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

And all the versions are wrong... the true translation from the literal hebrew is "Thou shalt not kill in cold blood (Or without reason)"
 
Depends upon the translation. Some versions have "Thou shalt not murder" or "...commit murder". That greatly changes the whole premise of the commandment.

I've never heard that translation. Yes, everyone tries to play semantics between "murder" (legal in some places only BECAUSE the death penalty exists) and "killing." I'm used to this game.
 
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

Sorry, I disagree with your translation. I think it's God's job to decide who dies and when. I think it is arrogant of a mere mortal to decide for another whether or not he/she is worthy of life or death. That's only ONE of the reasons why I am opposed to the DP. There are many other logical reasons as well.
 
All this Bible talk is detracting from the point and that is that the USA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
 
Well, I am still searching for a secular, objective, rationale for a welfare society that continues to support adults who are unwilling or unable to provide for themselves. The utilitarians believe that the role of government is to provide for the greatest good for the greatest number. That seems secular and somewhat objective. It seems to understand that society should not be overly concerned about the lowest elements of society at the expense of the greater good for the greatest numbers. I read Stiglitz's Price of Inequality and he seem to fall back on religious morality. Obama has stated that he supports measure to make society more equal because the Bible tells him so.
Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast | The White House

FDR understood the wrongness of providing welfare to people and urged work programs. He called that type of charity a narcotic that destroyed the spirit. Sure, I gave an example of Laotian monks but that attitude pervades SE Asia, Central Asia, and southern Africa that charity is small and not meant to provide everything. Blind Laotians offer massages to earn money, for example.
Franklin D. Roosevelt - State of the Union Address -- 1935

It is a little offensive when I hear Americans talk about equality. We live in a world in which 2 billion live on less than $2 a day and only the richest 700 million (10%) make more than $15.000 a year. That rich group includes basically all Americans yet some complain about jobs going overseas, ignoring the tremendous improvement in poverty worldwide because of this shift.

But I digress. I am still looking for some objective, non moralistic, logic for supporting some who seem completely unable or unwilling to support themselves. There are billions in the world who could use those resources better. Greatest good for the greatest number. (And for the longest period of time, as Gifford Pinchot added.)
 
Since the vast majority is Christian though (80%) I think the term is perfect.
I disagree, since there is no official religion in the United states it cannot be called a Christian nation.

... Israel has some Muslims but it is still a Jewish Nation.
Israel has an official religion.
 
Sorry, I disagree with your translation. I think it's God's job to decide who dies and when. I think it is arrogant of a mere mortal to decide for another whether or not he/she is worthy of life or death. That's only ONE of the reasons why I am opposed to the DP. There are many other logical reasons as well.

Then we shall agree to disagree on that!
 
I disagree, since there is no official religion in the United states it cannot be called a Christian nation.

Israel has an official religion.

Official religions are irrelevant to the people of religion living in the nation.
 
By the way, do you have a link to a larger photo of your Avatar? I love it!

Thanks. I can't remember where I got it. It was from some free avatar website. She is the Angel of Hope though in case you were curious. :)
 
I disagree. People living in a nation and most of them are Christians means it's a nation of Christians not a Christian nation.

A "nation" is the people that live within an area controlled by a government... we are a Christian Nation. Just a fact. I am an atheist and I accept this fact. No biggy.
 
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.

You wouldn't believe how restricting it feels to know everything yet not be able to disprove a negative from 2000 years ago. Proving this book of ancient fables that tells us to kill disobedient children and stone people to death should not be used as a guide for modern law, without even referring to the resurrection, is incredibly easy though.
 
Official religions are irrelevant to the people of religion living in the nation.

Not if the state religion is enforced at gunpoint. Look at christianity's beginnings even. Constantine decided to no longer persecute christians and pretty soon it was the pagans being persecuted.
 
A "nation" is the people that live within an area controlled by a government... we are a Christian Nation. Just a fact. I am an atheist and I accept this fact. No biggy.

lol, it's not a fact just because you say it is. Your definition of what makes a Nation is skewed. You are defining a Nation purely by it's majority - when that is not an official qualifier for any Nation by any official definition's terms.

Too bring a point that was made a while ago back, one that you tried to dismiss, The majority in this country are Female, however there is no question about whether this country is male dominated or whether the male gender has the most sway here.

Women out number men - and yet men still hold the most power in government, culturally women are still objectified, and on a grand scale though things are slowly changing they still take second seat to men.

So it would not be accurate to call America a Female Nation simply because the majority is female. & it would not be accurate to refer to America as a Christian Nation simply because the majority identify as Christian. The scope in which you are using to qualify a nation is extremely narrow.
 
Last edited:
Well, I am still searching for a secular, objective, rationale for a welfare society that continues to support adults who are unwilling or unable to provide for themselves.

Because....they're unable? You want a crippled veteran or worker badly injured on the job to starve to death or die of treatable disease or what? Yeah, let's improve things in Ghana while allowing the US to turn into Ghana. Detroit is already 3rd world country. No need to send resources overseas when destitution is 40 miles from a wealthy college town, and even more embarrassing, there's a billionaire bridge owner in their midst. What i'm saying is there's enough problems here we can't solve. That doesn't give me confidence in ending poverty overseas.

Jobs going overseas doesn't necessarily improve poverty for those workers either. It often just means the corporates who rule over them make even greater profit.
 
Then we shall agree to disagree on that!

So can we just agree to disagree that gay sex is some horrendous sin and you can leave then?
 
You wouldn't believe how restricting it feels to know everything yet not be able to disprove a negative from 2000 years ago. Proving this book of ancient fables that tells us to kill disobedient children and stone people to death should not be used as a guide for modern law, without even referring to the resurrection, is incredibly easy though.

More nonsense.

First you've provided no foundation for the ancient fables claim. Just the usual rhetoric.

Second, God's judgments on wicked nations actually saves lives (and the innocent little ones go to heaven).

Let's do this: How many people would 100 evil men kill in their lifetimes? Let's say a thousand, and the 100 evil men wind up in hell when they die.

Now, let's let those 100 evil men have 100 offspring that over time grow up to kill the original 1,000 other people, plus 1,000 more. Now, you have 200 evil men in hell and 2,000 murdered others.

Let's take it to the 10th or so generation. Now you've had 10,000 evil men giving birth to 10,000 offspring and together those 20,000 evil men and or women offspring kill 200,000 people total. So, you now have 20,000 evil men and women in hell (vs. 100 if you had nailed them earlier), plus 200,000 other dead people.

So God, being smarter than his critics, and able to see consequences further out in time than the stiff-necked "God is evil" crowd, saves 19,900 people from going to hell plus he saves 199,000 others from getting murdered. (please excuse any math errors).

Get the picture? God SAVES!!

So nice try.
 
So can we just agree to disagree that gay sex is some horrendous sin and you can leave then?

I'm not going anywhere, sport. I'm going to stick around and counter your nonsense.
 
More nonsense.

First you've provided no foundation for the ancient fables claim. Just the usual rhetoric.

Second, God's judgments on wicked nations actually saves lives (and the innocent little ones go to heaven).

Let's do this: How many people would 100 evil men kill in their lifetimes? Let's say a thousand, and the 100 evil men wind up in hell when they die.

Now, let's let those 100 evil men have 100 offspring that over time grow up to kill the original 1,000 other people, plus 1,000 more. Now, you have 200 evil men in hell and 2,000 murdered others.

Let's take it to the 10th or so generation. Now you've had 10,000 evil men giving birth to 10,000 offspring and together those 20,000 evil men and or women offspring kill 200,000 people total. So, you now have 20,000 evil men and women in hell (vs. 100 if you had nailed them earlier), plus 200,000 other dead people.

So God, being smarter than his critics, and able to see consequences further out in time than the stiff-necked "God is evil" crowd, saves 19,900 people from going to hell plus he saves 199,000 others from getting murdered. (please excuse any math errors).

Get the picture? God SAVES!!

So nice try.

So your God in his wraith kills innocent children and spares unborn evil ones from going to Hell or killing others....

Sounds like you believe that people inherit some premeditated murderer gene. Seems that makes them not responsible then! Also just think. If all these evil men stuck to gay sex, they wouldn't have evil offspring. That would save lives too! Another option: just abort the future evil ones so they can't go to Hell or kill in the future.

So see, you should support abortion and gay sex. God won't have to carry out his wraith on innocent little ones cause the evil ones will remain unborn.
 
So your God in his wraith kills innocent children and spares unborn evil ones from going to Hell or killing others....

Since when did the left-wing godless crowd start caring for the innocent unborn? But God saves them for an eternity of love, peace, and joy. You guys don't have anything like that, do you?

Fact is your argument was demolished.
 
Since when did the left-wing godless crowd start caring for the innocent unborn? But God saves them for an eternity of love, peace, and joy. You guys don't have anything like that, do you?

Fact is your argument was demolished.

Sure we do. Your hell sounds like nothing but a fabulous gay sex orgy, i.e. love peace and joy.
 
lol, it's not a fact just because you say it is. Your definition of what makes a Nation is skewed. You are defining a Nation purely by it's majority - when that is not an official qualifier for any Nation by any official definition's terms.

Too bring a point that was made a while ago back, one that you tried to dismiss, The majority in this country are Female, however there is no question about whether this country is male dominated or whether the male gender has the most sway here.

Women out number men - and yet men still hold the most power in government, culturally women are still objectified, and on a grand scale though things are slowly changing they still take second seat to men.

So it would not be accurate to call America a Female Nation simply because the majority is female. & it would not be accurate to refer to America as a Christian Nation simply because the majority identify as Christian. The scope in which you are using to qualify a nation is extremely narrow.

So when can one use the term "Nation" to refer to its people then? Nothing is 100%. Isreal is not a Jewish Nation then. I just think some of you are being argumentative.

And I did not try to ignore anything. Nice try though...

... and it is not a fact because I say it is a fact... but it is a fact none the less.
 
Back
Top Bottom