Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  2 months ago  •  375 comments

Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency
Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money. Teen fights to keep 'Under God' in the Pledge of AllegianceVideo The justices rejected his petition without comment.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Show me the motto.

The Supreme Court rejected an atheist case Monday to remove "In God We Trust," the national motto, from all coins and currency from the Department of Treasury.

Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress' mandate to inscribe "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.


The justices rejected his petition without comment.

The phrase was first put on an American coin in 1864, due to "increased religious sentiment." It was added to both coins and paper bills in 1955.

Newdow also tried to silence prayer and any religious references at the inaugurations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

“Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.

The justices rejected his petition without comment.

CALIFORNIA WIDOW, 86, SAYS SHE WAS EVICTED FOR SHARING HER FAITH

The phrase was first put on an American coin in 1864, due to "increased religious sentiment." It was added to both coins and paper bills in 1955.”

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.1  dennis smith  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 months ago

Hopefully the SCOTUS will continue to reject the crazy cases.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2  Texan1211    2 months ago

The guy is a nutjob.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @2    2 months ago
The guy is a nutjob.

He sure is. Newdow says that he's been an atheist since he was born, but ironically, he's an "ordained minister" of the Universal Life Church. I knew his father, Ira, on a professional basis many years ago. He was a devout Jew and was very embarrassed by what his son does although he and his wife publicly said differently. 

I guess I should give Newdow credit for persistence in his endlessly fruitless pursuit to push his atheism on the nation. His daughter must have been very embarrassed when he filed a lawsuit against her school district.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624  

One more thing - Michael Newdow was born in 1953. His mother said that he didn't notice that the word "God" was on US currency until 1979, which was a year after he earned his MD from UCLA School of Medicine. He doesn't seem to be a very observant man or doctor!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707598/posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

Tell him to have his atheist clientele mint and print their own money that they can use among themselves. As I, as an outsider, see it, Americans are just getting crazier and crazier.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    2 months ago
Americans are just getting crazier and crazier.

Nope, just the [deleted,] and atheists, who insist on wasting the Court's time.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 months ago

I just can't understand it - I mean, what's the big deal that "In God we trust" is on the money?  Who is hurt by that?  What great injury does ANYONE suffer?  Who even LOOKS at what's written on the money - it's not like a schoolroom where kids can be influenced.  I'm glad that the SCOTUS told them to shove their lawsuit where the sun doesn't shine.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.1    2 months ago
I mean, what's the big deal that "In God we trust" is on the money?  Who is hurt by that?

I take it you'd gladly accept your country adopting "In Allah We trust" on the money? It's such a non-issue who cares, right? Who even looks at what's written on it, right?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.2    2 months ago

Your backhanded smear is not missed, nor that of your supporting thumb-uppers.  What I wrote was not directed at you, but you made damn sure your insult was directed at me.  That's reason, in my opinion, why this site is losing so many good members and gaining so few new ones.  Way to go.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.3    2 months ago

Only about half of America has gone crazy.

Not all of us!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 months ago

I'll buy that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.3    2 months ago
Your backhanded smear is not missed, nor that of your supporting thumb-uppers. 

I did no such thing and made almost exactly the same comment in reply to Magic Eight Ball down at 10.2.

My comment was not a smear or backhanded in any way, I simply switched the supposed "God" in question and apparently it touched a nerve. I have to assume that you would have an issue with it since you chose to simply rage at me instead of answering a very simple question.

I don't give a flying fornicate what religion anyone is, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, they're all the same to me. I only about care how often some religious extremists choose swing their religion around like a mace in an effort to smash their faith in everyone else's face, forcing their imagined Gods into our pledge, onto our money and into almost every aspect of what should be a secular society.

And yes, there are likely half of American citizens who are apparently completely insane, and they are those who are trying to turn America into a Christian sharia-like theocratic Nation and I will continue to oppose them with every ounce of my being.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.6    2 months ago

Perhaps had you said Vishnu or Buddha instead of Allah it might not have touched a nerve, but I have been unfairly accused of Islamophobia so many times on this site that yes it DID touch a nerve.  If I am wrong for having reacted to what I perceived as an insult, I apologize.

