America is or is not a Christian Nation.

Surely, some of your coworkers, neighbors, and friends are people of faith. What do they want?

chromium said:

Something that always baffled me...

If this is Christian nation, how come it's the *only* nation in north america to have the death penalty? How come the entire bible belt has it still and carries out the most executions? Anyone else find that odd?

Other countries with frequent death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, China. Awesome Christian company!

Click to expand...

From Wiki:

Of the 35 independent states in the Americas that are UN members:

15 (43%) have abolished it.
4 (11%) retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war).
14 (40%) permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, or it is under a moratorium.
2 (6%) maintain the death penalty in both law and practice.

The information above is accurate as of 2013 when Cuba became a de facto abolitionist state by not having carried out an execution for ten years. Use of capital punishment by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

chromium said:

Something that always baffled me...

If this is Christian nation, how come it's the *only* nation in north america to have the death penalty? How come the entire bible belt has it still and carries out the most executions? Anyone else find that odd?

Other countries with frequent death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, China. Awesome Christian company!

Click to expand...

I do think that's an interesting point. I've noticed on this site that we have Christians who are pro death penalty. I've been told by some that this is somehow acceptable (I can't remember their reasoning), but IMO that is a rather hypocritical stance. I would think they would let God make those decisions.

nota bene said:

From Wiki:

Of the 35 independent states in the Americas that are UN members:

15 (43%) have abolished it.
4 (11%) retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war).
14 (40%) permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, or it is under a moratorium.
2 (6%) maintain the death penalty in both law and practice.

The information above is accurate as of 2013 when Cuba became a de facto abolitionist state by not having carried out an execution for ten years. Use of capital punishment by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Well i'm reading the Jimmy Carter book and that's what he claimed.

Looking in more depth, many nations have the death penalty but it's only regularly used in 9 countries, says Amnesty International - the US being the only one in western hemisphere - China, Saudi, Iran, Iraq, US, Sudan, Yemen, Bangladesh, North Korea. Then add Somalia if going by 2013.

That's rather poor company.

ChrisL said:

I do think that's an interesting point. I've noticed on this site that we have Christians who are pro death penalty. I've been told by some that this is somehow acceptable (I can't remember their reasoning), but IMO that is a rather hypocritical stance. I would think they would let God make those decisions.

Click to expand...

Yeah and they use the exact opposite logic (killing is wrong) to oppose abortion so vehemently.

This isn't even going into the mountains of data that suggest many innocent are executed and it's not at all a deterrent. I mean if the US decides its law on faith rather than facts...but the 30+ states with death penalty can accomplish neither. It contradicts their supposed faith as well as the facts. The only thing left to defend it is raw emotion (revenge). Pretty pathetic

chromium said:

Something that always baffled me...

If this is Christian nation, how come it's the *only* nation in north america to have the death penalty? How come the entire bible belt has it still and carries out the most executions? Anyone else find that odd?

Other countries with frequent death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, China. Awesome Christian company!

Click to expand...

You might be an enlightened individual concerning this subject and others if only you took the time to read the Bible.

It's up to each individual government to decide if it wants to enact capital punishment.

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." - Romans chapter 13

You're busted.

ChrisL said:

I do think that's an interesting point. I've noticed on this site that we have Christians who are pro death penalty. I've been told by some that this is somehow acceptable (I can't remember their reasoning), but IMO that is a rather hypocritical stance. I would think they would let God make those decisions.

Click to expand...

Here's some info on that. Take note of Romans chapter 13 in the link below.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/197222-america-not-christian-nation-31.html#post1063435600

Logicman said:

You might be an enlightened individual concerning this subject and others if only you took the time to read the Bible.

It's up to each individual government to decide if it wants to enact capital punishment.

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." - Romans chapter 13

You're busted.

Click to expand...

Turn the other cheek? "Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone." Early Christians like St. John Chrysostom staunchly opposed executions and warfare cause of these parables.

