Is the US a Christian nation?

[SkepticThinker]

Do you deny that standard of living issues almost all involve money, or that Norway has a lot of money based on resources per person? How does secularism produce money? Secularism is a concept that incorporates the absence of something and can only have a net loss in that It loses what that concept came with. That is unless the concept was bad but it would still be a net loss in volume.

I'm not challenging any of that.

I'm still challenging your contention that the all the ills present in the US are the result of secularism.

The US doesn't have money and resources?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Since you have discussed a multitude of different topics at this forum over the past twelve months, will you please list several of the most important issues that you are interested in. In addition, please state what the most important issue is to you.

If you are trying to find correlations between Christian behavior and achievements, and the truth, there are not any such correlations. There is surely no valid formula that states that if x number of people achieve y, the world view of those people is the only true world view. If you claim otherwise, please start a new thread on that issue.

Norway's liberal gays rights have worked out quite well, haven't they?

Please provide your definition of the word "secularism."

Those two case were deism and Buddhism. Forgetting the lack of evidence they are even true. Deism in it's most prominent form posits a God that doe snot intervene in human activity. He did not write to us, does not talk to us, and does not help with anything. Even if that God has morals we have no way to know what they would be so it is deficient. Buddhism does not contain within it a potential source for objective moral standards it just simply assumes they exist. Again deficient. However like all oriental philosophies it depends on who you ask as to what it is and probably claims to be more than one exclusive truth which as I have stated is impossible. I evaluated it as I understand it. Islam and Judaism provide as sufficient foundation for morality as a concept. The evidence it is true is much worse and the evidence of the nature of it's revelation also mean that IMO apprehension would be less than in Christianity but the theoretical foundation is similar. I believe morality in Islam is evil many times but the foundation it is based in is just as theoretically absolute and singular. Whether the context is foundations, apprehension, or quality depends what is equal or worse than Christianity. Why do I have to type a hundred words for every one of yours?

But none of that provides reasonable evidence that a God inspired the Bible.

Perhaps Christian Science provides the best basis for moral behavior. Most conservative Christians consider Christian Science to be a cult. Perhaps some aliens are far more moral than most Christians are.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Since you have discussed a multitude of different topics at this forum over the past twelve months, will you please list several of the most important issues that you are interested in. In addition, please state what the most important issue is to you.

If you are trying to find correlations between Christian behavior and achievements, and the truth, there are not any such correlations. There is surely no valid formula that states that if x number of people achieve y, the world view of those people is the only true world view.

Norway's liberal gays rights have worked out quite well, haven't they?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Since you have discussed a multitude of different topics at this forum over the past twelve months, will you please list several of the most important issues that you are interested in. In addition, please state what the most important issue is to you.

1. I like to debate Islam the most because I dislike it the most. BTW My dislike does not drive my evidence. The evidence produced my dislike.
2. The FOUNDATIONS of moral truth.
3. The quality of evidence comparison between differing theological texts.
4. Cause and effect as it relates to cosmology or the cosmos and it's beginning.
5. Anything you commonly find in Professional theological debates is liked by me. However there are a few Biblical verse I do not like and will not explain because I have no explanation for them. Maybe 6 at most.
6. But my favorite is what constitutes and merits salvation. More specifically what is biblical salvation. What question could possible be more profound than how do I get to heaven if it exist?

If you are trying to find correlations between Christian behavior and achievements, and the truth, there are not any such correlations. There is surely no valid formula that states that if x number of people achieve y, the world view of those people is the only true world view.

Norway's liberal gays rights have worked out quite well, haven't they?

I have not the slightest Idea about the gay community in Norway. Have you researched the increase in the military budget that men on men sex caused? How many people died by diseases that would have been contracted without the practice. I did not destroy the country is about all I know but it is not over yet. What did I claim that inspired al your X's and Y's above?

 

[1robin]

As if to prove my lack of faith in scientific achievement , every instrument we have had built has failed and I have been down at work for two months but eventually I will have to earn my pay check again.

What are you secularists (skeptical thinker and Agnostic75 among many) going to do when I stop posting? Are you going to argue with each other over which God does not exist the most?

Apparently there are every few orthodox Christians interested in debate and I am a one man show. There must be 10 clubber Langs' to every Rocky here.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

I'm not challenging any of that.

I'm still challenging your contention that the all the ills present in the US are the result of secularism.

The US doesn't have money and resources?

Oh, that is much harder. Do you deny the correlation?


