Would anyone like to correct this distorted christian perspective?

Question

Christianity is how we got here. Christianity is how the US was founded. Christianity is how we learned to be stable by loving as family and community. Not until our talk of evolution, our replacing of Christian fish with Darwin trash, and our worship in survival of the fittest did we start overglamorizing Hollywood and vices such as porn and overindulgence. What do we want to do? Have faith in a God of love who had his son come to save our sake or do we want to stare at a fish that we once were and fall back into the water?

Answer 1

Christian is what most of the founding fathers were, and religion is what they decided to keep out of the constitution. They were wise in that respect.

What we want is not important. What we need to do is progress, and to do that we cannot keep hanging on to big daddy's apron strings or we will never develop as well as we might.

Answer 2

Christianity is not how we got here. We got here on pure selfishness. We stole the land from the Native Americans and brought Africans over to work as slaves. The founding fathers did not bother protecting the rights of Native Americans nor freeing the slaves. This country was built on the exploitation of human labor-from the European immigrants to the Chinese to the present day Latin American immigrants.

All religions that have come to the US have valued the family. Not one immigrant group came over with the intent to destroy the family unit. They all wanted to preserve the traditional family unity.

As for the replacing the Christian fish with Darwin trash and the survival of the fittest, this is garbage also. Remember the Protestant value of pre-determination. If you were meant to be rich you were rich, if you were meant to be poor you were poor. God selected who would be better than someone one else. How is this better than the survival of the fittest. And any connection between Darwin and the over glamorizing of Hollywood is just a gigantic stretch in logic. They have nothing to do with each other. You could also point to industrialization as the cause of the breakdown of the family and the poverty it caused making people wanting to escape into the lives of the rich and famous. Darwin is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with the morality of people. It does not make it easier or more difficult to lead of life of morality or evil.

Why to try to get others to believe the way you do. Let people figure out their religious life for themselves. It is a violent act to tell someone that their way of believing is not correct, but YOURS is.

Answer 3

Even though the Declaration of Independence does not formerly come out and say that the intentions of the founding fathers was that the US was to be a strictly secular nation, the treaty of Tripoli (Article 11), that was ratified under John Adam's presidency states in no uncertain terms that the US is not a nation founded on the christian religion and that the Muslims of Tripoli, (modern day Lybia), had nothing to worry about as far as religious laws or wars from the US. Look it up and see for your self.

Answer 4

Good Lord what is wrong with ya'll?I read these answers and it makes me ill!Our country was built on Christianity and yes it IS in the Constitution it was the base for it!The one and only reason anyone is on the face of this earth is,BY THE GRACE OF GOD.Have faith in my God ?You better believe it! By the looks of things on R&S it wouldn't hurt any of you to pick up the Bible and read it along with some history books.Because it looks like ya'll fluncked that also.May God help you.

Excuse me I should not have said "all " of you.But I think ya'll know which ones I talk to


CJ I don't know were you got that but you are incorrect too.Sorry history major here.
George Washington said to beware of a two party system because God help you all when that day comes.He was not atheist. Far from it. And I can quote more if you'd like.But it is not worth it.

Answer 5

Christianity is one the "newer" religions in current popularity. Most Founding fathers where not Christian they were Dietist and Universalist or just plain athiest. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington among them. The proof is thier letters and history books. We have been over glamorizing people since the dawn of time. Religios oracle, preists and leaders were always seen a touch divine. There were the pharohs, the kings and the wealthy noble in England during the Regency Era. They were rich, loose with "morals", and everyone envied them. Hmm sound familiar? Christianity is not how we learned to be a stable and loving family community, refer back to its one of the younger religions. The ten commandments were based on the 42 confessions and denials in Egyptian faith.
Christianity is a patchwork of faiths just like EVERY religion out there. It wasn't that Christian completly disagreed with the faith around them...they just made a few changes, just like Lutheran and Puritans did with the Catholic Chruch. Its just the way it is. I don't understand why they are insulted by it.

Answer 6

I'm going to give a neutral answer for once. It doesn't matter for a second what we want to do. People feel drawn to find truth. As a Christian, I have faith in a God of Love, because it's my belief that contained in His Word is perfect truth. For our atheist friends, they have put their faith in the science of this world, and their perception thereof. Neither group is going to feel better walking in something they believe to be false... hence, all the tension. How much I WANT to either have faith in God or the world holds no bearing, I cannot walk contrary to Truth.

Answer 7

Um... evolution isn't a religion, and it certainly has nothing to do with Hollywood. Christianity may have been responsible for a lot of good things, but that doesn't mean you turn away from any idea that isn't based on that religion. I mean, bicycles aren't in the Bible, but my guess is you've used one from time to time. Are bicycles evil?

Answer 8

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, a theory occupies a higher stratum of importance than mere 'facts'. Theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACTS that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes, over time (in some cases, over distance)... and that over an extended period of time (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of generations), the accumulation of those changes can result in speciation. It explains the OBSERVED FACT of transitional species found in the fossil record.

Theories live or die on the basis of their explanatory power, predictive power and falsifiability. Theories, as an explanatory framework, allow one to make predictions which can subsequently be validated by way of experiments or future observations. That means that in order to be valid, a theory must be falsifiable... and all that it takes for a theory to be falsified is ONE INSTANCE where an experiment or future observation achieves a result that is CONTRARY to what the theory predicts.

Evolution, as it turns out, has NEVER been falsified... in nearly 150 years. Further, all findings and observations to date... in molecular biology... in genetics... in paleontology... have SOLIDIFIED the explanatory power of evolution... NEVER detracted from it.

For those that say that evolution does not account for new species... horseshit. Examples abound, both in the 'world' and in the laboratory. One of the most interesting examples, and the most enlightening, has to do with a kind of bird (plovers, if my memory is correct) that occupies adjacent habitats all the way from Siberia to Britain. Because of environmental differences in these adjacent habitats (topology, food availability, competitor species, predators, vegetation), natural selection has produced genetic differences between the populations in these adjacent habitats. Birds in adjacent habitats can still mate with each other... the genetic differences are small. However, the birds from the Eastern-most reaches of Siberia CAN NOT mate with those from Britain. Over the reach of MANY habitats, the accumulation of genetic differences makes them a DIFFERENT SPECIES.

Answer 9

Sounds like Christian fanaticism.........freaky. Some so called Christians are the biggest sinners.

Answer 10

nicely, first of all, no one needs to base your non secular and scientific arguments on Mayan paintings. Erich Von Daniken did that in the time of "Chariot of the Gods" and regarded particularly stupid. 2d, it is a technology question, no longer a faith question. If a guy or woman extremely needs an answer, they should placed up the place people who comprehend fossil information may be putting out. of direction, whilst a guy or woman makes use of the word "for people who are not sparkling with the term," it style of implies they are in basic terms attempting to start up and win an argument, no longer easily learn something. 0.33, the asker is installation an argument unfairly, asserting that as a manner to prepare evolution, a guy or woman ought to teach to that man or woman that what they think of is evolution easily exceeded off. yet considering their comprehend-how of evolution is in all hazard improper, no one will ever have the potential to satisfactorily clarify evolution to them. Now, as for the transitional fossils, right here how I (a faith and spirituality answerer) comprehend the undertaking. the percentages of any animal being fossilized is fairly small. An animal has to die in an ecosystem the place the two sediment is gathering and could proceed to assemble till it fuses right into a sedimentary rock, or the creature ought to die close to tar, oozing sap, or in very chilly situations the place it is going to stay thoroughly frozen. And that place then has to grow to be uncovered returned, so it ought to be got here across by potential of geologists, yet no longer uncovered very long, in any different case it ought to be broken to the element to no longer being recognizable. if that's the case, then each and every animal, or each and every species, could no longer be got here across in the fossil checklist. A "transitional species," could in all hazard exist for a plenty shorter time, and be much less effectual than it is descendants, whose better mutations may cause them to plenty extra plentiful. A slug with a mild shell could scrape alongside, yet whilst that shell will become harder a million generations later, then no longer ordinary shell slugs/snail inhabitants could explode, and drown out its gentle shell ancestors. (substantial word: i do no longer understand something relating to the evolution of snails, it is a dazzling representation!) playstation . I re-examine your question, and found out that the quote wasn't inevitably you, so I went returned and took out each and every of the "You"s and adjusted them with "they"s and "guy or woman"s. i'm hoping I have been given each and every of the awkward issues out.