"True Christian" denominations must teach True Christian doctrine.

[akboss]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Which is it then?
How can Catholicism be Christian despite, as you say, it is contanimated with false doctrine and at the same time, Mormonism, that is also contanimated with false doctrine not be Christian.

That is a good point. I would say personally that the term 'Christian' is pretty vague, just about anybody can claim to be a Christian, which is why the term has such broad disapproval and an underlying stereotype of hypocrisy. Maybe the umbrella term 'Christian' does indeed encompass both of these religions, but they are further categorized by their 'Catholic' and 'Mormon' designations, kind of like all the different Protestant denominations - Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Alliance, etc.

[DownToGround]

what did i start?!?!?!?!

[CL8]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Which is it then?
How can Catholicism be Christian despite, as you say, it is contanimated with false doctrine and at the same time, Mormonism, that is also contanimated with false doctrine not be Christian.

I believe the line is drawn in what their doctrine says about Christ. Mormonism denies the deity of Christ Catholicism does not.

[CL8]

Originally Posted by DownToGround

what did i start?!?!?!?!

You didn't start this thread, I did!!!!

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

I entirely stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me. Jesus was a supporter of the OT, and of all the cruelties, atrocities and god-instructed mass murder found therein.

All the more reason not to give Jesus the credibility some bestow upon him.


But wait, the NT and the OT have many contradictions in laws and instructions. Whatever shall we do?



How about we stick to Secular law, which can be refined and adjusted, instead of taking this stuff seriously?

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Congratulations MagicRat for your excellent display of utter incompetence
of understanding bible doctrine!!!!

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by CL8

I believe the line is drawn in what their doctrine says about Christ. Mormonism denies the deity of Christ Catholicism does not.

So you'll recognise them as Christian and are allowed to contanimate Bible doctrine with man made laws and false doctrine as long as they still recognise Jesus?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by CL8

Congratulations MagicRat for your excellent display of utter incompetence
of understanding bible doctrine!!!!

Originally Posted by akboss

Ha ha, the one source for all of that is www.evilbible.com? Gee, that's not one-sided at all! There are plenty of people that will take scripture out of context or in loose translation and say its evil, this is the only way they can attempt to attack the truth that the Bible contains. Fortunately, there are many Bible scholars that offer a scriptural perspective on the verses.

Many people looking from the outside have criticisms already in mind, and just scan the Bible to find an assumed proof of their already determined beliefs without any need for knowledge of what the verse is actually talking about. But if you read it with an open mind and without preconceived judgement, and in my personal experience, it always passes the test. I have personally witnessed some of the toughest verses broken into a sensible, God-honouring conclusion.

Oh, and a significant part of our law and politics (at least in the United States, less so Canada unfortunately) is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine. You know, "In God We Trust".

Okay, I like both of you so please do not take this blasting personally.

But from CL8, all I hear is ridicule but no facts, no support and, amazingly enough, not even any biblical support for your arguments. Boy, I don't even believe in god but I can use religion to support my argument better than you. If your scripture was not so self-destructive, you could actually use it to make a point instead of calling me names.

Akboss, is evilbible biased? Sure it is!! And both of you are, too.

For example, CL8 displays tremendous bias in most of her religious posts. She uses selected bit and pieces of religious doctrine to support her very narrow religious beliefs, and to pillage those of other Christian doctrines. Right now, she is heaping disdain upon the Catholics. But I am sure that most devout Catholics would say that her interpretation is wrong! Can both CL8 and about a billion Catholics both be right at the same time? Of course not. It is much more reasonable to conclude that they are BOTH wrong.

How are biblical scholars useful?? Again, the Catholic church has many, many devout biblical scholars who all believe their Church is right, true and just? Yet CL8 (and pretty much all Protestants everywhere) claims all those scholars are wrong!! How can they ALL be right at the same time?? This proves that Biblical scholars are all virtually useless..... interpreting a vast, hazy mishmash of fables and legends to support whatever preconceived notion they want to support. The sheer weight of contradictions that such scholars comes up with clearly means ALL are not credible.