Actually I really don't give a damn what is printed on money as long as it does not demonize anybody or anything and is usable for what it is intended for.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    2 months ago

Other than just blindly parroting "buh buh buh separation of church and state" what is the problem? Is it harder to buy things with your religious dollar when shopping in the atheist quik-e-mart? Are you feeling like the money doesn't get you? What is the actual problem?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 months ago

But contrary to many atheists here, Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God.  Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago

That's not honest, it's stupid.  Atheism isn't a sincere religious belief.  It's not a religion.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago
Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God.  Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.  

How is a lack of belief a belief (or religion) itself? It seems you do not understand atheism.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.2    2 months ago

Newdow and I understand it just fine.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    2 months ago

I agree that militant atheism that is used to silence other viewpoints isn’t sincere.....atheists who simply don’t believe in the existence of deities theists believe in certainly can be.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.2    2 months ago

It's a belief system, the opposite side of the same coin, if you will.

Think long and hard and maybe you'll get it.

These fools must think it's really, REALLY, important in the scheme of things.

Else why take it all up to the Supreme Court?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.3    2 months ago
Newdow and I understand it just fine.  

Not even a little, especially if you think atheism is a religion. That's a contradiction in terms.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.5    2 months ago
It's a belief system, the opposite side of the same coin, if you will.

What do atheists "believe" exactly?

Think long and hard and maybe you'll get it.

Or perhaps you should better your own understanding (or lack of it) regarding atheism.

Else why take it all up to the Supreme Court?

Because religious influence within the government becomes a concern.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.4    2 months ago

What the fuck is 'militant atheism'?  Just make it up?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.2    2 months ago
Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God. Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.
How is a lack of belief a belief (or religion) itself? It seems you do not understand atheism.

Sounds to me like the nutjob who filed suit doesn't even understand what he is fighting.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.10  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    2 months ago
What the fuck is 'militant atheism'?  Just make it up?

It's very real, and a simple Internet search shows it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=militant+atheism&ia=web

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.5    2 months ago
the opposite side of the same coin, if you wi

A pun! You made a money funny! jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.10    2 months ago

Okey dokey

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.13  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    2 months ago

You're welcome.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.14  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago
.   But contrary to many atheists here, Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God.  Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.

When will you stop trying to rationalize your beliefs by claiming that those of us who do not believe in god have equally unsupported beliefs? Atheism and agnosticism is the opposite of religious belief because there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that a creator exists.

 If we would not put Zeus, Allah, Horus, or Krishna on money then why should we allow god on our money, especially with the separation of church and state? What is gained by having the word "god" on our money instead of E. Pluribus Unum"? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.15  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.6    2 months ago

It was the atheist Newdow arguing before the US Supreme that atheism is a sincere religious belief.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.15    2 months ago

Nonsense.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.15    2 months ago

How can atheism be a religious belief? That's a contradiction in terms. The government regards atheism as a "religion" in the sense that it is equally recognized and protected as any religion in the eyes of the government and law.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.17    2 months ago
How can atheism be a religious belief?

The same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I don't believe in cosmic space whales that eat galaxies. I guess that means I'm the holy founder of the No Cosmic Space Whale religion. Now accepting new adherents, all you have to truly believe is that there are no cosmic space whales and you're in... well, that and you have to send in your membership fee of just 1% of your income...

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.18    2 months ago

Only 1%? Wow, that's much better than some of the other religions. And space whales? Well, they do exist in the Marvel comics universe, so count me in. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.19    2 months ago
Wow, that's much better than some of the other religions.

Others often tithe at 10% but I figured I'd get a few thousand members before upping the price point...

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.21  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.4    2 months ago
militant atheism

Extreme hyperbole.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.5    2 months ago
It's a belief system, the opposite side of the same coin, if you will.

No.

"A", means "without". Example. "Her behavior was atypical." Which means her behavior was NOT typical. 

theism


noun

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation(distinguished from deism).
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
.
So what does *A*theism mean? Without belief in a God. 
Class dismissed. 
 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.20    2 months ago

Good idea. Lure them in with a bathain, then jack up the price. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.24  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.16    2 months ago

It’s in the text of the seeded article.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.25  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.17    2 months ago

It takes at least as much faith to believe that there is no God out there in the universe as it does to believe He does exist and is real.  

