Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

You have said repeated that because Jefferson and Franklin were not Christians then they can't have done anything based on Christian values.

You said Christian values only exist because of the Bible.

I am trying to show you that even if you don't believe in the Bible you can still believe in Jesus and his teachings and use them as a basis for governing.

Never said that.



Yes, Jesus was a jew. He studied the Torah (old testament) and spoke of it constantly. People get their information about Jesus -including his teachings- from the Bible.



Jesus is in the Bible. To believe in him, you must believe part of the Bible. You could use his teachings as a basis for government, but that wasn't the case for America or Australia.

Well at that point you are in the minority as the Judea-Christian values underpinning both countries are well documented, discussed and accepted by the majority.

You can live in your own little world.

[link to scottjhiggins.com (secure)]

Name one of these values that underpin both countries.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/08/2019 05:38 AM

I've tried the rape argument before, they will twist your words to their outcome.

It's a brick wall my friend, a huge brick wall.

Of course its a brick wall, its the truth, the contrary of religion

You still can't differentiate between being a Christian country and the basis of our morals and laws being based on Judea-Christian values.

Religion is not only about a God. Your problem is clearly about a belief in a God.

religion noun
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən \
Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I can't? Coming from the guy that said this:

"how about explaining why those countries built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity have the lowest rates of slavery in the world?"

And this:

"...you can still believe in Jesus and his teachings and use them as a basis for governing."

You're so full of it, but I think you've actually convinced yourself you make sense.

The abolition of slavery had nothing to do with Judeo-Christian values, which condone slavery.

Australia and America were not built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity. And the laws aren't based on it either. I asked you to name one Christian value that underpins both countries, and you couldn't do it. Now you've switched to saying our laws are based on those values. Despite the fact that the 10 commandments don't permit freedom of religion, or working on the sabbath. Jesus was against war and the accumulation of wealth. The idea our country or laws are founded or based on Christian values is a joke.

Both these countries permitted slavery at their inception by the way, which makes your argument even more nonsensical.

Then when you're unable to back up your position, you tell me everyone else agrees with you (appeal to popularity fallacy) and tell me I live in my own little world. Which is ironic coming from someone that advocates basing our ethics on fairy tales.

I'll end with this: The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) Article 11 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/09/2019 01:10 AM

You are becoming unhinged..........................

I have NEVER claimed America or Australia were Christian nations. Please, read back and find where I said that because I didn't and if ny some miracle you find that I did type it then I apologise because it was never my intent to say that.

The Muslim Barbary pirates were waging war against the US commercial shipping. In an effort to stop it America agreed to a Treaty. The American Congress (including some founding fathers) voted unanimously for the Treaty of Tripoli. I have said time and again that America was not a Christian nation, it was founded largely by Freemasons which is why it passed amendments regarding Freedom of religion. Nothing you have typed here is inconsistent with anything I have said so far.

Let me say this once more, Christian values does not mean or imply that the person holding the Christian values is a Christian. Same with a country.

I never once said that the abolition of slavery was because of Judea-Christian values, that is a link you made. I said that those countries that held Judea-Christian values do not have slavery today while many others do including countries with religions that you and the other one had held up as being so much better. I asked why those other countries still had slavery while the countries that held Judea-Christian values did not and neither of you have been capable of answering it. The question wasn't why some countries stopped slavery but rather why the others hadn't stopped slavery.

You can argue about this all you want but there are far more arguing like this article than against it. More importantly at the time of the Founding Fathers it was debated far less. Read "The Federalist Papers".

That's because you're painfully obtuse.



Nice attempt to shift the goal posts. You didn't say 'Christian nation' but you said this:

"Claiming the America and Australia were not founded on Judea-Christian values is just ignorant."

"...countries built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity"

"...you can still believe in Jesus and his teachings and use them as a basis for governing."

"the basis of our morals and laws being based on Judea-Christian values."

The countries weren't built on the foundations of Christianity, they weren't founded on Christian values, Jesus's teachings were not the basis of government or our laws.



