Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

I dont think that there is anything hard to understand.To repeat the main point, your post is mainly quoting opinion,with very little value. I go on to explain why that opinion has very little value. That is neither hard to understand, nor in any way unfair (in fact it’s generous).

I think one of the basic problems is that a large segment of society believes testimony and assertions are evidence. I don't think they understand that even the most famous scientist's testimony or assertions are also not evidence.Science is not based on what a scientist says or claims but only on the actual data that supports such claims and in addition the reproducibility of results or conclusions by other individuals, testing of the conclusions and other data sets. Not even the original data set is sufficient evidence; there must be additional independently gathered data sets that also lead to the same conclusions.Testimony is without a doubt the very weakest hint, evidence of nothing more than the possibility that the speaker believes what is being said.

Ignortant statements can sure get a lot of Cheers around here, from equally ignorant people who don't know you are just bloviating. Pinto9 produces historical documents full of the actual words of the people he's talking about. Your comment is based on sheer ignorance as is everybody else's here who refuses to see the documentaries. So he throws in the opinion that Bacon was considered the "father of experimkental science" or something like that, so what? Most of the discussion comes from historical facts, Bacon's own life, etc.As for the post by PaulK that you are answering it isn't about Pinto at all, it's his reaction to my blog on the Bible controversy.Are you proud of your false propaganda?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And you Blog is a great example of Testimony, and again, the very lowest possible form of evidence.

Fortunately I could not care less about your opinion on any subject, but the point here is that WHAT YOU SAID DOES NOT APPLY TO PINTO.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let’s see. What about the alleged anti-Christian quotes attribute to Adams and Washington ? Does Pinto produce the actual writings of either man to substantiate his accusation ? If so identify the writings.

Yes of course he quotes them all directly. It's a three-hour film PK, I'm not going to watch it all again just to prove something to you. Let your utterly ignorant statements reign since you don't want to take anything I say seriously.In Washington's case, however, it isn't in his writings, it's in the fact that he refused to take Communion in Church, and when called on it he then stopped going to church altogether on Communion Sunday. This is attested in many quotes from pastors and others who knew him, including his own stepdaughter. One of the pastors declared flatly that Washington was a Deist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really ? Because I’ve heard that Pinto uses Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli for George Washington. Which isn’t anti-Christian and wasn’t written by George Washington.

He quotes someone else on the subject of Washington's writing of that article. He also addresses the fact that Christians try to pretend it doesn't mean what it says. He points out that nobody in the Congress objected to the statement at all.The way such a statement is anti-Christian, however, is in the fact that God forbids the worship of any god but himself, though the Founders Pinto focuses on and that treaty and other documents promote such syncretistic worship. The example that bugs me the most personally isn't from the founding era, it's the fact that our National Cathedral is used for all religions. This is a complete blasphemy according to the Bible. Certainly underscores that we are not a Christian nation even if you think a more direct statement would bee needed to prove an ANTI-Christian bias. I don't think that myself of course, and Pinto's film is aimed at the likes of me, not you.AbE: Just remembered that I think Washington was quoted on how the First Amendment protected all religions, in such a way that it was clear that he personally put them all on an equal plane. Thanks to that amendment Islam can rise to power in this nation, install Sharia Law over the Constitution and persecute all other religions. Give it time, it's coming.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He quotes someone else on the subject of Washington's writing of that article. H

---

Someone else says that Washington wrote it is hardly convincing evidence.

quote:

---

He also addresses the fact that Christians try to pretend it doesn't mean what it says. He points out that nobody in the Congress objected to the statement at all.

---

Well I haven’t seen anyone trying to pretend any such thing, and it would be absurd to say that there were no Christians in the Senate!

quote:

---

The way such a statement is anti-Christian, however, is in the fact that God forbids the worship of any god but himself...

---

And therefore Christians are required to go to war to suppress all other religions ? Is that it ? Because I don’t see any other connection between your assertion and the text.

quote:

---

.... though the Founders Pinto focuses on and that treaty and other documents promote such syncretistic worship

---

Article 11 says no such thing.

quote:

---

The example that bugs me the most personally isn't from the founding era, it's the fact that our National Cathedral is used for all religions.

---

That’s not syncretic worship, that’s just sharing a facility. And if Christians don’t want to share they can choose not to use it.

quote:

---

This is a complete blasphemy according to the Bible

---

I don’t think so. And please don’t introduce verses describing the Jewish Temple to prove it.

quote:

---

Certainly underscores that we are not a Christian nation even if you think a more direct statement would bee needed to prove an ANTI-Christian bias.

---

Not giving Christians special privileges is not anti-Christian bias

quote:

---

AbE: Just remembered that I think Washington was quoted on how the First Amendment protected all religions, in such a way that it was clear that he personally put them all on an equal plane. Thanks to that amendment Islam can rise to power in this nation, install Sharia Law over the Constitution and persecute all other religions. Give it time, it's coming.

---

Like I said, you want to destroy liberty. Thanks for admitting it. Again.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed quote

Then you are utterly misled. Promoting syncretistic worship, making all religions equal, is far more than the mere tolerance of all religions. Christianity does not go out to conquer and subdue anyone. The point here is what point of view is going to be the foundation of a nation, nothing else, and unlike Islam, Christianity is tolerant of all other points of view. Tolerant does not mean in agreement with, does not mean it treats them as equal, just allows them to do their own thing insofar as it is peaceable. One tolerates what one does not accept. And that's why Christianity should be acknowledged as the religion of the nation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then you are utterly misled

---

The Article is saying that there won’t be a religious war. If you object to that you must be in favour of a religious war.

quote:

---

Promoting syncretistic worship, making all religions equal, is far more than the mere tolerance of all religions.

---

And the Article does no such thing. Read it. I quoted it for you.

quote:

---

Christianity does not go out to conquer and subdue anyone.

---

Then you shouldn’t go around implying that it must.

quote:

---

The point here is what point of view is going to be the foundation of a nation, nothing else, and unlike Islam, Christianity is tolerant of all other points of view, tolerant, not in agreement with them, in fact opposing them but tolerant, which is what tolerance means.

---

Certainly not. The point at issue is whether Chris Pinto told the truth when he claimed that Washington made anti-Christian statements. And according to you, not only does he quote a text which cannot be attributed to Washington, he grossly misrepresents it, too.So much for Pinto’s research.

You are a major pain. Saying we are a Christian nation should not foster war. Perhaps Islam would go to war with us for that reason but from the Christian point of view no.You keep misrepresenting everything I say, so I suppose you would do the same with Pinto if you saw the film. I get tired of the lies here. This conversation is over.

Actually, since the National Cathedral is an Episcopalian Church it is the Episcopalians who are sharing it with others.Surprised that she is not bugged by the fact that Darth Vader is immortalized on the Cathedral as one of the "Grotesque" that divert rain and preserve the building.Edited by jar, : fix quote

quote:

---

You are a major pain

---

Obviously the truth hurts.

quote:

---

Saying we are a Christian nation should not foster war.

---

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says that the USA will not launch a religious war against Muslims. You call Article 11 anti-Christian on the grounds that worship of other Gods is forbidden. Try putting two and two together.

quote:

---

You keep misrepresenting everything I say...

---

That’s untrue. How was I supposed to know that you have some ridiculous notion that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli promotes syncretic worship ?

quote:

---

I get tired of the lies here.

---

Then stop lying, rather than running away.