• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America is or is not a Christian Nation.

Is America a Christian Nation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 25.7%

  • No

    Votes: 75 74.3%
  • Total voters
    101
Logicman said:
Nonsense.

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." - Revelation 21:8
Click to expand...

Nothing in that contradicts anything I posted.
 
ecofarm said:
Consensual sex is not immoral. The OT's ban on homosexuality is a ceremonial law and not a moral one, Christians are not bound by ceremonial law.
Click to expand...

So, consensual adultery is not a sin either?

I also don't buy the "ceremonial" argument. Gay sex is a sin.
 
Logicman said:
So, consensual adultery is not a sin either?
Click to expand...

As long as every involved, including spouses, consents, then what's the problem?

I also don't buy the "ceremonial" argument. Gay sex is a sin.
Click to expand...

Nah. It's ceremonial.
 
Logicman said:
You missed the part where killing gays is commanded in Christianity (the New Testament). It's not, so your whole vein of reasoning is just more hubris.
Click to expand...

dude you just freaking quoted Leviticus from the OT in your reply to another poster. Make up your damn mind

"they shall be put to death" - right in your post

besides, these revolting missionaries were employed by Christian groups like American Family Association so take it up with them
 
Zyphlin said:
And prior to the United States there was also no large scale constitution based representative republic that protected religious freedom. The fact it has happened in the past doesn't suggest it must happen in the future nor that it's a requirement.

The percentage of Christians in the country was even larger in the first century of this countries existance, and even then it did not become a theocracy, because the predominant religion of society was seperate to the ruling body. Nothing says that a religious nation within a particular state MUST become a Nation-State by taking over the government. It's entirely possible for that to NOT happen, as evidenced by the earleist days of our country.
Click to expand...

Well that's what i say about the south. They violate the constitution blatantly and using religion to justify it - marriage discrimination laws, sex laws, so on - then years later the federal court system steps in. And try getting elected if you aren't an avowed "5000 year earth" believer. They are a theocracy by intention and often in all but name.

Other eras were more fundamentally Christian, sure, like 1950s even birth control was highly stigmatized and you wouldn't want to have a kid out of wedlock in late 1800s. Their laws frequently reflected that too, regardless what the constitution mandates.
 
Zyphlin said:
And prior to the United States there was also no large scale constitution based representative republic that protected religious freedom. The fact it has happened in the past doesn't suggest it must happen in the future nor that it's a requirement.

The percentage of Christians in the country was even larger in the first century of this countries existance, and even then it did not become a theocracy, because the predominant religion of society was seperate to the ruling body. Nothing says that a religious nation within a particular state MUST become a Nation-State by taking over the government. It's entirely possible for that to NOT happen, as evidenced by the earleist days of our country.
Click to expand...

Not that they havent tried to make it a theocracy. Which just magnifies the forethought of the framers.

But then I have been to church lately, and have heard the sermons.

billboard-treason.jpg
 
maquiscat said:
That is completely outside of federal jurisdiction. If he is not doing something against the US itself or claiming to be working on behalf of the government of the US, anything one does outside of the US is outside the US jurisdiction. The government might say otherwise, but then we are used to them taking powers that aren't theirs.
Click to expand...

Nope. He's being charged with crimes against humanity, an international law. It's just that he is being charged here is all. Sorry to disappoint you that a vocal supporter of murder isn't going free.
 
chromium said:
Nope. He's being charged with crimes against humanity, an international law. It's just that he is being charged here is all. Sorry to disappoint you that a vocal supporter of murder isn't going free.
Click to expand...

Don't try to put words into my mouth...er on my keyboard. A criminal should be tried and punished in the jurisdiction that the crime took place. If an American murders someone in Britain, then he is to be tried and punished there. He's broken no US law over there since the murder didn't happen on US soil. It's the same principle as to why we should not have laws to punish people for going to a place to engage in an activity where it is legal, and then punish them for doing so because it is illegal here. If he broke no laws in Uganda, and all the actions were isolated to and in Uganda, regardless of how bad I think those actions are, then he has committed no crime. Now if he did his influencing here in the US then yes US law covers him.
 
Logicman said:
So, consensual adultery is not a sin either?

I also don't buy the "ceremonial" argument. Gay sex is a sin.
Click to expand...

It might be for your religion, but not necessarily for another's. That applies to both "sins". Also depends upon which era's definition of adultery you are using. Originally it meant a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband, or a man having sex with a married woman other than his wife. Note that the man's marital status was originally irrelevant.
 
ecofarm said:
Was any ever?
Click to expand...

Not really... that is why those arguing against it are wrong. That is the point. The term is valid but it can't be used because nothing is 100%? That is the point... that it does not have to be 100%. It can be a large majority.
 
Zyphlin said:
The best you can say is it's a "fact" that it's a Christian Nation under YOUR arbitrary, subjective definition.
Click to expand...

