Bible Party of the USA

Of course you may ask. I can also ask why you ask. Then, we can continue to ask why the other person is asking until one gets tired and answers the question with intrepidity.

There is a reason i don't have my age posted, and i like to keep it that way. It makes no difference to this or any other conversation. Lest it be used against me in ad hominems or it sways someone's opinion of my thoughts. Nor do i want to know your age, because i don't want my opinion of you to change based on some non-factor. Remember you are not trying to discredit me you are trying to discredit my arguments.

i asked you first

*smirk*

Divine providence could apply to any religion or to non-religious theism. YET AGAIN you have failed to show me how this country was founded specifically on christian principals.

I don't need to show you. You can determine it all by your lonesome.
Here's how. Read the Bible and examine western history then do a comparison contrast between the values of western civilization (Judeo-Christian) and those of the rest of the world.

I have posted my age on my profile. You have not. You seem to want to discuss this topic. Discussion is communication. A good communicator analyzes their audience and adapts their delivery to that audience to improve communication. Age is one important factor in that analysis.

I agree completely with Volly. Age is entirely relevant - It speaks to directly to experience. After repeated exposure to uncomfortable situations you learn through your mistakes exactly how to confront your fears and overcome obstacles that challenge you as a apprentice.

If you are not a prospective member, then I don't have an obligation to justify anything to you.

I responded

"I don't need to show you. You can determine it all by your lonesome.
Here's how. Read the Bible and examine western history then do a comparison contrast between the values of western civilization (Judeo-Christian) and those of the rest of the world."


Your response to this seemed to indicate a lack of motivation to examine the evidence and make your own conclusions. A choice to ignore evidence does not negate the facts or the validity of the evidence. A tree falls in the words even if there is no one there to observe.

Despite the ability to name a few members of the founding fathers who eschewed or interpreted the Bible differently from many Christians, they acknowledge directly and inferentially that their society was steeped in Judeo-Christian values and social standards.

One spectrum of our life in the USA is political. A deliberate choice to address the political spectrum from a Biblical view is one choice that can be made by Christians and Jews to follow-through on their commitment to honor His Word.

That's not a very good attitude to have if you want your organization to grow. I know it may not look like it but i am trying to helping you, you should be able to address any concerns or criticisms directed at your organization and i am giving you the opportunity to practice how you would respond to the concerns that will be brought up. If indeed your group grows to any appreciable size then the questions i bring up will be small fries compared to what you may and will encounter.

No, i have examined that evidence and have come to my own conclusion, a conclusion that mind you can be supported by facts and expressed in this way. But you seem to be asking me to prove your claims for you, and dismissing me in that manner if I do not. It is a case of shifting the burden of proof to the other side (me) which is rebuked in any political situation or by any debate organization.

saying "Look it up", "Research it", "find it out for yourself", "study up on it" or any other variant is not a proper response and will be treated as such because these things should have been done in most any case beforehand. When people come to this line of argumentation it is usually because they do not have the supporting information ready in which case they ask the opposing side to find it for them.

and? How does this mean the constitution was based on these uniquely Christian values.

The constitution and the Declaration were used to break free from many social norms.

It is by the freedom of religion that we can hold our own religious views without certain religious views imposed on the people by their government as stated in the "Establishment Clause".

and can and is honored.....by those who believe in it. But why then does this have to be a political party to accomplish this?

You should be able to represent these views in universal terms and of universal understanding so that people of different faiths and people of no faith can appreciate…

Precisely because this nation is a diverse one. If this nation were 100% Christian then I would have no problem with your party's goals, but it's not.

Ethically, how then can a discriminatory organization influence US policy?

then why should I waste my time debating you? The purpose of the party and my activity is not to convert people who are skeptics.

Good for you. Rhetorical question: What was your conclusion?

There is no reason for me to waste my time and effort trying to convince or convert someone who just wants to oppose.

Judeo-Christian. Again, you tell me. You say you have studied and come to your own conclusion. Rhetorical question: What is it? Better yet, tell me why you believe it was not. Point to another set of values that matches those embodied in the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why? People expend effort to achieve their goals. Again, the purpose of this political party is not to include the values of people who disagree with The Word of God.

People from other religious backgrounds do this every day and exclude or neutralize Bible believing Christians and Jews.

Why is it bad for Christians and Jews to have a party of their own?

So there you go. That answers my question.
By the standard stated immediately above there should be no political parties in the United States of America.

Are you an anarchist?

Ethically, how can a Bible believing Christian or Jew ignore or act in contravention of their faith and values by working within political organizations that explain in writing, words, and action their plans to remove The Word of God from the public arena

I don't expect you'd be able to "convert" me, just to justify your position, something you do seem to be willing to do for anyone with different opinion from you.

The constitution and the declaration were based on the principals of NATURAL RIGHTS, that all people have rights granted to them at birth and it is the duty of government to protect those rights.

The values were based very much on the philosophies of enlightenment and humanism developed during the renaissance and on the failings of the British government.

does that answer your question?

Freedom of religion is not an idea or principal of Christianity, and at the time of foundation it was something suppressed throughout the world by ALL religions. The idea of freedom of religion was the product of enlightenment.

separation of church and state

why not, America is full of such people, why should you disregard their values and impose yours on them?

As is done of all religions, you will not see a statue of Buddha in any place of government. The idea is for a religion neutral government, only once we achieve total neutrality in government can we truly have justice and equality.

Do you think that atheists should start a political party for the exact opposite reasons?

The problem is when you are imposing policies on all Americans based on values that not all Americans share.

In an ideal society there would be no political parties, so that each politician runs for office according to their own merit and not that of their party. But this i know is an impossibility.

But this is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

no.

why must your government promote your religion for you to be a christian?

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord

Did you ever watch Checkov on Star Trek? He had a penchant for asserting that Russia inwented everything under the sun.

Poorly

What was the historical context of the enlightenment? What was the primary religion in western civilization during the enlightenment? Christianity and Judaism include the choice to believe or not to believe without human retribution.

God advises through His Word and leaves the choice to the individual.

What do you mean by separation of church and state?

More serious answer: To prevent others from imposing their will upon me and others who wish to practice Christianity and preserve traditional western values for our posterity.

Russia and China assert they have true neutrality in government toward religion. How is that working for their citizens or should I say serfs?

They can. However, they have more than enough power within the established parties to carry out their agenda. This is evidenced by their ability to remove laws that were made based on Judeo-Christian values and prevent new ones from being passed.

And your point is? This is what all political parties do.

Are you sure?

Your religion seems to be humanism. Why should your religion win out over mine by being allowed to flourish in the public square when mine is not? This does not seem to be an egalitarian viewpoint.

Biographer Merrill D. Peterson summarizes Jefferson's theology:

“First, that the Christianity of the churches was unreasonable, therefore unbelievable, but that stripped of priestly mystery, ritual, and dogma, reinterpreted in the light of historical evidence and human experience, and substituting the Newtonian cosmology for the discredited Biblical one, Christianity could be conformed to reason. Second, morality required no divine sanction or inspiration, no appeal beyond reason and nature, perhaps not even the hope of heaven or the fear of hell; and so the whole edifice of Christian revelation came tumbling to the ground."

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they "were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

-Ben Franklin

"He may believe that Jesus was crucified, because many others were crucified, but who is to prove he was crucified for the sins of the world? This article has no evidence, not even in the New Testament; and if it had, where is the proof that the New Testament, in relating things neither probable nor provable, is to be believed as true? When an article in a creed does not admit of proof nor of probability, the salvo is to call it revelation; but this is only putting one difficulty in the place of another, for it is as impossible to prove a thing to be revelation as it is to prove that Mary was gotten with child by the Holy Ghost. Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."

-Thomas Paine

Real US History

Real US History

"About religion, The Age of Reason (written by Thomas Paine) says:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis added. The Bible speaks about people with this type of mindset. Thiis mind-set caused Thomas Paine to be isolated from the others who participated in founding our country. This isolation and the approbation Mr Paine garnered speaks to a lack of the humanism you assert was prevalent at the time of our nation's founding.

kinda enforces what i've said doesn't it?

Thomas Paine was far from Isolated, he garnered support throughout the country and had a great influence on many of the founding fathers who held similar philosophies. The only people he was isolated from was the church.

Real US History