Ah, now you are trying to change the goalposts. Nice try! But I never said "most Americans follow the Pope." I said that he is by far the most influential leader within Christianity, and is the explicit leader for more than half of Christians worldwide.
And you related that to US Republicans, which means your "half of Christians worldwide" is irrelevant. The only Christian ideals that matter if the Republicans denounce are those in the US. Since the Pope is not a major influence in US Christianity, Republican denouncement of what the Pope says has little to do with US Christian ideals.
But if you're enamored with identity politics, perhaps you assume Christians to be more monolithic than they actually are...even though atheists often tend to cite the diversity among Christian denominations as a criticism.
Bare assertion, with all evidence to the contrary.
I agree. Republicans, however, no longer represent Christianity or Christian ideals.
Yet Christians are still largely Republican. Can you account for that discrepancy?
And GW Bush has made deals with the country the 9/11 terrorists came from. He had business dealings with Bin Laden's brother, and gave approval for Bin Laden's family to escape the US via private jet during the no-fly period. He ignored a briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" that listed airlines and iconic buildings as targets - and that briefing was given to him a month before 9/11. So a similar amount of culpability there as well.
Cite your sources for those claims.
Was the Bin Laden family guilty of anything?
Was the PBD a credible, immediate threat, or
"the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting"."
Where was the cover up of known illegal activity?
If someone demands his country do non-Christian things, they are not expressing Christian ideals. If they spend time, money and effort trying to implement their non-Christian ideals, then they are Christian in name only. Their faith is dead.
You've yet to make the case that any of this is expressly or overtly non-Christian.
But don't take my word for it. From someone much wiser than me:
James 2 -
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
We all know you're being disingenuous when you say "much wiser than me".
Again:
Ephesians 4:28 - Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 - For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
Proverbs 13:22 - A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous.
Proverbs 13:4 - The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.
Luke 12:13-14 - Someone in the crowd said to Him [Jesus Christ], ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ But He said to him, ‘Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?'
Matthew 25:27-28 - “Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.”
Matthew 20:13-15 - But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?
Doing good works does not entail indiscriminate charity. Giving charity you know will be spent on drugs and alcohol is only enabling vice (sin).
Not building walls, not banning travel and not making screenings even longer and more difficult would be cheaper, not more expensive. So you fail there as well.
Expense is moving your own goal posts. You claimed a Christian nation must have charitable policies, and when forced charity makes your argument moot, you backpedal to some red herring about expense. Some intellectual honesty please.
Funny how "real Christians" are never short of reasons why they can't actually BE Christian; it's just too hard!
An atheist's idea of what it is to "actually BE Christian" is caricature, at best.
I agree. So cancel the wall. Cancel the ban. Cancel the expensive screenings. I am sure you will agree that bankrupting the country in the name of making refugees and immigrants suffer is neither Christian nor good for America. And if you do agree to such a commonsense conclusion, congratulations! You are well on your way to abandoning the farce that the GOP has become.
Questionable cause fallacy. The true cause of refugee suffering is not the nations that refuse to admit them. That is simply an appeal to emotion, used to poison the well, in lieu of rational argument. Seems we've done more to bankrupt the US during the last eight years, considering doubling the national debt.
Again, you like to talk about what's Christian and American, even though you don't seem too fond of either.