Technically, perhaps. But the term "Nation" exists and has been used to describe people's living within a defined territory over the ages... but not in this case? Why? I think it is people trying to be cute, be political or be anti-religion.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's right folks...it's all opinion and not a fact, unless Bodhi wants to "smack" you with declarations that it's a Christian Nation in which case it absolutely is a fact.
Click to expand...

This is a fact.

You are continuing to fail. You are being set up to self-smack and doing a brilliant job at it too...
Click to expand...

All you have found me guilty of is a weak argument. What you have displayed by posting this quote though ... is that you are engaging in self-smack.

You set yourself up... ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
All you have found me guilty of is a weak argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I did to show you acting ridiculously hypocritically and making claims that show your earlier...and now LATER...claims to be absolutely false.

You talk out one side of your mouth at one point saying it's a fact....then turn around when people, rightfully and accurately, challenge your asinine idiotic assertion by going "it's just an opinion man, not a fact"....and then when your own pathetic self ownage is pointed out you then revert back to claiming "it's a fact".

At this point a three legged goat with his head up his ass could put forward a more coherent and internally consistent argument than what you've been putting forward with regards to this being a "fact".

The term nation is used to describe a people living within a particular geogrpahical area for some time; I'm not arguing against that fact. What I am saying is that, IN REALITY, the definition of nation suggests a commonly shared feature...but what constitutes something be "commonly" shared is subjective, not fact as you wrongfully asserted (Then rightfully retracted, then wrongfully asserted again).

From the very onset of the founding of the United States of America, the population overall did not have a "shared" religion as it relates to christianity. It was extensive, but not entirely shared. In the modern day it is even less a "shared" cultural note amongst all the people living within the country, and as was pointed out by another poster in a long ago debate on this, many of those who DO still share that culture in name do not share it in any kind of principled or practical manner in the actual practioning of that cultural note. A arguably significant portion of our population does not share that cultural heritage, and a significant percentage of the ones that DO share it in name don't share it in practice or methodology.

It would likely be a factual argument to suggest there exists a "Christian Nation" WITHIN the United States of America, but that's different then suggesting the United States is a "Christian Nation" as that is speaking to the population in total. While it's still possible to put forward an opinion, and defend it, that the US is a Christian Nation it is abjectly impossible to assert as you did (then didn't, then did) that such a thing is a FACT.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, what I did to show you acting ridiculously hypocritically and making claims that show your earlier...and now LATER...claims to be absolutely false.

You talk out one side of your mouth at one point saying it's a fact....then turn around when people, rightfully and accurately, challenge your asinine idiotic assertion by going "it's just an opinion man, not a fact"....and then when your own pathetic self ownage is pointed out you then revert back to claiming "it's a fact".

At this point a three legged goat with his head up his ass could put forward a more coherent and internally consistent argument than what you've been putting forward with regards to this being a "fact".

The term nation is used to describe a people living within a particular geogrpahical area for some time; I'm not arguing against that fact. What I am saying is that, IN REALITY, the definition of nation suggests a commonly shared feature...but what constitutes something be "commonly" shared is subjective, not fact as you wrongfully asserted (Then rightfully retracted, then wrongfully asserted again).

From the very onset of the founding of the United States of America, the population overall did not have a "shared" religion as it relates to christianity. It was extensive, but not entirely shared. In the modern day it is even less a "shared" cultural note amongst all the people living within the country, and as was pointed out by another poster in a long ago debate on this, many of those who DO still share that culture in name do not share it in any kind of principled or practical manner in the actual practioning of that cultural note. A arguably significant portion of our population does not share that cultural heritage, and a significant percentage of the ones that DO share it in name don't share it in practice or methodology.

It would likely be a factual argument to suggest there exists a "Christian Nation" WITHIN the United States of America, but that's different then suggesting the United States is a "Christian Nation" as that is speaking to the population in total. While it's still possible to put forward an opinion, and defend it, that the US is a Christian Nation it is abjectly impossible to assert as you did (then didn't, then did) that such a thing is a FACT.
Click to expand...

Take your fact **** and insults and shove it up your ass...

I was saying "fact" to that tard because he was being a tard and I was ****ing around indicating that I am the authority. It is obvious to anybody with a 3rd grade education that I am not THE authority... well, I thought it was obvious at least. I have many times clarified my true thoughts on the matter, but don't let that stop your pathetic assertion that I am contradicting myself.

I don't actually debate the topic with people that come across as raging assholes for no reason and all you have done, though I was initially joking about, is to compound your self-smack to an alarming level.
 
cpwill said:
No. Zithaniel got smacked around in another thread, and this is his protest Well-I'll-Show-YOU thread in response :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm new here, but will add that such behavior is quite normal to those who have an online personna that loses arguments. Logical debate would argue at the source of one's disagreements rather than try to redefine the argument in a new discussion for a cherry-picked outcome.

For my POV, the hard fact is that the U.S, is a Christian nation, which purposefully set out to make religions, in general, safe and comfortable. Yes, the Bill of Rights stipulates the Federal government cannot enshrine a Federal Religion - but that is it. States have always had the backing of the Constitution to have their own State-based religion if they so desire. At the founding several States did so. The important thing to realize that even if a State has a religion it endorses - it can't forbid rival ones.

