Is the US a Christian nation?

[tumbleweed41]

I appreciate the point you are making but an analogy would be that driving for a 10 year old is immoral but for a 20 year old is not. God's moral nature does not change but circumstances may necessitate a change in application.

I find your analogy inaccurate. You're not speaking of a changing morality, but rather abilities and physicality.

Either way, this leaves morality as subjective to circumstance rather than an objective truth. This also makes morality subject to Gods will.
Thus, God decides what is moral or immoral under differing circumstances. Meaning morality is not absolute.

Circumstances in the US have changed dramatically in the last 200+ years. If we are to base our lives on a Christian based morality, is it the same Christian morality as 200 years ago? Or has that morality changed as circumstances have changed?

 

[1robin]

Pretty sure it's the same God as they worship the God of Abraham which is the Gos the Jews serve and the same Christians serve.

Benevolence would also be concerned with both quantity and quality.

They are most certainly not the same being. You seem to be confusing what some people believe with what is intellectually sustainable. I can claim that Stephen Douglass and Abraham Lincoln are the same person but it can't be sufficiently justified. Islam claims the Abraham built the Kaaba yet they are separated by I think 700 years of history. What is claimed and what is reliable are two distinct things. The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized and cherished words in human history. It is by far (I mean far) the most substantial and reliable textual tradition of any ancient historical work of any type. Christ is the most textually attested character in ancient history. By what standard is either quantity or quality lacking here?

All religions are focused on helping the misfortunate and loving and treating each other fairly are they not?

I could not say but even if true what does that prove. Anything claimed to be from God but is not would be evil.

[/quote]Those are common in all religions that I know of. Why is that so?[/quote]That is a heck of an assumption and based on intent not result even if true. Following Satan will get you condemned if the Bible is true. Claiming Muhammad is a false prophet as the Bible does (in general with tests for false prophet hood) will get you condemned if Islam is true. How is that good even if both say to not murder? The reason non Biblical theological texts are similar is they have similar authors (man) and deal with the same issues. In fact most religions (Egyptology to Baha'i) deal with the same issues and so will have similar claims. However there is no argument with this (I will use the Koran and the Bible as examples but the concept would apply to all of them).

1. The NT claims only faith in Christ's sacrificial death can get a person into heaven. The Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet by using the methods it gives to detect that.
2. The Koran claims that never happened and that only obedience (pilgrimage, prayer at certain times each day, repeating intellectual consent with propositions like Muhammad's prophet hood) will get you to heaven.

One thing is absolutely certain, both can't possibly be true. If any one is true the other will lead you to eternal doom. The same God (if benevolent) could not have possibly claimed both. It also impossible for God to be one being (mono theism) and a plurality of beings (oriental pluralism). He may be one and he may be 300 million but he isn't both. He may have a son and he may not but he does not have a son and no son at the same time. He may require grace alone or works alone to get into heaven but he may not use works and grace. They are mutually exclusive.

I also wish to point out Christianity's exclusive nature. Almost all other religions rely on personal merit of some type. Obedience, Karma, good deeds, self discovery through study. They are man's attempts to reach God and that can't be done. Christianity is God's attempts to reach man. The distance between finite fallible minds and an infinite perfect one is infinite. Only God can reach across infinity. Only in Christianity has he done so. I also add that only the Bible has reliable evidence for the supernatural, prophecy, and life after death. The others have only very unreliable, very limited, and pale reflections of these issues.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

They are most certainly not the same being. You seem to be confusing what some people believe with what is intellectually sustainable. I can claim that Stephen Douglass and Abraham Lincoln are the same person but it can't be sufficiently justified. Islam claims the Abraham built the Kaaba yet they are separated by I think 700 years of history. What is claimed and what is reliable are two distinct things. The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized and cherished words in human history. It is by far (I mean far) the most substantial and reliable textual tradition of any ancient historical work of any type. Christ is the most textually attested character in ancient history. By what standard is either quantity or quality lacking here?


I could not say but even if true what does that prove. Anything claimed to be from God but is not would be evil.

Those are common in all religions that I know of. Why is that so?[/quote]That is a heck of an assumption and based on intent not result even if true. Following Satan will get you condemned if the Bible is true. Claiming Muhammad is a false prophet as the Bible does (in general with tests for false prophet hood) will get you condemned if Islam is true. How is that good even if both say to not murder? The reason non Biblical theological texts are similar is they have similar authors (man) and deal with the same issues. In fact most religions (Egyptology to Baha'i) deal with the same issues and so will have similar claims. However there is no argument with this (I will use the Koran and the Bible as examples but the concept would apply to all of them).