Frankly, you, CL8 and evilbible all support my notion that the bible is simply fairytales used by some humans to manipulate and control others. So, the Bible needs interpretation to be useful? In my experience, the Bible verses can be twisted, manipulated and interpreted to support almost anything. How useful is the bible, if it needs such acrobatic interpretation to come up with anything good?.

And how useful is the bible when so MUCH of it is obviously inconsistent with a modern, secular concepts such as free will, freedom basic human rights?

Whatever is good in the religious world comes from the people involved. Not god and not the bible! In fact, there is AMPLE proof to show that the average person is more decent, is more honorable and more respectful than god or the bible.!

As for the basis of North American law.... you are wrong. Most of the law as we know it today is sourced from a Greco-Roman tradition (the source of the concept 'democracy'), as modified my the Napoleonic code, English common law, the work of many secular liberal philosophers, and modern judicial and statute law. Often these sources of law directly contradict biblical teachings, and rightly so.

For example, many slaveowners in 18th and 19th century America used the bible's acceptance of slavery and laws permitting slave ownership as a basis for their own terrible and cruel actions.

Originally Posted by DownToGround

what did i start?!?!?!?!

hahaha. Well, you did get this thread rolling!
But don't worry, many of these arguments have been made elsewhere on this forum. I think we all enjoy the debate, or else we would not participate. Personally, I find supporting the atheist cause quite easy - the various religions themselves provide ample evidence why they all should not be taken seriously.

[DownToGround]

to quote van wilder " you shouldn't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive"

[akboss]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Okay, I like both of you so please do not take this blasting personally.

Hey likewise, I am personally really enjoying this as it gives me a chance to honestly look at what I believe and why I believe it - it's all friendly!

Akboss, is evilbible biased? Sure it is!! And both of you are, too.

Well this is an interesting point. See, the problem I see here is one of perspective. I look at sites like Evilbible.com and before they even start to intellectually unpack these verses (because they don't), they simply say this God dude is all BS, let's try and find verses that easily identify it. But if you start with a worldview that says God is real and what his son Jesus speaks is truth, then you can look at it much differently. Instead of reading a verse and saying "look, God is evil!" one would ask "well, that's not like Jesus to say that, what did he mean by that?" And then it opens the door to intellectual studying and, hopefully, understanding.

Contrary to the perception that most Christians wake up into a daze of brainwashed routine, most people that I know keep studying because they find the answers in the Bible to be intellectually satisfying. There are many Christian publications that are specifically written to find the underlying meanings to the 'difficult verses' that Evilbible throws on the table. I did a quick search on Amazon and there is like a dozen such books, likely more.

(http://www.amazon.ca/Hard-Questions-...ref=pd_sim_b_2)

You may be thinking these are biased, but if you consider the Bible to be truth, and you are attempting to intelligently challenge the tough verses, I'd say it is a much better attempt than simply suggesting loosely that the Bible is evil.

Just the other day I had the pleasure of watching a series of great interest by a Dr.Eggerichs (great name eh?) who teaches a lecture series called 'love and respect', it's basically a marriage 'tool' to open easier communication between husbands and wives. Excellent series, no matter what your views on faith. Anyways, he took a look at the verse so often used by the feminist movement against the Bible. 1 Peter 3:7 reads "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Now, it would be easy to look at this and say that the Bible says women are weaker - that is what it says right? Well, look a little closer. In fact, Peter is referring to 'husbands' specifically, not men. This is significant, because the relationship between a husband and wife is much different than that of a strange man and woman. Then he says 'give honour unto the wife' - also not to be missed. Honour is a very strong word, you would give honour to a King in your unwavering allegiance, or charge to war and die for honour. Following that, he says 'as unto the weaker vessel'. The 'as unto' identifies a comparative statement, not a descriptive one. Basically he is saying 'give honour to your wife, as if she was a weaker vessel'. And if the term 'vessel' seems derrogatory, it isn't. There are other verses in the Bible where this term is used with an air of praise.

