NationStates Jolt Archive

The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the laws of the US. (Very little, in any case.) :p

I think I am going use that as a sig.


Vague deist references... man. You would have preferred he called by name? I think the Creator sounds better in the document.

I think I am going use that as a sig.

Go ahead. He's right.



Vague deist references... man. You would have preferred he called by name? I think the Creator sounds better in the document.

The Founding Fathers, no matter what Christians like you tell themselves, were not referencing the God of Abraham. Most of them were not Christian.

Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.

And this is relevent to the conversation in what way?


"My cat's mouth smells like cat food!"

Just one example. I admit they were not big fans of dogma.

In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.

Just one example. I admit they were not big fans of dogma.

In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.

I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world.

Sure about that?

Okay I suppose... that is a stretch interpreting it in that way.


On the contrary, it is a stretch interpreting it any other way.

Why did he need to mention the Daughters of man. In that case we are all from Daughters of man. Sons of God. Jesus in the Son of God. I have rarely heard of us described as Sons of God. Children of God perhaps


We are all sons or daughters, born of sons and daughters.

We are all god's children, no? Our father, and all that?

Adam was the son of god, according to Luke (Luke 3:38).

According to John, every Christian that accepts Christ is 'son of god': (John 1:12-3 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. "

Romans 8:16-9 says we are children of god, and sons of god.

Philippians 2:15 calls us sons of god.

First John 3:2 calls us sons of god.


It's not that uncommon.


Apocryphal texts decided by whom.


The First Council of Nicaea, no?


This always confused me. Let me get this straight. You guys are okay with the Revelations of John but you are not okay with Enoch?


Not at all. I've read both and consider both to be equally valid. But only one of them is canonical.


Apocryphal means really they can not confirm the author by whatever means they do that.


They can't confirm the author of ANY of the biblical texts.


The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Still doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the justification for the Great Flood.


The justification of the great flood is given in genesis... people had become evil, and pursuing only evil.


Enoch was the only human to become an angel...

Elijah.

(Some would argue 'Jesus').

Franklin was a confirmed Deist.

About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.

I find it kind of funny. Why bother studying it when you can just ask him.

Franklin was a confirmed Deist.

About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.


Actually, Franklin was most likely an Athiest. In youre quote, he mentions nothing about believing in a God.

On the contrary, it is a stretch interpreting it any other way.



We are all sons or daughters, born of sons and daughters.

We are all god's children, no? Our father, and all that?

Adam was the son of god, according to Luke (Luke 3:38).

According to John, every Christian that accepts Christ is 'son of god': (John 1:12-3 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. "

Romans 8:16-9 says we are children of god, and sons of god.

Philippians 2:15 calls us sons of god.

First John 3:2 calls us sons of god.


It's not that uncommon.



The First Council of Nicaea, no?



Not at all. I've read both and consider both to be equally valid. But only one of them is canonical.



They can't confirm the author of ANY of the biblical texts.



The justification of the great flood is given in genesis... people had become evil, and pursuing only evil.



Elijah.

(Some would argue 'Jesus').




Indeed but why not call them Daughter of God then or why not calls sons of man came into the daughters of man. I suggest there was something different about these Sons of God

Indeed but why not call them Daughter of God then or why not calls sons of man came into the daughters of man. I suggest there was something different about these Sons of God

You can argue that sons of god can be people. You can argue that it can be angels.

You basically asked for evidence that it is used of humans - and I provided copious biblical references.

Now you're saying it's arguable, because of the phrasing of 'daughters of men'. Sure. It is - but I've already given a perfectly cromulant explanation of how that can be rooted in the Adam/Eve dichotomy, as referenced in his fiction by C.S. Lewis, the (most) famous Christian apologist.

So - the choices are... men and women, or human women and male angels... but Matthew 22:30 pretty much denies that possibility, by saying that angels do not marry. "...the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". The suggestion seems to be that angels are sexless.

Actually, Franklin was most likely an Athiest. In youre quote, he mentions nothing about believing in a God.

He was just wrestling with the same things we are. Just because he was founding father didn't mean he was not a man. He did not have all the answers.

He was just wrestling with the same things we are. Just because he was founding father didn't mean he was not a man. He did not have all the answers.

No, but if you look at most of his writings and what was recorded of him, he was most likely an athiest.

There are other quotes from him aside from the Christian approved quotes you post.

He was just wrestling with the same things we are. Just because he was founding father didn't mean he was not a man. He did not have all the answers.

You claimed he was a believer - the other poster isn't wrong, it doesn't SAY he was a believer - so we've only your opinion as evidence.

You can argue that sons of god can be people. You can argue that it can be angels.

You basically asked for evidence that it is used of humans - and I provided copious biblical references.

Now you're saying it's arguable, because of the phrasing of 'daughters of men'. Sure. It is - but I've already given a perfectly cromulant explanation of how that can be rooted in the Adam/Eve dichotomy, as referenced in his fiction by C.S. Lewis, the (most) famous Christian apologist.

So - the choices are... men and women, or human women and male angels... but Matthew 22:30 pretty much denies that possibility, by saying that angels do not marry. "...the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". The suggestion seems to be that angels are sexless.

I don't think they were trying to marry the ladies ...Having never met an an angel I can not say for certain. I think they were trying to procreate for lack of a better term.

the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". The suggestion seems to be that angels are sexless.


This all assume they were acting under Divine Guidance. I think it is pretty obvious they were going their own way.

his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 13. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire:

the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". The suggestion seems to be that angels are sexless.
No it doesn't.

It suggests angels don't get married, but there's no metion, nor suggestion, of gender whatsoever.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

:confused:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

For some very weird reason, I think this is funny:

Nietzsche: God is dead.

God: Nietzsche is dead.

:confused:

It's Nietzsche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_God

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?


Nietzsche's Antichrist, right?

EDIT:
For some very weird reason, I think this is funny:

Nietzsche: God is dead.

God: Nietzsche is dead.

Because it kind of is.

For some very weird reason, I think this is funny:

Nietzsche: God is dead.

God: Nietzsche is dead.

Well done on the spotting of the quote. I congratulate you.

:hail:

Well done on the spotting of the quote. I congratulate you.

:hail:

Psh. He posted it literally one second before I did.

Psh. He posted it literally one second before I did.

I still win! Hah! :D

Nietzsche was likely insane at the time too sadly. There is guy who was badly in need of hug. Come on cheer up, drink a little more maybe that will help.

No it doesn't.

It suggests angels don't get married, but there's no metion, nor suggestion, of gender whatsoever.


yeah but that is not the same as they are genderless. I mean really do you go around telling strangers oh and by the way I have fully working parts....

Nietzsche was likely insane at the time too sadly.
No, the passage was written before his 'breakdown' in 1889.

Nietzsche was likely insane at the time too sadly. There is guy who was badly in need of hug. Come on cheer up, drink a little more maybe that will help.

He said those same ideas in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and that was written before the syphilis had really...eaten his brain.

yeah but that is not the same as they are genderless.
Aye, but there's no mention either way.

You're wrong on this point, old chap.

Sorry Monty Python came to mind just there. Say no more, say no more. Have you ever been with a lady?

Lets see off the top my Head. Michael male likely, Uriel male likely.

Let's talk about the bad guys it is easier.

Lord said to Raphael (male): 'Bind Azâzêl (male) hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light.


And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjâzâ (male) and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 13. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations.

Which by the way means they are likely free today. Let's see 70 generations. Assuming a generation is 20 years? That makes 1400 years. Okay let's say it was 100 years a lifetime for one ordinary human. That makes it 7000. We are talking Noah's time so. I would say his time is up. He is on parole.

Lets see off the top my Head. Michael male likely, Uriel male likely.

I would say his time is up. He is on parole.
I have no idea what you're on about...

Psh. He posted it literally one second before I did.

Sorry. Second place is first loser.

"In the Book of Enoch, we are told that as punishment for his sins, the fallen angel of war, Azazel, was thrown into a pit in the ‘Wilderness of Dudael,’ and left there to await Final Judgment. Although no one knows to where the name ‘Dudael’ refers, ‘Dudael’ also means ‘Great Desert’ and ‘Fiery Caldron.’ Furthermore, there is one place in Israel that fits that description: the Negev, which has one of its borders on…Gaza/Aza. So how do places come by their names? Oftentimes, they are given names either relating to important people, events, history and the like. Is it mere coincidence that Gaza/Aza has the same name as one of the leaders of the fallen angels?" Kind of explains what is happening there these days.

I have no idea what you're on about...

Sorry I think differently. The angels name is Michael if he were a woman he would be named i don't know Mary for example?

By the way as an aside anything with el at the end means of God. Michael's name is actually a battle cry. It means who is like God? but it is meant as a question, Who is like God?

Sorry I think differently. The angels name is Michael if he were a woman he would be named i don't know Mary for example?
I thought you were saying angels had no gender?

It means who is like God? but it is meant as a question, Who is like God?
Yahweh... or Allah.

I think the original question Why is the USA so religious. The reason was and is it was pretty much it was founded by and for religious freedom. Pilgrims... that right, they dress funny, talk funny had no clue what an American winter was all about, damn near starved to death. Indians though well if we ignore them maybe they will go away. So the first rule is If in invaders show up in your country do not feed them or they may stay....

I thought you were saying angels had no gender?


Yahweh... or Allah.

Nope that was Graven Idle I believe. He was trying to say that Angels have no gender. I am not so sure of that. In any event it appears they have the ability to procreate. Even if they choose not to. Does that mean they have a gender by our definition....I dunno

I thought you were saying angels had no gender?


Yahweh... or Allah.

Yes, either


By the way, any way you slice it we are talking about the same Deity. This was always something of a puzzle to me. How is it that Jews/Christian/Muslims hate each so much when at the root they have the same supreme God. The only thing that differs is the existence of the messiah and if he did/does exist what his name is.

I quite certain in my Bible it says we are suppose to love one another, not kill anyone who does not believe what you do.Jew get along with Christian pretty well you go your way we will go ours. Christian and Muslim seem to do alright together for the most part. I say we we make everyone move out of the Holy Land and make it into an international free religious area. Nobody gets to live there ever again. You can visit, say your prayers but then you must go home i.e. anywhere that is not here .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9358/1671eo3.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/w218.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4613/1672nq9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/w353.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/)
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167


So the question is: Why?

YAR ye be a lily-livered scallywag, Pirate Washington must be spinning in the Davy Jones' Locker.

Sorry I think differently. The angels name is Michael if he were a woman he would be named i don't know Mary for example?

By the way as an aside anything with el at the end means of God. Michael's name is actually a battle cry. It means who is like God? but it is meant as a question, Who is like God?

Biblical practise is to refer to god as male, even though 'he' is neither male nor female. A name ending in 'el' doesn't mean that the named one is male.

Edit: "Rachel", for example.

It's just as much true today as it was then. The freedom to believe or not as you choose and the freedom to worship as you please without fear of prosecution.


We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,



that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance
on the protection

of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
o.o Just because some of the writers made references to religion (probably because of their own religious beliefs) doesn't mean that they didn't believe in freedom from religion.

Welcome to the nation where Puritanical beliefs have existed ever since Plymouth Rock.

Believe it or not, it's true. Example: A puritan once said, "We shall be a city on a hill for others to see." It says that we'll serve as an example to other countries. Isn't that what happened? The US was the first democratic nation; now, look at how many other nations are democratic.

Amazing how something from 400 years ago still affects us today.

Welcome to the nation where Puritanical beliefs have existed ever since Plymouth Rock.

Believe it or not, it's true. Example: A puritan once said, "We shall be a city on a hill for others to see." It says that we'll serve as an example to other countries. Isn't that what happened? The US was the first democratic nation; now, look at how many other nations are democratic.

Amazing how something from 400 years ago still affects us today.
Wasn't there democracy long before the US, like in ancient rome?

And of course stuff from the past affects us today; the present is a result of the past.

Wasn't there democracy long before the US, like in ancient rome?

There was a republic in Greece and Rome. I guess a more accurate statement would be the first democracy in almost 1800 years...

There was a republic in Greece and Rome. I guess a more accurate statement would be the first democracy in almost 1800 years...

The Iroquois had a democracy. The U.S. used it as part of the foundation for the Constitution.

Welcome to the nation where Puritanical beliefs have existed ever since Plymouth Rock.

Believe it or not, it's true. Example: A puritan once said, "We shall be a city on a hill for others to see." It says that we'll serve as an example to other countries. Isn't that what happened? The US was the first democratic nation; now, look at how many other nations are democratic.

Amazing how something from 400 years ago still affects us today.

Well said. Good quote too.

Welcome to the nation where Puritanical beliefs have existed ever since Plymouth Rock.

Believe it or not, it's true. Example: A puritan once said, "We shall be a city on a hill for others to see." It says that we'll serve as an example to other countries. Isn't that what happened? The US was the first democratic nation; now, look at how many other nations are democratic.

Amazing how something from 400 years ago still affects us today.:rolleyes: The US is not a democracy. Never was.

Hm...

Welcome to the nation where Puritanical beliefs have existed ever since Plymouth Rock.
Historical myth, Plymouth Rock never actually happened.


Believe it or not, it's true. Example: A puritan once said, "We shall be a city on a hill for others to see."

True, originally from the Bible.


It says that we'll serve as an example to other countries. Isn't that what happened? The US was the first democratic nation; now, look at how many other nations are democratic.
No. Not true as in first in history, or first since classical times, or oldest surviving at the time, or oldest surviving now.


Amazing how something from 400 years ago still affects us today.
Not really.

There was a republic in Greece and Rome. I guess a more accurate statement would be the first democracy in almost 1800 years...

The Germanic people also had a "Thing".

"the governing assembly in Germanic societies, made up of the free people of the community and presided by lawspeakers. Today the term lives on in the official names of national legislatures and political and judicial institutions in the North-Germanic countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)

Icelandic national parliament was founded in 930 and still works today.

Icelandic national parliament was founded in 930 and still works today.

Its not working too well today.

Those foolish Icelanders...they should learn to run their country well, like we Americans.







what?

The Germanic people also had a "Thing".

All I have to say to that is lol

So the question is: Why?
Two things.
Hydrogen and .... and .... well, something. Escapes me at the moment.
<.<
>.>
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/stupidity/

Maybe there is a correlation between this: According to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, an attitude similar to that found in its neighbors in Latin America.[1]

and this: Our country's history has been one of continual prosperity, material safety and stability unheard of anywhere in the world except other nations in the Americas.

Maybe there is a correlation between this:

and this:

Umm, do you guys not know your own history?

"continual prosperity"

What about great depression? And you were pretty poor when you first started. You were #3 in 1900.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900. You are #17 now in GDP per capita nominal.

"continual...material safety and stability"

Independence war, civil war?

"unheard of anywhere in the world except other nations in the Americas."

Well, you are relatively new compared to most other countries. For example, China dates back "more than six millennia" (according to Wiki). Another example, the last war Sweden was involved was in 1814.

Umm, do you guys not know your own history?
So much of the U.S. is subject to things like religion itself to "interpret" chains of events ... same way (part and parcel) republicans do it.
Not knowing is a common malady stateside. Worse, though, is the disease of willful, dutiful ignorance and spreading of such ... along with revision, much of which is in thanks to the above.

I told you all it was diet, and would you believe me? Drinking coffee causes visions and people to hear voices. Too much coffee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7827761.stm
it's a plot by Starbucks

Meh, u dont stand a chance against the mighty canadian military.

GO attack beavers! Aso if the States really really wants to take canada they probably could but somehow I think motivating the American Army to invade us might be a bit of an issue . . .again . .. that and we have the climate to wage one hell of a guerrilla war lol. The space too and anyway I'm fairly sure that the states would want to lose another white house.

Maybe there is a correlation between this:

and this:

Well said and exactly the way I feel. Kudos! Let's face it all you doubters it works and it works well.

Umm, do you guys not know your own history?

"continual prosperity"

What about great depression? And you were pretty poor when you first started. You were #3 in 1900.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900. You are #17 now in GDP per capita nominal.

"continual...material safety and stability"

Independence war, civil war?

"unheard of anywhere in the world except other nations in the Americas."

Well, you are relatively new compared to most other countries. For example, China dates back "more than six millennia" (according to Wiki). Another example, the last war Sweden was involved was in 1814.

I don't know that any war is for "Good Reasons" but the 2 you mentioned they helped us to change unfortunately a lot of blood had to be spilled. We ended British rule in the first which made us independent and ended slavery in the second.

Just because you believe in God does not mean bad things won't happen it means your country will survive and prosper and get better and stronger every day.

Just about all the conflict and strife taught us something in the long run. There were storms and forest fires, earthquakes. We learned we adapted and we overcome the obstacles.

Unbridled Optimism that is what God does for your country. Peace at the end of day that is what God does for you. Knowing you tried to do the right things for the right reasons. Some of those reasons may turn out in retrospect to have been incorrect. We learn and we get better.

Well said and exactly the way I feel. Kudos! Let's face it all you doubters it works and it works well.Here's a thought for you - integrity of a society has this tendency to have some kind of factor proportional to the embrace of nihilism within.
So, anything *other than* nihilism ...

Maybe there is a correlation between this:

and this:

You could argue they'd be the other way around and cause a correlation. As in a comparatively easy history means people don't lose faith etc.

I'm just tossing ideas out there thogh. I suspect a lot of the faith stat is from african-americans and has its roots in slavery in one way or the other, can't think of a logical narrative to string it together.

In any case I don't think you can take two such large and complex ideas as the two above and just say A causes B. There's just so much more going on in there.

I don't know that any war is for "Good Reasons" but the 2 you mentioned they helped us to change unfortunately a lot of blood had to be spilled. We ended British rule in the first which made us independent and ended slavery in the second.

Just because you believe in God does not mean bad things won't happen it means your country will survive and prosper and get better and stronger every day.

Just about all the conflict and strife taught us something in the long run. There were storms and forest fires, earthquakes. We learned we adapted and we overcome the obstacles.

Unbridled Optimism that is what God does for your country. Peace at the end of day that is what God does for you. Knowing you tried to do the right things for the right reasons. Some of those reasons may turn out in retrospect to have been incorrect. We learn and we get better.
You honestly believe the states is better now than it was ten years ago?

more importantly you really should look into the crusades . . .

(and what you said above . . .except for the unbridled optimism part .. . . applies to every country in existence today)

In any case I don't think you can take two such large and complex ideas as the two above and just say A causes B.

I didn't say that A caused B, all I did was toss out a thought that maybe A and B were possibly related in some way.