Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
The two towns of Etana and Kish were established and named after him. There are many Semitic names in the early history of Sumer. Back then, but one race of people were Semites - the Hebrews, (Jews). King Etana of Kish was a Semite and according to Kramer, "came to the throne quite early in the third millennium B.C. In the King List he is described as he who stabilized all the lands” (Ref: The Sumerians, 43). The Sumerian King List is a cuneiform document, written by a scribe of the city of Lagash. The kings following Etana were all Semites, not Sumerians, as attested to by their names such as Enmebaraggesi of Kish. It is not until after the rule of eight kings had expired before some Sumerian names, (non Semitic), begin to appear in the King List. It was through the influence of the Sumerian Kings entering the ruling class that the Hebrew Semite traditions were eventually lost.
Scholars know this for the reason that the Semitic language is unique in that it does not record vowel sounds. What we write today for the early Semitic names in our English text is merely a phonetic translation. The custom of monogamy in the Sumerian culture came directly from the Semite Kings. Don't forget, Abraham came from the city of Ur in Sumeria, before he migrated to Canaan. The Biblical text records that he was a man of great and untold wealth. He was also a great leader, so it is more than probable he was a relative of the Semite Kings of Sumer, (aka Sumeria).
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are two problems with this, the first being that based on the time scale we need to narrow it down to as close an estimate as possible for when these laws should have been enacted and then make the determination based on who is the ruler of Summer at that time, because the Sumerians had a long history, going through several dynasties with different people and cultures in each.
The problem is that Semite is a linguistic term which includes Hebrews, Akkadians, Canaanites, and Arabic. Just saying these were the same people because they had similar language and names doesn't seem like the most solid evidence here when there are all of these other peoples who would also be Semites but not specifically Hebrew.
Interesting read though.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: time scale    different people   Sumerian culture   long history  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Do your Atheist position, align with United States values?
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Atheist position    United States values   nbsp    
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
To date it appears that the first cities in the world rose in Sumer and, among the most important, were Eridu, Uruk, Ur, Larsa, Isin, Adab, Kullah, Lagash, Nippur, and Kish. It has been noted, again by Kramer, that these names are not Sumerian but come from the Ubaid people, much earlier than c. 5000 BCE. . Modern-day history revisionists are too eager to attribute to the Sumerian race every "first" and is a distortion, given that the "first" race to be civilized was the Sumerian peoples and it was a Hebraic King who civilized them, but that record is being slowly wiped out of the narrative, because our entire scholarship and academia is anti-Christian and anti-Semite. They credit them with nothing and blame them for everything today, aka the Crusades, while not even mentioning the bloody and terrible atrocities of the Golden Age of Islam, which the Crusaders were fighting. It's shocking and tragic what is being done to our history.
You can see in the early names in the earliest history of the Sumer region many Biblical leaders names, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Elam, etc. Below is another excerpt taken from the works of scholar Samuel Noah Kramer. He has highlighted in red the influences which have their origins in the Hebraic culture that are still reflected in our culture today. Note the names of the Hebrew Biblical Books and Prophets.Other Historians also record Hebraic origins in Sumer. Don't forget, Eden, the site of the paradisaical Garden has always been calculated by Scholars to have been somewhere in Iraq, because of the place names the sons and grandsons of Adam spread out to. A good example is neighbouring Elam, a region where the nation of Elamites grew and, according to the Biblical text is named after Noah's grandson. Elam was the son of Shem, a son of Noah. The Biblical text states that the Elamites warred with the Sumerians. Scholars document it is recorded in Sumerian cunieform and is the first war between two nations recorded in history.
.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
Don’t be ridiculous you don’t even know what the term means ......
Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: term    Description   conclusion   premises  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
****Don't forget, Abraham came from the city of Ur in Sumeria, before he migrated to Canaan. The Biblical text records that he was a man of great and untold wealth. He was also a great leader, so it is more than probable he was a relative of the Semite Kings of Sumer, (aka Sumeria).
Yes the biblical texts say that but it’s mere speculation and your “probable” is unjustified and unproven , the Bible is not regarded as an accurate source of information amongst credible Historians
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: great leader    Biblical records   biblical s   relative of the Semite Kings of Sumer  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
I read your copy and pasted pieces and made the necessary corrections.........
*****that is if you accept the Biblical tradition, that the Hebrews were the first race created by God and the original Semites
No I don’t accept they were the first race ......Science Weekly
The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth, according to the biggest and most detailed analysis of African DNA. The San, also known as bushmen, are directly descended from the original population of early human ancestors who gave rise to all other groups of Africans and, eventually, to the people who left the continent to populate other parts of the world.
***** . I go with those scholars who conclude the great flood waters wiped out all prior evidence of the history in the region. It would require deeper excavations to find relics of these earlier civilizations. According to geologists, who have examined the sedimentary strata, a massive amount of sediment was laid down by flood waters in this region.
What scholars name them? What geologists are you referring to? Again you’re trying to give credibility to a myth
**** because our entire scholarship and academia is anti-Christian and anti-Semite.
Don’t be absurd , you believe that academic searchers for truth are all anti Christian and anti Semite if they do not agree with your conclusions , you’re very childish and this is why no debate can be taken seriously with you.
Even a proportion of Christian scholars do not accept the evidence for a flood so are they anti Christian because of an honest opinion based on lack of evidence?
****They credit them with nothing and blame them for everything today,
Again an absurd claim , there are a sizable amount of decent Christians worldwide but on C D I’m afraid not and the remarkable thing is they are all American who seem to detest anyone who is not like them , you need to come to Europe to see how real Christians behave and contribute towards society
****aka the Crusades, while not even mentioning the bloody and terrible atrocities of the Golden Age of Islam, which the Crusaders were fighting.
Those good old Crusaders protecting us all and then Christians robbed , murdered , pillaged and raped there way through every country from South America on that they could lay their hands on
****It's shocking and tragic what is being done to our history.
Yes it certainly was in the U S a so called “Christian country “ where the “Christian “ population thought blacks were dirt and insisted on segregation right up to the 1960’s
****Don't forget, Eden, the site of the paradisaical Garden has always been calculated by Scholars to have been somewhere in Iraq, because of the place names the sons and grandsons of Adam spread out to.
Again what “scholars”?
At a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2019, the English broadcaster and natural historian David Attenborough used the "Garden of Eden" as a metaphor for the geological epoch called the Holocene, which some scientists say has ended: "The Garden of Eden is no more
***** You can see in the early names in the earliest history of the Sumer region many Biblical leaders names, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Elam,
Moses
The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure,[13] and while, as William G. Dever writes, "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.", archaeology cannot confirm his existence.