Of course, the modern bible belt thumpers are more illiterate and uneducated than even 200 AD peasants, so it's not surprising they will pull single lines from Romans instead of realize there's not a single quote from Jesus supporting executions (or gay bashing). They would have to remember what they read 10 pages ago for that.

I've read the bible and highly recommend it. It's comedy gold precisely because of contradictions, and that anyone takes it seriously only makes it more hilarious, if not for using it to justify barbarity like government executions of defenseless prisoners.

chromium said:

Turn the other cheek? "Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone." Early Christians like St. John Chrysostom staunchly opposed executions and warfare cause of these parables.

Click to expand...

Those are individual-based precepts not government-based tenets. God clearly puts government in charge of the decision on capital punishment.

"For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." - Romans chapter 13

chromium said:

Of course, the modern bible belt thumpers are more illiterate and uneducated than even 200 AD peasants, so it's not surprising they will pull single lines from Romans instead of realize there's not a single quote from Jesus supporting executions (or gay bashing). They would have to remember what they read 10 pages ago for that.

Click to expand...

More nonsense. You're trying to tell me conversely that the people we have in Washington are educated? LOL!

As for Jesus on homosexual sin:

Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. etc.

chromium said:

I've read the bible and highly recommend it. It's comedy gold precisely because of contradictions, and that anyone takes it seriously only makes it more hilarious, if not for using it to justify barbarity like government executions of defenseless prisoners.

Click to expand...

You may have read it but it never sank in. Your lack of insight in the examples above prove it.

And when you can bust the resurrection THEN you'll begin to have an ounce of credibility on the Bible being a load of hooey.

Logicman said:

More nonsense. You're trying to tell me conversely that the people we have in Washington are educated? LOL!

As for Jesus on homosexual sin:

Jesus is God (many scriptures). As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sex to begin with; and he's the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sex in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. etc.

You may have read it but it never sank in. Your lack of insight in the examples above prove it.

And when you can bust the resurrection THEN you'll begin to have an ounce of credibility on the Bible being a load of hooey.

Click to expand...

Whether politicians are educated is irrelevant, since they have to appease the uneducated bible belt voters. In many cases though, they are very much so. Obama went to harvard and was a chicago law prof for example.

"Sank in" as you define it is no more than interpretation. Jesus' divinity was debated for centuries (look up Arianism or gnosticism) and in fact is still widely disagreed on by the various sects. Nicaea as with everything tried to make it seem incontrovertible and unanimous, but the gospels are ambiguous. Ex: "Whoever makes a speech against the son of man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven." Sure seems like a distinction.

That wasn't what i was saying anyway. "Paul" or whoever wrote Romans, was not Jesus or God or whatever. It's rather curious that for something you consider such a huge deal, the gospels never mentioned either subject. If anything, the gospel Jesus seems like he would not at all support state executions.

"Busting" the resurrection is like trying to prove ET doesn't exist. What you want me to do, go back in time and video tape this alleged event? I'll be content with 'beyond reasonable doubt.' The fact that of 100 billion humans, there is no proof any has ever resurrected. The complete silence by any independent 1st century sources, for a claim of such magnitude.

Only reason the claim was made was to win followers, which is unfortunate since his lessons alone, without the bells and whistles of miracles, might have been worth preserving. This is why you shouldn't really care. The resurrection or virgin birth doesn't matter.

radcen said:

America is not a "Christian nation", per se, but it was founded on Christian values (for the most part). We have since deviated greatly from said Christian values, though, so I don't think it's an apt comparison today.

Click to expand...

I would contend that most of what you consider "Christian" morals are just human morals. Nearly every culture has had a very similar set of morals, and they have tended to evolve with the times, same as everyone else's.

maquiscat said:

You continue to connect the concept of a deity with some need for specifics of a deity. I can concept of a car without having any need to concept it as a Ford or a Chevy or a Honda, or a VW, etc. Agnostics don't have to concept the "make and model" of the deity(s) to concept the possibility of its/their existence.

Click to expand...

But you certainly need those specifics if this deity is supposed to inform how we should live our lives. The generic idea of a deity or deities is fine, but when someone starts saying that these deities want us to do some things and not do others and submit to specific leaders, then you really need specifics, and evidence of that specific deity's existence.