1. The NT claims only faith in Christ's sacrificial death can get a person into heaven. The Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet by using the methods it gives to detect that.
2. The Koran claims that never happened and that only obedience (pilgrimage, prayer at certain times each day, repeating intellectual consent with propositions like Muhammad's prophet hood) will get you to heaven.

One thing is absolutely certain, both can't possibly be true. If any one is true the other will lead you to eternal doom. The same God (if benevolent) could not have possibly claimed both. It also impossible for God to be one being (mono theism) and a plurality of beings (oriental pluralism). He may be one and he may be 300 million but he isn't both. He may have a son and he may not but he does not have a son and no son at the same time. He may require grace alone or works alone to get into heaven but he may not use works and grace. They are mutually exclusive.

I also wish to point out Christianity's exclusive nature. Almost all other religions rely on personal merit of some type. Obedience, Karma, good deeds, self discovery through study. They are man's attempts to reach God and that can't be done. Christianity is God's attempts to reach man. The distance between finite fallible minds and an infinite perfect one is infinite. Only God can reach across infinity. Only in Christianity has he done so. I also add that only the Bible has reliable evidence for the supernatural, prophecy, and life after death. The others have only very unreliable, very limited, and pale reflections of these issues.[/QUOTE]

It's amazing how inaccurate all you write is

 

[1robin]

It's amazing how inaccurate all you write is

Your personal commentary is not an argument. Your opinion does not have the slightest impact on the factual nature of even the slightest detail I posted.

 

[tumbleweed41]

1. The NT claims only faith in Christ's sacrificial death can get a person into heaven. The Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet by using the methods it gives to detect that.
2. The Koran claims that never happened and that only obedience (pilgrimage, prayer at certain times each day, repeating intellectual consent with propositions like Muhammad's prophet hood) will get you to heaven...

Perhaps you should study Islam a bit more before making inaccurate claims.

 

[1robin]

I find your analogy inaccurate. You're not speaking of a changing morality, but rather abilities and physicality.

That was the intention. It is always immoral to endanger the lives and health of others without sufficient necessity. The takes different forms as circumstance change. It is always wrong for us to murder but whether it is murder or killing depends on circumstances. Slavery without justification is always wrong. Servitude had justification in the OT but not in the US Old South.

Either way, this leaves morality as subjective to circumstance rather than an objective truth. This also makes morality subject to Gods will.
Thus, God decides what is moral or immoral under differing circumstances. Meaning morality is not absolute.

No murder is absolute. As I have explained whether it was murder depends on circumstances. I think I have given sufficient analogies.

Circumstances in the US have changed dramatically in the last 200+ years. If we are to base our lives on a Christian based morality, is it the same Christian morality as 200 years ago? Or has that morality changed as circumstances have changed?

Moral application has changed not morality. Since the NT has not changed in 200 years in what way do you suggest Christian moral have. Even if wrong they have been static over that time frame. You are also confusing apprehension with foundation again. Christians fought and died to end slavery and to preserve it (though it was lopsided) yet slavery can't be good and bad in the same circumstances. Apprehension or misapprehension does not change what God demands. The crusaders were wrong when they yelled God wills it and then slaughtered Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Jerusalem. They will be judged for it no matter what their perception was. Even if the Bible never existed and we had not the slightest idea what moral were murder would still be wrong.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Your personal commentary is not an argument. Your opinion does not have the slightest impact on the factual nature of even the slightest detail I posted.

You're neither a Muslim or a Jew, so I can plainly say you're inaccurate. It's not an opinion it's fact. You base off your experience. You are inaccurate nothing more nothing less.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That was the intention. It is always immoral to endanger the lives and health of others without sufficient necessity. The takes different forms as circumstance change. It is always wrong for us to murder but whether it is murder or killing depends on circumstances. Slavery without justification is always wrong. Servitude had justification in the OT but not in the US Old South.

No murder is absolute. As I have explained whether it was murder depends on circumstances. I think I have given sufficient analogies.


Moral application has changed not morality. Since the NT has not changed in 200 years in what way do you suggest Christian moral have. Even if wrong they have been static over that time frame. You are also confusing apprehension with foundation again. Christians fought and died to end slavery and to preserve it (though it was lopsided) yet slavery can't be good and bad in the same circumstances. Apprehension or misapprehension does not change what God demands. The crusaders were wrong when they yelled God wills it and then slaughtered Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Jerusalem. They will be judged for it no matter what their perception was. Even if the Bible never existed and we had not the slightest idea what moral were murder would still be wrong.