Abraham
The same applies to Abraham arguments can be found in Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson, a literary scholar, based his argument on archaeology and ancient texts. His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[7] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.[8]
Noah
Whether he existed or not is immaterial because research shows a literal Noah's Ark did not exist,nor is there geologic evidence of a biblical global flood,believers throughout history have tried to rationalize the Ark's existence and still do .
Elam
As above
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 8  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: anti-Christian    San people of southern Africa   anti-Semite   first race  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** WOW! 200+ percentile points for abject, rabid, hostile bigotry and narcissism.
Maybe you should stop doing it then
****I though lefties were the champions of social justice. Yeah right.
****By the way. You could not be more wrong. I was educated in a private traditional Christian denominational school, not an Evangelical one and do not subscribe to Evangelism, which I believe the SDA do.
***Keep guessing Miss Alinsky,
Miss????
***/but it is for me to know and you never to know.
Wow ! Calm down you will make yourself unwell .....again
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    young Earth Creationist   Miss Alinsky   typical American meathead  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are quite a few problems here, many of which Dee already covered so I will cover them briefly.
First, the assumption that the the Akkadian language and the Sumerian people who spoke it were Hebrew because the bible says that Hebrews were the first people doesn't have the historical evidence to back it up. The evidence is overwhelming that the first people came from Africa and then Migrated to Europe, Asia, and during the ice age crossed the Bering Strait into North America.
There is another ridiculous assumption which would follow from your assertion that all people can be traced back to Noah: All people's would be Hebrew, including the Buddhist, Hindu, Aztec, and all other cultures. This is because all people would be their descendants.
There is a very easy way to solve this problem, however it doesn't do much for your theory- it is to simply say that we are talking about the beliefs and customs rather than the hereditary aspects of the people. This however would not speak well for your theory because the Sumerian people had their own religion, culture, and customs which were separate from the Hebrew people.
You bring up the "great flood" again, but the problem is that the overwhelming super-majority of geologists say that a global flood as depicted in the bible never occurred, or for that matter could have occurred. It is obvious to me that this story was probably based on actual events which were latter sensationalized into myth. Surely in your studies you know about the epic of Gilgamesh, which is very similar to the story in the bible and most likely is the influence for it.
There is no conspiracy against Christians or Semites, the problem is that reality doesn't support a lot of these ideas and beliefs.
The names being similar is still not conclusive evidence, because how do we know that the Hebrew people didn't adopt Sumerian names instead of the other way around? This is what I need proof for, but right now it could be either way.
The very last piece of literature you wright doesn't do a lot for your theory and suggestions. First off, it demonstrates that the accounts in Genesis were not recorded until much latter, which in and of itself is strong evidence for the inaccuracy of the texts, second it brings up the Epic of Gilgamesh already mentioned, and other similar works. This could be considered evidence that in fact the Hebrew people came from the Sumerians, and not the Sumerians coming from the Hebrews.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why won't you debate this question?
Does your Atheist position, align with United States values?
I'm an American, and I say YES, Christianity does align with U.S. values.
"Does Christianity align with US values?"
There are Religious buildings across the country, that help with the homeless, and the hungry.I've seen food drives, bake sales, homeless shelters, food banks, places where clothes and other goods can be donated to help those individuals who are in need.
So yes, Christianity does align with U.S. values, and it's a shame, that some Americans might balk at those efforts, that are U.S. based Values.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You’re anylysis is spot on and it’s remarkable he thinks any arguments against his failed thesis is therefore anti Christian
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: anylysis    spot   arguments   thesis  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is my post and destroys your claims in toto:
For five minutes we had a sensible discussion. There was hope that the Satanic weaving, diving, dodging and double speak was gone, but now this. At every turn you make war on the truth. Only Satan does that. His war on the truth is why we have anti-Christians and anti-Semitics controlling the education systems in our bureaucracies right across the West, and ONLY across the West, because Satan vowed to destroy God's people. So that you will remain ignorant, because Satan only attracts two types of minds, the ignorant and the greedy who seek power, by whatever means. Our latest tranche of political figures confirm this.
So pick your side in this war and choose wisely, for if you choose badly your life and after-life may not be what you would have chosen. I ignore everything Dee write's. It is so tainted and poisonous.
The videos below are informative archaeological history: Nothing is set in stone, until it is found in stone. The first video discusses the importance of the attitude of professionals. Kathleen Kenyon a highly regarded archaeologist destroyed her formidable reputation, all because of her unbridled anti-Semitism, allowing that to compel her to falsify the findings of a dig. Her future came tumbling down, just like the walls of Jericho. That's God's message to us all. The truth is His greatest treasure. Don't mess with it, because it is messing with Him and our walls will come tumbling down. Satan attacks it relentlessly, tirelessly with great duplicity. Walk away. I now walk away from your perfidy. It is pointless and destructive. You patently and shamelessly attack the truth with obvious deliberation, in order that there can be no discussion, no agreement, no consensus, only a war. It is Satanic. I understand it and will no longer partake. See you around and may God rescue you from the clutches of the Prince of Deception.
https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2013/08/31/bias-is-revealed-in-what-we-consider-and-fail-to-consider/
https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2015/08/22/the-ebla-tablets-confirm-biblical-accounts/
https://www.icr.org/article/ebla-its-impact-bible-records/
https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2017/05/25/timing-the-walls-of-the-jericho/
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
Based on the time that the marriage documents were found I provided before, they would have been available around the time that the Akkadian dynasty was ruling the Sumerian empire.
No, you don't provide enough evidence, because you still have to prove:
- The Hebrews came up with marriage first, and did not get it from the Sumerians
- OR the Sumerians were influenced by the Hebrew
- OR the Sumerians were Hebrew
- AND in addition to one of the above, that English common law marriages were based on these traditions and not Pagan traditions.
As it stands right now, your argument is based on a vague interpretation of the language and the names of Sumerian kings, however nowhere is there a logical connection between these names being Semitic and marriage being Hebrew. It's just a non-sequitur, you are jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence.Your entire second and final paragraph is completely irrelevant to this discussion, it proves nothing nor does it do anything to advance this debate, mostly it just makes you look kind of nuts. You want a grand conspiracy? How about the devil invented Jesus? That one is my favorite.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: marriage documents    Sumerian empire.No   common law marriages   names of Sumerian kings  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ha, Ha , I see you’re now Satan @Ricky said I was ....Poor ole @Grafix left 5 links to another loony bin site as his parting shot he should have checked his copy and pasted nonsense before posting methinks
  Considerate: 31%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Satan @Ricky    Poor ole @Grafix   loony bin site   links  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
The bible says that no governing body on earth is a valid government because the only true government (kingdom) is the kingdom of heaven. According to the bible, all other man made government is not a legitimate governing body, and as far as the bible is concerned, the only valid laws are the ten commandments and the laws espoused by God. So the idea that the bible, or any Christian or Hebrew deity would consider the US constitution to be a valid form of government in the eyes of the God in the bible is plain and simply false.
