Is the US a Christian nation?

[InChrist]

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.

I think a simple reading of the NT shows that miracles do not necessarily convince people to believe in Jesus, if their minds and hearts are already against Him. Hundreds saw Him perform numerous miracles in and around Jerusalem during His ministry and yet did not believe in Him and outright hated Him.

From the many missionary testimonies I have read, when the gospel message is taken to a new area where it has never been before miracles often do occur even today, some believe, but others do not. I believe God has given the written word as testimony of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ...the greatest miracle of all. The Bible has been translated into most languages and is available throughout much of the world and the information is available on T.V., radio, and the internet. I don't think atheists who have rejected the testimony God has already given and made available would become Christians through seeing miracles.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

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?

I am merely discussing U.S. History. When Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration, no creator was mentioned which shows that one of the more important delegates didn't see it as important enough. But among the number of issues faced while trying to get something everyone would agree with (including abolishing slavery or not). And while most of them were Christian, the ones that had more influential ones (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Morris, Madison, and yes even Washington because Christianity does not have a monopoly on the term "god"), the ones who largely and strongly guided the direction of the declaration and constitution and worked very hard to hold it all together, were not Christian. And what does Lincoln have to do with it because he was born in 1809.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think a simple reading of the NT shows that miracles do not necessarily convince people to believe in Jesus, if their minds and hearts are already against Him.

Of course, but the New Testament shows that sometimes, people who had heard Jesus teach did not accept him until they saw him perform miracles. The same thing would happen today if thousands of Christians all over the world completely healed many people who had for example, serious cases of cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis.

Hundreds saw Him perform numerous miracles in and around Jerusalem during His ministry and yet did not believe in Him and outright hated Him.

But many did, and far more would have if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

From the many missionary testimonies I have read, when the gospel message is taken to a new area where it has never been before miracles often do occur even today, some believe, but others do not.

But the miracles are never obvious like the miracles that Jesus performed. Jesus completely, and instantly healed many diseases. Today, there are never complete, instant healings of serious cases of cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. A God who wanted to demonstrate his powers would easily be able to do that before the entire world by doing things that no human would be able to do, such as instantly creating a large building in front of the world media. You could argue that God wants people to have faith, but that would not work since Jesus used miracles to confirm who he was.

I believe God has given the written word as testimony of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ...the greatest miracle of all. The Bible has been translated into most languages and is available throughout much of the world and the information is available on T.V., radio, and the internet. I don't think atheists who have rejected the testimony God has already given and made available would become Christians through seeing miracles.

But some Scriptures show that during the time of Jesus, the written word was not enough to convince some people, and that God provided miracles as additional evidence that Jesus was the Son of God.

If miracles were appropriate evidence during the time of Jesus, they would also be appropriate today. You could not reasonably claim that no skeptic in the world would become a Christian if Pat Robertson completely, and instantly healed many people who had serious cases of cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis.

If all skeptics who died during the past 100 years had been transported as adults back in time to Jerusalem, during the time of Jesus, and had seen Jesus perform many miracles, surely at least some of them would have accepted him. That is a very reasonable assumption since the same thing would definitely have happened if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world. People who lived in Jerusalem were not different from people who lived anywhere else in the world.

If 1,000 babies in the U.S. were taken to Iran, and raised by Muslims, surely at least some of them would become Muslims who would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S. There is no doubt that chance, and circumstance are important factors regarding what people believe.

Word of mouth is a very poor way for a God to let everyone know about the Bible. Even today, many people who live in remote jungle regions have never heard about the Bible.

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who starved to death?

It would not be right for God to punish people for refusing to accept the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed that some of them would accept if they saw the miracles.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But logic indicates that the actions, and achievements of Christians does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible. I think that you once admitted that when I brought it up.

For all we know, some aliens on another planet have done away with all crime, disease, and death. If such aliens one day showed up on earth, and took some humans to their planet to see their society, you would no doubt argue that the most moral people in the universe do not necessarily know that truth. In addition, today, there might be a small group of non-Christians in the world who are more moral than the typical Christian is. Further, a hundred years from now, a new religion might be founded, and its followers might be much more moral than the typical Christian is. If that happened, and if you were still alive, you would argue that the most moral people in the world do not necessarily know the truth.

Aside from moral factors, it also takes many secular factors to build a strong, prosperous country, such as intelligence, education, natural resources, and, if possible, the protection of oceans. Britain, and Japan, became powerful countries partly because of protection from oceans.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

But that is also immoral for reasons that I have already stated.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 14:9-11

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Doesn't that disagree with what you said?