Paxaeon said:

The way I see it, now a days, Christian and Corporate values are one in the same so in a manner of speaking, we might be.

Click to expand...

It's a shame that Christians gave up the idea of usury being a sin. If Christianity was standing up to corporatism, that'd be a pretty big deal.

Eric7216 said:

I am searching for a non-Christian based logic for expending resources on adults who are unable or unwilling to be self sufficient for extended periods of time.

Click to expand...

Have you really ever met anyone who gave half their money to charity? All three monotheist religions emphasize charity as a noble undertaking. They simply express that value in different ways. Jews are commanded to give often, and especially during the days been Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur. Religious institutions, given their long history of being outside the normal processes of commerce (both in western religion and elsewhere), often took the reins on administering charitable work. They would be supported by the community and didn't need to turn a profit. It's actually pretty socialist if you think about it. Either way, charity is a value that every culture has espoused.

Also, don't forget about the myriad secular charitable organizations operating today. Secular charities - FreeThoughtPedia

radcen said:

I don't think the Bible says anything about nice people going to Heaven, though. Righteous people, yes. Maybe the criteria is harsher than we would like to think.

Click to expand...

If mere allegiance is the difference between an eternity of bliss and one of torture, then we are simply slaves to an all-powerful king with no real choices. That's a pretty crappy universe to live in, and a god really unworthy of the worship that he seems intent on forcing out of us.

grip said:

Except much of our laws and value systems concerning freedom and fairness are derived from ancient religious beliefs. Before laws, the religions of the world were pretty much where society garnered it's morals and codes of conduct. "Thou shalt not kill" was not just a standard pulled from thin air, you shouldn't kill because it's immoral and a divine commandment.

Click to expand...

There was no time "before laws". Human beings have been making laws for as long we had civilizations. Religion certainly played a part in forming these laws, but it didn't predate them.

ChrisL said:

Well, I am of the belief that a lot of man-made religions were "created" to gain control over people. I think that people, back in ancient times, were quite brutal towards one another. I think that's where the saying "put the fear of God into them" comes from actually.

Click to expand...

That's simply using the threat of unassailable force to make people obey. That mentality was hardly limited to rules that we consider ethical, but likewise to a lot of that brutality. And there's still plenty of brutality in the world today, often in the most religious places.

Is this question about the American people, or the American govt? If it is about the govt, then there actions clearly show that they are not Christian. If it is about the people, then our actions show that we do not stand up for what the FFs set as the foundation of this nation. It was based on Biblical principles, and a thorough understanding of world history. Those who do show themselves to be Christian are referred to as extremists by the vocal minority, who do not believe in the Constitution. Actions are what matter, not words.

chromium said:

Whether politicians are educated is irrelevant, since they have to appease the uneducated bible belt voters. In many cases though, they are very much so. Obama went to harvard and was a chicago law prof for example.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse intelligence with wisdom, which is what you're trying to do with Obama.

chromium said:

Jesus' divinity was debated for centuries (look up Arianism or gnosticism) and in fact is still widely disagreed on by the various sects. Nicaea as with everything tried to make it seem incontrovertible and unanimous, but the gospels are ambiguous. Ex: "Whoever makes a speech against the son of man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven." Sure seems like a distinction.

Click to expand...

Once again, you appear as one who has never read the Bible.

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture « The Righter Report

chromium said:

That wasn't what i was saying anyway. "Paul" or whoever wrote Romans, was not Jesus or God or whatever. It's rather curious that for something you consider such a huge deal, the gospels never mentioned either subject. If anything, the gospel Jesus seems like he would not at all support state executions.

Click to expand...

Romans 13, inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) destroys your argument.

chromium said:

"Busting" the resurrection is like trying to prove ET doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Can't do it, can you? Bust the resurrection, that is. Should be a piece of cake for someone like you - IF you're as knowledgeable as you want us to believe.

