Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

Again you insert your preaching in a place where it is not on topic. Your comment has nothing to do with the current conversation. We know your beliefs, you do not have to spout them willy nilly. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual conversation going on?

Right. The Founders betrayed those principles, except to the extent that they did like what they considered to be Christian morality, so that's there. But although it can't be said that the founding documents were Christian except in that limited sense perhaps, certainly the population was thoroughly Christian and that had a continuing influence.AbE: This film is the last in a series of three I think, maybe four, on the subject of the founding of America. I started on the first one last night, The New Atlantis. It's interesting that Pinto hadn't yet developed his view of the Founders as anti-Christian, so he has interviews with people affirming that they were, but since the topic is the occultic elements in the founding of America they see it as a mixture of both Christian and occultic inspiration.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's that old canard again that there is some "Christian" morality.What morality is uniquely "Christian" Faith?

Ask the Founders, it's their idea.

Sorry Faith but so far no one has ever offered any evidence to support such a silly position. If there is such a thing as "Christian" morality then there should be some evidence to show it exists.So again, what is "Christian" morality Faith.

I suppose there is evidence of what the Founders meant in various of their writings, but Pinto doesn't spend any time defining it. I'd point to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount myself but as I say it wasn't discussed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, the Ten Commandments are certainly NOT Christian and there is nothing uniquely "Christian" related to morality in the Sermon on the Mount.So again Faith, "What is 'Christian' morality"?

None, really. Dawkins expounds on this in his book, The God Delusion where he says

quote:

---

since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition.

---

This idea of secular intuition has been discussed by us here at EvC before, notably by you when you said that the Tree Of The Knowledge of Good & Evil provided humanity with a great gift---which in essence would be secular intuition. Thus, you basically took that to imply that God essentially "saved everybody" through that gift universal to humanity---believer or not. This gets us back to your argument regarding Christianity as being responsible for what one does versus what one could do in any given situation...the inner conscience being present in all individuals.Biblical Christianity calls it Original Sin, which you see as merely a clever marketing ploy. And you will ask me what the evidence shows. Regarding America and Americans a hundred years ago versus today, I see where we have gotten better in some ways and worse in other ways.We would argue that God is with everybody (thus secular intuition) yet In those who accept His Spirit...His living essence which we commune with and pray to. Critics would then ask us why we are such nasty judgemental people if we in fact have this heightened awareness of God.Which is a good point. Does that answer your question?

Chris Pinto is still a conspiracy nut and useless at research.At least that’s what one Christian, Dr Alan E Kurschner, says.And perhaps you might like to consider this reviewof Tares Among the Wheat by another Christian, Fred Butler.I haven’t checked the details, and I don’t endorse either man in general, but they certainly seem more reliable than Chris Pinto. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

And yet there is no more evidence for Christian morality than there is for the Holy Spirit. Which is no problem for me...I believe what I believe based on the experiences which I have had..yet will admit that what I believe is irrational and certainly not objectively provable. In a way, I think that it was all meant to be this way.

Here is a better link. Tares Among the Wheat — A Review Your assessment seems accurate, but I will review Faiths video before having any final conclusion on the matter. It has been my experience that the wiser Christians---even if they personally believe that Jesus is returning soon---don't use this belief in their scholarly approaches to current articles. After all, no one knows the day or the hour. Perhaps God is waiting on us...thats what I personally believe.

If you had stopped at "None, really." it would have been a good answer.

I'd have to see iTares Among the Wheat again to be reminded of what it's about, but just reading the first part of your link suggests it's about the Bible manuscripts controversies, and the writer labels Pinto a KJV conspiracy nut, which identifies the writer as one of the Bible dupes. Well, Pinto is not a KJV conspiracy nut, he musters the evidence and he does so over more than one film on the subject. I have a blog on the same subject and I'm not either. Neither of us starts from KJV. I start from the fraud perpetrated on the Church by Westcott and Hort and I rely mostly on Dean John William Burgon who thoroughly debunked their fraud in three long scholarly articles, titled "The Revision Revised.". Pinto starts by tracking the sources of the supposedly ancient Bible manuscripts that W and H used against the rules they were to follow in their updating of the KJV. Of course this blogger is just another one of those who have been duped by W&H, who perpetrated a really scurrilous hoax on the Church which is still dominating the Bibles used by most. I've discussed this before here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'd have to see Tares Among the Wheat again to be reminded of what it's about but just reading the first part of your link suggests it's about the Bible manuscripts controversies, and the writer labels Pinto a KJV conspiracy nut. Well, he's not.

---

He’s certainly a conspiracy nut. And choosing experts because they take a KJV-only view strikes me as showing a very obvious bias.

quote:

---

I start from the fraud perpetrated on the Church by Westcott and Hort.

---

Yes, I know you love making false accusations. It’s a common feature of conspiracy nuts.

quote:

---

Pinto examines the supposedly ancient Bible manuscripts that W and H used against the rules they were to follow in their updating of the KJV.

---

By which you mean promoting a nutty conspiracy story based on cherry-picked evidence,. And why should we think that his other work is any better. I note that you haven’t bothered to supply the alleged anti-Christian quotes from Washington or Adams.

quote:

---

Of course this blogger is just another one of those who have been duped by W&H, who perpetrated a really scurrilous hoax on the Church which is still dominating the Bibles used by mos

---

You’ve made the accusation before. You’ve never backed it up.

You have a lot of opinions for someone who knows absolutely nothing about this. I did a lot of work to come to my conclusions. So did Pinto. I explicity reject the KJV-only people because they have the silly idea that there's something divine about the KJV. No, it just happens to be the only trustworthy translation after W&H did their dirty work. Burgon is not KJV-only.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.