I may not have done this one instance complete justice, but it gives you an idea of how one can simply look at a verse and make presuppositions, but if you take the time to carefully look at it, there is a reason for it.

And how useful is the bible when so MUCH of it is obviously inconsistent with a modern, secular concepts such as free will, freedom basic human rights?

I don't quite understand this one. Free will must basically be said to be non existent if one is to accept that evolution is how we arrived to be, and there is no greater meaning to any of our choices or actions.

As for the basis of North American law.... you are wrong. Most of the law as we know it today is sourced from a Greco-Roman tradition (the source of the concept 'democracy'), as modified my the Napoleonic code, English common law, the work of many secular liberal philosophers, and modern judicial and statute law. Often these sources of law directly contradict biblical teachings, and rightly so.

Not sure about that one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

For example, many slaveowners in 18th and 19th century America used the bible's acceptance of slavery and laws permitting slave ownership as a basis for their own terrible and cruel actions.

You must be forgetting about Martin Luther King, Baptist pastor and possibly one of the greatest civil rights activists of our time. Many attribute major milestones in the abolition of slavery in Western culture directly to this Bible-preachin' brother.

And now I've got something for you, Magic...or anyone else. Atheists love to take examples of Christians who do bad things and say 'look! They are hipocrites, the Bible is corrupt!" But in all honesty, a true Christian should be the first one to admit that those individuals, and indeed all of us, are flawed. It's the whole reason Jesus came to die on the cross, because man in human nature is flawed and sinful. So it isn't 'un-Christian' to screw up or do bad things, it's just a person who is a little lost. But what does an atheist attribute horrible acts to? If a Christian murders someone, he is going against the principles, values and morals he has been taught. But if an atheist murders someone, he isn't breaking any of his principles, values and morals, just the law. Now I'm not saying that anybody who isn't a Christian doesn't have morals - some of my closest friends don't believe in God - but what is there that instills moral value into an atheist? Nature surely isn't like that, if I can get ahead I should do it. Why would someone help a stranger, even if it was to their own disadvantage?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by akboss

Hey likewise, I am personally really enjoying this as it gives me a chance to honestly look at what I believe and why I believe it - it's all friendly!



Well this is an interesting point. See, the problem I see here is one of perspective. I look at sites like Evilbible.com and before they even start to intellectually unpack these verses (because they don't), they simply say this God dude is all BS, let's try and find verses that easily identify it. But if you start with a worldview that says God is real and what his son Jesus speaks is truth, then you can look at it much differently. Instead of reading a verse and saying "look, God is evil!" one would ask "well, that's not like Jesus to say that, what did he mean by that?" And then it opens the door to intellectual studying and, hopefully, understanding.

Contrary to the perception that most Christians wake up into a daze of brainwashed routine, most people that I know keep studying because they find the answers in the Bible to be intellectually satisfying. There are many Christian publications that are specifically written to find the underlying meanings to the 'difficult verses' that Evilbible throws on the table. I did a quick search on Amazon and there is like a dozen such books, likely more.

(http://www.amazon.ca/Hard-Questions-...ref=pd_sim_b_2)

You may be thinking these are biased, but if you consider the Bible to be truth, and you are attempting to intelligently challenge the tough verses, I'd say it is a much better attempt than simply suggesting loosely that the Bible is evil.

