Is the US a Christian nation?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Shhhh...
He does not know that yet.

And it is so much fun seeing him have his *** handed to him over and over without his even knowing it.

 

[1robin]

Funny that you would act like you own this thread when it's so consistently been the other way around.

What the heck are you talking about? What do you mean own the thread? I have not even been debating the threads title in quite some time. Whatever you meant is not what I think. Posting claims based on necessary access to what someone thinks are extremely problematic and almost never effective or useful and you were not even funny this time. Do you actually think your personal evaluation of this thread is going to mean anything to me? Did you think I was going to say to myself that Quagmire thinks I lost (something I never intended to win or think of that way) so it must be the case? If not then why did you type it?

 

[1robin]

If theism is your recommended solution to secularism, Christian Science might be the best choice. I was a Christian Scientist for over ten years, and I never knew a more moral, law abiding group of people.

I have pretty much concluded you are copying and pasting from your own personal stash of stuff you think. I have seen this particular claim at least 3 times so far. I have no opinion about the morality of Christian scientists as I do not know that many. I do not believe you know enough to judge the whole but you may be right. They share many of orthodox Christianity's beliefs so it is not a meaningful difference anyway. Also how do you have enough data to compare their moral average with orthodox Christianity's.

Bible prophecy has not accurately predicted the last days of humans. The last days of humans will not primarily be caused by wars, but by global warming, water shortages, foods shortages, and disease. Many of the followers of Jesus believed that the last days would happen during their lifetimes. During every subsequent generation, many Christians believed that Jesus would return to earth during their lifetimes.

How do you know we have not got to the last days. Bible prophecy that has supposed to have occurred has in obvious and exhaustive detail. I would love to debate prophecy with you. The last can't have occurred because the Temple has not been rebuilt so you are out of luck. If you wish I will give you what is currently shaping up just as the Bible predicted in chilling accuracy. However I would rather choose and older well documented prophecy to use to settle this. One of the most frequently challenged by non-theists is the fall of Tyre. Would you care to debate it?

God's wrath is a poor argument since a loving, moral God would only punish bad people, not his most faithful servants. When God kills people with hurricanes, and destroys their homes, he makes no distinction between Christians, and non-Christians, and he does not mind injuring, or killing innocent animals, which he has been doing since long before humans existed.

You must not be that familiar with prophecy. If you study just a bit you will quickly find that before the great tribulation and final wrath of God on man, the Church (all those born again) is taken out of the world. They are not here when the final retribution is poured out on the rebellious Earth. God does not send hurricanes to kill people in the sense you mean. I have explained this several times to you as well.

When man told God to take a hike that we could handle everything ourselves he said fine you got it. He no longer prevented nature from tearing man a new one. It was allowed to operate undirected and that results in it killing people seemingly at random. God did not intend to either fix this world or prevent it from affecting his people. Moses died, Ezekiel died, Nathan died, David died, etc.... He intended to prevent death from claiming those that trust him and let them live in a restored Earth where nature is once again directed by him. I do not mean to suggest he has not or does not intervene in nature today and in history but just that it is a rare exception and no longer the rule. Please do not ask the same thing again tomorrow.

 

[Quagmire]

What the heck are you talking about? What do you mean own the thread? I have not even been debating the threads title in quite some time. Whatever you meant is not what I think. Posting claims based on necessary access to what someone thinks are extremely problematic and almost never effective or useful and you were not even funny this time. Do you actually think your personal evaluation of this thread is going to mean anything to me? Did you think I was going to say to myself that Quagmire thinks I lost (something I never intended to win or think of that way) so it must be the case? If not then why did you type it?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase all that?

 

[1robin]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase all that?

After re-reading it I have no idea how to make it any simpler.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

After re-reading it I have no idea how to make it any simpler.

Sarcasm just bounces right off the bubble, huh?

 

[Quagmire]

After re-reading it I have no idea how to make it any simpler.

How about less sanctimonious?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What the heck are you talking about? What do you mean own the thread? I have not even been debating the threads title in quite some time. Whatever you meant is not what I think. Posting claims based on necessary access to what someone thinks are extremely problematic and almost never effective or useful and you were not even funny this time. Do you actually think your personal evaluation of this thread is going to mean anything to me? Did you think I was going to say to myself that Quagmire thinks I lost (something I never intended to win or think of that way) so it must be the case? If not then why did you type it?

I can tell. I am still waiting for a reply to what I presented you with.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Sarcasm just bounces right off the bubble, huh?

That was not sarcasm. I literally could not think of a way to boil my statements down to anything simpler. Do you not understand them either? They are just about obvious as possible. Or do you mean he was being sarcastic?

 

[1robin]

How about less sanctimonious?

I am not smart enough to be a word that long. Which part is unclear?

 

[1robin]

I can tell. I am still waiting for a reply to what I presented you with.

You lost me. What post #. I have far more debates that I can remember currently. No sarcasm, just post # please.

 

[Agnostic75]

If theism is your recommended solution to secularism, Christian Science might be the best choice. I was a Christian Scientist for over ten years, and I never knew a more moral, law abiding group of people.

I have no opinion about the morality of Christian Scientists as I do not know that many. I do not believe you know enough to judge the whole but you may be right. They share many of orthodox Christianity's beliefs so it is not a meaningful difference anyway. Also how do you have enough data to compare their moral average with orthodox Christianity's.

