Is America a Christian nation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
No. It's established that what forgiven and funkmaster think God is telling us to believe is flatly contradicted by everything we do know.

---

hmmm..... no. forgiven and funk didn't write the Bible.

quote:

---

FMF - you taken St Augustine's advice on board yet?

---

Meaning...?I like the quote you posted, but what is the relevance?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No, they didn't. But they have a particular interpretation - a literal one - which is not shared by most Christians. In other words, God is not saying the nonsense things they say He's saying.The Augustine reference was to Funkmasterfreaky. He's unfortunately not taken it on board

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
No, they didn't. But they have a particular interpretation - a literal one - which is not shared by most Christians. In other words, God is not saying the nonsense things they say He's saying.

​

The Augustine reference was to Funkmasterfreaky. He's unfortunately not taken it on board

---

karl, what nonsense things have i said? i'd appreciate the chance to make sense of nonsense

That the world was made in six days, is only six thousand years old. I didn't actually say you said that; my point is that you seem to promote an interpretation of the Bible where God says that.

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

The same concerning John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. The later, though not a founder, certainly influenced the political structure of the country.

---

{Fixed quote structure and attribute - Adminnemooseus}I found that the anti-religious Thomas Paine much to my surprise was also an anti-evolutionist!I think what Paine is criticizing evolutionists for is that not referring to God, they explain the moral dimension to reality as similar to some kind of material properties.http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...----
Thomas Paine provides one example affirming this. Although Paine was the most openly and aggressively anti-religious of the founders, in his 1787 Discourse at the Society of Theophilanthropists in Paris, Paine nevertheless forcefully denounced the French educational system which taught students that man was the result of prehistoric cosmic accidents or had developed from some other species:It has been the error of schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the Author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles; he can only discover them, and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well-executed statue, or a highly-finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talent of the artist.When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How, then, is it that when we study the works of God in creation, we stop short and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the Author of them. . . .The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator Himself, they stop short and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter and jump over all the rest by saying that matter is eternal.And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.But infidelity, by ascribing every phenomenon to properties of matter, conceives a system for which it cannot account and yet it pretends to demonstration. [30]Paine certainly did not advocate this position as a result of religious beliefs or of any teaching in the Bible, for he believed that the Bible is spurious and a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy. [31] Yet, this anti-Bible Founder was nevertheless a strong supporter of teaching the theistic origins of man.
----regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-28-2002][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I found that the anti-religious Thomas Paine much to my surprise was also an anti-evolutionist!

​

I think what Paine is criticizing evolutionists for is that not referring to God, they explain the moral dimension to reality as similar to some kind of material properties.

​

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?R...

​

---

Okey dokey. You've established that Paine believed in a deity. I never said otherwise. The thread is about the question of whether or not America is a Christian nation.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 11-28-2002]

You're absolutely right, you won a point, but it's not about pointscoring.Reading the webpage makes me think that the creation vs evolution debate seems to have had more meaningful content 200 years ago.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
You're absolutely right, you won a point, but it's not about pointscoring.

---

Point scoring? You mean it isn't about one of us being able to support more claims than the other? Funny. I thought it was.

quote:

---

Reading the webpage makes me think that the creation vs evolution debate seems to have had more meaningful content 200 years ago.

---

You realize that 200 years ago Darwin had not written Origin of the Species? He didn't return home from his voyage on the Beagle until 1837 I believe. Mendel didn't publish his work on heredity until 1865 or so. The science of genetics was non-existent. Paleantologists had no good way to date anything and kept poor records by today's standards. Geology was an infant science and major bits of it had not even been conceived, like plate tectonics for example. I'm sure it was quite a different debate.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I think maybe you scored another point with that, saying that Darwin hadn't published 200 years ago. But by saying that I think you also dragged the debate so much nearer to complete and utter meaninglessness.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think maybe you scored another point with that, saying that Darwin hadn't published 200 years ago. But by saying that I think you also dragged the debate so much nearer to complete and utter meaninglessness.

---

Well gee, just following your lead... you brought up this material.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.!!!!

Funk:Having a bad day, are we? You want to engage in a conversation with someone who holds diametrically opposite views, especially on an Internet BB, you're going to find your ideas challenged. Doesn't mean I think you're stupid - just that your ideas are wrong. The challenge is to support your contentions. Especially when you throw out spurious "extremes" like the monkey comment, which only show either your lack of interest in serious discussion, or lack of knowledge of the subject matter (similar to your, ahem, "joking" about the Enlightenment). Let's recap, shall we?Round about page three on this thread, I responded to an interesting post by forgiven (his post #31, my post #35) by disagreeing with one of his statements. I presented my reasons for disagreeing. I even stated the conditions that I felt would be necessary to make his statement true. You decided to leap blindly into the middle of that discussion (your post #41). Great! The more the merrier. It was even a pretty good response - certainly worth the time and effort to address the points you raised (which I did in my post #47).Now this is where the discussion breaks down. Rather than either defending your position/statements that I questioned and/or argued against, you pegged on a single statement out of the whole response (your post #48), beginning the whole diatribe with an (mild) ad hominem and a claim I was misrepresenting your position. I called you on it (my post #52). Your response was to post a childish tantrum accusing me of calling you an idiot, etc

quote:

---

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.!!!!

---

You want to engage in discussion? We'll discuss. You want to rant? Find someone else to rant at - I'm not interested. Let me know if you want an answer to the following statements:

quote:

---

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.

---

and

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course, I would hate to upset you by arguing against your positions. Wouldn't want you to think I was belittling you simply because I don't immediately drop to my knees and worship your brilliance and incisive wit.PS: You are far from "angering" me. If Peter Borger couldn't piss me off - well, suffice you're not even in his league. Truth be told, my only problem is that it is becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.

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

I've just put this into the "Links and Information" Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet topic. I thought it should also be in a "Is America a Christian nation?" type topic, so I managed to track this one down.From the above cited location: A couple of blurb pages on the book:Page Not Found | Penguin Random House
Amazon.comMoose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added new audio feed link in green block.

Thanks for that Moose, it was fascinating stuff. I was especially amused by the stuff about McCain's inept attempts to curry favour with Evangelicals.Good link.

---

Mutate and Survive