After WWII, we outlawed the Shinto religion in Japan because it fomented a political goal - not just a religious one. The Emperor had to disclaim being a god, and the military had to step away from the martial demands of it.

The Founders built a new nation from a Christian viewpoint - but included the tolerance of all religions which drove many out of their former home lands. Pieces of religions are represented here. from Hammurabi's Codes to the proscriptions in Leviticus.

The argument that there are too many non-believers to define the country is bogus. The Founders defined the country first. Observation of one's beliefs have always been allowed without changing what the country is.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Not really... that is why those arguing against it are wrong. That is the point. The term is valid but it can't be used because nothing is 100%? That is the point... that it does not have to be 100%. It can be a large majority.
Click to expand...

So you invalidate an argument based on absolutes not existing? I figure an argument should begin, not end, at that point.

The presumption of absolutes is intellectually dishonest or inept.
 
ecofarm said:
So you invalidate an argument based on absolutes not existing? I figure an argument should begin, not end, at that point.

The presumption of absolutes is intellectually dishonest or inept.
Click to expand...

Dyslexic moment.... what? I am invalidating the argument that a nation cannot exist because nothing is absolute?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Dyslexic moment.... what? I am invalidating the argument that a nation cannot exist because nothing is absolute?
Click to expand...

You're presuming others rely on absolutes. That's gutter "intellectualism". They say ones company says something of oneself. Believing you're arguing against absolutes says something. The presumption of absolutes is stupid, whether in regard to ones own position or others'.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You're presuming others rely on absolutes. That's gutter "intellectualism". They say ones company says something of oneself. Believing you're arguing against absolutes says something. The presumption of absolutes is stupid, whether in regard to ones own position or others'.
Click to expand...

I guess I am confused because I am not arguing against absolutes. I am arguing against those that are claiming that because nothing is absolute, my argument is invalid.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I guess I am confused because I am not arguing against absolutes.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. You presume that the opponent's position relies upon them.

I am arguing against those that are claiming that because nothing is absolute, my argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

So, because nothing is absolute you win? Nonsense. You're strawmanning your opponent's position.


No one is claiming the US is absolutely a Christian nation.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course you are. You presume that the opponent's position relies upon them.



So, because nothing is absolute you win? Nonsense. You're strawmanning your opponent's position.


No one is claiming the US is absolutely a Christian nation.
Click to expand...

The people that have argued against me in this thread are the ones saying since it isn't 100% I am wrong. I am arguing that since nothing is 100% a majority can suffice. I have a valid argument. They are the ones saying that it is their way or the highway ... and yes, some have claimed that since it is not absolute it can't be a Christian Nation. That is naïve at best.

I might be as well. This wouldn't be the second time we've argued the same position against each other.
Click to expand...

I honestly think that might be happening...
 
Bodhisattva said:
The people that have argued against me in this thread are the ones saying since it isn't 100% I am wrong. I am arguing that since nothing is 100% a majority can suffice. I have a valid argument. They are the ones saying that it is their way or the highway ... and yes, some have claimed that since it is not absolute it can't be a Christian Nation. That is naïve at best.



I honestly think that might be happening...
Click to expand...

You know just because someone says that they go to church or are Christian doesn't absolutely mean that they are a Christian. ←see I used caps

How many people in the polls that identify as Christian in America actually go to church and actually follow their so called good book? There is plenty of data that says that religion is on the decline in the US.

lets look at that majority that you keep pointing at. It turns out that it isnt a straight 70% something Christians its about 50% something Christians and 20% something Catholics. i have been to many Christian churches in my years and all of them made a distinction between themselves and those Catholics and their Saints. Dont forget about Mormons and Jehovah's. I have heard a plenty sermon about those guys, it wasnt pretty either. Christians get all anal about the false gods thing etc.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? | Are Catholics Christians? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry "No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. ...... So, even though Roman Catholicism claims to be Christian and that it is the one true church, it violates the essentials of the Christian faith. It goes beyond what is written in God's word (1 Cor. 4:6). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church."

But really it isnt the majority claim that I argue against. There are a **** of a lot of Christian's in the US we all admit this and know it. My argument disputes a claim that all those Christians actually makes us a Christian Nation. It comes done to what circles that one travels in. If you go looking for Christian crap you will find it. But I have found that it is rather easy to avoid Christian crap even in a county that is heavily religious. When I drive down the road its only the church signs that remind me of Christianity, literally everywhere else is void of any religious content (save the religious nut that put signs in his front yard). You would think that if this was indeed a Christian Nation then one would find it in every facet of society. People would great each other with Christian crap whether they were actual Christians or not. There should be Jesus statures in every park on every corner or at least one in each town.
 
ecofarm said:
As long as every involved, including spouses, consents, then what's the problem?
Nah. It's ceremonial.
Click to expand...

The Bible says gay sex and adultery are both sins. You can believe otherwise if you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom