Is the US a Christian nation?

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

To simply reiterate myself, I pointed out the Thomas Jefferson originally did not include "by our creator" in the Declaration, and wrote simply that all are created equally and endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (signed into law by John Adams) explicitly states that the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

 

[Agnostic75]

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?

You cannot criticize secularism any longer since I have provided you with an excellent solution for it.

Even if secularism is a problem in general, many secularists are very kind, moral, law-abiding people.

Surely chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. If you had been taken as a newborn baby to Iran, and had been raised by Muslims, it is reasonably possible that you would have become a Muslim. Similarly, if a newborn baby in Iran, who had Muslim parents, was taken to the U.S., and was raised by Christians, it is reasonably possible that he would become a Christian. A high percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians, and die as Christians. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Muslims if they had been raised by Muslims in Iran. A very high percentage of people in Iran are Muslims, and die as Muslims. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Christians if they had been raised by Christians in the U.S.

You have not visited the thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3431751 in the past several days. I doubt that you will spend very much time there since you know that I have made lots of good arguments.

 

[1robin]

You cannot criticize secularism any longer since I have provided you with an excellent solution for it.

What the heck kind of reasoning is that? Things do not cease to be problems because you rightly or wrongly think you have a solution. I can criticize Polio even if it has been almost wiped out. It is still bad and I will still say it is bad.

Even if secularism is a problem in general, many secularists are very kind, moral, law-abiding people.

I am sure they are.

Surely chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. If you had been taken as a newborn baby to Iran, and had been raised by Muslims, it is reasonably possible that you would have become a Muslim. Similarly, if a newborn baby in Iran, who had Muslim parents, was taken to the U.S., and was raised by Christians, it is reasonably possible that he would become a Christian. A high percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians, and die as Christians. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Muslims if they had been raised by Muslims in Iran. A very high percentage of people in Iran are Muslims, and die as Muslims. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Christians if they had been raised by Christians in the U.S.

Once again a copy of an earlier argument. Please see that response.

You have not visited the thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3431751 in the past several days. I doubt that you will spend very much time there since you know that I have made lots of good arguments.

If I do not spend time there how would I know whether your arguments were good or not. Until you can do anything with the damage verses gain thing there exists no argument. Did you do so in that thread?

 

[1robin]

To simply reiterate myself, I pointed out the Thomas Jefferson originally did not include "by our creator" in the Declaration, and wrote simply that all are created equally and endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (signed into law by John Adams) explicitly states that the United States was not founded upon Christianity.

Boy that was sure selective. Let me elaborate a bit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
The Declaration of Independence

I also remember pointing out the statement about God in that treaty was specifically removed only a few years later nor does a treaty have any thing like the foundation for the declaration and Washington's and Lincoln's great speeches on God and politics.

 

[Agnostic75]

What the heck kind of reasoning is that? Things do not cease to be problems because you rightly or wrongly think you have a solution. I can criticize Polio even if it has been almost wiped out. It is still bad and I will still say it is bad.

You complained about secularism, I gave you an excellent solution, and now you are not interested in a solution. Unless you have sufficient evidence that the typical Christian is more moral that the typical Christian Scientist is, you do not have any intelligent arguments to make about secularism.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Comparing secularism to polio, when religion is a cancer...

 

[Agnostic75]

Surely chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe. If you had been taken as a newborn baby to Iran, and had been raised by Muslims, it is reasonably possible that you would have become a Muslim. Similarly, if a newborn baby in Iran, who had Muslim parents, was taken to the U.S., and was raised by Christians, it is reasonably possible that he would become a Christian. A high percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians, and die as Christians. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Muslims if they had been raised by Muslims in Iran. A very high percentage of people in Iran are Muslims, and die as Muslims. You cannot logically argue that none of them would have become Christians if they had been raised by Christians in the U.S.

Once again a copy of an earlier argument. Please see that response.

In my post #863, I said:

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.

You replied:

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.

But common sense is all that is needed to know that if 1,000 American newborn babies were taken to Iran, and were raised by Muslims, far fewer of them would become Christians than if they had been raised by Christians in the U.S.

There exists no requirement beyond his promises for him to do anything.

God is only able to be as loving, and fair as his nature allows him to be. Apparently, his nature does not allow him to offer the same quality of evidence to everyone in the world today that Jesus did. The New Testament says that some people accepted Jesus partly because they saw him perform miracles. The book of Acts says that even after the Holy Spirit came to the church, the disciples still performed more miracles. Today, if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of the miracles. You must believe that that would have happened during the time of Jesus if God had sent 1,000 only begotten Sons all over the world instead of just one. Human nature has not changed since then regarding many people being impressed with miracles.

The New Testament says that some people said that Jesus must be from God since no man would be able to perform miracles Jesus performed.

