Is America a Christian nation?

NO the united states is not a Christian country. The u.s is a bomb factory. A whole economy based on war, the selling of weapons and the picking of fights. With alot of spoiled rotten lazy fat drunkards. lol. All this aside how can any country be a Christian nation when Christianity is a personal relationship with God. Any time a Christian nation has been tried it fails, (you can't force anyone to believe something), and usually ends up in a lot of shed blood. This is unfortunate i think, but the truth. I saw it said very early in this thread that if it was a Christian nation science would be outlawed and a bunch of other negative effects. Some of us Christians i admit get very judgemental of others for what they do, saying that science or strong drink are wrong. When in fact they just are afraid of science (showing little faith on their part) or they themselves don't know when to quit drinking. So in fact these things aren't wrong of themselves. Definately a place where we Christians have burned bridges between others. However I do think having Christian leaders to be a good thing, always good to have men who double check their decisions with God, and who pray for their country. So NO the u.s is not a Christian nation and never has been as was pointed out earlier.------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-24-2002]

LOL yeah i didn't expect you to agree with that part.------------------
saved by grace

Here goes funkmaster on a tangent again running off topic. However there seems to be a general concensus that everyone knows what Christians believe. I don't go into the science pages saying i know where a scientist is coming from and what he believes or knows. I may have heard some things and have pieces of info and observations of what i think. But do i know? NO! i have made some statements i realize as i type this post that are contradicting myself, i have made statements about what other people believe, so i correct myself. However this is still not right in the future i personally will try to only state what i know or believe instead of assuming that i know what others think and believe.
It's a misrepresentation of anothers beliefs. We should try to stick to what we actually are in the know about when it comes to statements. Don't just say see christians believe this and that, or i shouldn't say science is this or that. We are both misrepresenting the other.
One more note in defense of Christianity, alot of things are done in the name of Christianity that are wrong. Christians make mistakes we get judgemental ect, but just because the word christian got stuck into something doesn't mean it's in accordance with how God would have us act.I apologize for running off the track again i just wanted us to all think about this. ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

, outside of a quibble with the statement "founded on Christian principles", as I would argue that "founded on the principles of the Enlightenment" is more accurate. We could argue whether the two statements are equivalent in another thread, perhaps.

---

These are definately now where near the same absoluted oposited ends of the spectrum. To me Christian principles would imply belief and trust in God, to seek his wisdom and counsel in all things. And to me Enlightenment means man can enlighten himself by knowledge (which is i must point out a quite different thing than wisdom)and his ability to reason. That the answer is just out there, until we find it, where a Christian might say the answer is out there, until God reveals it to us in his perfect time.
Now maybe my definition of enlightenment is wrong. If so please correct me. So unless i'm wrong on my definition i see no equivalency here. One says I can the other says if it's God's will.

quote:

---

as for school curriculum, i see nothing wrong with putting forth a 'theory of evolution' OR a 'theory of creation'... what's the problem?

​

In the first place, unless you have some new information, there is no "theory of creation" that doesn't directly relate to and depend on a major, unproven/unevidenced presupposition - the belief that God exists. In the US - which is apparently the key gateway for creationists and schools - this God is presupposed to be the Judeo-Christian one. Even IDists, in spite of their constant equivocation as to the nature of the putative designer, are pretty much positing God as the answer (the movement's founders and leading lights, such as Philip Johnson and William Dempsky certainly make no bones about it). As such, any "theory of creation" must, at the minimum:

---

Okay this I personally have a problem with. For a couple of reasons,- one being that i don't believe anything should be taught in the public schools about the beginnings of the earth. What do kids need of this kind of knowledge? Now if you want to go and learn about these things after highschool go to a university and study it. So this shouldn't even be an issue. If kids ask about it tell them their are lots of theories and a public library. Let's use the schools to hone reasoning and social skills, instead of supressing and destroying as it does right now.-my second reason if we somehow need one after the first is that despite the general concencus around here, evolution is full of holes and questions itself. And is based around the unproven/unevidenced pressuposition that God does not exist. At least when i was in school they gave no indication of God and it was delivered to me as fact, that i was a monkey. Now this word fact, is an abused word. I'd personally like to start a whole new thread and hash out a definition for the words "fact" and "proven". Unfortunately these usedto be functional words, that like the rest of this language has become near useless.

quote:

---

- Start by showing that God does indeed exist. The theory must provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity/entity. Only then can you begin to posit various explanations about that deity and its interest in humans to the exclusion of all other organisms - or all other potential organisms on other worlds (the thing that Giordino Bruno was burned at the stake for).

---

If you are going to teach an evolution then we must start by showing that God indeed does indeed not exist. We must also provide observable evidence of nothing exploding into organization , we must show an observable evidence of this concept of species drastically changing into another species. We must also now show that indeed matter (after we show where it came from) can form itself into intelligence. Can create mind. As i've seen it said before.

quote:

---

- Once the theory has established the existence of the said deity, it must then provide reasons for thinking that this deity is the Christian God. After all, the mere existence of a supernatural deity does not imply that the said deity is the Judeo-Christian one. Some evidence supporting this particular deity over others, such as Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is necessary at this point.

​

- Finally, once the first two points are shown to be valid, you can start building in explanations for how God created the entire diversity of life on the planet. You will need to show replicatable or at least valid inferred mechanisms for this. The evidence used must include ALL evidence (no fair picking and choosing) and at least provide an explanation for all observed phenomena. If you claim that organisms degenerate over time from the Fall, for example, you must provide testable predictions of what that would look like. If you claim there was a global flood, you must provide POSITIVE evidence that such occurred. You get the picture?

---

For one you don't prove God again I say God proves God. And once he's proven and you know his characteristics you will know which God he is. I can say this, being a thing I am in the know about happening to know this here God personally. Now after you have been made right before God he will give you wisdom and understanding, to go along with accumulated knowledge and can put it to use. Otherwise you must provide POSITIVE evidence that God does not exist and that nothing can organize itself into a very complex something without an intelligent creator. This is very difficult i would imagine with even an intelligent being, creating a very wonderous something out of nothing.As artists in our we house we know that something does not create itself. Even if there are materials laying around. The guitar does not get up and play a beautiful song. Nor do the brushes decide to paint a beautiful and inspired work. Nor any work of any kind. These do not come into existance without someone to create them. Without these key elements there can be no scientifically valid theory taught in the public school systems.Let me just make my first point clear. Up until a university level there is no reason to study the beginnings of earth. The idea of the public schools should be to help our children learn how to think and reason, (whereas so far it is what to think), this should be first, and then of course mathematics, how the scientific method works, the understanding of language, the social history of the planet. So now they can go and choose their study, the school system has given them ability to use their reasoning skills basic knowledge and hopefully social skills if the whole thing were to be a complete success. Here we can begin to put these things to use in what field we so choose. So there is no need to teach either theory a very simple, reasonable, solution to this whole problem. The school system has much larger problems than this.------------------
saved by grace
{Fixed quote structure - AM}

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]

Okay strike the prove God doesn't exist. There still has to be a building material though to support the building of the entire universe. So we need to know where that came from. Now there does have to be a chain or a jump a somehow observable and testable process of the creation of new species. Because unless i'm out to lunch that's the general concencus right, that we have species A dying out and species B at some point coming to exist from somewhere. (just an eg. trying to make sure i have the concept right.)Now i have admitted over and over to knowing nothing about science now do me the same favor and realize that you know nothing of God. like this statement

quote:

---

In other words, if I shut down my brain, forget all the science I know, throw all my personal experiences and critical thinking out the window, I'll accept (be made right with) God? AND get all kinds of neat "accumulated knowledge" I can put to use? What a deal. Does this mean I'll be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem of Carcinus maenas infestation on the Pacific Coast? Might almost be worth it...

---

Here you have misinterperted and misrepresented me. God has never asked us to throw personal experience and reason out the window. I didn't say he'd just give you knowledge or all the answers. I believe he has given us an ability to reason and wants us to use personal experience in order to learn. Also you may notice that i am adamant in the fact that knowledge does not = wisdom. they are very different and this is what i was getting at. Knowledge is something a wise man can use. Knowledge by itself is useless. We need wisdom and understanding to interpert the knowledge and make it into something usefull. From what I believe God is the source of wisdom that it comes from him to those who ask. (in the book of James it says he's gives freely to those who ask). I did not say throw out everything and God will provide the answer on a silver platter. It may have sounded that way but was not what i meant.Now i didn't say either that high school kids do not have the intelligence for studying where the earth the universe ect came from i said there are more important things to teach and that one can wait until later. A young hockey player may be ready to come and play in the NHL but the coaching staff in the interest of helping his whole carreer out will leave him in the minor leaugue one more season to help hone his fundamentals, his positioning his view of the ice, and his patience. This way when he comes up to the NHL a year later he is now in an even better position to make his debut. Let's work in the public school system on honing these reasoning skills we have, let's teach language to get a better grasp on communication, let's teach mathematics, let's cover the social history of our plant so we can learn about that (this is the one i'm worried about when people get to the polls to vote. I'd rather they had studied history than science as a voter), and i didn't say take science out that was a misrepresentation i said teach the process the basics how the scientific process works and how we can use it.Now there was no need to piss off any parents on either side, our children can think and reason, they know the history of their species, they have a problem solving process, they can communicate efficiently and they can use math to solve these types of problems.Now they can go to college/university or study on their own whatever but they are functioning reasoning adults. Now go and find out where our universe may have come from. What's so wrong with this idea...Sorry again i have spun a topic way off course. We are supposed to be discussing if America is a Christian nation.
Hey where do United statesians get off calling themselves americans anyway. America is the continent folks and you are taking up a very small portion of it. It would infer to me that the thinking is that they are in charge of or the most important people on this continent.------------------
saved by grace[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-27-2002][This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-27-2002][This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-27-2002]

Now John that last statement is ridiculous. You're just lucky i haven't matered the force yet. God loves us very much and wants us to enjoy his creation. In fact he made us stewarts of it. And what a piss poor job we have done. It may be your opinion that God says throw reason out the window, but i think for all you seem to think you know of Christianity and of God that you understand very little. this is not meant in an insulting way, just not going to let a blatantly wrong statement like that one go un-touched.------------------
saved by grace

I'm sorry Quetzal I have spread myself very thin and did intend to adress more yet. But why say more when I don't know what i'm talking about, as you pointed out. I just wanted to clarify where i had been misunderstood for now. I was not ignoring the rest of your post. I have been accused of doing the same in another thread by schraf. it's not that i'm ignoring your point i just don't want to give a standard "Christian" answer. Because then I just get the standard "refute the christian answer."

Now children play nice. c'mon it's only a conversation remember. No-one is going to change the direction the earth spins take it easy. ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Re: Enlightenment. Umm, I was referring to the 17th/18th Century era of major political and social movements, including such concepts as intrinsic human rights, empiricism, deism, newtonian mechanical universe, etc. That was what I was talking about concerning "principles". John could probably give you a much more detailed answer - he knows a lot about the Enlightenment (note the capital "E" indicating a proper noun) philosophers.

---

thanx. yeah john seems fairly enlightened. lol I have already adressed my view on the school system. No i don't know th be big bang very well. But now matter how long it took to organize itself it still exploded into order. The monkey comment was meant to show extreme. It was also meant to show that this progressive drawong is still being used in schools. Or was until quite recently. Well if there isn't species to species evolution science in it's wonderful brilliance and almight all encompassing intelligence must know what the original species are.

quote:

---

Back to your strawman again. YOU are the one making a positive claim "God exists", not me. I've never said "God doesn't exist". I HAVE asserted that there is no positive evidence of God's existence", however. Which, of course, is the point of the three necessary elements of the "theory of creation" that those who adhere to that idea must provide. I don't have to disprove anything that has no proof to begin with. Don't you get it yet? YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT SOMEONE DISPROVE IT. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. Okay? Understand?

---

Look i'm sorry my ideas have so angered you. And that i don't think that the scientific method is the only thing. Personally I think it's great alot of times it can tell us how. But if you want to know why, i don't think that method can take you there. Now it becomes a plain and simple reasoning process. So i don't mind being told my how's are wrong but this $%$#%^*& process that is the scientific method cannot answer why. Lot's of pissy attitudes lately. Give me a break, I post things on purpose to be disputed but not called an idiot. I'm going to end this post before it gets foul. Is this enough response quetzal.!!!!

Again i apologize i am out of line. Thanx for the correction. Feeling pretty stupid right now don't think I'll post anything else right now. Sorry Quetzal and anyone else my narrowmindedness has offended. I'll try not to post in haste.------------------
saved by grace