of the Bible. This started to really accelerate in the 1800's, continuing through the 1900's, and still continues to this day. Finding things that Luke said that people thought "he was wrong, this guy wasn't proconsul, nor was he leader during this time" only to find out he did in fact hold that title during those times when they made an archaeological discovery.

Little things like that have happened so many times that nowadays, people can't claim that the Bible is inaccurate, so they have to either completely reject God all together, or make a claim that the purpose of the Bible isn't to be inerrant, but to be "interpreted" in different ways.

All that to say, the founders were honest enough to say that "yeah, reason and observation lead us to conclude that there is 'a god' out there". But modern day people are trying to claim the exact opposite, despite us having more evidence to support the existence of God than we did before.

Centuries of religion and its consequences were not "true religion" just like nearly a century of communism and its consequences were not "true communism".

A number of prominent colonies were settled by people escaping religious persecution. The ventures were funded by those staying behind who expected to profit. Most of it had nothing to do with slavery, especially in the mid-Atlantic and northeast, but they did continue the same kind of religious persecution they had not wanted practiced against themselves. Much of "religious freedom" meant what amounts to an insider power struggle. But the 1600s and early 1700s were not what is meant by the founding of the country and its system of government. It was pre-Enlightenment.

That's "mostly" included in what a Christian is, though there are others. Without changing your definitions (though they're not exhaustive), nobody *can* do those things unless they're born again. They're "dead" spiritually. And dead men don't do things.

Your interpretation, jabuttrick, is correct, but incomplete. A Christian also must live their life for another man (Jesus Christ), contrary to Galt's oath.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, ewv. An example of the "mixture of premises" that you describe is Americans' belief that "God helps those who help themselves". This is a statement by Ben Franklin, and is not in the Bible. The closest thing in the Bible to it is the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), but that is not really the same thing.

I understand your point, but I think you misconstrued the reason for my request for an explanation. I was responding to the observation that "real" Christians had purportedly advocated for all sorts of supposedly good causes. My comment was made to highlight the fact that Christians had also advocated for evil. I was challenging the prior poster to "explain" how those facts fit into his view of Christianity. Your point is, of course, correct.

You're talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I am not. The Christian Church as a whole relies on the Bible as it's sole inerrant source of revelation about God. That's the foundation of it.

Heck, look at today's Pope if you have any doubt about the Catholic Church's misguided direction it's gone in over the last millenia-plus. Now, that's not to say that all Catholics aren't Christian, but certainly a LOT of them aren't. But I know some who are.

Wrong. The enlightenment philosophy is what resulted in the FRENCH REVOLUTION. Polar opposite to the American Revolution. Frenchmen would make paper effigies of Jesus, Mary, Saints (the latter two being primarily aimed at the Catholic Church, which if you ask me is borderline not Christian, though many Catholics are Christian, long story there...) They would then take those effigies and burn them in the streets, and inside would be found wood or metal objects etched with "reason", etc.

Read some history. Or if you're not fond of reading (which I doubt, but regardless, videos are fun still), David Barton has produced an excellent video history on the foundation of America in his "American Heritage" series.

Good read. Thanks for sharing...

barwick: "it's a well documented fact that our founders (and their predecessors upon whom they based their ideas) used the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles in our founding".

That is not only not "well documented", it is false, not a "fact" at all. Judeo-Christian principles are the philosophy of the Dark Ages and the opposite of the founding of this country, which was based on the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism in contrast to the centuries dominated by their opposite. Christianity was primarily other-wordly in its mystic beliefs. The first and fundamental goal was to wallow in and live for salvation in another realm, denouncing and escaping from the misery of life on earth. The means of allegedly knowing were by faith in contrast to reason. It is not possible for such a world-view to have lead to the founding of America and it did not.

Faith is the opposite of reason. That is the "proof of a reason not to have faith".

Christian religious premises do not lead to American individualism and are not compatible with it. Most American Christians hold a mixture of premises, some religious and many not, which is what makes so much in common possible in some cases. It depends on what premises are being emphasized or compartmentalized.

The danger on a cultural scale is pushing destructive, false premises as a foundation (including the bizarre claims of "Christian Objectivism") because when those wrong premises are emphasized and followed out it means the end of modern civilization and a return to the Dark Ages. This why, for anyone who takes ideas seriously as the source of trends on a cultural scale, the attempts to explicitly promote religion or an alleged "compatibility" with Ayn Rand's philosophy must be explicitly and emphatically rejected.

but you don't have to use force if you have manipulated people into believing part of being good is to be selfless. All religions ask man to subordinate to a higher power.

yes, but the article is about the Constitution and what influence, if much of any, religion had on it

There is no such thing as a "rational Christian" aside from the extent to which they compartmentalize and are rational in important realms despite their religion, and no such thing as "consistently practicing Christianity" while simultaneously staying alive on earth.

It's not easier to be moral with a fantasy as an unmoving foundation, but it is easier to adhere to a destructive dogma in the name of morality as a fanatic. Superstition is not a foundation for anything involving living on earth.

khalling: "I know many, many christians who are definitely grown ups. They are not moochers and they are respectful of property rights and less government."

So do I, but they are not Augustinians engulfed in the religious sense of life. They are Americans with American individualist values who are so far away from Christianity that they would have been condemned as heretics and worse in the Christian era.

jabuttrick: "How do you explain the fact that many Christians supported the slave trade, supported slavery, were slaveholders,..."

Even George Whitefield, the well-known, mesmerizing evangelist just before the revolution, supported slavery on principle.