Actually the US probably has more money than anyone but unfortunately liberalism has created more debt than the amount of money that even exists for the US. They also have stopped the tapping into of most of the natural resources discovered in recent times. If the EPA actually let us get to just the oil we have we could have a standard of living that would make Norway look like the Sudan. BTW the US is near the top so what is the point?

 

[1robin]

But none of that provides reasonable evidence that a God inspired the Bible.

That is probably why it was not even hinted at by me as an argument for that. It was an argument for what it was in repose to.

Perhaps Christian Science provides the best basis for moral behavior. Most conservative Christians consider Christian Science to be a cult. Perhaps some aliens are far more moral than most Christians are.

What is Christian science based on? What texts or God? I know what it is but not what it's foundations are. It isn't L. Ron Bubbard is it? Just kidding.

 

[Agnostic75]

What is Christian science based on? What texts or God? I know what it is but not what it's foundations are.

I could tell you, but Wikipedia could do a better job than I could. I can at least tell you that I was a Christian Scientist for many years, and that I never knew a finer group of people.

Perhaps some aliens on some planet are the most moral people in the universe.

 

[1robin]

You are welcome to start a new thread on that topic.

If you search my most recent posts I gave an in-depth introduction to it in a thread. I cannot keep up with this thread alone much less anew one. Do you have a secretary I can have?

There are not any good reasons to assume that that has cost Norway a good deal of money. The millions of monogamous homosexuals in the world probably compare very favorably health wise with heterosexuals since promiscuous homosexuals spread STD's far more than monogamous homosexuals do.

Homosexuality here is not that interesting to me. Norway's problems or issues are certainly not.

At any rate, doing the right thing sometimes costs money, including providing equal rights for everyone.

That is a result not a cause.

That mainly applies only to promiscuous homosexuals, not to monogamous homosexuals. Monogamous homosexuals are not responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do.

Even if it does why not stop at least that? Actually it is only less problematic but still costly within male on male monogamy.

 

[1robin]

I could tell you, but Wikipedia could do a better job than I could. I can at least tell you that I was a Christian Scientist for many years, and that I never knew a finer group of people.

I have no reason to disagree. I am not going to wade through pages on info at this time. Why can't you use one sentence to tell me. Do you not know?

Perhaps some aliens on some planet are the most moral people in the universe.

Arguments from silence are not arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no reason to disagree. I am not going to wade through pages on info at this time. Why can't you use one sentence to tell me. Do you not know?

Yes, I do. Christian Scientists believe that a God exists, and that Jesus was an ordinary, but very gifted man. They use two books, the Bible, and one other book that was written by Mary Baker Eddy. They interpret the Bible much differently than conservative Christians do.

They are related to the Unity religion.

 

[1robin]

Yes, I do. Christian Scientists believe that a God exists, and that Jesus was an ordinary, but very gifted man. They use two books, the Bible, and one other book that was written by Mary Baker Eddy. They interpret the Bible much differently than conservative Christians do.

They are related to the Unity religion.

How do you interpret Jesus rose from the dead or raised Lazarus from the grave in any way that makes him ordinary? Actually unless you are one you have no burden here but was simply curious. I will supply one additional legendary point in this regard but reply as you wish.

C. S. Lewis was an Oxford medieval historian, popular writer, and Christian apologist. He used the argument outlined below in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[5] Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Agnostic75]

How do you interpret Jesus rose from the dead or raised Lazarus from the grave in any way that makes him ordinary?

But we were discussing which world view provides the best basis for moral behavior, not which world view is true. If Christian Scientists are generally more moral than Christians are, you have no case.

 

[Agnostic75]

But my favorite is what constitutes and merits salvation. More specifically what is biblical salvation. What question could possible be more profound than how do I get to heaven if it exist?

You are welcome to start a new thread on that topic.

I have not the slightest Idea about the gay community in Norway. Have you researched the increase in the military budget that men on men sex caused?

There are not any good reasons to assume that that has cost Norway a good deal of money. The millions of monogamous homosexuals in the world probably compare very favorably health wise with heterosexuals since promiscuous homosexuals spread STD's far more than monogamous homosexuals do. Even if we lump all homosexuals in the U.S. together, 80% of them do not have HIV.

In the U.S., the highest risk groups by far for HIV are African American gay men, and Latino gay men. Most members of those groups who have HIV are probably going to have it whether or not they are in the military, and medical expenses would still be an issue. In the military, replacing them would be an issue, but that would be favorably offset by providing homosexuals with equal rights. Providing people with equal rights is very important.

I think that it is probable that certain groups of monogamous homosexuals, such as Caucasian, monogamous lesbians, have lower rates of HIV than many groups of heterosexuals, and possibly lower rates than all heterosexuals as a whole. Lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Consider the following:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6210a2.htm

In 2009, an estimated 27% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States were attributed to heterosexual contact.

I will bet that the HIV rate for monogamous lesbians is much lower than that.

The leading causes of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, are heart disease, and cancer. Heart disease is largely preventable. Cancer if often preventable, but less preventable than heart disease is. Some experts predict that by the year 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that would add 500 million dollars in health care costs.

Of course, all other problems are minimal compared with the current, and future potential problem of global warming, otherwise known at AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Some experts have predicted that eventually, global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt, which will circulate cold water throughout the world, and will eventually cause severe global cooling which might eventually kill all humans. A large part of global warming is due to raising cattle. There is no human need to eat any beef, much less lots of beef. Grains are much cheaper to grow, cheaper to buy, and much easier to digest than meat. It takes half of the calories in a steak just to digest the steak, but it only takes about 20% of the calories in some grains to digest the grains. Many cities are short of water. Growing cattle takes lots of water.

Republicans disproportionately reject AGW.

How many people died by diseases that would not have been contracted without the practice?

Far fewer than have died from eating harmful foods, and not getting enough exercise.

What you said mainly applies only to promiscuous homosexuals, not to monogamous homosexuals. Monogamous homosexuals are not responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you search my most recent posts I gave an in-depth introduction to it in a thread. I cannot keep up with this thread alone much less anew one.

Yes, you did that, and you also have done that in some other threads, but you haven't spent much time discussing the Bible during the past twelve months. Typically, people spend a good deal of time discussing the issues that are the most important issues to them. That is why I discuss homosexuality a lot.

As far as biblical textual criticism is concerned, you are no match for many of the skeptics at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards). You are the master of one trade, engineering, and the master of none other than engineering. Highly educated, well-prepared skeptics could demolish you in a debate on practically any topic.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: God withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him if they were aware of it. Such people are not rejecting God. They are only rejecting a lack of evidence since they would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. Similarly, no one can blame people who lived hundreds of years ago for eating lots of greasy foods since the health risks of doing that were not known back then, and many of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the health risks.

How can not being aware of truth that would be accepted if it was known be immoral, and wrong? How can being sent to hell for eternity without parole be right, fair, and just?

Why would God tell Christians to tell people about the Bible, but refuse to tell people about it himself? Millions of people died without ever hearing about the Bible. Even 1500 years after the time of Jesus, native American Indians had never heard about the Bible. How could God have intended for the Bible to partly be a book of rules if he knew that millions of people who die without knowing about all of the rules?

Surely word of mouth is a very poor way of trying to let everyone know about the Bible, especially since God could easily, and simultaneously have told everyone in the world about it.

Why would God tell Christians to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to millions of people who died from starvation?

None of that makes any sense unless the God of the Bible does not exist.

In your opinion, what mainly prevents non-Christians who know a lot about the Bible from accepting it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What a bizarre claim. No, the concepts of God as it exists in various religions are not the same.

Reread my post 1robin, you did not understand what was said to you.

The conceptual understanding of mortals does not and can never know or describe the reality represented by such concepts as God, Allah, Brahman, etc.. Iow, concepts have no reality except as mental constructs representing reality, but they are not that reality. Iow, the reality represented by the concept of God is unknowable by the mortal mind, only the concept is knowable, and the resultant conceptual understanding is merely a symbolic representation of THAT which beyond the ken of the conceptual mind.

Now since it appears you do not have the prerequisite understanding to understand what is being conveyed to you, there is nothing else that needs to be said at this time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

[/color]That is a fine goal but in the context of my point your are simply assuming causing no harm is morally good. Only if God exists is that idea founded on absolute fact. An atheist must redefine morality as something assumed to be moral as you have. Other examples are human flourishing, the golden rule, mutual cooperation but those are concepts assumed to be moral without God but are in fact based in opinion and preference and even speciesm.

What is necessary about "god" in knowing that it is "moral" to respect the dignity and rights of others? To assume you need a god, IMO, is to think either inexplicably low of yourself, in that you need a hand to hold and guide you, or inexplicably high of yourself, in that your way is the only proper way. No one actually needs a god, book, or religion to tell them how to be a good person, and in many instances those with this god, book, and religion are often some of the most immoral people you'll ever find. And of course there is the whole assumption that your god exists to begin with.