Is the US a Christian nation?

[idea]

Is the United States a Christian nation?

This topic comes up quite a lot, below is info from previous threads on it.

The Mayflower Compact was the first document establishing a government in America. It proclaimed "self-government under Christ alone" or government by God’s laws not kings. It states, “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic.”

America began as a church-relocation project. The Puritan’s motto “self-government under Christ alone” replaced rule by kings with rule by God’s law. Government by God’s moral laws instead of government by fallen tyrannical rulers founded our liberty. The Mayflower Compact, the charter covenant for self-government, begins: “In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith … do by these presents
solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic.”


The Mayflower Compact was the first document establishing a government in America.

AMERICAS FOUNDING FATHERS

Truth in Action Ministries


The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a God when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That statement was inserted by the author, Thomas Jefferson.”

Thomas Jefferson was not an athiest, he was a diest – he believed in God. He did not belong to any church, and during his lifetime (1743 –1826) I would not have belonged to any church either. (pre 1830). Jefferson recognized the great apostasy, as did many others of his day.

From wiki “Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality.[72] He is most closely connected with the Episcopal Church, the religious philosophy of Deism, and Unitarianism.” Considering what was available to Jefferson during his lifetime, I think his religious views were the best ones he could have had.

There is a group of people who twist facts to teach that this nation was not founded by Christians. There were two sets of Christians at the time – the Christians of the dark ages, of the apostasy, of a fallen church… and then there were the Christians of the reformation. This nation was founded by reformationists. Quotes of our foudning fathers which conedmned the fallen church of dark ages are taken out of context to insinuate they did not believe in God. Let us not confuse their loyalty in God, with their loyalty in fallen churches.

the apostasy -

Old Testament - Isaiah60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people.
Old Testament - Amos8: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

The protestant reformation was 1517-1648
During the reformation, Jamestown was established in 1607, the Plymouth Colony was established in 1620.

The Plymouth Colony was founded by our Pilgrim Fathers – the puritans. The puritans believed the Church needed to be purified of its false ceremonies, non-Scriptural teachings, and superstitious rituals, and I agree with them! The Pilgrims, a very religious Christian people, are the founders of freedom of religion. They did not seek freedom from Christianity, they sought freedom to practice Christianity, they sought freedom from the corrupted Church of England.

Christianity is the predominant religion in the Western world (Europe, the Americas, Oceania – Australia). Atheism/agnosticism is predominant in Russia, China, and South Korea. Freedom reigns in Christian nations. Mass murder/genocide/enslavement reigns in atheist countries.

some quotes

Samuel Adams
“He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all... Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.”
(American Independence, August 1, 1776, speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia)


Andrew Jackson
“The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

George Washington
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
Voice in the Wilderness, June 2006, page 4

Patrick Henry – author of “give me liberty or give me death”
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
(May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses)

James Madison
“A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.” (Letter by Madison to William Bradford urging him to make sure of his own salvation, November 9, 1772)

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. 25:10 - inscription on the Liberty Bell comes from the Bible.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Mayflower Compact was the first document establishing a government in America.

A Eurocentric view of history that ignores the participatory democracy that already existed at that time in what would become the US decades later.

 

[idea]

A Eurocentric view of history that ignores the participatory democracy that already existed at that time in what would become the US decades later.

Sorry, should have said that the Mayflower compact was one of the first documents leading up to the present day American gov.

The main idea is this though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FirstCommitteeGreatSealReverseLossingDrawing.jpg

"Interpretation of the first committee's design for the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States in 1776, which was never used. This was Benjamin Franklin's design, originally suggested for the obverse, but the committee chose Pierre Eugene du Simitiere's design for that side. This interpretation was made in 1856 by Benson J. Lossing.

Franklin's design was:

Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto, "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
​

Thomas Jefferson, a member of the committee, liked the motto enough to later use it on his personal seal.

Freedom is the result of people not wanting to be ruled by people - deciding to be ruled by God instead of a King (and not ruled by a church either, ruled by your own conscience - by your own personal beliefs) this is what America was founded on.

 

[1robin]

A Eurocentric view of history that ignores the participatory democracy that already existed at that time in what would become the US decades later.

What do you mean here? I am not contending it. I just do not get what your saying.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Freedom is the result of people not wanting to be ruled by people - deciding to be ruled by God instead of a King (and not ruled by a church either, ruled by your own conscience - by your own personal beliefs) this is what America was founded on.

Then why is that "congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion... (Constitution, First Amendment)" and why is that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11)." And why did Jefferson originally not use the term "creator?"

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . 2

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not believe that whatever attraction there is can't be remedied or changed. I am attracted to lots of things I either do not indulge in or have tried and loved only to realize they are harmful and stopped (sometimes after years of doing them, sadly). We are all born wanting to do or attracted to what is not right. I thought of a type of data that I could have confidence in. With all those genetic markers for homosexuality they should be able to predict who will be one. If you can dig up some reliable info on studies that predicted with high accuracy who would become homosexual prior to age 1 or so that would be very interesting.

Genetic markers? What? There's no "gay gene."

 

[1robin]

Genetic markers? What? There's no "gay gene."

If there is no gay gene then how is homosexuality genetic? I got that that from I believe one of the sites you guys gave. However forget that. I want you to answer a question that occurred to me the other day. Evolution is the relentless weeding out of things not conducive to survival and the selecting of what is beneficial for survival. Hopefully we can agree on this or tis his a moving target that can morph into anything convenient as well? Given that very few genetic abortions or corruptions could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity to breed, why has evolution not weeded out the genetic components of homosexuality if they exist? This is not an argument in the form of a question. It is an actual question. Also can you post a link to a single example of a genetic train wreck? A bird with one wing, a bear with no mouth, or even a fish with no ability to get oxygen from water. I believe Darwin said we should be tripping over anomalies like this, do you know of any?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Given that very few genetic abortions or corruptions could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity to breed, why has evolution not weeded out the genetic components of homosexuality if they exist?

No one knows, but you should keep in mind that we are a species. Every once in awhile, a group of individuals settles into a group of 'like kind individuals,' if you will. At least, it appears that way to us on-the-ground humans. We see animals which we think of as 'dogs', for example. We think of them as a species.

Same with humans. We're a species, and we are in no danger of non-procreation. If 50% of us were homosexual, we'd still be in no danger of fading away. We love sex.

Anyway, I think we have homosexuals to make our lives more interesting. Especially the drag queens. That's entertainment!

Also can you post a link to a single example of a genetic train wreck? A bird with one wing, a bear with no mouth, or even a fish with no ability to get oxygen from water. I believe Darwin said we should be tripping over anomalies like this, do you know of any?

This question makes no sense to me. Are you aware that two-headed animals are often born, but that they tend to die before adulthood?

Why do you think a 'genetic train wreck' such as you describe could survive into adulthood?

And can you quote Darwin saying anything even remotely like what you believe he said? He was a smart guy. I can't imagine him saying anything like that.

 

[1robin]

No one knows, but you should keep in mind that we are a species. Every once in awhile, a group of individuals settles into a group of 'like kind individuals,' if you will. At least, it appears that way to us on-the-ground humans. We see animals which we think of as 'dogs', for example. We think of them as a species.

Same with humans. We're a species, and we are in no danger of non-procreation. If 50% of us were homosexual, we'd still be in no danger of fading away. We love sex.

Anyway, I think we have homosexuals to make our lives more interesting. Especially the drag queens. That's entertainment!

I will not argue that human aberrations are not interesting but either evolution weeds out behavior or not. If it does then why has it not done so even way back when humans were not very numerous and living meant having 3 children for one that lived into adulthood. If it does not then on what basis do things evolve? Is it survival of the fittest and any other behavior that is politically correct at the moment?

This question makes no sense to me. Are you aware that two-headed animals are often born, but that they tend to die before adulthood?

That would be an example but almost all mutations are either non-beneficial or out right lethal, yet the only fossils I ever see are successes. There is much more math to it but I would still expect to see way more biological absurdities than I have.

Why do you think a 'genetic train wreck' such as you describe could survive into adulthood?

Many times they would not however if I claimed instead of you that almost all train-wrecks were lethal the evolutionists would insist that is not the case.

And can you quote Darwin saying anything even remotely like what you believe he said? He was a smart guy. I can't imagine him saying anything like that.

I don't think the jest of what I said is even controversial. My language may be a little different but the meaning very similar. I take all that back. I just remembered it was the missing missing links he said we should find everywhere not the mistakes but the logic is still sound. Actually I will see if I can actually find his words but I am not sure how to search for them. However since you know a God of grammar why are you asking me anyway. Since both me and you know that your prophet hood is at best humorous I will look.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I will not argue that human aberrations are not interesting but either evolution weeds out behavior or not. If it does then why has it not done so even way back when humans were not very numerous and living meant having 3 children for one that lived into adulthood. If it does not then on what basis do things evolve? Is it survival of the fittest and any other behavior that is politically correct at the moment?

You think it's political correctness that makes us observe homosexuality in the other animals? We're just making that up, for political reasons?

That would be an example but almost all mutations are either non-beneficial or out right lethal, yet the only fossils I ever see are successes. There is much more math to it but I would still expect to see way more biological absurdities than I have.

OK. Good luck with your slide-rule reconciliation, I guess.

