[i]Chris,

Thank you very much for your good response, and I, also, wish to affirm my respect for you as a person and express my appreciation for the fine manner in which you seek to uphold your point of view. I commend you for your thoroughness and forthrightness combined with what I take to be an attitude of humility. I hope you will detect the same attitude on my part for though I vigorously disagree with your main premises (as you do mine) I yet esteem you as one who possesses great inherent value and worth because you are made in the image of God. I have long ago given up thinking I am able to “save” anyone.

[i]Chris,

I appreciate very much your reply and the subsequent qualifier. I truly want to commend you for the adamant way you set forth your position and the attempt to put yourself in the position of your detractor to uncover suspected incongruence.

Regarding the matter of the Christian nation issue, let me just say that I do not define or confine Christianity to any particular sect or denomination. It just seems to me that many (if not most) Western nations have moved away from some distinctively Christian principles. But again, this is a separate discussion that need not distract us from the main topics at hand.

[i]Chris,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to respond right away. Sometimes it may take a day or so before I can clear my docket and get down to offering the kind of answer you deserve.

Here’s my understanding of your remarks:

I. No True Scotsman Fallacy

I believe I gather what you’re aiming at here, but I’m not sure it accurately applies. There seems to be to be some ambiguity in the premise regarding what constitutes a Christian society (or nation), but the main thrust of your comment is well taken. Still, I don’t see how there can be any equivocation when there hasn’t been a bona fide “shoring up” of the challenged original. Be that as it may, it isn’t really germane to our discussion. (As an aside, some Supreme Court decisions have denominated the US as a “Christian” nation; other decisions do not so presuppose).

See my earlier blog entry for part one. If you see anything here you think you've read before, it's because I plucked it from the great minds of other atheists.

[i]Chris,

Hello. My name is Michael, and I'm happy to discuss these issues with you. It appears that you and Josh have been exploring some pretty interesting subjects!

As to your question – it's a very good one. (I could argue about whether contemporary Western society is indeed "Christian", but for our purposes given the historical Christian roots of Western culture we can stipulate to that fact). Taking "punishments" in its broad sense I think you are right to reason that the prohibtions and penalties (e.g. execution) were not meant just for ancient Israel. I do think, however, that in some cases the Scriptures give flexibility and indicate the maximum allowable penalty. The Mosaic code has a high form of victim's rights embedded within it. For example, the maximum penalty for adultery is death for both the man and the woman (Lev. 20:10).

We've been debating via email. I realize I'll probably never change this person's beliefs, but if I can tackle arguments from one of the 'big boys' I can probably tackle any religious argument.
I've already picked up on mistakes I've made, things I wished I'd said differently, but the more I debate the better I'll get.
Here's the first part. I'm Chris, and Michael is the pastor.

Hi,
My name is Chris and I'm a friend of Josh, who attends your church. I've indicated to him I'd be interested in debating religion with you, and from what I've gathered, I think you're interested too.
You helped him out with a question I posed, which was 'Why aren't Christians killing gays now, as indicated in the laws of the Bible?'