Is the US a Christian nation?

[Sunstone]

The US is not a Christian nation in anything like the sense that it is a nation only by Christians, of Christians, and for Christians.

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

The United States is a Freemasonic/Illuminati CORPORATION owned by Great Britain to this very day. The "Founding Fathers" (except for Patrick Henry whom to me was a real true Founding Father) are Illuminati shills.

Click below.
The U.S. is still a British Colony

 

[Agnostic75]

You should have used something besides Islam. I honestly think I would never have adopted it. As it 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.

But I did not need to use that example. Surely you must have understood that what I meant was that if all Christians in the world who are alive today were transported back in time to the year 1650, to many places all over the world, it is probable that at least some of them would not have become Christians. I am only referring to Christians who would have learned about Christianity.

Similarly, regarding today's skeptics who will die without accepting the God of the Bible, if all of them had been transported back in time to the year 1650, to many places all over the world, it is probable that some of them would have become Christians.

Surely chance and circumstance at least partly determine what people believe. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies in Iran who have Muslim parents were raised by conservative Christians in the U.S., surely far more of those babies would become Christians than if they had been raised by their Muslim parents in Iran.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

You are bluffing. You are far from being an expert on evolution. You are not even a gifted amateur. You have refused to debate an expert on evolution since you know that you would lose the debate. You are merely hoping to try to convince some laymen to question common descent in spite of the fact that in the U.S., one study showed that 99.86% of experts accept it, including the majority of experts. The same study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes. When we subtract creationist experts who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory from the relative handful of creationist experts, those who are left could only fill a few buses.

Why would you ever think that it would be important for you to win debates about evolution with laymen when you know that you would lose a debate with any qualified expert? You would not get anywhere debating an expert by using the arguments that you have used in this thread, and in another thread. The simple truth is that even if creationism is true, you do not know enough about biology to reasonably prove that in debates.

Michael Behe, Ph.D. biochemistry, certainly knows far more about biology than you ever will. He said:

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

And you are going to instruct Michael Behe about common descent? What audacity, and egotism.

Would you be willing give a speech about common descent at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, and answer questions after the speech? No you wouldn't. Nor would you be willing to debate common descent at any Internet website where there are lots of professional scientists with advanced degrees, such as the Physics Forum, which has over 385,000 members, many of whom have graduate degrees in science.

God can provide more evidence, I have no idea if that would convert more people.

It would have to since it would have if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world.

It would be absurd for any Christian to claim that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him without interfering with their free will. Jesus did not interfere with anyone's free will.

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?

I have already replied that to that argument. I told you that if God provided additional evidence, some people would still not accept him, but some people would accept him. People have not changed since ancient times. They are still impressed with supposed miracles.

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.

Every being has his own morals, and has his own extent that he will go in order to help people.

How is any being right merely because he says that he is right? There is not a necessary correlation between power, and goodness. How can it be good for God to refuse to provide additional evidence, the same kind of evidence that Jesus provided, that would convince more people to accept him?

You would not criticize a man who eats lots of greasy foods if you knew that he was not aware of the risks, and would not eat lots of greasy foods if he was aware of the risks. Skeptics who would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence are just like people who eat lots of greasy foods, but would not eat lots of greasy foods if they were aware of the risks.

If God provided additional evidence, it would be a win win situation. God would gain greatly, and so would many humans.

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.

That is not what I am recommending. I am recommending that God provide people today with the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided. That way, no one could complain that God provided more evidence during Jesus' time than he has today. If God provided the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided, some people would reject him, but some would not. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than the miracles that Jesus performed.

I believe that for 99% of humanity a sufficiency of evidence exists to allow faith.

What about the 1% who don't?

On what grounds should there be more?

Love, mercy, and compassion.

Things are or not God's purpose because he decided they be so.

You are only making an issue out of God being good because of your own self-interest. Since you are fallible, and not perfect, you could be wrong, and God might be some other God, and might one day torment everyone in hell for eternity, without parole. If that happens, you would not be able to love that God. In your opinion, would such a God be loving, good, and moral?

If any God is by definition good, right, and fair, then any possible God would be good, right, and fair.

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?

Love, mercy, and compassion.

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".

You must know that I am only assuming for the sake of argument that a God inspired the Bible, and that I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists. Obviously, people who do not believe that the God of the Bible exists are not asking him for anything. Thus, they could not be asking God for anything. If a God exists, and inspired the Bible, he is easily able to take the next step, and provide additional evidence that would cause more people to accept him, and without interfering with their free will.

What did you mean by the word "force"? How could any being force anyone to love him against their will?

Why should God get credit for keeping his word? He is perfect, and cannot lie, and is not able to change his nature. Credit should only be given to a being when he has the option to sin. God does not have the option to sin.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Only a hard heart would read of Christ dying for them and say "what else you got".

If Iron Man died at the end of The Avengers when he threw the nuke in the black hole, should we have to believe that story's true because he sacrificed himself?

 

[McBell]

If Iron Man died at the end of The Avengers when he threw the nuke in the black hole, should we have to believe that story's true because he sacrificed himself?

geez...
of course not.
No one ever once accused iron Man of being god....

 

[1robin]

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.

Evolution as strictly a biological process has no explanatory power. My comments are "counting against" the theory as it exists in the minds of men. That theory seems to be able to become whatever is needed. It selects survivable thing unless it needs to account for homosexuality (then it suspends it's relentless drive to weed out non survival inductive things), it is said to produce morality (or a version of it) unless we are discussing bad morals then it can't produce a single one, it is the slow march of progression over time unless we figure out that all major body types exploded on the scene in a moment of geological type then it produces that dynamic, evolution is a tree until it's a bush until it is a forest. A theory that is actually a label for whatever exists no matter if many things are mutually exclusive or not, does not just have explanatory power it has all power (it is Lord theory able to leap rationality, logic, and truth in a single bound). That is as it exists in a man's mind. As it exists in nature it is far less elastic.

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.

Things destructive to survival are relentlessly destroyed by natural selection. If evolution is all we have why is it so bad at it's job in this instance. I have no doubt both evolution and homosexuality exist. However the genetic mandate for homosexuality conflicts with natural selection. I was not even using it as an argument. I was just venting frustration over a theory so elastic it can do anything. My opinion is evolution exists but is not the only force in operation and homosexuality is not mandated by genetics and therefor the US is a Christian nation.

 

[1robin]

The US is not a Christian nation in anything like the sense that it is a nation only by Christians, of Christians, and for Christians.

Is that the criteria? Then nothing is anything because virtually everything has at least one exception. A nation founded by over 90% Christian founding fathers and who's quotes leave no doubt they took their faith into politics, currently composed of 80% Christians and who's capital has scripture carved into it's marble is anything but not Christian. However through the use of media and the distortion of laws by using them for unintended means since the 60's we have been moving towards secularism and are paying a heavy price for that drift in morality and debt.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

The United States is a Freemasonic/Illuminati CORPORATION owned by Great Britain to this very day. The "Founding Fathers" (except for Patrick Henry whom to me was a real true Founding Father) are Illuminati shills.

Click below.
The U.S. is still a British Colony

I thought you conspiracy guys claimed the Jews owned us. I would have thought our killing British soldier by the thousands in two wars and Roosevelt's telling Churchill he must end colonialism would have prevented this conspiracy theory in the cradle. Of course evidence seems to have no effect of a favored conspiracy.

 

[1robin]

If Iron Man died at the end of The Avengers when he threw the nuke in the black hole, should we have to believe that story's true because he sacrificed himself?

Give me the slightest reason that actually took place in reality and then it might be worth asking. Find me 2 billion people who claim Iron man saved them might be a start.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......the genetic mandate for homosexuality conflicts with natural selection. I was not even using it as an argument. I was just venting frustration over a theory so elastic it can do anything.

I will reply to that in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-81.html#post3422271 since you and I agreed to only discuss homosexuality in threads that are about homosexuality.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my post #864 in this thread.

Edit: I just replied to those arguments in the thread on homosexuality. I showed that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[1robin]

But I did not need to use that example. Surely you must have understood that what I meant was that if all Christians in the world who are alive today were transported back in time to the year 1650, to many places all over the world, it is probable that at least some of them would not have become Christians. I am only referring to Christians who would have learned about Christianity.

I guess. Since that will never happen I do not know how telling it is. Hypotheticals are hard to use and usually don't do much.

Similarly, regarding today's skeptics who will die without accepting the God of the Bible, if all of them had been transported back in time to the year 1650, to many places all over the world, it is probable that some of them would have become Christians.

Are you suggesting that God is now required to transport people where you demand he should? The Bible records and unbroken record of God acting in two ways (in this context).

1. God works with individual people if they seek him.
2. God acts with man in a general way. He gives us pure truth in revelation, his supernatural actions, and through prophets. He leaves what happens with what he gave us largely up to us. Just for the sake of argument let's say he gave us Mathew in perfect form. Then he has left what we do with the book completely up to us. We can destroy it or perpetuate it. In either case how has God not done what he should.

Surely chance and circumstance at least partly determine what people believe. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies in Iran who have Muslim parents were raised by conservative Christians in the U.S., surely far more of those babies would become Christians than if they had been raised by their Muslim parents in Iran.