From that point we can break down the values of the US constitution and easily demonstrate that they were not made to reflect Christian values, or any religious values whatsoever. Here's why.
1. Abortion is legal in the US, and the constitution was written for it to be legal. The 14th amendment gives us autonomous freedom of our own bodies which means the government cannot make decisions regarding our own bodies, only we can. Furthermore, the 14th amendment only gives that freedom to BORN citizens. The fact that you must be born to gain any of the liberties extended to us by the constitution is important because it stipulates that unborn fetuses are not born citizens, they are an extension of a body, and therefore are not permitted the liberties of the US constitution. The body of a pregnant woman has been born so she does have the liberty to make decisions regarding her own body, and can choose to end her pregnancy. The debate over abortion is not a new struggle over moral values, and obviously the authors of the constitution were well aware of this debate and they took a hard stance on the issue by leaving the choice to abort up to the woman, not the government. They also explicitly made infanticide (The practice of killing an already born child which many cultures did do) illegal, because as soon as a fetus becomes born, it is a valid citizen of the United States and the rights of the constitution applies to them. The US constitution legalized abortion which is contrary to Judeo-Christian values.
2. The bible says that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. The US constitution granted all US citizens economic freedom, and no laws were imposed to restrict the amount of wealth one person can amass, or whether that person must choose to donate any to help others. The US constitution allows us to live by the merits of greed and self interest. Not only is the sin of greed legal in the US, it is a governing value among American people. This liberty is contrary to Judeo-Christian values from top to bottom. We are free to live by the words of Gordon Gekko because "the point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind." None of the values espoused in Gordon's cinematic speech run contrary to the values of the US constitution. None of it is illegal in the US, and much of the US population, including myself, embrace those values as paramount to the social and cultural heritage of the United States. These values were made to be contrary to the values of the bible and Judeo-Christian values.
3. None of the values of the US constitution outlaws the supposed infractions of the seven deadly sins which Christians regard as abhorrent sins. As I've already discussed how greed is totally legal and embraced in the doctrine of the US constitution, so too can the other six of the seven deadly sins. There are no laws outlawing gluttony, envy, lust, wrath, vanity, and sloth. But the other most mentionable one, is pride, which is embraced as an American value and is dually embraced by the American population. Not even Christians in America will bat an eye for open displays of American pride, and most American Christians will eagerly join in the proud festivities of being American. It has become an alternative creed to live by in American culture. American pride is not a sin to Americans, but the bible and Judeo-Christian faith have a different view regarding the values of pride, and they don't jive with American pride. If you have pride for being American, or pride for whatever country you live in, you are committing a sin. If you do not have pride for being American in America, you are UNAmerican. Christian values do not align with American values.
4. Perhaps the declaration of independence invoked God, but you won't find him in the constitution. The declaration of independence has obvious meaning to the people of the United States, but as far as any governing laws, there are none to be had there. The only governing laws that American citizens view as valid is the constitution. In the constitution the only mention of God, or any God, is in the 1st amendment which outlaws any national religion, or tests to prove the religious worthiness of citizens or the worthiness of people in government positions of trust. The constitution is the obvious framework for the values of American people and it was purposely devoid of any religious values or invocation to any religious deity. Whether the founding fathers were Christian or not is of no value in the face of what values are espoused by the document itself. There is no God in the constitution, and there is no God in American values. God, or Jesus did not sign the US constitution, and they do not consider it a valid governing document or legally binding set of laws or values. There are no Christian values in the constitution. Christian values do not align with American values.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: U.S    Judeo-Christian values      
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Was it?
I challenge you to give me a single example (besides racial slavery, which has already been brought up) of a unique Judaeo-Christian value which is also a founding value of the US.
It must be unique so that we can properly verify that Judaeo-Christian ethics was the source of the value and not some other source.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: unique Judaeo-Christian value    single example   founding value of the US.It   source  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
It wasn’t , you seem to think by saying “so” at the end of a sentence you’ve made an “argument ” you haven’t , but give it a shot if you can .......
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: end of a sentence    argument   nbsp   shot  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 77%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: U.S    coloring book   Judeo-Christian values   Thanks  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
That made me laugh ...... Keep them coming
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp         
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 19%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your nonsense has been corrected several times which left you leaving the site to lick your wounds and yet here you are back denying fact , you did the same with Evolution sorry buddy but facts do not care about your hurt feelings
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sorry buddy    fact   times   hurt feelings  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are several passages which demonstrates that according to the bible there is only one true kingdom in the eyes of the Lord, and all other forms of government are susceptible to the sins of man. No form of man made government is legitimate in the face of the kingdom of heaven. The bible explicitly calls on Gods followers to disregard laws that go against the will of God, and God will punish those governments who do not abide by his laws. The U.S. and its values are subject to the sins of man and are not a legitimate form of government in the face of the kingdom of heaven. There are several passages that demonstrate how and why the US constitution and its values are no different than any other man made government or kingdom.
Psalm 22:28
For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
Acts 5:29
Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
Daniel 3:18
“But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
Exodus 1:17, 20–21
But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. . . . So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
John 18:33–36
So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
*************************************************************************************************
I've still yet to find any evidence from you that not only demonstrates that the US constitution outlaws abortion, but that the authors of the constitution somehow viewed abortion as immoral. I've pointed out that the fourteenth amendment gives the liberties extended to us by the US constitution to those of us BORN in the US. That was purposely phrased in a manner with which to leave out UNborn fetuses, so they are not aloted the rights given by the constitution and are not considered valid US citizens. The reason they're not considered valid US citizens is that they are merely an extension of an already existing body. The fourteenth amendment also gives us autonomous freedom of our own bodies. This forbids the government to make any decisions regarding people's bodies and gives individuals sole ownership of their own bodies. Since the fetus is viewed as an extension of a citizen of the US with all the freedoms aloted to them, that citizen can make decisions regarding that portion of her body, including terminating it. If you are privy to information that demonstrates the constitution does indeed have restrictions on abortions, please feel free to show us. This point went uncontested by you. This value and guiding principle does not align with Christianity.
