|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
|
|
Poster Handle
|
belgium |
|
Post Content
|
...
Correct, it is not a Christian Theocracy and there was no State religion because there were too many forms of Christianity to choose from.
Wrong, clearly stated not to be Christian theocracy, that is very different to being clearly stated to not be built in the foundations of Christian values. Show me where it said that? Absence is not the same as clearly stating. Apart from a few Jews in America all the countries really knew was Christianity in various forms which back then were deemed to be DIFFERENT religions. Which do you think they should have chosen?
So did you read about the Christian theological principles at the time and how they were fundamental to the document.
You are being willfully ignorant, no point arguing when the historians, politicians, legal profession and theologians disagree with you.
Quoting: newtome The truth is not determined by appeals to authority. The Magna Carta was influenced by the church, and the Magna Carta influenced the formation of Australia and America. That's all you can demonstrate. Saying that either country is built on the foundations of judeo-Christianity is at best a gross exaggeration, or at worst intentionally misleading. Consider this, you said Christian values are the basis for Australian law. Law varies from state to state, but how does Christianity inform our traffic laws? It doesn't. Military laws? It doesn't. Immigration? Drug laws, alcohol and tobacco regulations, occupational health and safety, voting... The vast majority of our laws and constitution were established by individuals in recent times, and in many cases contradict the commandments of Jesus and the Bible. Your head is stuck in the OT over 2000 years ago. The evolution of the values of the Church is completely ignored by you. And the truth is largely determined by those who know have investigated the matter and understand the history so "appealing to authority" is not unreasonable when pursuing truths. If you are now agreeing but arguing about about the amount then sure, it isn't 100% but I am not sure I ever claimed it was. So, 'Christian values' are what ever the church of England says they are at any given time, and they change constantly? Maybe in another 1000 years eating babies will be a Christian value. And the truth is largely determined by those who know have investigated the matter and understand the history so "appealing to authority" is not unreasonable when pursuing truths.Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. But since that's what matters to you, here's something from a friend of mine with a degree in History: "Western legal codes became what they are today when we collectively began to push back against Christianity. In common law countries, legal codes were slowly secularized." "What are the other key tenets from? The Magna Carta?"
You know, people are capable of original thought. "If you are now agreeing but arguing about about the amount then sure, it isn't 100% but I am not sure I ever claimed it was."I never disputed the influence of Christianity, but saying that Australia/America, our government, and laws are built on the foundation of Judeo-Christianity is an exaggeration (or a lie). It's a myth perpetuated by Christians in order to move us closer to a theocracy. Eating babies is a satanist occupation. Also, it is mere cannibalism. Another trait of evolution. Probably beneficial as well. It's only natural behaviour that is neither good or bad in the moral spectrum of evotardism.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