Paschendale said:

I would contend that most of what you consider "Christian" morals are just human morals. Nearly every culture has had a very similar set of morals, and they have tended to evolve with the times, same as everyone else's.




Have you really ever met anyone who gave half their money to charity? All three monotheist religions emphasize charity as a noble undertaking. They simply express that value in different ways. Jews are commanded to give often, and especially during the days been Rosh Hashannah and Yom Kippur. Religious institutions, given their long history of being outside the normal processes of commerce (both in western religion and elsewhere), often took the reins on administering charitable work. They would be supported by the community and didn't need to turn a profit. It's actually pretty socialist if you think about it. Either way, charity is a value that every culture has espoused..

Click to expand...

I understand the Hamiltonian evolution idea that it is beneficial to help others in of your group. Evolution favors groups who help others in their time of need. But that charity doesn't universally apply to "others" or people different from them.

There is a lot of similarities between Judaism and Christianity and I understand they both support charity. But they differ, IMHO, in their opinion of wealth. For many in Christianity, wealth is evil. I gave you Biblical stories that teach that. This anti-wealth mentality is not universal. Nor is the emphasis on charity. Yes, there are many who gave away huge sums of money. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Andrew Carnegie who divided life into 3 parts-first education, second production/earning, and finally philanthropy and giving that money away. So many museums and national parks are largely do to large donations.

And you did not answer my question. What stories in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. philosophy, etc., equal Christianity in it's anti-wealth emphasis. In my travels, I find that charity in other non-Christian countries, are much more limited. The Buddhist monks in training walk the streets in Luang Prabang, Laos are content with a handful of rice or so given to them in charity. That is their food for the day. I am looking for some non-Christian view that thinks it is OK to allow those who don't work to maintain a lifestyle equivalent to what people who work maintain. Universal charity is closer to simply providing food for the hungry or a blanket for the cold.

Eric7216 said:

And you did not answer my question. What stories in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. philosophy, etc., equal Christianity in it's anti-wealth emphasis. In my travels, I find that charity in other non-Christian countries, are much more limited. The Buddhist monks in training walk the streets in Luang Prabang, Laos are content with a handful of rice or so given to them in charity. That is their food for the day. I am looking for some non-Christian view that thinks it is OK to allow those who don't work to maintain a lifestyle equivalent to what people who work maintain. Universal charity is closer to simply providing food for the hungry or a blanket for the cold.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're citing monks and ascetics as examples of a lack of charity. That's an intentionally chosen lifestyle that includes giving up a lot of earthly things, including a lot of food. Meanwhile, I don't know of any religion that states that those who don't work should live as those who do. Christianity certainly doesn't. The ideal Christian world presented in Revelations explicitly says that everyone will only eat what they themselves grow. Condemning wealth and real egalitarianism are not the same thing. Nor has this condemnation of wealth ever really stopped Christians from hoarding wealth. Christianity felt pretty good about the disparity between lords and serfs in the middle ages, and the incredible wealth of the Catholic church. A lot of American Christians think that it doesn't conflict with their capitalist ideas today. I think you're giving Christianity too much credit over a few parables out of many. The example of that fisherman doesn't contain a command for every Christian to do the same. This would be a whole different conversation if it was and they did.

Every culture practices charity, and lots of it. And modern secular views move past charity towards true egalitarianism. It's hardly enough to say that the have-nots live on the handouts of the haves. Instead, everyone would be haves. I know of no religion that has ever tired to make that happen or even consider it a good thing.

CLAX1911 said:

The nation isn't Christian than. It contains a huge selection of the world's religions. Based on your statement the nation can only be called a majority Christian nation.

Click to expand...

Since the vast majority is Christian though (80%) I think the term is perfect.

... Israel has some Muslims but it is still a Jewish Nation.

Logicman said:

Here's some info on that. Take note of Romans chapter 13 in the link below.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/197222-america-not-christian-nation-31.html#post1063435600

Click to expand...

Why are there so many, many contradictory statements in the Bible?

Paschendale said:

That's simply using the threat of unassailable force to make people obey. That mentality was hardly limited to rules that we consider ethical, but likewise to a lot of that brutality. And there's still plenty of brutality in the world today, often in the most religious places.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I still think that was major rationale behind organized religion. I could be wrong, but it makes sense given the times. They wouldn't have had the ability to police large areas.

Zinthaniel said:

A Special thread for Bodhisattva.

The United States is not a Christian Nation. That is my stance.

A nation is defined by it's government and it's people - not only by it's majority. To refer to it as A Christian Nation is to falsely represent many Americans.

Our Country grants freedom for all religions and lack thereof. Grand Cathedrals, churches, Temples, Mosques, and Conventions for Non Believers can be found all over this country. All of which are given equal respect and right to exist.
Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our Government and thus our laws are entirely secular. There are a vast array of laws that directly contradict the teachings in the bible and thus God's will (i.e. laws regarding homosexuals, divorce, and other things considered blasphemous). Making the term "Christian Nation" ever more strange and obviously misplaced.

There is no legitimate reason to refer to this Nation as Christian.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "is." Really.

If you mean do most Americans identify themselves as Christians, I'd say yes. But that's a statistic that can be looked up and is not up for discussion. It is either a fact or not.

If you mean is the country itself a Christian nation, the answer is no. The founding fathers decreed separation of church and state to avoid just this type of argument. PEOPLE have religions. Countries don't. Some of our founding citizens were escaping religious persecution by countries where the religion and the government were mixed.

But it doesn't really matter. America's civil rights don't exist to protect the majority. They don't need protection. They exist to protect the minority, whether it's a minority religion or race or ethnicity.

ChrisL said:

Why are there so many, many contradictory statements in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Most of them don't hold up under close scrutiny. For instance, pick your (1) best alleged "contradiction" from the Gospels and let's see if it flys.

Logicman said:

Most of them don't hold up under close scrutiny. For instance, pick your (1) best alleged "contradiction" from the Gospels and let's see if it flys.

Click to expand...

Thou shalt not kill is one of the ten commandments. Also, judge not, lest ye be judged. :lol: (LOL, sorry, I'm not real good at "bible" talk).

ChrisL said:

I agree, but I still think that was major rationale behind organized religion. I could be wrong, but it makes sense given the times. They wouldn't have had the ability to police large areas.

Click to expand...

I think you're approaching it from entirely too beneficent a perspective. Organizing religion was almost entirely about securing power for a small class of priestly rulers. People don't need laws or gods to know that hurting each other is wrong. We don't want to be hurt, or killed, or stolen from, and we know that others feel exactly the same way. All it takes is a community to protect its members. Every human society that has ever existed, before we even had language, did this. It never needed an enforcement mechanism like the threat of divine punishment to convince people. Regular punishment worked just fine for regular people, and not at all for people who considered themselves above societies, or when one society preyed upon another.

The idea that religion exists as a means to make people live in harmony, even within a singular community, just doesn't hold up. I do, however, think the world would be a much better place if people started from the positive places you think they do. Maybe someday they will. I certainly hope so.

ChrisL said:

Thou shalt not kill is one of the ten commandments. Also, judge not, lest ye be judged. :lol: (LOL, sorry, I'm not real good at "bible" talk).

Click to expand...

I don't see any contradictions in any of that. In the first one, one should not confuse murder with justice. In the second one there's this:

The Bible – Is it Wrong to Judge? « The Righter Report

Paschendale said:

But you certainly need those specifics if this deity is supposed to inform how we should live our lives. The generic idea of a deity or deities is fine, but when someone starts saying that these deities want us to do some things and not do others and submit to specific leaders, then you really need specifics, and evidence of that specific deity's existence.

Click to expand...

But most agnostics are not trying to do those things.

ChrisL said:

Thou shalt not kill is one of the ten commandments. Also, judge not, lest ye be judged. :lol: (LOL, sorry, I'm not real good at "bible" talk).

Click to expand...

Depends upon the translation. Some versions have "Thou shalt not murder" or "...commit murder". That greatly changes the whole premise of the commandment.