2. Greed is a founding and guiding principle of American values, and it was expressly permitted to be in the US constitution. Perhaps the bible says God gave us free will, but according to the bible, God did not give governments free will and he claims that he will punish any government that he feels is unjust and does not live according to his edict. The free will you speak of is only given to each and everyone of us as individuals because we all have a personal relationship with God. But a governing body is an institution made up of many different factions, including the entire population of the country it governs. A governmental body is not an individual, it is a collective that God feels must not let the weak and poor suffer and must make just laws to ensure their safety and happiness and allow them to follow him according to their customs. If not, he will punish that government and all those who oppress the meak and meager. There are several passages that demonstrate this to be true.
Jeremiah 18:7–10
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 5:28–29
“They have grown fat and sleek.
They know no bounds in deeds of evil;
they judge not with justice
the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper,
and they do not defend the rights of the needy.
29 Shall I not punish them for these things?
declares the Lord,
and shall I not avenge myself
on a nation such as this?
Jeremiah 5:28–29
“They have grown fat and sleek.
They know no bounds in deeds of evil;
they judge not with justice
the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper,
and they do not defend the rights of the needy.
29 Shall I not punish them for these things?
declares the Lord,
and shall I not avenge myself
on a nation such as this?”
Daniel 2:20–21
Daniel answered and said:
“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding.”
Jeremiah 25:12
Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.
***********************************************************************************************
The fact that the US constitution and its laws and principles gives us the freedom to amass huge amounts of money without any repercussions from the law if we do not give to the poor and keep our money to ourselves and live only for the sake of our own satisfaction goes directly against the values expressed in the bible and Judeo-christian faith. Nowhere in the bible is it said that governments of kingdoms should allow their citizens to ignore the needs of the sick, poor, malnourished, handicapped, and all other oppressed people without repercussions of the law. It's a good thing the US constitution does allow it though, because I love myself and consider myself more important than anybody I've ever met. And the values and principles of greed and solipsism are totally legal in the US constitution. Thank God for the US constitution.
3. You've not addressed anything regarding American pride, and even American Christians willingness to openly express that pride. Obviously American pride is a founding and guiding principle of American values and it has almost reached the point of an institution. The undisputed point still remains that if you do not have American pride, you are considered UNAmerican in the US. If you do have pride for America, or anything, you are committing a sin that many believe is a most abhorrent and deadly sin. American pride runs contrary to Judeo-christian values. This also went uncontested. This value does not align with Judeo-Christian values.
Since your point about God giving us free will is utterly moot, because he did not give governments free will and entire societies either, and he promises to punish those governments who are unjust, I feel there's no need to address the other moot points you've made regarding the other six deadly sins.
Regarding your point on the ten commandments and its correlation to the US constitution, I plain and simply fail to see when only two of those commandments are actually illegal, that somehow adds up to a "influence" in your mind. Most disciplined minds would realize from the word go that it doesn't add up to anything even approaching an influence, but hey, good for you for being unique like that. As far as murder and theft goes, since when were those governing laws that was only used since the ten commandments were a thing? I'm pretty certain most societies have some sort of guiding principle that frowns upon murder and theft since those things are probably inspired by logical conclusion. If we are free to murder other members of our society, then we can't really consider it to much of a civilization now, can we? And correct me if I'm wrong, I also don't think outlawing murder and theft was first done solely by the Judeo-Christian faith. I kinda get the feeling that outlawing those things was a common legal precedent before the ten commandments outlawed them. This point juxtaposed with the fact that all the other commandments are not illegal in the US, shapes up to a strong argument that the US constitution and the values espoused by it are in no way shape or form influenced by the ten commandments.
4. Nowhere in the premise of this debate is there any mention of the declaration of independence, or the bill of rights, or any other documents. It is specifically regarding American values. Just in case you need to brush up on it, here it is for you:
Does Christianity align with US values?
in Politics
The myth that the US was founded on Christian principals is one that needs to be brought into light if there is to be any moral progress.
Being Christian does not make you a good person, and this realization is why so many people are leaving religion and checking "none" when asked about religion.
Whatever statements HappyKillbot may or may not have made after that premise was posted is irrelevant. If you wish to address the arguments I'm making, then address them. If you still wish to address HappyKillbot, then address that person. I am not here as a representative of others and my arguments stand alone!!!
I guess you think that if the authors of the constitution were Christian, then the constitution itself must somehow reflect Christian values?!?!? First, that's a blatant disregard for the fact that any mention of religion in the constitution was only to outlaw a national religion and tests to prove the religious worthiness of citizenship or government positions or trust. But beyond that point, since when did it become true that Christians are absolutely incapable of writing and decimating ideas that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values? Just like Marcion and also the Gnostics who were Christian but there writings have since been labeled as heretical by the church at large, they were able to decimate literature that is now considered contrary to Judeo-Christian faith. And Copernicus who pleaded with the church to allow him to teach their subjects so to have a better understanding of God's creation, but who ultimately was condemned to death by the church, Christians are not incapable of decimating literature that could be deemed non-Christian, or even anti-Christian. You've already stated that God gave us free will which I don't contest. But if God gave us free will, doesn't that mean he gave us the will to create art or literature, or governing documents that are contrary to his edicts?
Going back to Copernicus, who was condemned to death by the Catholic church, but it's obvious they are not the only governing sect regarding Christian values. There's also the protestants, and whatever other ones you guys got going on there. Would all of those sects be in total agreement with what is deemed heretical literature and what is not? Would every single member of the Christian faith be in total agreement with what is deemed heretical literature and what is not? Who is the real governing figure on this earth who gets to decide that, or is there even anybody alive today who can make a globally recognized decision on the Godly merits of literature? Would it not be God alone who can make that judgement? Since there's no real governing judge on this earth who can make a legally binding edict on the holiness of individual pieces of literature, including yourself, what can you reference that gives you any kind of authority on the holy legitimately of the constitution? What authority do you possess that outranks the opinion of the regular population at large? None. That point also goes for every single topic regarding politics and religion as well, because the only true judge regarding the Judeo-Christian values of the constitution according to the bible is God alone.
Even in the face of all this evidence which questions the validity of your argument that the constitution expresses Judeo-Christian values, and that point is based solely on the fact that some of the authors of the constitution were Christian, there's one more point to make to refute that claim. None of that matters!!! I don't give a f u c k if those guys kept metal wire with them at all times to whip themselves every minute for the sins they've committed just by being human. All that matters is the values espoused by the constitution itself and the public who adhere to those principles. Christian or not, the constitution does not invoke Yahweh at any point. There is no God in American values!!!!!!
