: Your second point is absurd. Even atheists and liberals admit that democracy is intrinsically related, both historically and logically, to Protestant Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:"Many atheists have superior knowledge of bible compared to Christians." Such as... who, exactly? The people behind the "Evil Bible" and "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" websites, perhaps? Say, perhaps, Hitchens or Dawkins? Name some names and provide places where we can see this supposedly "superior knowledge." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Further, democracy and Christianity have been intrinsically related for all of American history; "as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on..."-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:: That is absolutely not true. The origin of democracy can be traced even before Christianity. Democracy started in ancient Greek philosophy. It was initially classified by [[Plato]]. Ancient forms of democracy was even prevalent in Ancient Indian civilisation,again before the advent of Christianity. Modern democracies like British democracy came due to the ruthless actions of the king, nothing to do with Christianity. Democracy is a secular institution. Can you provide citations regarding any of the above claims? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:33, 6 January 2008 (EST).
::: This is one of those topics where there is no ''simple'' answer. Yes the Greeks had "democracy" before Christianity per se got started, although their democracy only included the "upper crust", I believe (and only the men). In other words, it wasn't democracy as we know it, where (virtually) everybody gets a vote. I don't know anything about the Indian democracy. Modern British democracy was prompted by the ruthlessness of the king, but it was the clergy who reined him in, on the basis that even the king was subject to God and His standards, so it had a ''lot'' to do with Christianity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:00, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::: ... and Greek democracy was limited to a very small population ... and Greek democracy FAILED after a brief period ... and, by the way, the Greeks weren't atheists anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:09, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Maybe democracy in the abstract is secular, but democracy as applied by Americans is most certainly Christian!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)
: JBuscombe, this is silly. Historically democracy never succeeded without Christianity, primarily in the founding of America and then it spread to Europe and then India. Other belief systems do not have democratic traditions. Atheistic communism is markedly NOT democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:17, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::The Swedish seem to do quite well. Also, at evangelical sites (not this one) I always seemed to get shouted down by evangelicals for bringing up too much analysis of the original Koine Greek, making the first point somewhat dubious. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]
::: The Swedish do quite well ... and they historically got their democracy from [[Christianity]], which is still alive there now. Contrast that with [[atheistic]] countries like the former [[East Germany]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:36, 6 January 2008 (EST)
JOwen, I'm happy to throw down with you on biblical knowledge :-) I don't speak the original languages, but I took extensive coursework on it.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::Contemporary democracy is certainly a result of Christianity, albeit brought about by [[Protestant]]s rejecting the false doctrines and malpractices within the [[Roman Catholic Church]], in particular the teaching and sale of indulgences, the buying and selling church positions and the systemic corruption within the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy. It was the Protestant belief in individual responsiblity and that each man can be his own priest, allied to a belief in universal education and academic freedom which led to democracy as we know it. [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 18:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)
== New topic ==
What is Evangelical Free? --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 10:56, 14 January 2008 (EST) mean as opposed to just evangelical?
: Where is it used? It's meaning would depend on its context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::How about on a sign in front of a church? "an Evangelical Free church" I've seen it --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 21:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::: I've seen that also. I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps it means the church is unaffiliated with any other church.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:::: I think that's right. It an evangelical free-church, not an evangelical-free church. So (probably) not affiliated with a denomination. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Actually it seems to be its own denomination, or at least a large association. see [http://www.efca.org/about/ here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 23:32, 14 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: Good find. So to answer Steve, they say that ...{{QuoteBox|The term Free refers to our form of church government as being congregational. Evangelical Free Churches depend upon the active participation of lay people in the decisions and directions}}. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)