William Lane Craig disagrees with you. Consider the following:

Middle Knowledge and Hell | Reasonable Faith

Your response is that unbelievers “did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.” This response seems to miss the thrust of my answer. Of course, the damned would prefer not to have been created! Obviously! But my question is why such persons’ freely rejecting God should be allowed to prevent the blessedness and joy of those who would freely accept God’s salvation? These people shouldn’t be privileged over those who would love and want God. So long as God gives sufficient grace for salvation to every person He creates and wills that person’s salvation, then I can’t see that God is less loving for creating a worlds with less than universal salvation rather than refraining from creation of free creatures altogether. (Recall that we’re assuming that there are no worlds feasible for God to create which involve universal salvation without overriding disadvantages.) But if it is not less loving, then what’s the problem supposed to be?

As I've sought to show elsewhere, the reality of eternal punishment is in no way inconsistent with God's love or justice (Questions 35, 55, 172).

God doesn’t wish hell on anybody either, John. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33.11). But those who freely reject God deserve their awful fate; they thrust eternal life from them. It is really they themselves and not God who is responsible for the reality of hell.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

As I said I am required only to present truth, not what you do with it.

Christian Scientists claim that they have presented the truth.

You said:

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

That does not compare favorably with your comment that "I am required only to present truth, not what you do with it."

Obviously, Christians implement Christianity by words, and actions, the same way the Christian Scientists implement Christian Science.

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.

It would not be right for God to punish people for refusing to accept the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed that some of them would accept if they saw the miracles.

Why must God's opinions, and actions, always be fair, right, and just?

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who starved to death?

 

[1robin]

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

On what grounds are your opinion capable of determining what God should do? Why not Hitler's opinions in these areas? Or the Pope's, mine, Genghis Kahn's, Martin Luther's?

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.

That is not binding on God having to do so. He must supply sufficient information for choice and only he would know what level that would be. He is not responsible to you in any aspect of his actions.

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.

That has absolutely nothing to do with God being required to do this. Your are saying the same thing over and over. Whatever optimal level YOU omnisciently declare God to be responsible for become binding on God. On what grounds? When your level was reached why not the next higher level and the next? This is a rationalization to excuse a lack of faith based on wishing things into binding God to standards that do not exist.

 

[1robin]

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

I recently made two posts in the thread on homosexuality.

I like to debate what I like to debate. Why must I do any other? I have given you a firewall to the homosexual debate to which you have never overcome. Until you do the debate IMO is terminated.

 

[1robin]

I am merely discussing U.S. History. When Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration, no creator was mentioned which shows that one of the more important delegates didn't see it as important enough. But among the number of issues faced while trying to get something everyone would agree with (including abolishing slavery or not). And while most of them were Christian, the ones that had more influential ones (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Morris, Madison, and yes even Washington because Christianity does not have a monopoly on the term "god"), the ones who largely and strongly guided the direction of the declaration and constitution and worked very hard to hold it all together, were not Christian. And what does Lincoln have to do with it because he was born in 1809.

I have already pointed out the obvious relevance of Lincoln. The declaration as accepted officially in 1776 contained the words creator. In comparison what do drafts have to do with anything?


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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[7] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[8] It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world.
United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only the most desperate of arguments could dismiss that in favor of the relevance of first drafts and quickly revised drafts of treaties with Tripoli. I can concede one thing and have many times. The country was just as, if not more deistic in foundation than strictly Christian but that is far closer and more consistent with Christianity than secularism.

 

[Agnostic75]

On what grounds are your opinion capable of determining what God should do?

It doesn't matter since God does not have free will regarding his character. Therefore, my arguments that God should provide additional evidence are not valid since he is not able to change his character.

 

[1robin]

But logic indicates that the actions, and achievements of Christians does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible. I think that you once admitted that when I brought it up.

Where in the world did you get this? A Christian started the fight against US slavery. Another Christian had more to do with winning it than any other person on Earth and 300,000 died along the way to obtain it. In what way is that deficient? Hospitals exist by the hundreds because of Christians, the most successful public school system in history was began by Christians, and the most generous demographic on Earth is conservative Christians. I can go on forever but instead want to know how much is enough and how you know? I imagine it will always be whatever exists plus an arbitrary X.

For all we know, some aliens on another planet have done away with all crime, disease, and death. If such aliens one day showed up on earth, and took some humans to their planet to see their society, you would no doubt argue that the most moral people in the universe do not necessarily know that truth. In addition, today, there might be a small group of non-Christians in the world who are more moral than the typical Christian is. Further, a hundred years from now, a new religion might be founded, and its followers might be much more moral than the typical Christian is. If that happened, and if you were still alive, you would argue that the most moral people in the world do not necessarily know the truth.

When you find those aliens then make that argument. Good Lord man. Only in non-belief world is a hypothetical group of hypothetical beings an argument.

Aside from moral factors, it also takes many secular factors to build a strong, prosperous country, such as intelligence, education, natural resources, and, if possible, the protection of oceans. Britain, and Japan, became powerful countries partly because of protection from oceans.

In what way are any of those strictly secular. It may very well be the case secularism does not exist beyond a concept and there are no secular realities at all. Who created those oceans? You sound like Job.

New International Version
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't matter since God does not have free will regarding his character. Therefore, my arguments that God should provide additional evidence are not valid since he is not able to change his character.

When you take a breath and give me time I will answer this one challenging point among a forest of impotent objections.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have given you a firewall to the homosexual debate to which you have never overcome. Until you do the debate IMO is terminated.

But I just demolished your arguments in my most recent post in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-89.html#post3440211. I keep directly replying to your arguments, and you keep refusing to directly reply to my arguments. For example, I made an argument about lesbians on several occasions, and even in two or three different threads, which you have never replied to. The same goes for an argument that I made about homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. You have never replied to that argument either.

 

[Agnostic75]

When you take a breath and give me time I will answer this one challenging point among a forest of impotent objections.

That will be fine.

 

[Agnostic75]

Where in the world did you get this? A Christian started the fight against US slavery.

But some Greek Stoics strongly opposed slavery before Christ.

Another Christian had more to do with winning it than any other person on Earth and 300,000 died along the way to obtain it. In what way is that deficient? Hospitals exist by the hundreds because of Christians, the most successful public school system in history was began by Christians, and the most generous demographic on Earth is conservative Christians. I can go on forever but instead want to know how much is enough and how you know? I imagine it will always be whatever exists plus an arbitrary X.

You are talking about achievements, but what about motives, and desires? What I mean is that today, many non-Christians have the motives, and the desires, to accomplish things not only equal to what some Christians have accomplished, but much greater things. Many Olympic athletes who win gold medals have less desire than other athletes who have less physical abilities.

 

[Agnostic75]

Aside from moral factors, it also takes many secular factors to build a strong, prosperous country, such as intelligence, education, natural resources, and, if possible, the protection of oceans. Britain, and Japan, became powerful countries partly because of protection from oceans.

In what way are any of those strictly secular. It may very well be the case secularism does not exist beyond a concept and there are no secular realities at all. Who created those oceans?

But if a God exists, he might not be the God of the Bible. Even if the God of the Bible exists, he does not have free will regarding his character.

You have said that you have some valid secular arguments against homosexuality. Do you have some valid secular arguments against what I said about secular factors that contributed to the growth of Christianity?

 

[InChrist]

But the miracles are never obvious like the miracles that Jesus performed. Jesus completely, and instantly healed many diseases. Today, there are never complete, instant healings of serious cases of cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. A God who wanted to demonstrate his powers would easily be able to do that before the entire world by doing things that no human would be able to do, such as instantly creating a large building in front of the world media. You could argue that God wants people to have faith, but that would not work since Jesus used miracles to confirm who he was.


If miracles were appropriate evidence during the time of Jesus, they would also be appropriate today. You could not reasonably claim that no skeptic in the world would become a Christian if Pat Robertson completely, and instantly healed many people who had serious cases of cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis.

If all skeptics who died during the past 100 years had been transported as adults back in time to Jerusalem, during the time of Jesus, and had seen Jesus perform many miracles, surely at least some of them would have accepted him. That is a very reasonable assumption since the same thing would definitely have happened if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world. People who lived in Jerusalem were not different from people who lived anywhere else in the world.


Word of mouth is a very poor way for a God to let everyone know about the Bible. Even today, many people who live in remote jungle regions have never heard about the Bible.

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who starved to death?

It would not be right for God to punish people for refusing to accept the same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed that some of them would accept if they saw the miracles.

I am afraid I totally disagree with your assessment concerning miracles. As I said from the accounts I have read, there are real life-changing and physically healing events taking place in various parts of the world today.

• Chantamma was a disgraced widow who sunk even lower in society when she was diagnosed with AIDS.
• Sindhubai had heard the Gospel many times and rejected it-until she had an extreme allergy problem.
• Sudhakar suffered from epilepsy, and when it worsened, he came to the verge of committing suicide.
• And Shanti’s mental problems threw her parents into such depression that they, too, considered suicide.

Special Report: Why Healings?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3439841


... I believe God knows when a person or society needs or doesn't need miracles to accompany the gospel and will provide accordingly. I am of the perspective that modern skeptics who refuse the spiritual or supernatural in the first place would not allow their minds to be changed no matter how many miracles they witnessed... because it is not a matter of whether or not God and His power are real, it is an attitude of refusing to acknowledge or submit to anyone (i.e. God) other than self.


"The stories could—and do—go on and on. It is becoming apparent that the individual stories of miraculous healings happening in Asia today are part of a much larger move of God. But what is the reason for all these miracles, and why do they happen so much in Asia?