It would be immoral for God to send people to hell who would have accepted the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided if they had been aware of it.

It would also be immoral for God to punish people for eternity without parole. It is much better to rehabilitate people than it is to punish them for eternity without parole.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Boy that was sure selective. Let me elaborate a bit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
The Declaration of Independence

I also remember pointing out the statement about God in that treaty was specifically removed only a few years later nor does a treaty have any thing like the foundation for the declaration and Washington's and Lincoln's great speeches on God and politics.

Here is how the phrase with "by their creator" from the Declaration originally read:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

Nothing about god, not even in the deist since. I do see strong resemblance to John Locke though.
And what does Lincoln, who did not establish this nation, have to do with the words of someone who did that said "No, this nation was not founded upon Christianity." And even if Washington gave a speech about God, it was his own personal believes and like the rest did not want them pushed into their newly established government.

 

[1robin]

You complained about secularism, I gave you an excellent solution, and now you are not interested in a solution. Unless you have sufficient evidence that the typical Christian is more moral that the typical Christian Scientist is, you do not have any intelligent arguments to make about secularism.

I am interested in a solution as soon as you present some way of implementing one. However I was discussing the nature of a world view. I have never claimed a Christian is more moral nor a Christian scientist is less moral than anyone yet you keep looking for an argument along that same tired line. I offer none nor am in need of one.

 

[1robin]

Comparing secularism to polio, when religion is a cancer...

I would address the factual or evidential basis for your claims as soon as you post any. I gave hundreds of statistics and links to more that justify my position, not mere rhetoric as you have.

 

[1robin]

In my post #863, I said:



You replied:



But common sense is all that is needed to know that if 1,000 American newborn babies were taken to Iran, and were raised by Muslims, far fewer of them would become Christians than if they had been raised by Christians in the U.S.

I already said even if I grant that you have not explained why that is inconsistent with God. I have pointed out that God appears to judge humanity as a corporation as well as individuals. The Bible points out we are only responsible to the revelation we have access to. Until you research at least Craig's study on the un or less evangelized I am not commenting further on hypotheticals like this. If God was justified in condemning to darkness a whole race based on Adam's actions this is certainly no less justified.

God is only able to be as loving, and fair as his nature allows him to be. Apparently, his nature does not allow him to offer the same quality of evidence to everyone in the world today that Jesus did. The New Testament says that some people accepted Jesus partly because they saw him perform miracles. The book of Acts says that even after the Holy Spirit came to the church, the disciples still performed more miracles. Today, if God empowered some Christians to perform miracles all over the world, the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed, surely at least some people would become Christians partly as a result of the miracles. You must believe that that would have happened during the time of Jesus if God had sent 1,000 only begotten Sons all over the world instead of just one. Human nature has not changed since then regarding many people being impressed with miracles.

The only requirement God has is to be inconsistent with revelation. You make the same argument over and over and it is not only wrong but a fallacy. Less than optimal conditions existing in a fallen world is not inconsistent with God nor his nature which is loving but also as absolute judge. Even if more miracles would produce more faith God is has no requirement to provide them.

The New Testament says that some people said that Jesus must be from God since no man would be able to perform miracles Jesus performed.

Some said the exact opposite in numbers that show that evidence was never the pivotal issue. BTW that verse comes from people who in the next few verses rejected him. It was acknowledgement meant to set up a condemnation that as usual backfired but to no effect on those it backfired on. At least 95% of the Christians to ever existed never witnessed a miracle. How then are miracles the issue?

It would be immoral for God to send people to hell who would have accepted the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided if they had been aware of it.

On what grounds can you claim that?

It would also be immoral for God to punish people for eternity without parole. It is much better to rehabilitate people than it is to punish them for eternity without parole.

I have also already addressed this. Hell is not eternal torture. It is eternal non existence.

 

[1robin]

Here is how the phrase with "by their creator" from the Declaration originally read:

Are you saying the original draft that was not in effect for 1/1000th the time that it's God form has is some how more relevant?

Nothing about god, not even in the deist since. I do see strong resemblance to John Locke though.

And what does Lincoln, who did not establish this nation, have to do with the words of someone who did that said "No, this nation was not founded upon Christianity." And even if Washington gave a speech about God, it was his own personal believes and like the rest did not want them pushed into their newly established government.

If Lincoln had not persevered there would have been no nation to destroy as we are doing. He presided over a new birth of freedom and was able to do so in his words because of his faith, when all others had abandoned the cause as too costly. It is hard to take seriously claims the nation is not Christian which has scripture carved into the walls of it's capitol. I also notice Washington suddenly disappeared from the dialogue. Did he have no effect on the nations character either? All but 5 of the founding fathers were Christian and most wrote of politics based on faith. In what world is that the basis for secularism of any nation? What is up with your signature line?