I get the feeling that interpretations of past morality being right or wrong is much like history itself. The victor gets to decide.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps you should study Islam a bit more before making inaccurate claims.

Just based on probability alone I would bet that I have spent at least twice as much time researching Islam than you have. That is a pretty safe bet when those that claim inaccuracy do not do the slightest thing to show it actually is. The only possibility that exists for inaccuracy in my statements you posted is of degree. I was not intending to illustrate in exhaustive detailed research, salvation in Islam and abbreviated in the extreme to only indicate difference in character. Until you bother to post the slightest evidence that my claim is inaccurate it stands. The point was and is an absolute fact that in Islam works play a very significant role in salvation and in Christianity they play none.

 

[1robin]

I get the feeling that interpretations of past morality being right or wrong is much like history itself. The victor gets to decide.

I do not understand the analogy. Who won what?

 

[1robin]

You're neither a Muslim or a Jew, so I can plainly say you're inaccurate. It's not an opinion it's fact. You base off your experience. You are inaccurate nothing more nothing less.

I am not a physicist either. Does that make my claim that gravity exists untrue. Your post is not even coherent and virtually unintelligible beyond the fact you again gave not even the slightest attempt to show what I said wrong. I also do not even remember making any distinction about Judaism. In fact I checked. Your indicating claims I never made were wrong suggests you have no idea what your even typing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I do not understand the analogy. Who won what?

Hindsight is 20/20.
As you pointed out, while many Christians fought to end slavery in the US, many used Biblical justification to defend the morality of it.
No self-respecting Christian would hold that attitude today.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am not a physicist either. Does that make my claim that gravity exists untrue. Your post is not even coherent and virtually unintelligible beyond the fact you again gave not even the slightest attempt to show what I said wrong. I also do not even remember making any distinction about Judaism. In fact I checked. Your indicating claims I never made were wrong suggests you have no idea what your even typing.

But would you be able to explain gravity? You do not have their knowledge so to speak as an authority on their beliefs is accurate.

Allah is the same God referred to by Christiams and Jews. It's a fact. The commonality among all religions is to love and treat each other fairly. Finding this same dynamic between all religions and beliefs indicate it to be a truth. All else rests on interpretation and faith.

Between hope, faith and love, love is the most inportant.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just based on probability alone I would bet that I have spent at least twice as much time researching Islam than you have. That is a pretty safe bet when those that claim inaccuracy do not do the slightest thing to show it actually is. The only possibility that exists for inaccuracy in my statements you posted is of degree. I was not intending to illustrate in exhaustive detailed research, salvation in Islam and abbreviated in the extreme to only indicate difference in character. Until you bother to post the slightest evidence that my claim is inaccurate it stands. The point was and is an absolute fact that in Islam works play a very significant role in salvation and in Christianity they play none.

Well, I am not going to argue time spent in study.

However, my understanding from Muslims I know is that salvation comes from belief and love in Allah. And that submission, or works, is a result of that belief and love, not a requirement for salvation.

Much like the works of the Christian are not necessary for salvation, but are rather the result of being a Christian.
Correct?

 

[1robin]

But would you be able to explain gravity? You do not have their knowledge so to speak as an authority on their beliefs is accurate.

I do not have to explain it for it to be true. Where are you getting this stuff? The statement gravity exists is true whether I have the slightest notion of how it works. In fact no one in human history knows what it is or why it works. The best anyone can claim is a description of how it applies. I have more knowledge on Islam than many Muslims do. For al you know I might have done a doctrinal thesis on salvation in Islam. You do not have to adopt belief in a thing to know what the thing is.

Allah is the same God referred to by Christiams and Jews. It's a fact.

That is an absolute impossibility. Two mutually exclusive claims to truth can't possibly both be right. I must tolerate people who are inaccurate in their claims. But the not being able to understand the nature of claims and how they are evaluated prohibits debate. You do not seem to even understand how to view issues and make claims to fact that can't possibly be true. My God claims to have a son. Islam's God claims to not have a son. In what way are these the same God? Islam claims there is only one God. Many versions of Hinduism claim there are from 2 to 300 million. In what way are both these true?

The commonality among all religions is to love and treat each other fairly. Finding this same dynamic between all religions and beliefs indicate it to be a truth. All else rests on interpretation and faith.

I did not say that concept was untrue even though you do not have the slightest capacity to prove that love or fairness is actually good. The point was that they are contained in texts that make mutually exclusive claims to divine knowledge and even if they all contain some common true claims can't possibly all or more than one in the big three be from a divine source. I do not think you even understand how to determine these things.

Between hope, faith and love, love is the most important.