Let's say God is the president of a company and it's employees are protected, provided for, and given eternal retirement packages. Let's say you decide you wish to leave and wander around in darkness for some reason. The kids you have will be born into that darkness. How is God wrong in letting you leave or responsible for the kids you keep in darkness? If he came and got your kids you would be the first to yell he was evil for forcing himself on your children. If he made you come back you have no freewill. I think you misunderstand what God is. He does not have any burden to produce an environment that is optimal for faith. He must (as he indicated he would) produce one sufficient to allow faith. You also have not researched the book on the unevangelised that covers the issues you mention. I do not understand the concept but it includes provisions that only demand the proper response to the amount of truth we have been exposed to. For most of us that is Christ but for those few that fell off the map it is not. You can demand God do as you wish until you expire. He is not bound by it and I am not in need of defending his not obeying your wishes. There exists no requirement beyond his promises for him to do anything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Evolution as strictly a biological process has no explanatory power.

And now you're just being a pedant. "Evolution" is often used interchangeably with "theory of evolution", since context will indicate whether one is referring to the theory or the process described by the theory.

That theory seems to be able to become whatever is needed.

This is basically just a petulant and distorted way of saying that the theory has been and continues to be consistent with all of a diverse body of data.

It selects survivable thing unless it needs to account for homosexuality (then it suspends it's relentless drive to weed out non survival inductive things)

Well, since you've concluded, out of hand, prior to actually examining evidence, and based on your religious beliefs/personal prejudices, that homosexuality MUST be a "non survival inductive thing"- so if the fact of the matter turns out to be, as it looks like is the case, that homosexuality IS a mechanism conducive to survival which has been selected for, this strikes you as all too convenient.

Needless to say, the problem here is YOUR bias, not anyone elses.

Things destructive to survival are relentlessly destroyed by natural selection.

Which is why the very existence of homosexuality already creates an initial presumption in favor of it having some evolutionary role.

...the genetic mandate for homosexuality conflicts with natural selection.

Only on a superficial, intuitive level. Needless to say, scientific facts are not verified by whether they match up with our gut feeling, but whether they match up with observation.

Oops.

I was just venting frustration over a theory so elastic it can do anything.

Ironically, the main point you're trying to argue couldn't be further from the case; there are some very specific things which would be absolutely inconsistent with evolutionary theory. We just haven't found any of them yet (follows chronologically out of place in the fossil record, the existence of "irreducibly complex" structures, etc.).

My opinion is evolution exists but is not the only force in operation and homosexuality is not mandated by genetics and therefor the US is a Christian nation.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur... I'm hoping this is a typo because this makes absolutely no sense... Homosexuality is "not mandated by genetics"... therefore the US is a Christian nation? Um... What?! Needless to say, this does not follow!(a historical fact about the United States is not contingent upon any biological/genetic fact about homosexuality- how absurd!)

 

[Agnostic75]

But I did not need to use that example. Surely you must have understood that what I meant was that if all Christians in the world who are alive today were transported back in time to the year 1650, to many places all over the world, it is probable that at least some of them would not have become Christians. I am only referring to Christians who would have learned about Christianity.

Since that will never happen I do not know how telling it is. Hypotheticals are hard to use and usually don't do much.

I have seen you use hypotheticals on some occasions. C.S. Lewis did it in his book "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic." Hypotheticals are definitely often useful in court cases.

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the time of Attila the Hun, and had been raised, and well-treated by him, your morals would surely have been much different than they are today.

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

 

[Agnostic75]

[God] does not have any burden to produce an environment that is optimal for faith.

I am only asking that God provide evidence today as good as the evidence that Jesus provided. If God did that today, all over the world, surely some people would accept him based partly upon the miracles, just like supposedly happened during the time of Jesus.

I would like to try a completely different approach. God is perfect, and cannot lie, and cannot change his nature. Thus, he does not have free will. Why should God be commended for keeping his word since he does not have any other choice? Beings should only be commended when they have the option to sin, and choose not to. God does not have the option to sin.

 

[1robin]

And now you're just being a pedant. "Evolution" is often used interchangeably with "theory of evolution", since context will indicate whether one is referring to the theory or the process described by the theory.

I can't be pedant because I have no idea what it means or how to. Is it pedantic? The distinction I made between things evolving and a theory men seem to stretch to fit any convenient reality is a necessary one. Separating reality from ideas about it applies directly here.

This is basically just a petulant and distorted way of saying that the theory has been and continues to be consistent with all of a diverse body of data.