Just the other day I had the pleasure of watching a series of great interest by a Dr.Eggerichs (great name eh?) who teaches a lecture series called 'love and respect', it's basically a marriage 'tool' to open easier communication between husbands and wives. Excellent series, no matter what your views on faith. Anyways, he took a look at the verse so often used by the feminist movement against the Bible. 1 Peter 3:7 reads "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." Now, it would be easy to look at this and say that the Bible says women are weaker - that is what it says right? Well, look a little closer. In fact, Peter is referring to 'husbands' specifically, not men. This is significant, because the relationship between a husband and wife is much different than that of a strange man and woman. Then he says 'give honour unto the wife' - also not to be missed. Honour is a very strong word, you would give honour to a King in your unwavering allegiance, or charge to war and die for honour. Following that, he says 'as unto the weaker vessel'. The 'as unto' identifies a comparative statement, not a descriptive one. Basically he is saying 'give honour to your wife, as if she was a weaker vessel'. And if the term 'vessel' seems derrogatory, it isn't. There are other verses in the Bible where this term is used with an air of praise.

I may not have done this one instance complete justice, but it gives you an idea of how one can simply look at a verse and make presuppositions, but if you take the time to carefully look at it, there is a reason for it.



I don't quite understand this one. Free will must basically be said to be non existent if one is to accept that evolution is how we arrived to be, and there is no greater meaning to any of our choices or actions.



Not sure about that one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o



You must be forgetting about Martin Luther King, Baptist pastor and possibly one of the greatest civil rights activists of our time. Many attribute major milestones in the abolition of slavery in Western culture directly to this Bible-preachin' brother.

And now I've got something for you, Magic...or anyone else. Atheists love to take examples of Christians who do bad things and say 'look! They are hipocrites, the Bible is corrupt!" But in all honesty, a true Christian should be the first one to admit that those individuals, and indeed all of us, are flawed. It's the whole reason Jesus came to die on the cross, because man in human nature is flawed and sinful. So it isn't 'un-Christian' to screw up or do bad things, it's just a person who is a little lost. But what does an atheist attribute horrible acts to? If a Christian murders someone, he is going against the principles, values and morals he has been taught. But if an atheist murders someone, he isn't breaking any of his principles, values and morals, just the law. Now I'm not saying that anybody who isn't a Christian doesn't have morals - some of my closest friends don't believe in God - but what is there that instills moral value into an atheist? Nature surely isn't like that, if I can get ahead I should do it. Why would someone help a stranger, even if it was to their own disadvantage?

Wow, that's a lot of material there.
Okay, last paragraph first. Generally, my objection to organized religion is that it removes much of the opportunity for people to think rationally for themselves. It substitutes much of common sense with a whole raft or irrational laws. For example, you say that man is flawed and sinful. Why? The bible says it is from original sin as outlined in Genesis. But this is rediculous. Genesis is an impossible tale without a shred of credibility. So how are we sinful for something that we did not do, but only happened in a fake story?

It it notions of stuff like 'original sin' that are repugnant. It says the alleged loving god who created us allowed all of us to pay for the sins of the first (fake) people. Akboss, are you held accountable for the actions fo your father? Grandfather? Great-grandfather? No, of course not. But your loving god seems to think such an outlook is reasonable. Furthermore, devout religious people use this 'original sin' notion to harrass and threaten people...... by saying we are all born sinful and will go to a firery hell unless we take special action to cleanse ourselves. How is this beneficial? How is this moral, or decent? How does this show a thread of common human decency? It doesn't. But it DOES allow a select few religious people to command the loyalty of their religious followers.


Humans are human, we are good or bad, in varying degrees because of our nature and upbringing, not because a fake god made us so. Good people will be good whether they are athiest, agnostic jewish, muslim etc. So god does not make us bad. And god will not save us, because he does not exist. Humans should be kind and decent to each other because that is all we've got. There is no afterlife and there is no god to condemn us or save us if things go bad.

Many atheists believe this. Most atheists are altruistc, moral and kind people, just like religious people because it is in their nature to be so. Anthropologists have puzzled over that same thing..... why are so many people altruistic/moral when it serves no tangible benefit?