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.26  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.25    2 months ago

How can you believe that Zeus doesn't exist, then?

It takes no faith at all to not believe in things for which there is zero evidence.  One could say that it is delusional to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.25    2 months ago

A lack of belief is not a belief in itself. Therefore, no faith is needed. It's hilarious how some theists try to equate faith with everything, as if they're incapable of understanding some people simply do not believe or have faith. Some of us go by evidence, for which there is none to suggest any god/'s exist.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.23    2 months ago

I meant to say lure them in with a bargain. Lousy autocorrect. 

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.29  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago
But contrary to many atheists here, Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God.  Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.

I am unable to find where Newdow made this statement. Please post a link to it.

 
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.31  Thrawn 31  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago
 Newdow is honest at least in saying atheism is a religion.

With no followers because atheists will not support that assertion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1    2 months ago
Newdow argued that atheism is a sincere religious belief that there is no God.

I always find this funny.   Instead of engaging in a debate, some try to 'level the playing field' by bringing atheism down to the level of religious faith.   By calling atheism a 'religion' they are tacitly arguing that the logical flaws of religion (elevating faith as an asset) are also flaws of atheism.   

But that is both dishonest and profoundly ignorant.  It is also a tacit admission that religious beliefs are a house of cards.

Atheist = an individual who is not convinced there is a god.

There are some atheists who take this further and believe there is no god.   Those are the gnostic atheists.   You could call gnostic atheism a religion and I would not object so much.   Gnostic atheists hold an irrational view - they believe something that cannot be evidenced or proved.   Better to admit that they are not omniscient and cannot possibly know for certain there is no god.   That is, it is substantially better to go with the 9x% of atheists who simply are not convinced there is a god but do not deny the possibility of a creator entity.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.33  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @4.1.14    2 months ago

How about if we just have both mottos on each coin? A fair compromise. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    2 months ago
Supreme Court Rejects Atheists' Attempt To Scrub 'In God We Trust' Off US Currency

of course they did. the lunatic left will never learn.

this is a christian nation. always has been and always will be.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    2 months ago

Are you a 'christian'?

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.2  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    2 months ago
this is a christian nation. always has been and always will be.

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part. But otherwise inaccurate.

 
 
 
epistte
5.3  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    2 months ago
this is a christian nation. always has been and always will be.

It is a shame that you cannot prove this claim.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. — Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty

.

Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."

.

Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination."

.

Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
 
 
 
Gordy327
5.3.1  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @5.3    2 months ago
It is a shame that you cannot prove this claim.

Especially since actual facts contradict it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.4  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    2 months ago
this is a christian nation. always has been and always will be.

Never has been, never will be. If it were a Christian nation, all other religions would be banned and.............

...........................

                                         ---------------------------------

They aren't. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.4.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @5.4    2 months ago
If it were a Christian nation, all other religions would be banned

nope. christians are more tolerant of other religions than that. and far more tolerant of other religions than the atheist community which would ban religions in a new york minute if they could.  but they can't and never will be able.

cest la vie :)

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.4.2  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.4.1    2 months ago
christians are more tolerant of other religions than that.

They aren't even tolerant of fellow Christians. Nice try though. 

the atheist community which would ban religions in a new york minute if they could. 

Since they can't, anymore than Christians can get rid of Muslims, it's pointless to speculate.

Like I said above, if we were a Christian nation, as you suggest, the Founders would have outlawed all religions except Christianity. 

See, the Founders were fleeing Europe, which was a theocracy, (for the most part), at the time; observing any religion but Christianity was illegal. That's why when they penned our constitution, they gave the free exercise to worship as you see fit but no ability to enact any laws based on religion. Get it? 

Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, LDS, Heavens Gate, etc. etc. etc.... ALL have equal representation under the US constitution, PERIOD. We are no more a Christian nation than we are a Muslim nation.  

 
 
 
epistte
5.4.3  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.4.1    2 months ago
nope. christians are more tolerant of other religions than that. and far more tolerant of other religions than the atheist community which would ban religions in a new york minute if they could. 