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 16  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Gods followers    silly notion   own accord   forms of government  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
You’re only repeating the same debunked claims Ad Nauseum whilst continuously refusing to read posts from me and others who have utterly destroyed your claims , maybe you need to research the topic a bit more as your “knowledge “ on such is blinded by you rabid religious adherence to failed Christian narratives
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: claims Ad Nauseum    religious adherence   posts   claims  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You've done nothing to dispute my arguments regarding the legality of abortion from the start of this country. The values of greed and pride being paramount to American culture. Your assertions those are "immoral" went totally unfounded. There was no attempt to dispute that the US constitution is devoid of God, except to separate biblical scripture from legal and governmental statutes in America. I extend all of my previous arguments.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I answered this by proving its irrelevance to the question. The question, according to Killbot, after much pressure from me to properly define his rather vague "US" values is now interpreted by him to be asking Does Christianity align with the U.S. Founding Documents? Obviously, the object of your post is irrelevant. I suspect the Founding Fathers would have aligned with the Christian view on abortion.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html?m=1
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Founding Fathers    Christian view   link   abortion  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
CULTURE & THE LAW
From the literature I have read on the subject the historical record of abortion in America can be traced back to the early American colonies. The people of this time were totally against any kind of abortion until well into the 19th century. From the first settlement in America it was considered generally by the wider populace as a misdemeanor if you had an abortion at all and abhorrent if you did so after what was termed as "a quickening" in the womb, which occurs around the first trimester of the pregnancy.
Most states considered the child in the womb to have legal rights even after the death of the mother. This early attitude to abortion had its origins in the discovery that, when sperm cells were examined under a microscope in the seventeenth century, a fully formed human being could be seen. Following further medical research it was discovered in the early 1800s that human life did not actually begin when the expectant mother "felt a quickening in the womb," but, rather, at the time of fertilization. Subsequently, the British Parliament in 1859 passed what was called "Offenses Against the Persons Act," bringing the felony law in line with the time of fertilization. That influenced all past and present Colony law and began a sequence of various States setting their own law against abortion in line with the British law. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in States prohibiting abortion.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
There are sufficient accurate and authenticated records which show the Founding Fathers' attitude towards abortion - that they were very much against it. It would be peculiar if they were not, given the societal general moral compass of the day, universally across the Western cultural sphere at home and abroad, namely that it was abhorrent. The fact that the first legislated law against it didn't occur until 1821, (in Connecticut), is not to be interpreted to mean that societal norms were pro-abortion, but speaks to the very opposite cultural attitude - there being no necessity to legislate, because the rate of incidence of abortion was low, subsequently occasioning no need for the State to act. The following article cites appropriate sources ...
https://www.wnd.com/2018/01/americas-founders-views-on-life-in-the-womb/
.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why won't you debate this question?
Does your Atheist position, align with United States values?
I'm an American, and I say YES, Christianity does align with U.S. values.
"Does Christianity align with US values?"
There are Religious buildings across the country, that help with the homeless, and the hungry.I've seen food drives, bake sales, homeless shelters, food banks, places where clothes and other goods can be donated to help those individuals who are in need.
So yes, Christianity does align with U.S. values, and it's a shame, that some Americans might balk at those efforts, that are U.S. based Values.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
What conversations you may or may not have had with other participants of this debate does not change the truth about the constitution or the American values that came from it. If you are aware of policies instituted by the constitution that does indeed protect the liberty of unborn fetuses, please feel free to let us know. That also goes for the liberty of autonomous freedom allotted to us by the constitution, and if you believe that women do not have that when it comes to decisions regarding pregnancy, and the constitution does not regard the fetus as merely an extension of the womens body, feel free to come forward with that info. I will assert that it was the ant-abortion laws that strayed from the values espoused by the constitution. The Roe v Wade decision was mostly based on the fourteenth amendment and the legal standards that it stipulates and I've already discussed. Roe v Wade is a return to the original values espoused by the constitution. The legal status of unborn fetuses has everything to do with HappyKillbots question regarding American values. What you "suspect the founding fathers would have aligned with" regarding abortion is not a valid legal precedent or argument. We do not base legal standards according to "suspect" precedents. I cited the fourteenth amendment for my argument, and since that IS a piece of the constitution, and the constitution IS a founding document, its relevance is undisputed even according to your standards.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
If we followed your lack of respect and obdurate disregard for normal courtesy, every topic would be chaotic and impossible to navigate with discussions jumping all over the shop. Get real and don't be so bloody arrogant. I really am so tired of the leftoid factoid circus. They value nothing and no-one, are becoming lawless, uncivilized bully boys, bullying everyone from their petty pulpits, demanding everything be in accord with their immature ways, they the intolerant intolerables.
In two words. Bugger off.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different topic    uncivilized bully boys   leftoid factoid circus   number of topics  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: discussion topic    nbsp   bit   way  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
My arrogance is not unbecoming of a skilled debater, and my aggressive argumentative style does not stray from the premise of this debate in any manner. If at any point you think you'd like to make a valid argument to dispute my claims, I'll be here waiting, but as far as I'm concerned, I've been waiting ever since I've engaged with you. As far as being some sort of "bully", I'm OK with that assessment. I guess the new standard for praising the principles of Christianity is to label everybody who disagrees as a "leftist" regardless of the fact that I am personally influenced by Ayn Rand and I often appeal to her arguments, and I consider myself a staunch libertarian. Regardless of what political association you may label me, does that change the validity of my argument, and can you overcome its merits? You've been invited to fortify your position, but have fallen short of that, but for some reason I'm a bully because of that. Fine, if you want to consider me as such, go ahead, but I just think it's really that you cannot overcome my argument.
Christian values being a legal authority in the United States is in no way shape or form a given. The issue of the constitution and its regards for abortion is only one point I've made about how American values do not align with Christianity. There was also the value of greed, and your assertion that it is immoral went absolutely unfounded, and you didn't even touch the fact that the constitution does not appeal to the Christian God, or any Gods for that matter.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
I did create a forum that asked do the non religious position align with United States values, but I think it got deleted.
To me Christianity does align with U.S. values, because Christianity is pro Child, pro Family, and pro Community.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: United States values    religious position   forum   U.S. values  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.62  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
You clearly discussed TODAY's CONTEMPORARY laws in your post. You broached nothing on Christianity's values in relation to the founding documents or the founding father's attitudes behind the framing of them. If you want to push the discussion topic over to today's abortion laws and the Constitution it is irrelevant. It must be done in terms of what the founding documents reflect of the founding father's attitudes towards abortion in their time and not our attitudes today towards abortion. I have no control over you discussing your pet hate with others, but I have no interest in doing so where it does not reflect the discussion heading.
