Is the US a Christian nation?

[SkepticThinker]

No, all but less than ten were Christians. Even some of the few deists were not strict deists. Many were sort of hybrids. Jesus is usually not mentioned in secular declarations about a nation's objections to another nation or within documents dispersing rights and restrictions on state institutions. Washington and Lincoln definitely insisted God was (They both were Christians) an integral part of our foundations. God is mention in the deceleration (though in a general form which is what any nation that respects the right of other theologies would have used). Even deism is far closer to Christianity than secularism. Scripture is literally carved into the capitol. To remove references to God from Washington would require it to be torn down and built again. The closest I can get to secularism in this context is to say our state institutions are secular in respect to equality and access, but have Christian foundations and a Christian heart.

Why is god not mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again this is not an argument. It is a leading question designed to trap and condemn the theist. I doubt the sincerity of this stuff.

Of course it's a trap, but that doesn't mean it's not an argument. I want to see whether you're willing to remain consistent with a position you've already given, i.e. that "Biblical" slavery is benign and acceptable.

No I would not because the OT does not apply in the new covenant. FAULT was found with the old covenant and it was terminated.

And who authored this faulty covenant?

Regardless of the covenant as a whole, you've argued before that Biblical slavery was okay. Have you changed your mind?

Also the conditions that made servitude necessary no longer exist. We have welfare, global relief, and debt is no longer a crime.

No thanks to Christianity. It was the dominant religion in Europe for nearly two millenia, but most countries had debtor's prisons and workhouses right up until recent times. Again, it was only after the Englightenment and the popularization of humanism that mainstream Christianity stopped victimizing the poor.

I have no way to know but judging from your argumentation I am certain your are a liberal. Is that true?

What does my politics have to do with anything?

Oh good lord man. You could not know this even if true. It is also very complex. First prove this and then I will contend it.

Which part do you object to? That mainstream Christianity supported slavery through most of its history, or that it only changed after humanism became widespread?

Our religion is self admittedly composed of very fallible people. It's adherents are not the basis our foundation. Christ, the Bible and God are. Maybe you think it is meaningful to point out humans are screwed up but I don't (it is a cornerstone of our doctrine). It would be meaningful to know why secularists do not so often admit this obvious fact. Do not bother condemning Christians. We have already condemned ourselves and sought forgiveness. No a religion is not defined by the beliefs of it's adherents (or I should say a true religion). It is defined by the revelations of it's source. God said all men were made equal. Is that the more meaningful issue or a Christian who denies it?

Let me ask you a question: how do you determine what are the tenets of any of the many religions that you don't accept? How would you go about telling a "true Sikh" from a "false Sikh", for instance? How would you tell whether a person who purports to be a Buddhist is a "true Buddhist"?

 

[1robin]

Why is god not mentioned in the Constitution?

Because in general it deals with administration not rights and things that need objective foundations to contend. I need a God to justify rights. I don't to mandate powers to a president or legislative branch that will soon be usurped anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because in general it deals with administration not rights and things that need objective foundations to contend. I need a God to justify rights. I don't to mandate powers to a president or legislative branch that will soon be usurped anyway.

You think that the document that contains the Bill of Rights doesn't deal with rights? Have you actually read the Constitution? :sarcastic

 

[1robin]

Of course it's a trap, but that doesn't mean it's not an argument. I want to see whether you're willing to remain consistent with a position you've already given, i.e. that "Biblical" slavery is benign and acceptable.

Yes you are right it is an argument. A shameful one. It is most certainly not benign and I have never said it was which further illustrates the insincerity here.

It was Not evil for its time but it sure was not representative of God's true desire either. Allowing divorce is not to say God likes divorce. Same with slavery. Your trap was too greedy. Even though I am fully willing to sink or swim with God and will not be purposefully inconsistent you still could not make a trap accurate enough to catch me or God in.

And who authored this faulty covenant?

God but that is not where the fault was found. We screwed it up as usually. So God made up so perfect that even we could not train wreck it. In fact verse actually say this in detail. Do you read what you condemn? Well over 99% of humanity even giving a 100,000 history have lived in the new covenant. Why are you obsessed with the exception again.

Regardless of the covenant as a whole, you've argued before that Biblical slavery was okay. Have you changed your mind?

No, I still think it was a practicable solution that would work in its time. I only defend God from being called evil because of it, I have never argued that it was optimal but it did produce a net loss in human suffering over all.

No thanks to Christianity. It was the dominant religion in Europe for nearly two millennia, but most countries had debtor's prisons and workhouses right up until recent times. Again, it was only after the Enlightenment and the popularization of humanism that mainstream Christianity stopped victimizing the poor.

I have told you I do not defend Christians. We have screwed up almost as much as most non-Christians in most areas and more in some. Your also dealing with a few issues here that can't be resolved. I can't debate the history of Europe and flat condemn most of Catholic tradition and history as unbiblical.

What does my politics have to do with anything?