 

[Agnostic75]

I am interested in a solution as soon as you present some way of implementing one.

But we are not discussing implementation, we are discussing solutions that would work if they were implemented. Obviously, Christian Science has already been implemented since it has many churches in the U.S., and some in some other parts of the world. When Jesus died, his church was not nearly as well-implemented as Christian Science is today.

However I was discussing the nature of a world view. I have never claimed a Christian is more moral nor a Christian scientist is less moral than anyone yet you keep looking for an argument along that same tired line. I offer none nor am in need of one.

You have complained about atheism, and secularism for months. You said that those things have caused all kinds of problems. Surely you partly meant that atheism, and secularism causes bad things that would be far less prevalent if people were more moral than they are. If I took the time to go back through some threads, I think that I would be able to find some posts where you complained that atheism has caused many deaths. You have definitely claimed that atheism has no moral absolutes. Christian Science definitely has moral absolutes.

 

[1robin]

But we are not discussing implantation, we are discussing solutions that would work if they were implemented. Obviously, Christian Science has already been implemented since it has many churches in the U.S., and some in some other parts of the world. When Jesus died, his church was not nearly as well-implemented as Christian Science is today.

I wasn't. How in the world do you implement anything in a society as complex as this one that isn't already mainstream? In what way is the comparison between a modern (internet and everything) non-persecuted church a comparison with a 2000 year old faith persecuted by the most formidable empire on earth?

You have complained about atheism, and secularism for months. You said that those things have caused all kinds of problems. Surely you partly meant that atheism, and secularism causes bad things that would be far less prevalent if people were more moral than they are.

Yes I believe that. No I have not been arguing for something so impossible to make happen. I am required to present truth not subvert governments.

If I took the time to go back through some threads, I think that I would be able to find some posts where you complained that atheism has caused many deaths. You have definitely claimed that atheism has no moral absolutes. Christian Science definitely has moral absolutes.

I believe Christians are a little more moral than most (stats prove this but the difference is disappointing) however I have been debating foundations and effects not personal moral character. I will not be drawn into debating against people specifically. I debate ideas, concepts, and world views. Atheism has moral absolutes but no foundation for them. Christian scientists believe the Bible and so do have.

 

[Agnostic75]

It would be immoral for God to send people to hell who would have accepted the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided is they had been aware of it.

On what grounds can you claim that?

Intuition, faith, common sense, and a sense of fairness.

If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, surely far more people would have become Christians. You would probably argue that God knows what those people would have done if they had had more evidence, and will reward those who he knows would have accepted more evidence. I am arguing the same thing. If God will reward those ancient people, there are not any good reasons why he would not also reward people who are living today who would accept the same kinds of evidence that more people would have accepted back then.

If all skeptics who have died during the past 100 years had been transported at birth back in time to Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, and had seen Jesus perform many miracles, surely some of them would have become Christians.

 

[Agnostic75]

I wasn't. How in the world do you implement anything in a society as complex as this one that isn't already mainstream? In what way is the comparison between a modern (internet and everything) non-persecuted church a comparison with a 2000 year old faith persecuted by the most formidable empire on earth?

Why have you complained about atheism, and secularism so much?

I recently made two posts in the thread on homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Why have you complained about atheism, and secularism so much?

I recently made two posts in the thread on homosexuality.

You are like a debate vulture. The carcass (my keyboard) is not even cool before you on the scene. Just kidding but you do take a lot of time. BTW I do not believe fairies exist yet I simply live as if they do not. I do not write books on how fairies are not so great or call them evil. Why do you spend so much time attacking that whish you do not believe exists. Every former atheist I know including me has told me that even his worst atheist was a cry for help or a shriek of insecurity. What about your agnosticism?

Yes I believe as they are both separated from the father of morality they can not help but produce more immorality than Christianity but that stops short of writing suggestions about specific people or starting revolutions. As I said I am required only to present truth, not what you do with it. That's all the time I have today. Have a good one. Talk to you one second after my first post tomorrow.

Non-existence is amoral not immoral.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why have you complained about atheism, and secularism so much?

You are like a debate vulture. The carcass (my keyboard) is not even cool before you on the scene. Just kidding but you do take a lot of time. BTW I do not believe fairies exist yet I simply live as if they do not. I do not write books on how fairies are not so great or call them evil. Why do you spend so much time attacking that whish you do not believe exists. Every former atheist I know including me has told me that even his worst atheist was a cry for help or a shriek of insecurity. What about your agnosticism?

Yes I believe as they are both separated from the father of morality they can not help but produce more immorality than Christianity but that stops short of writing suggestions about specific people or starting revolutions. As I said I am required only to present truth, not what you do with it. That's all the time I have today. Have a good one. Talk to you one second after my first post tomorrow.

Non-existence is amoral not immoral.

That was not an answer to my question. Please answer my question.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.