You claim you perused the pages herein. Well then, you can see that abortion has been touched on and how - very specifically as to how the founding father's would have viewed abortion. The only way to broach the subject of abortion is to discuss how Christianity's position on abortion today is not aligned with that of the founding fathers and how their worldview would have been reflected in the founding documents on that issue, as per the synopsis below, but to push the wider general public's attitude towards abortion today, does not fall within the purview of the topic. It must be confined to Christianity only and the founding documents and not your view on abortion or any other contemporary view of it.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: today's abortion laws    founding father's attitudes   TODAY's CONTEMPORARY laws   founding documents  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
We have to put up with their reconstructed abominations of who and what type of men our Founding Fathers were, pretending they did not have a Christian worldview, when the record and their own speeches make it absolutely clear that they did. The First Amendment was written to protect Christianity. They perceived America would remain a Christian nation. Who'da thought knuckle-headed brain-dead lefties would over-run our nation with immigrants who call us "infidels", while taught to slaughter Christians in their mosques? The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. These leftoid factoid imbeciles will tear down every vestige of our original values, all the while hypocritically claiming the moral high ground every step of the way.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is true that abortions before the quickening (which would have been 4 or 5 months of pregnancy) were not criminalized (until well after the founding period). This was straight from English common law which the founders would have known about. Yet they did not find it necessary to challenge. That seems very strange if they "were very much against it".
It is also true that we started to see laws deviating from common law regarding abortion in the 1820's, but not for the reasons you suggest. The laws were to primarily to protect women from nefarious entrepreneurs which were selling poisonous concoctions said to induce abortion. These individuals were harming/killing women while trying to capitalize on the abortion market. The laws were to protect women - not the unborn. Women and providers were not being prosecuted under these laws.
Additionally, the incidence of abortion was obviously high enough that con men saw an opportunity to make a buck and that laws had to be crafted to protect women from them. This disputes your assertion of low incidence necessitating no need for state intervention - the state was intervening, just not against women or legitimate providers.
It wasn't until the middle of the 19th century until we see every state creating laws actually criminalizing abortion - far removed from the time of the founders. Even this was not done to honor "Christian Values". It was physicians hoping to largley cut midwives out of abortion care by arguing that 'abortion is murder, but sometimes it is necessary...and only we can tell when'. It worked.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
It matters not of what the forefathers may or may not have thought of abortion. The true point of relevance comes from the doctrine of the constitution itself and what type of foundation of principles it led to. The world view of Donald Duck is about as relevant to this discussion as the forefathers world view. The constitution was written to allow for the American public to interpret it as needed to protect their liberty. It also allotted for other amendments to be placed in to the constitution to fortify our liberties. Since we all have the power of representation in Congress, we essentially can make the constitution reflect our interpretations of it and how it effects our liberty. The 9th amendment says that if there is no precedent specifically set in the constitution, then the courts should stick to a standard of ruling for the liberties of the people and not the power of enforcement for the government. The constitution was written to allow the American public decide what values this country should hold, and Christian doctrine was not ever listed as a guiding principle for said values.
If American values of today are irrelevant, do you have a specific time line as to when American values became irrelevant or stop existing altogether? Maybe a specific year or event may be helpful if you could think of one. The only reason I've not "broached [any]thing on Christianity's values in relation to the founding documents or the founding father's attitudes" is because there plain and simply was no Christian values in the United States constitution and our forefathers wanted it to be that way. If you are aware of information in the constitution that demonstrates how and why the framers of it wanted the American public to abide by Christian doctrine when no legal precedent was specifically stated, please let us know of this information. I would assert that it is you who misrepresent the constitution based on your contemporary views, and this is demonstrated by the fact that you've yet to cite anything from the constitution or the bible, or make any arguments whatsoever regarding the Christian doctrine supposedly embedded within the constitution, but yet you still assert it's there. Thus far, it has been only me who has cited either of the sources you state are relevant and I've made arguments based on that information and you've done nothing to dispute those arguments. Listing a bunch of irrelevant books that were written long after the constitution was ratified does not add up to a legal precedent or valid argument as such.
There are several places where we can find information regarding the constitution and the bible so you can actually start coming up with arguments. It's not required if you don't want to, just some food for thought. OK ?!?
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
Out of curiosity, can you substantiate your claim that the first amendment was written to protect Christianity? I presume you mean the defense afforded by the first amendment was not intended for all religions?
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
As far as I know, all of them were Christians - however, some of them were very critical of Christianity in general, and three of them were deists. Deism is that weird system on the intersection of religion and atheism, where you believe that the god exists, but do not believe that he/she/it affects anything in the human world. In addition, several Founding Fathers, such as Franklin, were becoming more and more sceptical of religion as time went by, and had they lived for a bit longer, chances are they would become atheists one day.
What is a hard fact independent of any interpretations is that the US was created to be an explicitly secular state. It takes a lot of mental juggling to interpret a secular state as a state defending Christianity, indeed.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Founding Fathers    intersection of religion   hard fact   weird system  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The incident rate of abortion cannot be confused with the higher rate of illegitimate children being born. In most instances the mothers did give birth, due to Christian concepts and societal acceptance of a "living child" in the womb. Historians base the factor of "low" in making a comparison with the factor of the number of illegitimate children being born. As a percentage of illegitimately conceived children the abortion factor was low, according to them. That is what I meant.
This can be attested to by the movements and charitable groups which moved quickly to provide support mechanisms to unmarried mothers and the introduction of homes for orphans, which included mothers giving up their children, unable to support them. We also read that having had an illegitimate child was not a barrier to marriage later, nor to employment. All of these factors point definitively to a highly Christian attitude of the general populace, so much so that the State moved to protect the rights to estate inheritance by illegitimate children, that these be made equal for half siblings.
This statement is misleading, although factual ....
It implies that the criminalization of abortion was slow to happen. The reality is that the majority of States had criminalized abortion by 1860, with but a few abstentions, which speaks much more accurately to the cultural attitude and louder than the statement made above. It just means a small minority number were slow to come across to the general consensus.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not so, when you understand the basics of interpreting the law, the methodology used in the practice of all Justices sitting on Court benches to this day. The fundamental requirement of interpreting the law is a knowledge of the INTENT of the Statute itself, which requires an understanding and knowledge of the intent of its framer. This is the gold standard for interpreting the law, for judging a felon and making a conviction.
Therefore the INTENT of the Founding Fathers is front and centre to the INTENT of the laws framed in the founding documents. It is the reason for all of my foregoing statements and for why discussing the laws made today are completely irrelevant to this discussion, given the parameter is "the founding documents", as set by the topic owner himself. That then goes straight to the INTENT of the lawmakers and of the law itself contained in the founding documents, viz a viz, the intent of the Founding Fathers.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
To genuinely understand the influence Biblical scripture had upon the writing of the U.S. Constitution, you must read the Founders own words and ALL of them. Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, the writer’s spelt out very clearly whom they owed their obedience to and in whom their ultimate trust lay. They acknowledged a Creator and that our rights come from Him and that governments are instituted to protect all of those rights. Remember these men pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor when they signed their names to that document.