Many Christians are not tolerant of other Christian sects, much less not the religious beliefs of Christians.  I posted a thread of a minister who said that he would execute LGBTQ people and others who appear at a Pride parade because of his religious beliefs.  Does that sound like he is tolerant?

In the hourlong sermon based on an Old Testament passage, Detective Grayson Fritts, also a pastor at All Scripture Baptist Church in Knoxville, told his congregation June 2 that he believes that federal, state and county governments should arrest, try, convict and "speedily" execute people within the LGBTQ community on no more grounds than a cell phone photo of a person participating in a Pride event.

I dare you to prove this outrageous claim. When have any American unbelievers said that they would prohibit religious belief?  Conservatives claim that the ACLU is anti-religion but I can post 10+ cases where they defended Christians right to believe and worship as they wish, as protected in the 1st Amendment 

but they can't and never will be able.

cest la vie

Both the religious clauses in the 1st amendment are just as beneficial for atheists as they are for members of the many religions.

 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.4.4  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.4.1    2 months ago

Quite the sweeping genrealization there.

 
 
 
lib50
5.4.5  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5.4.1    2 months ago
christians are more tolerant of other religions than that. and far more tolerant of other religions than the atheist community which would ban religions in a new york minute if they could.  but they can't and never will be able.

Well that is not true.  And you need to post some links and prove it if you want to claim otherwise.  Here is some of MY proof your statement is bullshit.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tennessee-deputy-pastor-calls-for-execution-of-lbtq-people_n_5d0261bce4b0985c41994837

A Tennessee deputy and pastor is being investigated by the District Attorney’s office after he gave a sermon calling for the government to round up and execute members of the LGBTQ community.

Knox County Sheriff’s deputy Grayson Fritts is no longer on active duty. On Wednesday, video surfaced of a hate-filled sermon he gave to his congregation on June 2 at All Scripture Baptist Church in Knoxville that called for the execution of anyone found to be LGBTQ, Knox News first reporte

“I’m sick of sodomy getting crammed down our throats,” Fritts said during his sermon. He then criticized musician Taylor Swift for her support of a bill that would ban discriminating against LGBTQ people. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/empathy-and-relationships/201701/evangelical-christians-evangelizing-hate-must-be-stopped

This morning, I read that a "mother stabbed her teenage son to death because he was gay."

Fox World News described the incident as follows:

"A woman in Brazil has confessed to stabbing her teenage son to death because she couldn’t tolerate he was gay, local media outlets are reporting.

The woman, Tatiana Lozano Pereira, lured her 17-year-old son to the family home after a heated argument on Christmas Eve. Once in the house, Itaberli Lozano was reportedly ambushed by the woman and two thugs she had hired to beat her son up to “teach him a lesson.”

However, the woman changed course and ordered the men to kill the boy as he was lying on the floor, severely beaten. When they refused, she took a kitchen knife and stabbed him herself, authorities said....

According to his uncle Dario Rosa and other relatives, Lozano had long been rejected by his mother for his sexual orientation."

What I find even more devastating is how this relates to the evangelizing of hate against the LGBT community by American evangelical Christians.

On July 5, 2016, The New York Times published an article by Andrew Jacobs titled Brazil Is Confronting an Epidemic of Anti-Gay Violence.

"The anti-gay violence, some experts contend, can be traced to Brazil’s culture of machismo and a brand of evangelical Christianity, exported from the United States, that is outspoken in its opposition to homosexuality.

Evangelicals make up nearly a quarter of Brazil’s population, up from 5 percent in 1970, and religious leaders reach millions of people through the hundreds of television and radio stations they have purchased in recent years.

American-style Pentecostal congregations are also playing an increasingly muscular role in Brazilian politics. Evangelical voters have helped send more than 60 lawmakers to the 513-member lower house of Congress, doubling their numbers since 2010 and making them one of the most disciplined blocs in an unruly and divided legislature.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.4.6  KDMichigan  replied to  epistte @5.4.3    2 months ago
Many Christians are not tolerant of other Christian sects,

Really? You have some stats to this claim because this is news to me.

I haven't heard on the news of any Christians blowing each other up because one is Protestant and the other Lutheran. I could be wrong I'm not religious though and don't generally go around looking for something to harp about a religion because they hurt my feelings. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you the branches of the Muslim religion either. Now I know that Muslim sects are not Tolerant of each other. Is that the kind of tolerance you are trying to allude to?