I will agree with that. How in the world does that prove that any text or person who claims this is from God? You claimed it are you God? Hinduism claims it, is therefor all of Hinduism's claims true. This is an absurd rational.

I will provide a section of a poem that points out the intellectual bankruptcy inherent in modern notions of any path to God will do. The concept is a joke among theological philosophers.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
A Puritan's Mind » Turner’s Creed – by Steve Turner

 

[Awoon]

Well is it or not? A Christian nation.

Two months and over 700 posts.

 

[1robin]

Well, I am not going to argue time spent in study.

However, my understanding from Muslims I know is that salvation comes from belief and love in Allah. And that submission, or works, is a result of that belief and love, not a requirement for salvation.

My comments were designed to illustrate the differences between Islam and Christianity not commonalities. They both believe forgiveness is necessary but works must be done in Islam (regardless of the motivation) but not in Christianity. This is illustrated by the fact the man judged in revelations had not a single work that was judged good yet he was saved. Are you actually saying that the God who claimed to have a son and the one who said he did not are the same one. Is the God who said we must accept Christ die don the cross and the one who said he was not crucified at all are the same. That is the issue at hand.

Much like the works of the Christian are not necessary for salvation, but are rather the result of being a Christian.
Correct?

That is true of Christianity but not Islam. I will admit you will probably get many different answers concerning how necessary works are in Islam but they have a necessary role in salvation in most. The motivation for works is not even the issue at all. It is the necessity of them, to any extent. However the point I used this for was to indicate the God's are not the same. Once that is resolved I have no problem discussing the difference in salvation between the Bible and the Koran but one thing at a time. In what way is the God who declared Isaac's line was the only line by which prophets may arise and the one who claimed he sent a prophet from Ishmael's line the same? In what way is the God that said any prophet who claims Jesus is not the son of God (or Lord) is a false prophet and a God who sent a prophet to say just that very thing the same? Two claims claiming mutually exclusive claims to fact can't possibly both be true. These mutually exclusive claims exist by the hundreds and I do not want to get bogged down on only one until that issue is resolved at least to my satisfaction. It is possible Islam is true. It is possible Christianity is. It is impossible both are from the same God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I do not have to explain it for it to be true. Where are you getting this stuff? The statement gravity exists is true whether I have the slightest notion of how it works. In fact no one in human history knows what it is or why it works. The best anyone can claim is a description of how it applies. I have more knowledge on Islam than many Muslims do. For al you know I might have done a doctrinal thesis on salvation in Islam. You do not have to adopt belief in a thing to know what the thing is.

That is an absolute impossibility. Two mutually exclusive claims to truth can't possibly both be right. I must tolerate people who are inaccurate in their claims. But the not being able to understand the nature of claims and how they are evaluated prohibits debate. You do not seem to even understand how to view issues and make claims to fact that can't possibly be true. My God claims to have a son. Islam's God claims to not have a son. In what way are these the same God? Islam claims there is only one God. Many versions of Hinduism claim there are from 2 to 300 million. In what way are both these true?

I did not say that concept was untrue even though you do not have the slightest capacity to prove that love or fairness is actually good. The point was that they are contained in texts that make mutually exclusive claims to divine knowledge and even if they all contain some common true claims can't possibly all or more than one in the big three be from a divine source. I do not think you even understand how to determine these things.

I will agree with that. How in the world does that prove that any text or person who claims this is from God? You claimed it are you God? Hinduism claims it, is therefor all of Hinduism's claims true. This is an absurd rational.

I will provide a section of a poem that points out the intellectual bankruptcy inherent in modern notions of any path to God will do. The concept is a joke among theological philosophers.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
A Puritan's Mind » Turner’s Creed – by Steve Turner

You have more knowledge of Islam than many Muslims? Really? So would you agree that many Muslims have more knowledge than you on christanity? That's a bold arrogant claim, and given the population of Muslims in the world I would even say wrong.

THe jews claim that god does not have a son either, do you find them wrong? So the Jewish. Muslim. And Christian god are all different under just that one assumption.

Love and fairness are not good?

 

[1robin]

Well is it or not? A Christian nation.

Two months and over 700 posts.

I had completely forgot what thread we are in. There are many arguments but in my opinion the two best are.

1. What average percentage are the bulk of it's population concerning faith? 80% Christian.

or

2. What theological bent were the founding fathers of if any? All but less than ten were Christians.

There are many additional arguments for either side but these are the best IMO.

Therefor yes the nation has been a Christian nation in it's collective soul though that is currently changing and it's brain (while being politically non-committal) was founded on Christian concepts or at least God based concepts.

 

[Awoon]

ok we got one yes vote.