Many times they would not however if I claimed instead of you that almost all train-wrecks were lethal the evolutionists would insist that is not the case.

Since you don't seem to even understand evolution, I fear I can't take your word that the evolutionists are making such bizarre claims as you claim they are claiming.

I take all that back. I just remembered it was the missing missing links he said we should find everywhere not the mistakes but the logic is still sound.

Goodness.

Well, anyway, Darwin was obviously right. Virtually every fossil we find is a missing link, after all.

 

[1robin]

You think it's political correctness that makes us observe homosexuality in the other animals? We're just making that up, for political reasons?

No, but what I have noticed is that evolution seems to be capable of anything desired of it and not indictable for the slightest thing undesirable regardless of consistency with it. For example take the title of the most famous book on it: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Now it is claimed that the concept described by that title could never be used to justify racism.That is just plain nuts. Consider the label for the primary aspect of evolution. Natural selection or survival of the fittest. Now that is claimed to also allow for a practice that would end the human race in a generation if applied across the board. It can improve the eye on a thousand levels but can't weed out a single lethal sexual practice? That is the most elastic theory ever stretched.

OK. Good luck with your slide-rule reconciliation, I guess.

Two members of my family can actually use a slide rule. If we get someone trained on the abacus no body prior to 1000 BC or so stands a chance.

Since you don't seem to even understand evolution, I fear I can't take your word that the evolutionists are making such bizarre claims as you claim they are claiming.

I have actually had exactly what I said happen at lest twice however I have not considered whether I convince you of that important even once.

Goodness.

Well, anyway, Darwin was obviously right. Virtually every fossil we find is a missing link, after all.

Well I guess an elastic theory would be composed of ambiguous terms as well. I guess you are right at home. However Darwin said this about that issue and a hundred more quotes of similar nature.

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859).

Commence the elastic efforts to extract Darwin from where he went and I said you would find him at once, or do you simply redefine transitional as everything that ever existed so you have to find nothing specific in the geological record at all. Once again elasticism on steroids.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......evolution seems to be capable of anything desired of it and not indictable for the slightest thing undesirable regardless of consistency with it.

I have commented on that in my post #790 in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-79.html#post3419832.

May I suggest that you limit your posts on homosexuality to threads that were started to discuss homosexuality. If you want to discuss theistic evolution and homosexuality some more, I will start a new thread on that topic.

 

[1robin]

I have commented on that in my post #790 in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-79.html#post3419832.

May I suggest that you limit your posts on homosexuality to threads that were started to discuss homosexuality. If you want to discuss theistic evolution and homosexuality some more, I will start a new thread on that topic.

I might not even have the time required to visit just the threads you are in much less than read all of your redundant posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

I might not even have the time required to visit just the threads you are in much less than read all of your redundant posts.

Since you obviously have enough time to discuss homosexuality in at least two threads that do not have anything to do with it, why wouldn't it be best for you to discuss it in relevant threads? It does not take any more of your time to discuss homosexuality in relevant threads than it would in this thread.

Some of my posts in relevant threads are not redundant.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In your opinion, is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him without interfering with their free will? When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. Today, if God empowered millions of Christians to perform miracles all over the world, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of the miracles. That is quite logical since if millions of Christians had performed miracles all over the world during Jesus' lifetime, are more people would have become Christians.

You have said that that is not God's purpose, but why isn't it his purpose? What harm would it cause God, or humanity, if he provided additional evidence? Surely, none at all.

Hundreds of years ago, it was not known that eating lots of greasy foods causes lots of physical problems. If people living back then had known about the risks, some of them would not have eaten lots of greasy foods. Let's call that group of people Group A. You would not blame Group A for eating lots of greasy foods because they would have acted differently if they had had evidence that eating lots of greasy foods causes serious physical problems. Today, if God provided additional evidence, some skeptics would accept him. Let's call that group of people Group B. You would not criticize Group A, but you would criticize Group B. Why is that? Group A would have acted differently if they had had additional evidence, and Group would act differently if they had additional evidence.

Why should anyone be held responsible for refusing to accept evidence that they would accept if they were aware of it, especially if being punished for eternity without parole was at stake?

Chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the year 1650, and had been raised by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have become a Muslim. Even today, children who grow up in Iran, and have Muslim parents, seldom give up Islam. Some major reasons for that are that Islam is very predominant in Iran, and that Muslims who give up Islam are widely rejected, and persecuted.

 

[1robin]

Since you obviously have enough time to discuss homosexuality in at least two threads that do not have anything to do with it, why wouldn't it be best for you to discuss it in relevant threads? It does not take any more of your time to discuss homosexuality in relevant threads than it would in this thread.

Some of my posts in relevant threads are not redundant.