It turns out that altruistic people historically do better in the small social groups, primitive communities etc in which humans evolved. Altrustic people benefit their community and help it survive. In turn, their communities help them survive and help their kids survive. Selfish people are more likely to be rejected by their community and have to survive on their own, and thus often died without successfully rearing children.

So, humans have evolved to be altruistic and do not need a god to tell them to be so. All they need is a community which recognizes and ultimately, benefits from such behaviour.

Next.... criticism of religion. Most atheists take issue with the nature and teachings of organized religion, but NOT the religious people themselves.

I have noticed it is virtually universal among modern religious people to 'pick and choose' amongst the lessons and principles of their religion. They will accept some aspects and reject others.
Religois people will not keep slaves, even if the Bible permits it.
They will not kill people who worship another god, even if the bible tells them to do so.
They will not take arms up and invade the neighbouring village and slay all those worship another god, even though the bible tells them to do so.
They will not kill those who curse their parents, they do not burn hookers to death, they do not stone blasphemers to death, kill adulterers, nor do many other immoral things that biblical laws tell them to do.

This is because modern religious people have modified biblical teachings to suit their sensibilites. Clearly, religious humans are deciding how to be good, and not the bible. Indeed, almost all humans are better and more moral than the bible is. You may call these laws "tough verses" but I call them an obvious sign that the bible is deeply flawed, and proof that people are better than the bible, because they can recognise the flaws.

This is the core tenant of atheism. People can think for themselves. People can create and develop moral and just societies, with secular laws that serve humanity for the greater good. Humans are not under the oppression of a fake deity, nor are we bound to a barbaric ancient code based on primitive tales and superstition.

As for slavery...... Martin Luther King was a fine man and did much good work. But he had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. Akboss, you may find this surprising, but it was a different religious group that spearheaded the abolishment of slavery. The Quakers of England were the first organization to truly recognise slavery for what it was AND mount an organized tireless defence against it.

There is an excellent book on the subject, called Bury the Chains. I sincerely suggest you read this. I read ita few years ago and found it to be a thoroughly fascinating and uplifting book.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bur.../9780618619078

I should add the Quakers first addressed the slave trade itself through consumer boycotts...... abolishing slavery itself took considerably more effort by a much larger group of people.

As for the basis for law in Canada and the US...... oh dear...... it was not religion. I sincerely assure you, that a study of the executive, legislative and judicial systems in these countries will show many different influences. Even the most basic study of political history can tell you this.
Yes, your youtube video shows that American politicians pray (and pray quite often, but most still lose elections) But most American politicians still favor the principle of official separation of church and state, as found in the First Amendment. The US courts system has held up this principle, in support of the Constitution many, many times.

The Greco-Roman traditions gave us the notion of democracy and the concept of an elected governing body, such as a Senate. Indeed, the both the Americans and Canadians use much the same name and basic structure from ancient times. Philosophers like John Locke, and others gave us many of the concepts structures and principles found in western democracies, particularly the US and Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Vital principles such as Libertarianism are vital in understanding the tenants and prinicples that affect the creation and development of all levels of US and Canadian government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Indeed, the philosophy of Liberalism was far more fundamental to the principles of the US government than religious tenants. Many earlier Americans of the time were distrustful of religious control over people and sought to free America of the religious persecution found elsewhere in the world.

Other influences? The Magna Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
I will add to this the lengthy pariamentary democracy that has existed (for better or worse) in the Brishish Isles for centuries before the the US independence.
Do you want more secular influences? The events and principles that were developing in revolutionary France deeply affected the law and government of the US. These include the Declaration of the Rights of Man and The Citizen, of 1789.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...of_the_Citizen

Also, events such as the adoption of the Napoleonic Code influenced the US judiciary, amongst others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code

Treatment of women in the bible: Well, intellectuals can do linguistic gymnastics to apologize for the treatment of women in the bible. But it is obvious that the bible is repeatedly misogynistic. Hoe can one explain away this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-9&version=KJV
Again, modern secular law manages to treat women better than the bible would have us do. I sincerely invite you to put a more beneficial spin on this. Yes, I know that you favor interpretation. But this is in black-and-white, and is utterly inconsistent with basic human rights.

