You said "No matter what you choose to believe, this nation was founded on Christian and Biblical principles." If that is different to you, I apologize. You can substitute the phrase "christian principles" for "christianity" in any of the posts I have made, I meant it to be synonymous.

I read every quote and researched each one. I posted the issues I had with them and asked you to clarify where possible. If you have specific counter arguments, I eagerly await them.

Do you not see the contradiction in this statement. The first commandment requires that "you shall have no other gods before me." A country cannot honor that commandment and allow other gods to be worshiped.

But just for clarification sake, what are the "Christian principles" you claim the country was based on?

How nice of you to assume. I am sure you falsely believe that just as you falsely follow some uncredited blog? I can see that debating with you is absolutely pointless, because you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to a point of no return I'm afraid.

And I would kindly ask that you don't assume, because I was born and raised Christian, and babtised in the Lutheran Church. I have read the bible twice and I know my former religion well.

Have you studied the LAW?

Ditto.

Wow. I can't believe you have to assume there was a man present when they "caught her in the very act"!!! It takes a lot to prove something to you, doesn't it? Could it be because you refuse to believe the argument I've set forth?

Correction. ALL the law was not upheld. When it takes two to break the law, you can't punish one and not the other. IOW, the woman could NOT have committed adultery by herself.

My evidence is: When Jesus said, "Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone" they all turned and left Him there with the woman.

NO ONE is without sin. It covered both possibilities.

The scripture "God does not change" refers to His character. Anyone can change their mind without changing their character.

He did. You, in your resistance to the truth, refuse to accept it.

No assumption needed it you know the law.

Call it a "technicality". What happens in our courts when the DA commits an infraction of the rules? Isn't it thrown out of court? a mistrial declared?
If it requires that two people have to be present to commit the crime, you cannot convict one without the other.

This was your question: 7. You have totally skipped my question so I will ask it again in an updated way. If US law allowed it, do you think that a girl should be killed for having premarital sex?

And I asked you for the law that says a girl shall be put to death for premarital sex.

IF that is indeed the law of God. You have yet to show me that it is.

It is against God's law to commit infanticide, yet the U.S. has legalized it. Whose law should trump, do you believe?

I have to obey another law that commands that I submit to civil authority.

Not backing down, just doing what's necessary to keep in line with God's laws.

Take a look at these....and in particular, this one: Fallacy #8: No Deterrence

"Capital Punishment does not deter crime. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime." (Death Penalty Focus)

Correction: Death penalty opponents love to assume that the principal purpose for capital punishment is deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect straw argument. Tangible proof of deterrence alone is not a valid reason for capital punishment (or any other form of punishment, for that matter), nor is it the main rationale employed by astute death penalty advocates. As Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes, "[deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven?s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it." Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather than to punish for deeds done -- is the very definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent penalty is one where a man is punished -- not for something that he did -- but for something someone else might do. Lewis explained the logical end of this argument: "If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. That said, the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

IOW, it shouldn't be about deterrence. It should be about punishment PERIOD.

Which proves nothing. Many have been "raised Christian", "been baptized" and "became members of their church" and STILL don't know Him or understand His Word. That's why so many "fall away" from their teachings....they never knew Him. If you had known Him, you would still be a Christian. If you say you (still) are (a Christian), then why do you go against Him? Lu 11:23 -
He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

Religion is nothing. It's about a relationship with Him. It's easy to tell who is with Him and who is against Him.

I resent that and I wish for you to take that back. I'm serious. Just because I'm not Christian anymore doesn't mean I don't understand the religion. I didn't "fall away" from Christian teachings because I "didn't know him"; I met people of many different cultures and I learned a lot more than just one narrow view on life.

Who are you to analyze me and my philosohpy on life when you know absolutely nothing about me? Who are you to be intolerant of others when the teachings of Jesus contradict this?

Oh, so its not a religion but rather its "a relationship with God". Okay. That's fine, just so long as you have yourself committed if you're hearing voices.

So then, all things being considered, when Observer points out that you are not a Christian, he's right. Right?

Oh! So you did know Him? Is that what you're saying? Then you left Christianity because?? What is it you want me to take back? That I said you were never a Christian? If you ever were, you still would be one.

I am an "observer". When something is totally obvious, I see it for what it is. Why get all offended when I simply pointed out what you told me yourself?

ROFL!!! That's right...it's a relationship with your Creator. You've never heard Him speak, so anyone who has is a mental case? This just convinces me all the more that you were never a Christian. You have no clue what it's about. You "checked out" because of the hypocrisy you saw I suppose, and decided other religions must have more than Christianity. Am I wrong? Obviously you never "found" anything worthwhile in the Christian "religion". That's because you didn't find the "real McCoy".

Sure, what ever you say. Because obviously what ever I say, you will not heed, but rather you would indulge yourself into assumption and of coarse feeling superior; that's your choice. But just so long as you understand that you're not any more morally superior, or any more spiritual than me just because you follow a religion and believe in a big bearded man in the sky. The truth is that I was a Christian, and was one for most of my life; and I can tell you that a lot of what you're spewing out right now is what I have said in the past. Now I quite frankly don't care if you're not ready to adopt that truth in your head; I'm just here to tell you that its there and you can take it or not. I've already been there and done that. I never lost spirituality, or morality. I just found tolerance, I found understanding between different people and philosophies. Whether or not you will ever understand that is beyond me.

It is people like you who are unfortunately giving Christianity a bad name. I have known many tolerant and very kind Christians, but on the other hand you have fundamentalist sects that only desire to indulge in intolerance and bigotry. Perhaps it is people like you who are making certain groups of people question their faith because perhaps they don't want to be associated with that kind of organization that would spred hate and intolerance.

And Jefferson, indeed I am obviously not a Christian currently. But he did not necessarily point that out, he assumed that I have never been a Christian nor have I ever understood its belief and God.

Well, actually, Katczinski, I don't feel superior, just blessed. I'm sorry I came across to you that way. I was thinking about our conversation and it occurred to me that everyone hears from God. They just don't recognize it. Heck, sometimes I think it's my thoughts and it's really Him. I think I'm getting better at knowing the difference. For example, when you think to yourself (talk to yourself in your mind) is it first person or second? You're driving down the highway and it's raining and the thought pops in your head, "You'd better slow down" and instinctively your foot lets up on the gas pedal. That's God. If the thought goes like this, "I'd better slow down" then that's you.