Is that the most complimentary thing you could come up with concerning your posts, that not all of them were redundant? I have no argument with where homosexuality should be discussed. I was pointing out the absurdity that you are the one who has developed a problem with it since you are the one that begin doing it. Do you still not see the irony?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: In your opinion, is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him without interfering with their free will?

God can provide more evidence, I have no idea if that would convert more people. However lets say it would. Under what obligation is God to provide it and why would God not be required to supply enough evidence to convince everyone if that is the standard? Even if I grant your premise I do not know what conclusion it is meant to indicate. This is a classic false optimization fallacy. God is not on the hook for providing whatever it is those who wish to dismiss him arbitrarily declare he must. He could provide no evidence as in Deism and he would not be self contradictory.

When Jesus supposedly performed miracles, he did not interfere with anyone's free will. Today, if God empowered millions of Christians to perform miracles all over the world, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of the miracles. That is quite logical since if millions of Christians had performed miracles all over the world during Jesus' lifetime, are more people would have become Christians.

If a set of miracles exist X yet you decide God must provide X + whatever you invent. Then by that same logic anyone can add to what you have demanded and it won't end until God either forces everyone to convert by overwhelming them with whatever anyone deems he should have. I believe that for 99% of humanity a sufficiency of evidence exists to allow faith. On what grounds should there be more?

You have said that that is not God's purpose, but why isn't it his purpose? What harm would it cause God, or humanity, if he provided additional evidence? Surely, none at all.

Things are or not God's purpose because he decided they be so. I do not know why nor should I. A gnat might as well tell Einstein how he should do physics. God's purpose is to provide what he has. On what basis do you have to dictate he provide more? What more can you even desire than what has been provided. What he did to reveal himself is hyperbolic and no parallels exist. Why is that not enough? I imagine and I think God has said that you and 99% of humanity have plenty if your heart was in a state that could accept it. Only a hard heart would read of Christ dying for them and say "what else you got".

Hundreds of years ago, it was not known that eating lots of greasy foods causes lots of physical problems. If people living back then had known about the risks, some of them would not have eaten lots of greasy foods. Let's call that group of people Group A. You would not blame Group A for eating lots of greasy foods because they would have acted differently if they had had evidence that eating lots of greasy foods causes serious physical problems. Today, if God provided additional evidence, some skeptics would accept him. Let's call that group of people Group B. You would not criticize Group A, but you would criticize Group B. Why is that? Group A would have acted differently if they had had additional evidence, and Group would act differently if they had additional evidence.

Your analogy would only apply if people could not see that immorality causes catastrophe. God said nature alone is enough for faith. Is nature as unknown to anyone as dietary impact on the group you mentioned. Even you have used every argument under the son to attempt to excuse a practice that increases suffering on a vast scale without any compensating good. Evidence does not force you to acknowledge the immorality of that behavior on that obvious basis nor apparently will the most influential text and person in human history cause you to adopt faith. It is not evidence it is the hard heart that looks at evidence through a filter of preference. History is saturated with examples.

Why should anyone be held responsible for refusing to accept evidence that they would accept if they were aware of it, especially if being punished for eternity without parole was at stake?

I can't discuss a hypothetical everyman. I can discuss you and you have vast libraries of evidence for God at your disposal unlike those in your analogy.

Chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe.

I might allow they impact what we believe but again history is literally overflowing with examples where people adopted views even contrary to those in their environment.

If you had been transported at birth back in time to the year 1650, and had been raised by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have become a Muslim. Even today, children who grow up in Iran, and have Muslim parents, seldom give up Islam. Some major reasons for that are that Islam is very predominant in Iran, and that Muslims who give up Islam are widely rejected, and persecuted.

You should have used something besides Islam. I honestly think I would never have adopted it. As is was I was raised in Church and around Christians and wound up hating God. Only when I grew up and associated with people who thought sin was a hobby did I start down the road of faith, so your point does not work with me. Another not is that all of us are born atheists. Christians are the only group between the two that have shown the ability to change their minds and follow the evidence and rise above original conditions so again your point has some merit but not nearly enough to justify your application of it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, but what I have noticed is that evolution seems to be capable of anything desired of it

Well, not anything, but the fact that evolution continues to be consistent with the evidence is precisely why it enjoys such confidence, and why it is such a strong theory. Its ironic (if ultimately futile) that you're trying to use evolution's great explanatory power as a count against it.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that we have observed homosexuality in any number of animal species (as if whatever scientific explanations happen to be favored by humans could somehow influence how animals behave), and have a pretty good idea of what purpose it serves (in the evolutionary scheme of things); for instance, in populations of rodents the incidence of homosexuality spikes when food becomes scarce- homosexuality may be a way of defending against overpopulation when resources are limited.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicated post.