I'll address the other issues in a little while.

[akboss]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Generally, my objection to organized religion is that it removes much of the opportunity for people to think rationally for themselves.

Well, as I stated before, that's because you are choosing not to approach the Bible and its teachings as rational, and invest in something just as mysterious with just as many approachable flaws (evolution). In fact, just looking at the complexity of the world around us and saying it is just by chance is the definition of ignorance to me personally - I couldn't be as arrogant as to assume that I am the most supreme being in existence.

I will give you that some religious people respond to intelligent questions (often seen in debates with atheists) with spiritual rhetoric, instead of approaching the situation on an equally intellectual level. Not all religious people are like this! It's why I'm a fan of Alister McGrath, double Ph.D in biology and philosophy, who is an atheist-converted-Christian. His background allows him to but head-to-head with the best because he once thought that way as well, and do you really think that someone with those accreditations is going to just 'stop thinking'? Never!

Humans are human, we are good or bad, in varying degrees because of our nature and upbringing...Most atheists are altruistc, moral and kind people, just like religious people because it is in their nature to be so.

So what is it in their nature that causes this? It goes against the very principle of evolution - the strongest survive, and their code is passed down, hence slowly building a more adept and capable 'creature'. So if I give money to a charity, what part of my evolutionary human nature is saying "I could buy a new car or new clothes, which would potentially make me more attractive to the opposite sex, getting me a more attractive mate, and bettering my offspring - but I want to help this person, because I want to". I know why a Christian would do it - they would be trying to be more like Christ, who lived a life devoted to love and compassion towards others.

Most atheists take issue with the nature and teachings of organized religion, but NOT the religious people themselves.

Ah, I wish this were the case, but one can tell from the condescending tone and adjectives used by the God-figures of atheism (aka Dawkins) that this is not the case. Religious people are insulted as being knuckle-dragging neanderthals, even if they are bringing to the table valid points for intellectual discussion.

Religois people will not keep slaves, even if the Bible permits it.
They will not kill people who worship another god, even if the bible tells them to do so.
They will not take arms up and invade the neighbouring village and slay all those worship another god, even though the bible tells them to do so.
They will not kill those who curse their parents, they do not burn hookers to death, they do not stone blasphemers to death, kill adulterers, nor do many other immoral things that biblical laws tell them to do.

Again, misinterpretations based on your disinterest to intellectually approach the Bible verses from a different perspective. You can't tell me who is inside a car if you're too busy looking at the condition of the glass on the windows. Bad analogy, but you get the idea.

This is the core tenant of atheism. People can think for themselves. People can create and develop moral and just societies, with secular laws that serve humanity for the greater good. Humans are not under the oppression of a fake deity, nor are we bound to a barbaric ancient code based on primitive tales and superstition.

Again with an undertone of disrespect and self-appointed superiority in your 'faith' that God is fake. It's easy to look at what good people could do, but if there is no higher morality and we can each do as we see fit and be justified doing it, there is much more room for an abuse and in fact anti-civilization with your utopian interpretation of a world without religion. In fact, a documentary recently explored the effects of a hospital in Germany which 'kills off' sick and older patients with death pills, inspired by Darwinian philosophy. This isn't mercy-killing as they call it, this is against the will of the family because they are simply absorbing resources and need to die. There is a growing interest in parts of Germany (and around the world) in eugenics and selective breeding, some things I'm sure that you wouldn't even want to know about, inspired of course by our ability to 'think freely' and push our species ahead. Of course they are justified, what reason should anyone have to stop them? Why would we not perform all kinds of exploratory operations on babies and children to test new medicines, it's for the better of our species right? What moral reason could you have not to do this, and if you have one, where does that come from?

