What is more needed is to separate any given set of beliefs from others. Everyone is arguing "Christianity" as if it were one homogeneous set of beliefs, when that is far from the truth. Christianity is probably the most diverse set of beliefs imaginable with only a very few, core doctrines in common, while differing wildly in nearly everything else from administration from ordination and authority. When examining the acts of "Christianity", one should actually be examining the so-called Christian organizations first so as not to associate Protestants with the Crusades, etc.

ok-now see? this is exactly what is not helpful to the discussion. Barwick, you know on this site you will have to answer mystical claims. You will have to answer why God is not mentioned once in the Constitution. and what the very vague term "our Creator" actually means. Why didn't we just adopt the 10 commandments as the original Bill of Rights.

Oh yes, because Rome was known as a bastion for Christianity. Where did you learn your history from?

Paul never condoned involuntary servitude, but he told those who were slaves (involuntarily) to submit to their masters. You might want to read Exodus 21:16 if you think the Bible ever condoned involuntary servitude.

The "Christian" North America you speak of did not have slaves (involuntary servants) in the primarily religious communities. The commercial (read: the King who called himself a Christian, and others of the same kind) sectors that began to see the profitability of the colonies, they brought involuntary servitude to North America.

yes, I agree. I think it's important for Christians to consider the logical derivation of rights from Man himself. After all, Man , in their view, conceptualizes God. Why not rights?

But what does the actual "acceptance of teachings" constitute? If one says that they "believe", but justify theft, lying, adultery, etc., does that make them a Christian? No. You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

It is instructional to note that within the entirety of the New Testament, Christ's harshest words were to whom: the Jewish leaders who purported to be awaiting His coming! "By their fruits ye shall know them."

In September 2014 George Will told an interviewer that he was an atheist:

""I'm an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure. I'm pretty sure. I see no evidence of God," Will told Real Clear Religion."

For years I've admired much of what Will has had to say, as I do when he says that limited self-government based on natural rights doesn't require religion.

This is refreshing to hear because most conservatives simply refuse to acknowledge that there can be a secular and rational basis for individual rights and liberty, but instead only think that Divine Authority is the end-all explanation and moral justification for everything.

I'm glad to hear that George Will isn't limited in this way. Let's give him the credit he deserves for this.

pretty important if you believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation and that only the Judeo-Christian mythology provides a backdrop that supports an understanding of rights.

oh please. over 40% of the population of the roman empire were slaves in Paul's day. And the slavery continued into "Christian" Europe and "Christian" North America.

You can do better than trying to change the clear definition of what Paul wrote. I was able to do apologetics better than that back in the day. Come on barwick. There's a much better response than just saying i'm ignorant and changing the meaning of the word slave. You can do it. I've got faith in you. Just not your god. :)

Individuals can do great things and many are and have been religious.

*Big grin*
Bear with me. I think men created religion for a reason. If we created it--we needed it; it was a tool. Society is evolving. Many have been willing to throw religion under the bus during this upheaval, but they aren’t addressing the fundamental questions to why man created religion in the first place. Did we need to reach outside ourselves, maybe? I don’t know. I just know it was an important part of our development. I personally beleive it has something to do with the brains inability to understand mortality. You can’t stop yourself from thinking. It’s a survival instinct thing. So my theory is we developed stories to correlate with our brain's belief that ‘we’ will always be. Now, good behavior usually will help you to survive longer, agreed?
I personally believe that kids do better if they are raised with a belief in God. The reason I say this is: there isn’t a mechanism in society to compare to teaching kids self-awareness and conscious more readily then the believe that an omni-present being is watching everything that they do in secret. If no one sees you doing wrong, then how can it be wrong? When will it feel wrong? It’s hard to feel discomfort and shame if there isn’t an audience. Would they use their rational brains to control their behavior?Medically, we can prove there is nothing rational about a teenage brain--good luck with that! What aids can we use?
I think the idea that something ‘larger’ than ourselves is a useful productive tool. If we want to do away with it, we need an adequate replacement to mediate upon.

you're right, there is some of that going on. It's part of group think

I'm not arguing guilt by association. I'm arguing against "virtue by association" which I take to be the argument made above about the heroic efforts of Christians as a group.

as are "we" ;)

this whole thread degraded. both of you have much common ground in this site. the topic is the importance of religion in the founding documents. How essential is that to the framework of the Constitution?

Huh? I thought a Christian was someone who: (i) believed in God as a supernatural power; (ii) believed in Jesus Christ as a divine entity who appeared on earth and whose activities and teachings are accurately set forth in the New Testament; and, (iii) accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ as set forth in the New Testament. If I'm wrong about that then we are talking at cross purposes.

but there are also christian organizations, such as Eagle Forum, who fight tirelessly for stronger property rights and less government. There are many Christians who are very active in the Tea Party movement. This guilty by association argument gets old

many christian groups including the Quakers worked under great danger running the Underground Railroad. Like any individual, most fight for their country, in the Revolutionary War, the majority of americans saw themselves as british subjects.

neither did the majority of our founding fathers. This argument is guilty by association. Plenty of pagan cultures like the greeks, had slaves

The same reason we study Plato?

On a political level you're right. Some of my best and most safe to trust friends are atheist. Most are Christian, but some are atheist.

But from our perspective, we just walked down a road and saw the bridge was out. You're in a car on that road, and so we're trying to warn you.

Do you even know what it means to be a true Christian? Someone who, not of their own will, has been born again spiritually. Again, NOT of their own will, they are wholly incapable of choosing to be born again (did you decide when you were first born?). Jesus Himself spoke of this in John 6:60-65. And you are doing the same exact thing Jesus spoke of here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...

And you continue to show your ignorance. What you are calling slavery (that Paul references) was not involuntary servitude, but an indentured servant. Someone would agree to give a person X large sum (or land) in return for X years of service on their property.

no, but it does enforce concepts such as altruism. Love thy neighbor as thyself could mean respect others' property rights, but I tend to think it means instead, to give the coat off my back to someone who needs one. even in the airplane, the stewardess counsels you that if the oxygen masks drop, place yours on your face first, then on your child's

Religion: a pox on all their houses. They and their emphasis on sacrifice are a poison in human psycho-epistemology. Whatever "helpful" elements they contain are not exclusive to religion and exist independently as rational ethics.

Ah, they weren't "true Christian[s]." Here comes that "no true Scotsman" fallacy again, now explicit.