 
 
 
epistte
5.4.7  epistte  replied to  KDMichigan @5.4.6    2 months ago
Really? You have some stats to this claim because this is news to me.

Did you ever hear of Northern Ireland or European religious wars of the 16th and 17th century?  The protestant Christian Klan believe that Catholics should be killed and have done so more than once.  Not all Protestant sects support each other. 

This is why we have the strict separation of church and state because if we didn't then Christians would attack non-Christians. When that had been accomplished then the Catholics and various Protestants would fight among each other for political and social supremacy in the same way that the Sunni, Kurds, and Shia Muslims kill each other in the Middle East.  It is only pragmatic and stable to keep religious belief and political power completely separated.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.4.8  KDMichigan  replied to  epistte @5.4.7    2 months ago
Did you ever hear of Northern Ireland or European religious wars of the 16th and 17th century? 

You are correct. See I told you I don't give a shit about religion. 

 
 
 
epistte
5.4.9  epistte  replied to  KDMichigan @5.4.8    2 months ago
You are correct. See I told you I don't give a shit about religion. 

If it wasn't for the European religious wars I would not be an American because both sides of my family left central Europe and came to the US to escape the fighting and religious persecution. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.4.10  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @5.4.4    2 months ago

Actually not. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.4.11  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @5.4.10    2 months ago
Actually not. 

Actually yes!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    2 months ago

It doesn't belong on currency.  It doesn't belong on court house walls.  It doesn't belong in the pledge.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago

You are entitled to your opinion. Any real atheist wouldn't care about the words. They are meaningless if one truly doesn't believe in any god.

I am a real atheist. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    2 months ago

Congratulations?

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.2  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    2 months ago
You are entitled to your opinion. Any real atheist wouldn't care about the words. They are meaningless if one truly doesn't believe in any god. I am a real atheist. 

Your claim is a No True Scotsman fallacy. 

Those ideas on our current is a state endorserment of one religion and of religious belief, which does not belong and has no positive secular benefit. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @6.1.2    2 months ago
which does not belong and has no positive secular benefit. 

sure it does...  real or not, god protects your rights from being taken from you daily.

if the notion of god goes away? so does the notion of god given rights.

if the notion of god given rights goes away? enter the notion of govt given rights

a nonexistent god cannot remove your rights,

but rights given by any govt will eventually be taken away.

why? individual rights always wind up interfering with the plans of every corrupt govt.  

free speech and an individual's right to self-defense are usually the first to go. 

then they own us.  lock, stock, and barrel.


matters not one bit if god is real.

as long as just the notion of god lives? our god given rights are safe enough.

real or not? thank god for that :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.3    2 months ago
'real or not, god protects your rights from being taken from you daily.
matters not one bit if god is real. as long as just the notion of god lives? our god given rights are safe enough.'
jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.3    2 months ago

Rights are not "God given." That's just absurd. They can be taken away by a government in power. History had shown that. Fortunately, our Constitution puts limits on government power. For rights to be "god given," of each would have to prove there's a god to begin with, that said god actually granted specific rights, and those rights could not be taken away by the government,  as God is surely stronger than a government,  right?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    2 months ago
Any real atheist wouldn't care about the words.

Any real Christian wouldn't care about the words on secular money either.

"17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." - Matthew 22:17-21

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.5    2 months ago
They can be taken away by a government in power.

ya think?

[Deleted]

when the left is ready to put their "collective lives on the line for marxism?  let us know :)

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.7    2 months ago
if they ever try? active military, combat vets, bible thumpers, and bitter clingers will have something brutal to add to that conversation. and we will win that argument hands down.

Do you really think all of these people you just listed, are right wing only? 

BTW...

Care to point out in the 1st amendment where it says, "freedom of religion for Christians, everyone else can fuck off"?