In Asian culture, devotion to spirits and gods leads people to seek spiritual solutions. Often witch doctors’ services are sought or sacrifices are made to gods of healing or good fortune. But when they are unable to cure an illness, these deities’ lack of power becomes apparent. Then, when the people see the healing power of Jesus and hear of His sacrifice for them, they see that their Creator is the only one who can overcome their physical problems.

In these spiritually-focused cultures, people are quicker to realize who deserves the credit for miracles. Healings in these places draw people to salvation as they realize Jesus is more powerful than all their gods. The glory doesn’t go to the missionary who prayed, or to the believers who fasted and sought the Lord. The glory goes to God, who touched them with love."

excerpt from:
Special Report: Why Healings?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3439841

 

[1robin]

But I just demolished your arguments in my most recent post in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-89.html#post3440211. I keep directly replying to your arguments, and you keep refusing to directly reply to my arguments. For example, I made an argument about lesbians on several occasions, and even in two or three different threads, which you have never replied to. The same goes for an argument that I made about homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. You have never replied to that argument either.

No you not. Your arguments regardless of merit had no capacity what so ever to even impact my primary claims and I pointed that out in that post. All your doing is rationalizing by pointing out it could be worse, other things are worse, it may be done safely in certain circumstances (which is not true at least for males), or assuming physical gratification is compensation for massive death rate increases. Even if your arguments were valid they are wholly inadequate and hyper selective.

 

[1robin]

But some Greek Stoics strongly opposed slavery before Christ.

Did they die by the tens of thousands to free any?

You are talking about achievements, but what about motives, and desires? What I mean is that today, many non-Christians have the motives, and the desires, to accomplish things not only equal to what some Christians have accomplished, but much greater things. Many Olympic athletes who win gold medals have less desire than other athletes who have less physical abilities.

Motives are only as reliable as the persons claims. They claimed to be doing their Christian duty. Lincoln and John Brown went on and on about it. Modern society can't even decide what wrong actually is many times much less die for it. I am a veteran and many soldiers are there for reasons that have nothing to do with morality or gain for others. I am not complaining about modern soldiers but we do not have to live on green corn and march for 500 hundred miles with no shoes and stand in lines and kill each other for hours at a time. They were of a different sort back then.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am afraid I totally disagree with your assessment concerning miracles. As I said from the accounts I have read, there
are real life-changing and physically healing events taking place in various parts of the world today.

• Chantamma was a disgraced widow who sunk even lower in society when she was diagnosed with AIDS.
• Sindhubai had heard the Gospel many times and rejected it-until she had an extreme allergy problem.
• Sudhakar suffered from epilepsy, and when it worsened, he came to the verge of committing suicide.
• And Shanti’s mental problems threw her parents into such depression that they, too, considered suicide.

Special Report: Why Healings?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3439841


... I believe God knows when a person or society needs or doesn't need miracles to accompany the gospel and will provide accordingly. I am of the perspective that modern skeptics who refuse the spiritual or supernatural in the first place would not allow their minds to be changed no matter how many miracles they witnessed... because it is not a matter of whether or not God and His power are real, it is an attitude of refusing to acknowledge or submit to anyone (i.e. God) other than self.

"The stories could—and do—go on and on. It is becoming apparent that the individual stories of miraculous healings happening in Asia today are part of a much larger move of God. But what is the reason for all these miracles, and why do they happen so much in Asia?

In Asian culture, devotion to spirits and gods leads people to seek spiritual solutions. Often witch doctors’ services are sought or sacrifices are made to gods of healing or good fortune. But when they are unable to cure an illness, these deities’ lack of power becomes apparent. Then, when the people see the healing power of Jesus and hear of His sacrifice for them, they see that their Creator is the only one who can overcome their physical problems.

In these spiritually-focused cultures, people are quicker to realize who deserves the credit for miracles. Healings in these places draw people to salvation as they realize Jesus is more powerful than all their gods. The glory doesn’t go to the missionary who prayed, or to the believers who fasted and sought the Lord. The glory goes to God, who touched them with love."

excerpt from:

Special Report: Why Healings?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3439841

But regardless of how much evidence God is providing in some places, he is not providing it in all places. If Jesus had performed miracles all over the world, surely far more people would have become Christians. The same would be true today if thousands of Christians performed miracles like Jesus performed all over the world.

Regarding all skeptics who have died within the past 100 years, if they had been transported as young adults back to Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, and had seen Jesus perform many miracles, surely some of them would have become Christians. If you had been raised by Muslims in Iran, it is reasonably possible that you would have become a Muslim.

It would be wrong for God to punish skeptics for refusing to accept the same kinds of evidence that Jesus provided if they were aware of it.

I doubt that you can provide even one documented medical case of a person having a complete, instantaneous healing of a serious case of cerebral palsy, or multiple sclerosis.

Since some people who follow other religions also claim that they got healed, that does not reasonably prove who God is.

Since God does not have free will regarding his character, why should anyone compliment him for healing people?