The Constitution begins with the language “Blessings of Liberty” and “do ordain and establish” in the preamble, ending with the words “in the Year of our Lord September 17, 1787.” Please take notice of the word, “our.” The signers all agreed to this wording and it implies that they were Christians. These words back then had significant meaning and are an example of how much the Bible influenced the framers. They were men of faith, some more than others, but they were men that knew the power of prayer too, evident in their many papers and speeches. During the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin requested a break and called for prayer at a time when it was much needed. Benjamin Franklin is often labelled a Deist by [revisionist] historians, yet his own words contradict that claim.
The inordinate collection of historical documents proves overwhelmingly how scripture influenced our Founding Fathers. It appears Benjamin Franklin believed in divine providence when he said at the convention “…I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?” George Washington took the oath of office that is written in Article One, Section Two of the Constitution and himself volunteered to add these words of his own accord, “so help me God.” When he left office after two terms he said this in his farewell speech: “Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” Thomas Jefferson wrote “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? These quotes surely suggest our founders’ held a firm belief and faith in God.
James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and one of the three contributors to the Federalist Papers, wrote of the dilemma a free republic would face without virtuous, righteous men. He wrote in Federalist #51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Knowing that man did not possess virtue and knowing this kind of individual freedom was not possible without virtue, that the only solution was Christianity! John Adams said it like this: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” During the War for Independence when John Adams was asked by Dr. Benjamin Rush if he thought the war could actually be won, John Adams answered this: “Yes! If we fear God and repent of our sins.” This is just another of the many examples of our founding fathers’ faith in our Godly heritage. Too many people today are unaware of these facts, for they are being hidden from school curricula and far too many are diligently working to revise history and bastardise the truth of the intent of the Founding Fathers. The anti-Christian Agenda is well funded by some of the wealthiest people on the face of the globe.
.We only have to look as well to our laws, thou shalt not kill, shalt not steal, shalt not bear false witness, (lie), shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, (criminalized for centuries), shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, (extortion, fraud, blackmail, embezzlement etc.) and the enshrinement of monogamous marriage in the Marriage Act. As well, the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" carved into the facade of every Court House and the custom of taking oaths on the Christian Bible, so help me God. Also, the celebration of Christian holiday seasons, Christmas and Easter with Sunday a holiday, (holy day), set aside for worship.
The Treaty of Tripoli accurately describes the U.S. government, that it is secular, but the writers and framers of the founding documents were not and never intended that the nation, (its people) should be or ever would be.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
To be honest the calculations built on a suppose correlation between high numbers of illegitimate children and low incidence of abortions seems dubious. Married women had abortions too. I didn't see the citation on this, maybe you can provide it so I can look it over?
*****This statement is misleading, although factual ....
*****It implies that the criminalization of abortion was slow to happen. The reality is that the majority of States had criminalized abortion by 1860, with but a few abstentions, which speaks much more accurately to the cultural attitude and louder than the statement made above. It just means a small minority number were slow to come across to the general consensus.****
I don't understand your objection here at all. Between 1847-1867 (if I remember correctly) every existing state criminalized abortion. My statement is more than fair given that every state didn't have abortion criminalized until 17 years after the middle of the 19th century. The narrative you're telling about the cultural attitude against abortion doesn't match (as I remember) the lax enforcement of these laws nor is it relevant to your claim regarding the forefathers alignment with [modern] Christian views on abortion. What's the point of challenging a more than fair statement you admit to be a factually accurate regarding a period of time no longer contemporary to the founders?
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: low incidence of abortions    cultural attitude   middle of the 19th century   existing state  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
So if the standards of "All Justices sitting on court benches TO THIS DAY" have been in practice since the constitution was ratified, how can "laws made today [be] completely irrelevant to this discussion"? At what point was the standard for having a profound knowledge of the INTENT severed from modern law making standards or interpretation, and how does the constitution prohibit contemporary modern methods of the judiciary system? How did you interpret my statement about the irrelevance of our forefathers world view to be in regards to contemporary interpretations of the law? Leave us take note of the fact that you are talking about two completely different things here which misrepresents my argument. I simply said our forefathers world view is irrelevant to how the constitution shapes our values as a country. You seem to have thought that statement to mean our forefathers world view is irrelevant when it comes to the set standards of interpreting the law?!?!? I never made any arguments that even approached suggesting that. I absolutely understand that interpreting the law takes a profound understanding of the original intent of the law in question. BUT, a profound understanding of the world view of the framers of the constitution or the bible is not at all needed by anybody at any time when it comes to the setting of our values by the American public. Their world view would be about as useful as Donald Ducks in regard to American values.
If we're talking about MAKING laws (not interpreting laws), it would seem to me that article 5 of the constitution outlines the specific processes required to make changes to the constitution. It outlines what can be changed, and what cannot. Between 1789 and December 16, 2014, there have been 11,539 amendments voted on to change the constitution. Of those, Congress has approved 33. That's 0.028% of all the suggested changes that have been approved by Congress and then sent to the individual states to be ratified. Of those 33, only 27 were approved by the states, and that allowed those changes to become part of the constitution. It would certainly seem to me that modern law making standards has some solid ties to the original standards set by the constitution. At what point do you believe this connection from the original text of the constitution has been broken which now renders our modern law making methods irrelevant to the guiding principles espoused by the constitution?
Although I do understand the intense amount of knowledge of legal precedents needed for a judge to sit on a bench, that doesn't mean interpreting the law is a cookie-cut-out process that can be done by anybody. Or that the same interpretation will be reached every time. Sometimes legal standards are reversed, and that's not something that was prohibited by the constitution. The framers of the constitution had an understanding of the fact that nobody, not even judges are absolutely free from personal biases that may effect their standards for interpretation. Because of that, judges can reinterpret laws, which in turn changes legal precedents. There is much debate about how much judges should be allowed to overturn traditional standards, and I think there should be at least some mechanisms to allow for reinterpretation of legal standards, but they should also not be allowed to fluctuate drastically. But obviously interpretation of the constitution is not a stenciled process that will yield the same results every time. If it was, we wouldn't need eight associate justices and one chief justice to sit on the bench of the supreme court. We wouldn't need the myriad of court circuits, and all the judges who sit on those benches. In all truth, we wouldn't actually need judges at all if legal standards were static. Obviously the complications that arise from interpreting the law does necessitate the use of judges and manners of interpretation rather than systematic standards that do not fluctuate. If the law was cut and dry, we wouldn't actually need judges, but the framers of the constitution understood that we do need them.