I was a Christian Scientist for about 15 years, so I had a lot of experience with them, and with their theology. They use the Bible, and one other book that was written by Mary Baker Eddy. Christian Scientists believe that Jesus was an ordinary, but gifted man. They do not believe that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he was born of a virgin.

I do not have any data, but you do not have any data to the contrary. I have fifteen years of experience with Christian Scientists to compare with the many Christians who I have known, and the Christian Scientists were more moral than the Christians were.

Even if I had data that supported my arguments, you would immediately reject it, and claim that God does not give eternal life even to the most kind, law-abiding non-Christians in the world.

The same goes for macro evolution. In another thread, you argued extensively against it, but if scientific evidence became available that convinced even you that macro evolution is true, you would immediately claim that Christianity is still valid.

And, the same goes for whether or not the U.S. is a Christian nation. Regardless of who founded the U.S., you would still claim that the Bible is true.

Would you like to claim that Christian achievements reasonably prove that the Bible is true?

 

[1robin]

I was a Christian Scientist for about 15 years, so I had a lot of experience with them, and with their theology. They use the Bible, and one other book that was written by Mary Baker Eddy. Christian Scientists believe that Jesus was an ordinary, but gifted man. They do not believe that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he was born of a virgin.

I do not have any data, but you do not have any data to the contrary. I have fifteen years of experience with Christian Scientists to compare with the many Christians who I have known, and the Christian Scientists were more moral than the Christians were.

I do not have data because I am not the one making the claim. I am not even disagreeing with you. I want to know how you know this on a macro level.

Even if I had data that supported my arguments, you would immediately reject it, and claim that God does not give eternal life even to the most kind, law-abiding non-Christians in the world.

It would have been easier to just post them than to explain why you know the future and knew what I would do. I might argue with your ability to make the claim but not the claim, anyway.

The same goes for macro evolution. In another thread, you argued extensively against it, but if scientific evidence became available that convinced even you that macro evolution is true, you would immediately claim that Christianity is still valid

No I did not. I only said it was not proven, had problems as yet unresolved, and need faith to believe in at this point. Please try and be more accurate. It saves time.

And, the same goes for whether or not the U.S. is a Christian nation. Regardless of who founded the U.S., you would still claim that the Bible is true.

However I would not base the reasons to believe the Bible is true on who founded any nation. That is why I would still believe it.

Would you like to claim that Christian achievements reasonably prove that the Bible is true?

No, have I done so? It is consistent with it being true but is not reliable evidence it is. What are you doing here? This was some bizarre argumentation.

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not have data because I am not the one making the claim. I am not even disagreeing with you. I want to know how you know this on a macro level.

I am not claiming what is necessarily true, only what is plausible, or reasonably possible. You have said that secularism is destroying the U.S. I offered a possible excellent solution. You should rejoice in any improvements over the current system, so start telling skeptics that if they do not want to become Christians, they should consider becoming Christian Scientists. I had 15 years of experience with Christian Scientists, so I know what I am talking about. If you went to a few of their church services, and mixed with them, you would see how gentle, and moral they generally are.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I am not smart enough to be a word that long. Which part is unclear?

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous [sangk-tuh-moh-nee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.: They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.
2.
Obsolete . holy; sacred.

... Nothing was unclear; he just doesn't appreciate your attitude and was being sarcastic when he told you to repeat it. Jesus Christ...

 

[1robin]

I am not claiming what is necessarily true, only what is plausible, or reasonably possible. You have said that secularism is destroying the U.S. I offered a possible excellent solution. You should rejoice in any improvements over the current system, so start telling skeptics that if they do not want to become Christians, they should consider becoming Christian Scientists. I had 15 years of experience with Christian Scientists, so I know what I am talking about. If you went to a few of their church services, and mixed with them, you would see how gentle, and moral they generally are.

You seem to have assumed I wish to argue with Christian scientists and even though I have refused you won't let that go. I would if what you said was representative of the whole prefer Christian Scientists to secularism.

 

[1robin]

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous [sangk-tuh-moh-nee-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
making a hypocritical show of religious devotion, piety, righteousness, etc.: They resented his sanctimonious comments on immorality in America.
2.
Obsolete . holy; sacred.

... Nothing was unclear; he just doesn't appreciate your attitude and was being sarcastic when he told you to repeat it. Jesus Christ...

Very well. If you had seen some of the stuff given by non-theists that was so ridiculous I assumed it was funny only to find out later they were serious you would understand the confusion. It seems rationality is not a good distinguisher between humor and serious claims when it comes to your side.

 

[Agnostic75]

You seem to have assumed I wish to argue with Christian scientists and even though I have refused you won't let that go. I would if what you said was representative of the whole prefer Christian Scientists to secularism.

You said that secularism is destroying the U.S. I offered an excellent solution. If you have a better solution than Christian Science for reducing crime, poverty, and war, what is it?

 

[1robin]

You said that secularism is destroying the U.S. I offered an excellent solution. If you have a better solution than Christian Science for reducing crime, poverty, and war, what is it?

What are you doing? I specifically said you do not seem to understand I have no need to give any better solution than them. I said I have no reason to critique them. I also said I prefer them to secularism. I also added that you do not seem to get the fact I am not challenging what you said about them and keep asking me to do so. You respond to that by doing so again. If I have to choose between them and secularism they would be my choice as they could not be any worse that is for sure. What else do you want?