Why do Atheists care? Here is one scary reason:

[Anonymous]

So you’re just going to go right ahead and deny there’s anything different between “love your enemy” vs. “love your neighbor.”

There’s a reason most Christians avoid this forum and spend their time in off-topic asking where to get a tree or what Christmas movies to start watching in September (today’s offerings). It’s dishonesty like this.

DP. The love your enemy exchanges were a direct result a a christian typing those words a few pages back. Look it up.

Neither love thy neighbor or love thy enemy is any kind of american founding principle, so really its origin is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jefferson kept the rest of the Bible after removing the miracles and maybe a few other things, I forget the details. If he thought none of it was relevant to him, he wouldn’t have kept any of it. And you’d know about it and you’d be using that fact here, if you could.

That's a gross oversimplification. Here is the last line in the book: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."


No resurrection. That's what you call "removing the miracles and maybe a few other things"? The fundamental tenet of Christianity?

You went off track with the usual tired argument about religious values (including but not limited to Christianity) being no different from secular values. That’s the usual oversimplification because most religions have so many other components and different ways of approaching godliness. “Love your enemy” goes beyond the golden rule, for example. But there’s no way I’m interested in another derailment where I need to argue against trite and oversimplified points, so I’ll leave it there.

Of course they are shared values. That is the point. 100% the point. In addition, most of the important ones existed long before Christ and are in the Greek readings that the educated members of our founding fathers read.

#fail

Founding fathers were Christian.

Jesus's golden rule came from a JEWISH golden rule.

And what contemporaneous records prove Socrates existed? Thanks.

Jesus went farther than previous scripture.

Matthew 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Also, try to avoid dopey snark like #fail that make you sound like a clueless boomer tapping out insults from his basement.)

Cares about you

Uninformative, fails to add anything here.

So you’re just going to go right ahead and deny there’s anything different between “love your enemy” vs. “love your neighbor.”

There’s a reason most Christians avoid this forum and spend their time in off-topic asking where to get a tree or what Christmas movies to start watching in September (today’s offerings). It’s dishonesty like this.

What in our nation screams “love your enemy” is a founding principle? We enslaved people, for crying out loud. And many of the enslavers claimed their works were sanctioned by God and God’s true plan for the “inherently inferior” Negro race. That enslaving them was good because at least they got Christian learning out of it.

If hypocrisy is a fundamental Christian principle, then I guess that counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue with the mental gymnastics by:

- Referencing Socrates, who we don't know even existed

- Jefferson had a Bible, referenced our "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence . . but no, he was not a Christian referencing our God/Creationism. What acrobatics there.

- Mayflower Compact anyone? "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. . . Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the CHRISTIAN Faith"

- Virginia Constitution anyone? "That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, . . . and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice CHRISTIAN forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

You're really hung up on Jefferson, but he simply wasn't a Christian. He didn't believe Jesus was divine, he didn't believe in the Resurrection. His "Bible" didn't include the Old Testament or the letters of Paul. As a Christian, I'm worried as to why you're so willing to toss out the actual message of the Gospel, which Jefferson did not believe, so that you can claim a particular politician as Christian.

I have not "tossed" anything. Worry? lol.

A lot of born, raised, practicing or non-practicing Christians don't believe in many parts of the Bible. Such as Noah's ark. Many Christians have differing views on the nature of the "divinity" per se of Jesus. Many don't believe our human timeline only goes back around 6000 years to the creation of Adam. Many Christians don't even believe in the creation story. I am not one of those types, but just pointing that out.

[Anonymous]

As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Greeks believed in “love your enemy”? You’re going to have to give us a cite for that.

Well we are talking about the values this country was founded on, and that is not one of them. But since you demanded one, I shall oblige:

Socrates held that one must never do harm to another even in return for harm received. His arguments were based on his general theory of virtue and on certain ambiguities in Greek ethical language.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/horizons/article/abs/socrates-and-jesus-on-nonretaliation-and-love-of-enemies/3C8ECC78DA10F4703D10A260262F4E9A

Also, some Christians don’t believe in the resurrection, including the odd Episcopal priest. That’s OK because it’s not the only, or even the central for many, tenet of the faith. More important are what Jesus said and his atonement for mankind through communion.

Some christians? Some christians believe all kinds of things. I was raised as one and the resurrection was fundamental.