Your argumentation uses the exact same tactics liberal use to defend politics that do not work. The few tactics I am talking about are not common to anything but liberalism. Now are you or not, or are you but won't admit it? If you answer I will tell you what tactics I mean. They are very specific.

Which part do you object to? That mainstream Christianity supported slavery through most of its history, or that it only changed after humanism became widespread?

How could you know either? Do you have the records from the Vatican and every protestant denomination in history? Where are the humanism textual vaults? How do you draw the line between tolerate and promote, between what is allowed because a few in power would kill if resisted form what is actually desired, between customs tolerated by Christian because secular institutions the predate them incorporated them. I have discussed American history because it is far less old and much more studied. You being way way too broad for resolution to be possible.

Answer this honestly.

A humanist who does not believe in God looses everything he ever has if he dies in a war to free a slave. The Christian believe he will be rewarded even if he loses what this life gave in a eternity in heaven. Which one of those would seem to allow more people to oppose anything that might take your life in the doing? Only theistic humanism is any help and we are back in my camp.

Let me ask you a question: how do you determine what are the tenets of any of the many religions that you don't accept?

By reading what they claim their God revealed. My very first question is to determine if a case can be reliably made if those words came from a God. If not I really do not care what they say. Human knowledge or wisdom is common and will not help in the really important issues. You are kind of lumping religion with revelation. I have no use of need to defend any religion apart form revelation. In fact I condemn it.

How would you go about telling a "true Sikh" from a "false Sikh", for instance?

I don't. I argue concerning concepts not people in general. I judge Islam based on its revelation. I would not for instance not reject Muhammad based on Islamic terrorists. Just look around a bit. Every new faith I encounter is asked about revelation, textual integrity, and evidence of the supernatural. I reject all man made claims if they are claimed to be from God and less than overwhelming evidence exists they are. Like I said you are talking more about doctrine than revelation. Another example,I condemn all Church tradition and Papal claims if it conflicts with revelation.

How would you tell whether a person who purports to be a Buddhist is a "true Buddhist"?

I don't. I judge Buddhism not Buddhists. Even if I did judge people it would be by their and my texts not some distortion of what they claim. I debate Islam within Islam which includes the Bible.

 

[1robin]

You think that the document that contains the Bill of Rights doesn't deal with rights? Have you actually read the Constitution? :sarcastic

I think of the bill of rights as a separate issue. I will get into this tomorrow when I have time to explain. I suppose "in general" was wasted on you. However what the tactic here seems to be is pick anything that is consistent with a non Christian autocratic regime and claim it is only consistent with the bizarre claim that a body composed of 95% Christians created a government with it's foundation in the air instead of God. I gave their own words to show this was not true. They intended to make a human institution devoid of theistic mandate and that is far more consistent with the facts than a bunch of Christians kicking God out of anything. They put God where he belongs, in foundational issues. Human institutions are administrated by men.

In addition to all of this (and mountains of previous posts) the entire claim is a fallacy, as it is an argument from silence. I do not mention God in engineering, legal, most scholastic, or even much of my personal conversations yet no fact is less central to my life except maybe my fallibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes you are right it is an argument. A shameful one. It is most certainly not benign and I have never said it was which further illustrates the insincerity here.

It was Not evil for its time but it sure was not representative of God's true desire either. Allowing divorce is not to say God likes divorce. Same with slavery. Your trap was too greedy. Even though I am fully willing to sink or swim with God and will not be purposefully inconsistent you still could not make a trap accurate enough to catch me or God in.

Complaining about the character of one's opponent is usually a sign that one has run out of arguments.

God but that is not where the fault was found. We screwed it up as usually. So God made up so perfect that even we could not train wreck it. In fact verse actually say this in detail. Do you read what you condemn? Well over 99% of humanity even giving a 100,000 history have lived in the new covenant. Why are you obsessed with the exception again.

Can you re-phrase this so it's intelligible?

No, I still think it was a practicable solution that would work in its time. I only defend God from being called evil because of it, I have never argued that it was optimal but it did produce a net loss in human suffering over all.

Fine. I think you're being inconsistent, but I think we're getting sidetracked off the main issues of the thread.

I have told you I do not defend Christians. We have screwed up almost as much as most non-Christians in most areas and more in some.

The difference between Christianity and Christians is like the difference between the forest and the trees.

Your also dealing with a few issues here that can't be resolved. I can't debate the history of Europe and flat condemn most of Catholic tradition and history as unbiblical.

Regardless of your opinion of Catholicism, it's still part of mainstream Christianity. In fact it was the mainstream Christianity in western Europe for most of the history of Christianity.

Your argumentation uses the exact same tactics liberal use to defend politics that do not work. The few tactics I am talking about are not common to anything but liberalism. Now are you or not, or are you but won't admit it? If you answer I will tell you what tactics I mean. They are very specific.

My personal politics aren't relevant to this debate. I'm not interested in giving you fodder for more irrational arguments.

How could you know either? Do you have the records from the Vatican and every protestant denomination in history?

Are you serious? You don't think that slavery was commonplace - and commonly supported - by Christian societies until the 1800s?

Where are the humanism textual vaults? How do you draw the line between tolerate and promote, between what is allowed because a few in power would kill if resisted form what is actually desired, between customs tolerated by Christian because secular institutions the predate them incorporated them. I have discussed American history because it is far less old and much more studied. You being way way too broad for resolution to be possible.

Answer this honestly.

What you're describing here makes no sense. There was no pre-Christian institution that engaged in wholesale human trafficking from Africa to the New World. In the context of "Christian" Europe, North America, and the Caribbean, slavery was instituted by Christians.

A humanist who does not believe in God looses everything he ever has if he dies in a war to free a slave. The Christian believe he will be rewarded even if he loses what this life gave in a eternity in heaven. Which one of those would seem to allow more people to oppose anything that might take your life in the doing? Only theistic humanism is any help and we are back in my camp.

Yes... a Christian who truly believed that slavery was wrong would believe that he would be rewarded in Heaven if he died trying to free a slave. Such a Christian would have no reason not to give his life in the fight against slavery.

However, when we look at history, we see that the vast majority of Christians didn't do this. Most didn't risk their lives to free slaves. This says to me that these Christians believed that slavery was acceptable.

By reading what they claim their God revealed. My very first question is to determine if a case can be reliably made if those words came from a God.

Not all religions are based on revelation. And even those based on revelation or scripture use that revelation/scripture in different ways. Do you think that the Quran and the Hadiths, for instance, clearly spell out what the role of the Hadiths should be? Can you conclusively tell us whether Sunni or Shi'a is the "true" version of Islam? If you can, you'll solve a dispute that's gone on for more than a thousand years.

If not I really do not care what they say. Human knowledge or wisdom is common and will not help in the really important issues. You are kind of lumping religion with revelation.

No, that's what you're doing. The religion is the people. The religion is the beliefs. Those beliefs may be informed by "revelation" or scripture, but those things don't define the religion. In fact, one of the important aspects of the religion is the beliefs about what role that revelation or scripture should play.

I have no use of need to defend any religion apart form revelation. In fact I condemn it.

Good for you. :sarcastic

I don't. I argue concerning concepts not people in general. I judge Islam based on its revelation. I would not for instance not reject Muhammad based on Islamic terrorists. Just look around a bit. Every new faith I encounter is asked about revelation, textual integrity, and evidence of the supernatural.

Are you willing to reject either Sunni or Shi'a as "not true Islam"? Personally, I'm willing to say that even though they disagree on certain matters of faith, they're both forms of Islam. What about you? Presumably, since they disagree, they can't both be right - is one of them "more Muslim" than the other?

 

[F0uad]

If America is a Christian country, Christianity is the most violent religion that ever existed...

 

[Philomath]

America is not a christian nation, it has a majority of Christians though. I see that changing in the future though.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

What requires God to do anything? Why does he do what he does? Does God have to keep his promises?

 

[Lord'sChild]

Is the United States a Christian nation?

No it isn't, it is a nation led by murderers and slave drivers.

 

[Sunstone]

America is not a christian nation, it has a majority of Christians though. I see that changing in the future though.

How soon will it change?

 

[Lord'sChild]

Most people who say they are Christians, are nothing other than liars.

True Christians do not preach.

 

[Agnostic75]

Most people who say they are Christians, are nothing other than liars.

True Christians do not preach.

Please define the word "preach."

Did Paul preach?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't, it is a nation led by murderers and slave drivers.

What makes you think that those things are mutually exclusive?

Most people who say they are Christians, are nothing other than liars.

True Christians do not preach.

So much for the Great Commission, eh?

 

[Lord'sChild]

Please define the word "preach."

Did Paul preach?

Paul, maybe - who cares, he wasn't the Messiah and he has no significance.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Paul, maybe - who cares, he wasn't the Messiah and he has no significance.

The "messiah" preached and instructed others to do so...

 

[Agnostic75]

Paul, maybe - who cares, he wasn't the Messiah and he has no significance?

The Bible disagrees with you. Consider the following Scriptures:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Revelation 22: 17-19

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

Please define the word "preach."

In your opinion, who other than Jesus is important?

 

[1robin]

No it isn't, it is a nation led by murderers and slave drivers.

Good Lord man!! The entire world would have become a tyrannical empire twice if not for us. Then we even rebuilt those very nations that had attacked the US and every freedom loving nation of Earth. How does that equal slave driver and murderer. Do you actually feel making claims this abjectly wrong worth doing?

 

[1robin]

Paul, maybe - who cares, he wasn't the Messiah and he has no significance.

So far your batting a thousand on being wrong. Paul was chosen by Christ himself, he prevailed in every disagreement with the other apostles, was far more educated in Judaism than any of them, was considered as an apostle by all the other apostles, and wrote more of the new testament than the rest combined. Since truth isn't it what is the criteria for what you claim?