Petulant. What did you do read the P section of a dictionary? The theory is apparently not bounded by anything including evidence. It is said to do mutually exclusive things and is distorted into any shape needed. It is sort of the modern equivalent to the snake oil cure alls of the 1800s. It can change tires and cure heartburn. The theory in many places it's applied is as useless as snake oil. It is sort of like a theoretical universal solvent. Anything that is dissolved must have some of it in it or on it. Yet no container (reality) can hold it. As a theory it is a theoretical term that means whatever a proponent wishes it to and then points out how comprehensive it is. What ever evolution actually is it certainly is not accurately represented by the conglomerate of theories with that label.

Well, since you've concluded, out of hand, prior to actually examining evidence, and based on your religious beliefs/personal prejudices, that homosexuality MUST be a "non survival inductive thing"- so if the fact of the matter turns out to be, as it looks like is the case, that homosexuality IS a mechanism conducive to survival which has been selected for, this strikes you as all too convenient.

Are you suggesting that the inability to perpetuate the species is conducive to survival? If so you have way more explaining to do than I. Until two men have a baby themselves your out of luck.

Needless to say, the problem here is YOUR bias, not anyone elses.

I have no bias in this context. I believe evolution occurs. I know homosexuality is not a plus concerning survival. I know that will not stop theoretical biologists from creating fantasies that are at best based on faith to reconcile the irreconcilable. I also did not use the word bias anywhere in what you responded to.

Which is why the very existence of homosexuality already creates an initial presumption in favor of it having some evolutionary role.

I can't think of any behavior less favorable for survival than homosexuality even theoretically possible besides exploding fetus's maybe.

Only on a superficial, intuitive level. Needless to say, scientific facts are not verified by whether they match up with our gut feeling, but whether they match up with observation.

The person claiming things that do not reproduce is superficially relevant to natural selection is the one with the bias.

Oops.

That is a perfect summary to what you have stated.

Ironically, the main point you're trying to argue couldn't be further from the case; there are some very specific things which would be absolutely inconsistent with evolutionary theory. We just haven't found any of them yet (follows chronologically out of place in the fossil record, the existence of "irreducibly complex" structures, etc.).

I have no idea what this means but I am sure it is wrong. How has anyone proven that things of great sophistication have evolved in steps that are reducible? Dawkins cartoons and drawings sure are not an example nor is the argument (forget his name) that a biological injection system with some of the parts of a biological electric motor are in the same evolutionary path or could be.

Wow, talk about a non-sequitur... I'm hoping this is a typo because this makes absolutely no sense... Homosexuality is "not mandated by genetics"... therefore the US is a Christian nation? Um... What?! Needless to say, this does not follow!(a historical fact about the United States is not contingent upon any biological/genetic fact about homosexuality- how absurd!)

Of course I was joking. I did that for the thread police.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution as strictly a biological process has no explanatory power.

Theistic evolution has plenty of explanatory power.

 

[1robin]

I have seen you use hypotheticals on some occasions. C.S. Lewis did it in his book "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic." Hypotheticals are definitely often useful in court cases.

I did not say they could not be or should not be used. I said they usually fall flat and are non starters. They are hard to make relevant or binding.

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the time of Attila the Hun, and had been raised, and well-treated by him, your morals would surely have been much different than they are today.

What evidence do you have that God has free will?

The above is a repeat or so similar to a former post I will disregard it. As for the last sentence I did not say God has freewill but I believe he does. What would restrict his will? The fact that he chose to act in the creation of the universe is suggestive of freewill or at least being personal. I do not have the slightest idea how to prove he does but I also do not have the slightest idea to even hint he wouldn't. However that was not what I was discussing. We have freewill.

 

[1robin]

I am only asking that God provide evidence today as good as the evidence that Jesus provided. If God did that today, all over the world, surely some people would accept him based partly upon the miracles, just like supposedly happened during the time of Jesus.

God is not Santa Claus. He was not created to be a genie in a bottle. You can only request that which you have reason to expect. If God promised X it is reasonable to demand X occur. That is all.

I would like to try a completely different approach. God is perfect, and cannot lie, and cannot change his nature. Thus, he does not have free will. Why should God be commended for keeping his word since he does not have any other choice? Beings should only be commended when they have the option to sin, and choose not to. God does not have the option to sin.

That is a fallacy. The capacity to act is not indicative of the will to act. God may have the capacity to destroy himself (unfortunately your argument requires absurd examples) but that does in no way mean he must do so. God could violate his own word but that does not mean he has or will. There are two categories that are used to suggest God must do things and both are wrong.

1. Logical absurdities or impossibilities. Like creating a square circle or a rock so heavy he can't lift it. They are that can't possibly exist. They are nothing. Literally no-thing.
2. Things he could do but has so far not done, nor is there indication he will or would.

These things are on the lists of terrible argumentation used by non-theists. They just do not work.