Bible Party of the USA

Oh, yes and I suppose you've been around the world a couple of times? But your knowledge (or lack thereof) of enlightenment philosophy especially since you had no idea of the connection between this and the founding fathers speaks of a radically different story indeed. You've swallowed whole the myths perpetuated by the lay-people and were completely oblivious to any alternative explanations until I brought it up. Also considering you've been unsuccessful in defending your position, showing me you were blindsided by the current academic research in this area. No witty catchphrase will change that.

My interpretation? What interpretation?!...That the word of man cannot be trusted? This is no interpretation, It is truth as evidenced by the many times man has been dishonest. To deny this and you'd find yourself in quite a conundrum, as you cannot say I'm wrong if you trust the word of men.

In 24 years of active duty in the USAF with more than 14 of those overseas and boots on the ground on four of the seven continents, yes I have.

As you are quick to point out aboiut the lack of veracity of the word of man, current academic research is the word of man. You trust that when there is little to corroborate it in the form of original documents or witness testimony from the time in question.

On the other hand,, the Bible has original documents and witness testimony that supports its truth. Nothing in the Bible has been proven to be other than true and supported by archeological evidence in addition to the documented witness testimony and original documents.

Exodus 21: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.


If you say the bible promotes equality then you must be reading a different bible than me. :thumbup:

Red herring! We have talked about the validity of the bible but that is not the issue we are talking right now, such a conversation should be reserved for another, although i'd like to dismantle your argument but i do not want to distract from our current issue. The current issue here being whether on not this nation' founders solely used christian specific values.



[SIZE="3"]

This red herring tells me one of two things:[/SIZE]


Either A) you are purposely trying to distract from the current argument.

or B) You're personal bias won't allow you to separate these two topics.

Does that passage tell you to own a slave? It does not. It was given to govern the actions of someone who made that choice. That choice was to be and act in an evil manner. That doesn't mean that God condones it. Use logic when evaluating the passages of the Bible.

Just because something is included in the Bible doesn't mean that God accepts that behavior. Read the passage when Jesus explains the Old Testament law of divorce.

Here is another thing to remember when reading the Bible, escpecially the old testament. Let me paraphrase what the Bible states in the New Testament, the Law provided to Moses and the children of Israel was not meant to make them righteous. It was a stumbling block.

All men and women fall short of the mark. The only way to be reconciled to God is to accept Christ Jesus' substitutionary sacriifice as payment for your sin and repent.

Actually, your argument is a red herring. The purpoose of this thread is to discuss creation and organization of the Bible Party of the USA. Diverting the discussion to one concerning the religious preference of the founding fathers or lack thereof is off subject.

because it is untrue.

It goes as follows:

*You said you wanted to start a bible party

*I said I opposed it because of the wall of separation

*You said this nation was founded on christian-specific values

*I said it wasn't because many of the founders weren't christian and wouldn't do that.

etc..

That is an assertion based on your frame of reference which is not a Christian one. Can a racist express the truth when they say they are not racist?

If god is giving instructions on how to manage, trade and treat slaves i think it's only logical to assume he condones it, I can't imagine why someone would give you instructions on how to do something that they opposed. Rather than giving instructions on how to trade and treat slaves why doesn't god just say "Thou shall not own slaves"?

This is something you cannot rationalize away.

A former christian.

And yet you'd criticize atheists for doing the same?

No you didn't, you just gave a bible quote to reassert how "holy" the bible is and then asked me to use a time machine to ask the people who did these things.

If Atheists really are atheists and not anti-theists then they should have no more problem with Christians or having God's Word honored in a public place than they do with Disney or any other business or organization promoting a belief in their products or ideas.

This is not the case. They insist on removing all reference to God from public life. They insist on organizing and sponsoring or passing laws that hinder perpetuation of the Judeo-Christian culture.

This indicates atheists are afraid of something the existence of which they profess not to believe in.

An effective way to combat that assault might be to organize Christians and Jews to push-back against that assault. That is part of the premise for this party.

I fear for your soul. Your pen name says it all.

First of all the government shouldn't be promoting any particular product anyway and secondly Disney is not a religion. Promoting Disney is not prohibited by the constitution.

But by doing so you are Establishing religion, your religion, which is expressively prohibited by the constitution of which I hold so dear.

Um, What:dunno:.....Sorry you'll have to explain this one to me.