The treaty of tripoli says: The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

You said ""Claiming the America and Australia were not founded on Judea-Christian values is just ignorant."

You don't see any inconsistency there? I assume you'll say religion and values are two different things. So what values are you talking about, and were they being utilized by the slave owning founding fathers when they went to war with the natives?



Again, what values? Prohibiting murder and rape are now Christian values? Despite those things going back to the roman empire and Germanic tribes prior to Christianity?



Yeah, of course it's my fault. You just asked me to explain why Christian countries have less slavery, you obviously weren't implying a connection. Give me a break.

"...with religions you and the other one had held up as being so much better."

I never held any religion up as better.



The treaty of tripoli was at the time of the founding fathers.

Do you realize that having more people agree with you doesn't make you right? That's a fallacy. Christians desperately want to believe that their country was founded on Christianity.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... I might be wrong, but it sounds like those Deepak Chopra rubbish.

The treaty of tripoli was at the time of the founding fathers.


Just after but yes.

The majority of countries following Islam are theocracies. Is there a Christian theocracy?

So they are saying that it is not a Christian nation such as Britain which was and had a State church. America did not have a State church or religion, in fact they had freedom of religion.

But still you claim without having a Christian state church or theocracy it can't be based on Christian values.

Think about Australia, founded by Britain which was a Christian nation with a State church whose head is still the reigning monarch. Do you seriously think Christian values played no part?

It is actually a dictionary definition cut and pasted............

Played a part? Most likely. In the sense that Christianity influenced the culture of the founders. Were the countries built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity? No. Was it the basis for governing? No. Was it the basis for law? No.

I still don't even know what you think Christian values are.

He thinks that moral standards, like not murdering, stealing or rape are inherent from christianity. Like as if before christianity, these things were "cool".

Try reading what I linked you earlier if you don't know


Are you saying that Britain was not built on Judea-Christianity values? The Magna Carta was literally drafted by the English Church and refers to the Church and God throughout. Without the Church there would be no Magna Carta as we know it. It is also the basis of Western law. Do you really want to keep arguing about the influence?


In America Christianity appeared in many forms and no one form dominated. As most had fled religious persecution they ensured religious freedom.
[link to www.the-american-interest.com (secure)]
Even before independence the British colonies in North America were religiously diverse compared with Europe and most of them gave up on projects to set up state churches. The Puritans tried in Massachusetts, the Anglicans in Virginia, but these projects failed because of the ineradicable heterogeneity of the immigrant population. When factual pluralism coalesced with the ideal of religious freedom, the new nation adopted the latter as one of its core values, enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Read my answer regarding the Magna Carta.

I did, that's exactly the point. Moral values are NOT "property" or "created by" christianity. They do use these values for sure, but by no means it is a christian exclusive code. If you go back in history, you'll see that christianity is nothing but a gross mix of many different religions, a copy of a copy of a copy, created by Romans to mitigate the peasants despair, filling it with hope, false hopes BTW.

Last Edited by MaybeTrollingUAgain on 01/09/2019 08:30 AM

Now you're talking about Britain? So you've given up on Australia and America?

I'm not going to get an example of Christian values am I?

The Magna Carta was fundamental to the principle of "no taxation without representation"
[link to www.aph.gov.au (secure)]
It confirmed the rule of law—the principle that nobody, not even the monarch, is above the law—and, among other freedoms, laid the basis for establishing trial by jury, outlawing arbitrary detention, and ensuring that there should be no taxation without representation.



This from the ABC is interesting to read but the basic points of the Churches role in the Magna Carta and the foundation of our governance and rule of law are below.
[link to www.abc.net.au (secure)]



[link to www.patheos.com (secure)]

As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution . . . the first parties to the charter were the bishops—led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”


[link to www.independent.co.uk (secure)]

It had been the bishops who had been instrumental in bringing the king and the rebel barons together – and who had helped force the king to agree to and issue Magna Carta. The bishops had been present at Runnymede with the king and the barons during the negotiations there – and on 15 June, 1215 when the great royal seal was applied to the charter.



[link to www.independent.co.uk (secure)]

The Magna Carta is considered one of the first steps taken in England towards establishing parliamentary democracy.

In the century after Henry III’s version of the Magna Carta, parliament interpreted the document’s message as a right to a fair trial for all subjects.

During the Stuart period, and particularly in the English Civil War, the Magna Carta was used to restrain the power of monarchs at a time when monarchs on the continent were supremely powerful.

There are strong influences from the Magna Carta in the American Bill of Rights, written in 1791. To this day there is a 1297 copy in the National Archives in Washington DC.

Even more recently, the basic principles of the Magna Carta are seen very clearly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, penned in 1948 just after the Second World War.



[link to www.peo.gov.au (secure)]

The Magna Carta, or ‘Great Charter’, dates back to 1215. It is seen as an important step in the development of democracy and the British Parliament, and has influenced the creation of founding documents such as the 1689 British Bill of Rights and the 1901 Australian Constitution.

the Magna Carta’s enduring legacy has been its statement
of the basic rights and liberties of people under the law.
This principle, first written into a document 800 years ago,
has been developed and strengthened over the centuries,
influencing documents as diverse as the 1776 US Declaration
of Independence and the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.



[link to www.lexisnexis.com.au (secure)]

Magna Carta and the rule of law
05 June 2015 | Nicholas Cowdery AM QC

Its principal other party was the Church, not the barons.


The Magna Carta has provided inspiration and support for progressive development in governance worldwide since the Middle Ages. It stands for:

continuation of basic law – of a framework for order and peace fashioned by and from the people – upon which contemporary laws are made and rest and which is innate and inalienable;
the triumph of liberties over tyranny;
the rule of law itself – that no one is above the law, no matter how powerful, even a monarch, and that justice will be done according to certain laws that are knowable in advance;
the value of democratic processes in the government of the people; - the value of the separation of powers;
independence and professional competence of the judiciary;
equality before the law and due process (including the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the prosecution);
trial by a jury of one's peers;
"no taxation without representation"; - freedom from arbitrary punishment and proportionality in sentencing.
It is also said to have been the origin of the law of trusts and an early example of the protection of women's rights (in that widows were not to be forced to remarry and would take their inheritances). It also dealt with a multitude of local and temporal regulations that are of less enduring significance but which secured common freedoms. Magna Carta, as it has come to be understood and called upon over 800 years, operates as a shield against tyranny, abuse of power and oppression of the governed. It has become the talisman of a society in which the spirits of tolerance and democracy reside. In the English common law system, it is the touchstone of the rule of law and a continuing inspiration to all.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/09/2019 09:26 AM

Where do you think western law came from if not Britain?

It flowed from Britain to America and Australia. The Australian legal system used to have the final court of appeal as the English Privy Council.

Everything can be traced back to the Magna Carta and therefore the Church.

Slavery

In the late 17th century, the Roman Catholic Church, taking up a plea by Lourenço da Silva de Mendouça, officially condemned the slave trade, which was affirmed vehemently by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839. The abolitionist movement only started in the late 18th century, however, when English and American Quakers began to question the morality of slavery.

Again, these concepts(such as the ones in the Magna Carta), are NOT original of church. They are inherited from many other cultures. The church is not the origin of anything other than deception.

Exactly, as per the bible and, by definition, religious precepts, slavery is ok. You can even find in the bible how to deal with your slaves.

This just in!

Trailer Park Moran's are baffled by any kind of science!!

The truth my ass.

Cry and stomp your feet as much as you are. Reality is what it is and science is what describes it better. Wanna stay in dream world? By all means, just don't try to push the dream world/magic universe into realistic people.

So you think something needs to be original to be of the Church or Christianity? Please tell me where the Bishops got them from when they drafted the Magna Carta and why it matters?

So why did the Pope change his mind? Are there other parts of the Bible that were considered more important in a more modern society? All these changes came from Christians using Biblical text.