You think Jesus, an itinerant carpenter, read Socrates?

No. But the people who made up the story about him probably did. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Nobody here ever said
- the Greeks don’t get credit, or
- the idea is “uniquely” Judeo-Christian.

Great, then we agree it's not uniquely judeo christian. So why say the country was founded on judeo christian values and not the Greeks or any otehrs that may have espoused it?

You made that up. What several of us ARE saying is that (1) nobody has a patent on ideas, and also that (2) the same ideas can arise at different times and in different contexts.

No, you are saying it is a judeo christian value and the country was founded on it. You said nothing about "different times and contexts". Because that renders the "founded on judeo christian values" claim moot. The bible talks a lot about food, too. Is food a judeo christian concept? ("That's ridiculous" you are saying to yourself, and I agree 100%);

Separation of church and state IS a Christian idea, even if it’s not exclusively Christian. Perhaps if you drew a Venn diagram that would help.

The idea of "Separation of church and state IS a Christian idea" when the article linked in the very post of this thread shows a majority supporting an elimination of that very distinction is just not a supportable point.

Also, where is your answer to the point about Thomas Jefferson’s modified New Testament? By your own logic, who “won” that one?

You mean the one where the deist Thomas Jefferson made his own bible which removes all miracles and claims of Jesus' divinity? I didn't repsond to that because it supports my point perfectly. He was not a Christian. He did not believe in the bible Christians believe in. End period.

It’s hard to know where to start with all these word games. And it’s understandable why people look at this and think, you’re not arguing honestly and who has time for this. Just a few points, then.

It’s hard to believe you’re still trying to argue, essentially, that separation of church and state is NOT a concept in Christianity. All three synoptic gospels include it. It’s a Christian idea, whoever else also espouses it. If I think Trump is a dangerous toddler, but somebody else had that thought in 1994, that doesn’t invalidate my ability to own that thought. This is so simple I wonder if you’re trolling.

Jefferson believed in the rest of the NT after removing the miracles. So, the Sermon in the Mount et cetera. In fact, the idea that something remains is implicit in the whole process of excerpting. Christians have had doctrinal differences since a few decades after Jesus died. That doesn’t mean they’re not Christians. Jefferson was a deist, but he clearly kept things from Christianity.

So he liked the universal values of being kind to others. The only thing unique in the NT is the mythology.

Goalposts moved

I’m a different poster so not sure what goalposts you were aiming for but the claim was “he clearly kept things from Christianity”. He didn’t keep anything that was uniquely Christian because the only unique thing in Christianity is the supernatural aspect. And even that is not all that unique.

Jefferson kept the rest of the Bible after removing the miracles and maybe a few other things, I forget the details. If he thought none of it was relevant to him, he wouldn’t have kept any of it. And you’d know about it and you’d be using that fact here, if you could.

You went off track with the usual tired argument about religious values (including but not limited to Christianity) being no different from secular values. That’s the usual oversimplification because most religions have so many other components and different ways of approaching godliness. “Love your enemy” goes beyond the golden rule, for example. But there’s no way I’m interested in another derailment where I need to argue against trite and oversimplified points, so I’ll leave it there.

He kept it because he liked it.

The parts he took out were the parts that made Christianity unique.

He probably would have liked another book discussing the same common concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you’re just going to go right ahead and deny there’s anything different between “love your enemy” vs. “love your neighbor.”

There’s a reason most Christians avoid this forum and spend their time in off-topic asking where to get a tree or what Christmas movies to start watching in September (today’s offerings). It’s dishonesty like this.

DP. The love your enemy exchanges were a direct result a a christian typing those words a few pages back. Look it up.

Neither love thy neighbor or love thy enemy is any kind of american founding principle, so really its origin is irrelevant to this discussion.

I’m that pp from a few pages back. I was responding to an atheist’s claim that Christianity is no different from secular values or any other values that preceded it. My point was, yes it is different. Yes, this is a different thread of the conversation, but that’s what happens with DCUM’s atheists who gish gallop all over the place. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Nobody here ever said
- the Greeks don’t get credit, or
- the idea is “uniquely” Judeo-Christian.

Great, then we agree it's not uniquely judeo christian. So why say the country was founded on judeo christian values and not the Greeks or any otehrs that may have espoused it?

You made that up. What several of us ARE saying is that (1) nobody has a patent on ideas, and also that (2) the same ideas can arise at different times and in different contexts.