In lieu of the fact that there was an article written into the constitution that gives Congress, and individual states the right to make changes to the constitution with a two thirds majority vote, it is becoming more obvious that the forefathers world view is not at all relevant to the guiding principles of American values because they allowed for those guiding principles to be subjective to ever changing social and global standards if we so wish. Are we really supposed to believe that every single framer of the constitution was in one hundred percent agreement on their world views, and it absolutely matched one hundred percent with the American publics world views? And that world view was intended to be static and never strayed from? And that world view was intended for all Americans to follow the doctrine of the bible? If so, why was there an article made specifically for changes to be made at all? In fact, why was there even a constitution debated over for 14 years- back and forth- from state to state, only for them to tell us we should follow the bible and base our values on that? I'm not buying it.
How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if I must follow the world view of the framers of the constitution, which (according to Grafix) happens to be the principles of the bible? How do I even know if those farmers world view even embraced the concept of happiness in any manner, or if they even wanted ME to be happy? With standards for allowing me to pursuit my own happiness, so long as I don't break the law (encroach on others pursuit of happiness), I can do, feel, and value whatever I wish without regard for social standards or biblical principles if I so choose (which I do). There was not any legal precedent written into the constitution that stipulates I must abide by biblical principles, or at least appear to adhere to them. I can be greedy without retribution from the law. There was no stipulations that barred me from having a gay marriage, and no stipulations that we must follow social standards in that case. In fact, the ninth amendment does stipulate that if there is no legal standard specifically drawn out for unforseen social circumstances (in this case a gay marriage), then the courts should abide by a standard of ruling on the side of granting the liberty (so long as it doesn't violate the law) instead of ruling on what social standards stipulate. As far as any mention of the bible being the legal standard that should be followed when no specific standard was stipulated, there is no mention of that in the ninth amendment. American values do not align with Christianity.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 31%  
  Learn More About Debra
Apologies, but I literally laughed out loud at this. "In the year of our lord" was commonly used . It had absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs of the signers anymore than we are believers in the gods memorialized in the days of our week.
I am unimpressed by the cherry picked quotes from the founders. Some accurately reflect the known beliefs of certain individuals while some oversimplify or misrepresent the known beliefs of others. Without diving into biographies of individual founders, it is unlikely we will adequately understand the complexities of their religious views. It is safe to say the forefathers were not all Christian, and those that were practiced various forms of Christianity that were not necessarily identical to forms of Christianity today. I think that is a fair statement.
The section suggesting our laws come from Christianity is a miscontribution. Laws against murder, theft, rape (which wasn't forbidden by the Bible), and slavery (which was condoned by the Bible) are humanistic values in nature. These are things which help humanity flourish, so it is not too surprising that enlightened individuals seeking to create a long-lasting society would build this into a form of governance. It should be noted that none of these are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so the relevance is uncertain.
"In God We Trust" was not something the forefathers are responsible for. It along with "under God" in our pledge are relatively new additions (~1950's) injected into American governance by folks who felt religiosity was a counter to communism. Since then, Christian religiosity has been often confused with patriotism and anyone non-Christian is somehow lesser citizens. This is exactly the opposite of what we find in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Treaty of Tripoli, just like the Constitution, speaks of a secular government. Government doesn't have a freedom of religion - people do. I'm not suggesting people can't or shouldn't be religious, only that government (and people acting on behalf of the government) work for the American people (and not their own interest).
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
It does actually, because non-Christian, atheist and anti-Christian sources frequently altered that to "The Year of The Lord". (I did point you to that)
Now you bring subjectivity and sentiment into the discussion as an argument. Better to leave it out, rather than- making charges of "cherry picking" etc. With limited time obviously a complete "history" is impossible here, but why is that even necessary? Each makes a clear and unadulterated profession of his belief in the Christian God. Why is that not enough? It is enough. No-one makes such statements unless they are a Christian.
These "alternative" denigrations of the Founders' previously widely accepted and still widely recorded, Christianity, is a Johnny-Come-Lately Liberal version, to justify Liberal policies which they know full well the Founding Fathers would have never endorsed, so we get a truckload of revisionism. At every turn, as per the examples above, the Founders make the case that the Constitution and freedoms provisioned, require a moral government managed by "virtuous" and "righteous" men, only too well aware that such freedoms and liberties come with great moral responsibility, reliant on a Christian ethos. How Liberals have misrepresented Jefferson ...
Perhaps these below will assist you. I give the link at their conclusion. Note after each last word a link No. to the original properly accredited source. The first confirms that the Founders saw it fitting to open Congress every day with prayer, as President Trump now does, following in that tradition.
This next one confirms my statement that the Founding Fathers anticipated that America would always remain a Christian nation.
Again, note how Liberals have misrepresented this man's faith
Here is the link to the above record: https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/#
Another link to the record of the Founders' belief in the importance of morality and religious principles in the men of Government https://wallbuilders.com/importance-morality-religion-government/ Let's just deal in evidence. There is no evidence anywhere ever recorded that the Founding Fathers adopted the humanism culture at all. How could they? They clearly trusted in God and said so, time and time again. The very definition of "Western" means rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethos. It defines our Western identity, our Western nation and our Western culture. It is why Israel is defined as a Western nation, yet smack bang in the Middle of a bunch of anti-Western nations. Apart from the records, and the Oath taken when giving testimony in the Courts - upholders of the law - the identity of Western is derived from the system of law adopted by every Western nation - a system based on the Judeo-Christian ethos. It is what defines them. That ethos is the Ten Commandments - history previously taught in classroom curricula. Just because it is not taught today does not make it false. It is an historical fact, even testified to by the laws them very selves. Rape and slavery are condemned by Christianity, founded in Christ in His time and not founded in the Old Testament. Christ repudiated many of the Old Testament Hebraic practices.
The origin of the phrase "In God We Trust" was originally derived from similar words found in the national anthem, written by Keys and first appeared on the U.S. currency in 1861, however it was already in use prior to then, making its appearance much earlier already on public buildings.
Yes, the Treaty of Tripoli does declare that. I already addressed that, previously. The government is secular, designed to be secular, but the nation is not and its people were not then and are not now and never will be. The Constitution prohibits it. Just because the law is founded in Christian principles, does not mean the government cannot be secular. It simply means that government cannot make a law which abridges the people's right to freedom of religion, as opposed to freedom from religion. If the government were to enact the latter, it would be a violation of the First Amendment.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 13  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra