Is the US a Christian nation?

[1robin]

It's a shame this thread doesn't have a poll.

Would a poll settle the issue?

 

[Awoon]

Would a poll settle the issue?

So far you are the only one who says the U.S. is a Christian Nation. So a poll would be great to determine those who agree with you and those who don't. Let the majority determine if the U.S. is or isn't a Christian Nation.

 

[1robin]

So far you are the only one who says the U.S. is a Christian Nation. So a poll would be great to determine those who agree with you and those who don't. Let the majority determine if the U.S. is or isn't a Christian Nation.

I think the 100 words to every one of mine is indicative of what a poll would show in this thread not what is actually true. Taking a poll in a thread where a dozen atheists are facing one Christian in a narrow time frame where secularism is dominant is hardly going to prove anything besides your desire for a stacked deck. Instead a poll of our founding fathers views on faith or what our most influential leaders of the time said concerning faith and governance as I have provided are far more applicable.

 

[Awoon]

Yep this thread shoulda had a poll.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
~ Thomas Jefferson

Regards,
M.V.

 

[1robin]

Yep this thread shoulda had a poll.

That says a lot about the integrity you require in your data. I find these polls to be trite even when they indicate what I wish. What kind-of bird is your avatar?

 

[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 do you know? The Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on over whelming evidence. Where they asked for evidence and when it was given was used by them for other purposes. It may be that the amount of evidence we have is the most efficient. I can tell you being a believer after being a non-believer for 27 years it is not the evidence (there is more than enough) it is our heart. A hard heart will and did deny the parting of seas and the raising of the dead. A compliant heart has found enough evidence in the sophistication and complexity of nature alone.

Common sense since there is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

The Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on overwhelming evidence.

But even if that is true, that does not mean that not any more people would accept
God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

How do you know [that God withholds evidence]?

I think you added a statement in brackets to the end of mine and then argued with what you added for some reason. Why? My statement meant addressed a much bigger point than what you added to it.

I just quoted you again, and I took off the brackets. What I originally said still stands.

I agree and posted my own version of what you said here.

Well I see a few verses here. What is the argument?

1. Miracles are given to help convince those willing to believe.
2. Miracles are not enough to convince those that will not.

My arguments are still the same, and they are still valid. Here they are again. I will number them for easy reference.

1. There is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

2. Even if as you said "the Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on overwhelming evidence," that does not mean that not any more people would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

3. The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Logic indicates that the first century A.D. was not the only time in history, and that the Middle East was not the only place in history, where people could become Christians partly because of seeing Jesus perform miracles. Jesus only traveled to a very small part of the world. There was nothing unique about people in the ancient Middle East. Historically, many people have been influenced by supposed occurrences of miracles to accept all kinds of strange religions based upon far less convincing evidence than the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed. In any era of history, anywhere in the world, authentic miracles are a sure way for a God to attract attention, just like the New Testament claims that Jesus often attracted attention by performing miracles.

4. In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

Even though Jesus had performed miracles in many places, including, as the texts say, "throughout all of Syria," and even though there were still thousands of still living eyewitnesses around, and even though the Holy Spirit had come to the church, God still provided people with additional evidence. Surely you cannot make an intelligent argument that those kinds of miracles performed by Christian pastors all over the world today would not convince one single person to accept God partly because of the miracles.

 

[Awoon]

That says a lot about the integrity you require in your data. I find these polls to be trite even when they indicate what I wish. What kind-of bird is your avatar?

I don't know what the bird is, that was a choice from the forum. My bird is a Cockatiel.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicated post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Common sense since there is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

For about the 10th time that is a false optimization fallacy. There is no reason to claim that God must do anything that he is capable of. His actions must only be consistent with his purpose. He makes up his own mind about how much evidence to provide. He provides exactly as much as he intends to. Any argument where a fallible finite mind tells a God what that God should do is not an argument. His primary is not to force enough information on every person that they become convinced. His goal was to provide enough to allow decision. A kindergartener would by more justified in telling Newton how calculus should be done.

New Living Translation (©2007)
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Unless locked in a clean room you have no gripe.

But even if that is true, that does not mean that not any more people would accept
God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

I am not sure if Pat could predict what he will do in the next 5 minutes. Find me a verse that says God said he would provide enough info to convert everyone or how ever many you arbitrarily think is enough.

The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou does, except God be with him."

This does not say what you said it did. This verse actually means something else entirely. This was Nicodemus who already believed in God. He also did not come to faith in Christ based on what he says here (in fact none of the Pharisees had). If you keep reading Jesus tells him he still has not been saved and only when he is born again would he be. The Bible never says he was but does indicate so, but says nothing about any miracle making him have faith in Christ.
If you can't understand some of the most well known verse why in the world do you feel you should tell God what he should do.

In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

I can guaranty you that 99% of Christians became Christians without seeing a single undeniable miracle. For me it was the behavior of 3 people. There are billion and billions of Christians. Your verse claims miracles were done, of course I agree. What is the point? Ask around I have heard of maybe one miracle for every 10,000 Christians since Biblical times. The problem is not evidence.

I just quoted you again, and I took off the brackets. What I originally said still stands.

I do not see this nor know what your saying?

My arguments are still the same, and they are still valid. Here they are again. I will number them for easy reference.

1. There is no way that you will claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him.

And there exists no reason you can find in revelation that suggests he should provide more so this one is out.

2. Even if as you said "the Bible records thousands of instances where people refused faith based on overwhelming evidence," that does not mean that not any more people would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when, and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, a year in advance, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of his predictions. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

Since we are dealing with maybes here. Maybe God has provided the precise amount of evidence he intends to and everyone has a sufficient amount to decide or will have before death. How many of the billions and billions of Christians have seen the red sea part, someone being raised from the grave, or the blind see? How large of a sample size (you have maybe 4 or 5 billion) do you need to indicate salvation is not dependent on seeing someone levitate the west minster abbey. This one is out.

3. The New Testament says that some people became Christians only after they saw Jesus perform miracles. John 3:2 says:

"The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

That verse says nothing about Christians (but Pharisees only) and says nothing about anyone being saved. They already believed in God but not Christ and never did as a group even given miracles. Nicodemus was told how to be saved in the next few verses but never says he was so this one is out on many levels.

Logic indicates that the first century A.D. was not the only time in history, and that the Middle East was not the only place in history, where people could become Christians partly because of seeing Jesus perform miracles. Jesus only traveled to a very small part of the world. There was nothing unique about people in the ancient Middle East. Historically, many people have been influenced by supposed occurrences of miracles to accept all kinds of strange religions based upon far less convincing evidence than the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed. In any era of history, anywhere in the world, authentic miracles are a sure way for a God to attract attention, just like the New Testament claims that Jesus often attracted attention by performing miracles.

Logic also should have dictated that once all those miracles had occurred and had virtually part of universal knowledge they was no longer as great a need for them. More people by far know who Christ is than anyone else. The book they are in is in every nation on Earth (the only one BTW). Miracles have purposes, once that purpose is satisfied no longer need for the miracle. A Christian saying that from the OT to the NT God got out of things and into people. In the OT they did not have access to the spirit as a possession and had greater need or external proofs than those who live after the resurrection because when saved the Holy Spirit becomes our possession (or us his).

4. In the New International Version, the book of Acts says that even after the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples went about "confirming the message of his grace" by performing signs and wonders.

Even though Jesus had performed miracles in many places, including, as the texts say, "throughout all of Syria," and even though there were still thousands of still living eyewitnesses around, and even though the Holy Spirit had come to the church, God still provided people with additional evidence. Surely you cannot make an intelligent argument that those kinds of miracles performed by Christian pastors all over the world today would not convince one single person to accept God partly because of the miracles.

Yes God provides miracles (as his infinite knowledge) and personal purpose demand them. The initial revelation cam with wonders. Those wonders once their mission was achieved ceased. BTW miracles still occur and the net is full of them, but I know of no basis for demanding more other than want. A group of Pharisees demanded miracles and Christ flat refused because he knew they were testing him, their hearts were hardened against him, and they were looking for evidence to accuse him of sorcery. Others accused him of being empowered by Satan when he drove out demons. It is the heart not the eyes that make the difference. Is there no way you can make shorter posts?

 

[1robin]

This is amazing, I asked you the same kind of question in another thread (What percentage would satisfy you?), and you refused to answer the question because you know that you would still oppose homosexuality no matter what statistics said.

Post my statement where I refused to answer. I do not even remember the question.

Any percentage at all is a good enough reason for promiscuous homosexuals who get HIV, or other STD's to practice abstinence, but millions of homosexuals are monogamous, and do not have any STDs, and thus have no reason to practice abstinence since it is primarily promiscuous homosexuals who are spreading STDs.

If you can guarantee that those who are monogamous will always be so then that might be important.

I answered your question. Now please answer mine, what percentage of healthy homosexuals would convince you to stop complaining about the high rate of STDs among homosexuals?

The same or less percentage as healthy heterosexuals year by year. That is being very very generous as heterosexuality has a corresponding necessity that homosexuality does not. In fact 1% is a more reasonable level.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you can guarantee that those who are monogamous will always be so then that might be important.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

Why should monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades practice abstinence?

If the STD rates of monogamous lesbians were similar to the STD rates of heterosexual males, would you object to monogamous lesbians?

The highest HIV rates for heterosexual men in the U.S. by far are by African American men. Do you recommend that all heterosexual African American men should practice abstinence?

About half of homosexuals are monogamous.

An article at http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/when-gay-couples-get-married-are-they-monogamous/# says:

"Chan and Hornedo, [two gay men] still happily married, believe monogamy is “the only healthy channel for a long-lasting, fulfilling relationship."

Why should homosexuals like them practice abstinence?

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

One study showed that in about 21 American cities, 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Quite naturally, if only monogamous homosexuals had been studied, well over 90'% of those homosexuals would have had HIV, maybe over 95%.

If cures for all STD's were found, would you still object to homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause at least some people in the entire word to love and accept him partly because of the additional evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that God is able to provide additional evidence that would cause at least some people in the entire word to love and accept him partly because of the additional evidence.

I would think that if God really loved and cared about us, he would keep those of us who are highly skeptical in mind, and prove himself beyond doubt to those of us who are likely to dismiss things that others think as miracles for being statistically unlikely but possible or our own senses misinterpreting things.

 

[Agnostic75]

Find me a verse that says God said he would provide enough info to convert everyone or how ever many you arbitrarily think is enough.

That is absurd since you know very well that no amount of miracles will convince everyone to accept any religion. If a real God showed up, and performed many miracles, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, some people would believe that he was an advanced alien. "Everyone" is not the issue. Rather, "anyone" is the issue. Can God convince "anyone" else to love and accept him by providing additional evidence? If he is omnipotent, he easily could, but he would not even have to be omnipotent to easily do that.

BTW miracles still occur and the net is full of them, but I know of no basis for demanding more other than want.

But it is not a question of people demanding more evidence. It is a question of to what extent God will go the get more people saved, and help them not to be punished for eternity without parole. It would not be difficult at all for God, out of love, mercy, and compassion, to provide additional evidence that at least some people would accept.

Regarding sexual abstinence for homosexuals, you have often made an argument that if a practice provides gain, with no loss, it is a good practice. If God provided additional evidence, just the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely some people would become Christians partly as a result of the evidence. That would be all gain, with no loss, for both God, and for the people who accepted the evidence.

A group of Pharisees demanded miracles and Christ flat refused because he knew they were testing him, their hearts were hardened against him, and they were looking for evidence to accuse him of sorcery.

But I have already adequately replied to that argument. I basically told you that although some people will refuse to accept additional evidence, others will not, just like allegedly happened during the time of Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The highest HIV rates for heterosexual men in the U.S. by far are by African American men, and Hispanic men. Do you recommend that all heterosexual African American men, and all Hispanic men practice abstinence?

They could just stop being African-American and Hispanic. I don't buy that nonsense about them 'being born that way'!

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151019-do-other-universes-exist.html,

 

[Agnostic75]

Is something ok because something else is worse? I have already stated several times that gluttony is as morally wrong as homosexuality.......

Fine, but no one who has a preventable health problem, or is making unnecessary contributions to global warming, is in any position to claim that homosexuality is immoral. That would make the number of legitimate opponents of homosexuality smaller by many millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions of people. Some experts have predicted that in 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that would add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable, as is heart disease. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than obesity, and heart disease.

Heterosexuals do not need any help from homosexuals to destroy human life on earth since they are doing an excellent job of destroying it on their own in many ways. Even if there were only Christians in the world, they would still destroy life on earth in many ways.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Post my statement where I refused to answer. I do not even remember the question.

How would there be a statement if you didn't answer? :areyoucra