[CL8]

Double post, (don't know how)

[CL8]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

But from CL8, all I hear is ridicule but no facts, no support and, amazingly enough, not even any biblical support for your arguments. Boy, I don't even believe in god but I can use religion to support my argument better than you. If your scripture was not so self-destructive, you could actually use it to make a point instead of calling me names.

Uh,where did I call you names?
I still DO like you MR!

Genesis is an impossible tale without a shred of credibility. So how are we sinful for something that we did not do, but only happened in a fake story?

MR, You are not backing your view up with any credibility. It makes much more sense, with more evidence that humans came from humans and not monkeys.

Furthermore, devout religious people use this 'original sin' notion to harrass and threaten people...... by saying we are all born sinful and will go to a firery hell unless we take special action to cleanse ourselves. How is this beneficial? How is this moral, or decent? How does this show a thread of common human decency? It doesn't. But it DOES allow a select few religious people to command the loyalty of their religious followers.

MagicRat, you mean you actually can't see the benefit in cleansing oneself of evil, hurtful motives and deeds? Everyone benefits if everyone stops breaking laws and hurting other people, thats what the the Bible teaches, that is what is beneficial, LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. (the second of the great commandments)

So, humans have evolved to be altruistic and do not need a god to tell them to be so. All they need is a community which recognizes and ultimately, benefits from such behaviour.

Then why are our jails overfilled with criminals?

.




As for the basis for law in Canada and the US...... oh dear...... it was not religion. I sincerely assure you, that a study of the executive, legislative and judicial systems in these countries will show many different influences. Even the most basic study of political history can tell you this.
Yes, your youtube video shows that American politicians pray (and pray quite often, but most still lose elections) But most American politicians still favor the principle of official separation of church and state, as found in the First Amendment. The US courts system has held up this principle, in support of the Constitution many, many times.

MR,this is another biblical concept you ignore. TRUE worship of God comes from the heart by ones FREE choice, not because they are compelled to worship by the state. Christs church is NOT a state run church because his kingdom is NOT of this world. The founders saw the abuses of the state church and wanted to stop it.
Read a few quotes from Americas founders (and first three presidents):

George Washington (first U.S. president):
" It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the bible."

John Adams (second U.S. president): "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the bible for their own law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited... what a utopia; what a paradise this region would be!"

Thomas Jefferson (third U.S. president): "the bible makes the best people in the world."

"the bible is the source of liberty."

As for the references you site, especially the one on liberalism, MR, did you know that is what God wanted for his people the Israelites?

If you know O.T. history, you know shortly after the Israelites settled in the promised land, they begged for God to give them a king. God was displeased. He didn't want them to have an earthly king, he wanted them to worship and serve HIM as their king, individually obeying his laws as set forth in his word.
The system of government the U.S. still has today is about as close a form of government as you can get to that today. And several times in the declaration of independence there is reference to GOD giving people the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Treatment of women in the bible: Well, intellectuals can do linguistic gymnastics to apologize for the treatment of women in the bible. But it is obvious that the bible is repeatedly misogynistic. Hoe

MagicRat, are you trying to degrade women even further???!!

can one explain away this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-9&version=KJV

I would love to see you attempt to explain what that passage says.

I am a woman and I am not offended that the bible states that the man was made to be the leader in a relationship with his wife.

Is the position of vice president in the U.S. an abusive or disgraceful position? I don't think anyone would say that. The woman is to be the "vice president" in her marriage, letting her husband have the final say.

[akboss]

Originally Posted by CL8

TRUE worship of God comes from the heart by ones FREE choice, not because they are compelled to worship by the state. Christs church is NOT a state run church because his kingdom is NOT of this world. The founders saw the abuses of the state church and wanted to stop it.

I picked this bit out of your post, CL8, excellent phrasing and great point.

[drunken monkey]

it's interesting that Jefferson was quoted because he also said this:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.