No, you are saying it is a judeo christian value and the country was founded on it. You said nothing about "different times and contexts". Because that renders the "founded on judeo christian values" claim moot. The bible talks a lot about food, too. Is food a judeo christian concept? ("That's ridiculous" you are saying to yourself, and I agree 100%);

Separation of church and state IS a Christian idea, even if it’s not exclusively Christian. Perhaps if you drew a Venn diagram that would help.

The idea of "Separation of church and state IS a Christian idea" when the article linked in the very post of this thread shows a majority supporting an elimination of that very distinction is just not a supportable point.

Also, where is your answer to the point about Thomas Jefferson’s modified New Testament? By your own logic, who “won” that one?

You mean the one where the deist Thomas Jefferson made his own bible which removes all miracles and claims of Jesus' divinity? I didn't repsond to that because it supports my point perfectly. He was not a Christian. He did not believe in the bible Christians believe in. End period.

It’s hard to know where to start with all these word games. And it’s understandable why people look at this and think, you’re not arguing honestly and who has time for this. Just a few points, then.

It’s hard to believe you’re still trying to argue, essentially, that separation of church and state is NOT a concept in Christianity. All three synoptic gospels include it. It’s a Christian idea, whoever else also espouses it. If I think Trump is a dangerous toddler, but somebody else had that thought in 1994, that doesn’t invalidate my ability to own that thought. This is so simple I wonder if you’re trolling.

Jefferson believed in the rest of the NT after removing the miracles. So, the Sermon in the Mount et cetera. In fact, the idea that something remains is implicit in the whole process of excerpting. Christians have had doctrinal differences since a few decades after Jesus died. That doesn’t mean they’re not Christians. Jefferson was a deist, but he clearly kept things from Christianity.

So he liked the universal values of being kind to others. The only thing unique in the NT is the mythology.

Goalposts moved

I’m a different poster so not sure what goalposts you were aiming for but the claim was “he clearly kept things from Christianity”. He didn’t keep anything that was uniquely Christian because the only unique thing in Christianity is the supernatural aspect. And even that is not all that unique.

Jefferson kept the rest of the Bible after removing the miracles and maybe a few other things, I forget the details. If he thought none of it was relevant to him, he wouldn’t have kept any of it. And you’d know about it and you’d be using that fact here, if you could.

You went off track with the usual tired argument about religious values (including but not limited to Christianity) being no different from secular values. That’s the usual oversimplification because most religions have so many other components and different ways of approaching godliness. “Love your enemy” goes beyond the golden rule, for example. But there’s no way I’m interested in another derailment where I need to argue against trite and oversimplified points, so I’ll leave it there.

He kept it because he liked it.

The parts he took out were the parts that made Christianity unique.

He probably would have liked another book discussing the same common concepts.

Absolutely wrong. Wish I wasn’t on a zoom call and could respond in detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

Religions can contribute towards good in various ways in different communities.

No religion belongs in the government though.

And don’t force your religion on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

As a descendant of the Mayflower passenger believed to have written the Mayflower Compact, I just refer all to that compact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

As a descendant of the Mayflower passenger believed to have written the Mayflower Compact, I just refer all to that compact.

The Mayflower Compact also refers to being loyal subjects of our dread sovereign King James, but the US isn't a monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

Mayflower passengers wanted religious freedom for themselves, not anyone else.

It doesn't matter what descendants of the Mayflower think about the value of religion. It matters what's in the constitution of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

As a descendant of the Mayflower passenger believed to have written the Mayflower Compact, I just refer all to that compact.

The Mayflower Compact also refers to being loyal subjects of our dread sovereign King James, but the US isn't a monarchy.

Not anymore. But that compact was the first governing document here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a descendant of two Mayflower passengers, I say keep your religion out of my government and stop trying to force your religion on me.

As another Mayflower descendant and Adams descendant, I say religion has much good to contribute. Not the ultra conservative religion, though.

As a descendant of the Mayflower passenger believed to have written the Mayflower Compact, I just refer all to that compact.

The Mayflower Compact also refers to being loyal subjects of our dread sovereign King James, but the US isn't a monarchy.

Not anymore. But that compact was the first governing document here.

If we are going by history and "firsts", and not defining the US as at least from the independence if not the constitution, are there American values which long predate the Mayflower settlers?