Asking for a nation, thanks. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.8    2 months ago
Do you really think all of these people you just listed, are right wing only? 

nope... but in those arena's  / we got the left by a thousand to one easy.

 also funny how every occupation that involves guns is inhabited mostly by rightwing nuts.

cheers :)

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.10  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.3    2 months ago
matters not one bit if god is real.

as long as just the notion of god lives? our god given rights are safe enough.

real or not? thank god for that

Who suggested that your rights were in jeopardy?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @6.1.10    2 months ago
Who suggested that your rights were in jeopardy?

no one... LOL

I suggested our rights are NOT in jeopardy and NEVER will be as long as the notion of "god given rights exist.


[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.7    2 months ago
if they ever try? active military, combat vets, bible thumpers, and bitter clingers will have something brutal to add to that conversation. and we will win that argument hands down.

The Founding Fathers understood the risks of tyranny by a government. Hence, they thought up of the 2nd Amendment.

the funny thing about socialists, communists and other marxist losers. they talk a good game but  they are not ready to die for their beliefs today,   and we are.  today, tomorrow, next year, the next decade and beyond.  

What relevance does that have? Who's talking about communists, ect.?

and NEVER will be as long as the notion of "god given rights exist.

Rights aren't in jeopardy as long as the Constitution exists.

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1.13  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.9    2 months ago

And it’s interesting to note what claims a secularist has repeatedly made about what is going to happen to evangelical Christian conservatives the moment we cross some imaginary line of separation as they interpret it...

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @6.1.10    2 months ago

[Deleted]  

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.15  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @6.1.14    2 months ago
all who deny God exist put all of our God given rights in jeopardy.  

Religious apologist nonsense.

Our rights do not come from God because there is not any evidence of God existing. The US was not created as a Christian country, despite what you and others may want to claim.  Our rights are guaranteed to each of us by the common consent of the governed. The idea that we have natural rights is nonsense because in the absence laws and society we have no rights.  Our right only exists because of the Constitution and people who obey it.

The idea that your god claims to have a plan for our lives would mean that we do not have freedom.  You cannot possibly have an omniscient and omnipotant theistic god who gives commands of how we are to live according to that religious belief system, with religious for all regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs or have secular freedom.  Your claim would create a rigid theocracy.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @6.1.15    2 months ago
Our rights do not come from God

the original founding document for our country known as the declaration of independence clearly states otherwise.

so regardless of all the debate.

this notion of "god given rights" is forever carved into the fabric of this country. if anyone really wants to be rid of the notion of god given rights? one must burn our founding documents and the whole country first.

  good luck with that :)

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.17  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @6.1.13    2 months ago
And it’s interesting to note what claims a secularist has repeatedly made about what is going to happen to evangelical Christian conservatives the moment we cross some imaginary line of separation as they interpret it...

What nasty amoral secular progressive made those claims and what did they say would happen if you crossed the line of church and state separation? 

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.18  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.16    2 months ago
the original founding document for our country the AKA declaration of independence clearly states otherwise.   good luck changing it

The declaration was not the founding document. It was a statement of separation and independence from the British king. The DoI is nothing more than an eloquent divorce decree from the King by the American Colonies.  The first document of self government was the Articles of Confederation that was soon replaced by the US Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote that and he was not a Christian. He was a deist.

Jefferson was a devout theist, believing in a benevolent creator God to whom humans owed praise. In an early political text, he wrote that “The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time;…”4  He often referred to his or “our” God but did so in the language of an eighteenth century natural philosophy: “our creator,” the “Infinite Power, which rules the destinies of the universe,” “overruling providence,” “benevolent governor,” etc.

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

Thomas Jefferson was deeply but unconventionally religious. An empiricist, he believed that a rational and benevolent God was evident in the beauty and order of the universe. He professed "Christianism," a belief in the morals taught by Jesus of Nazareth, but he rejected Jesus's divinity, resurrection, the atonement, and biblical miracles. As such, Jefferson's beliefs resisted conventional labels, and in 1819 he suggested to a correspondent that "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Jefferson meticulously cut up four copies of the Gospels (in English, French, Greek, and Latin), retaining only selected passages, without miracles, to create The Jefferson Bible, his own book for spiritual guidance and solace. Jefferson's career was also marked by religious controversy. He was denounced as an "arch-infidel" in the of 1800, and his efforts to prevent the appointment of a minister to teach religion at the , one of the first state-owned colleges in the United States, met strong resistance. Jefferson embraced god-given human rights and opposed their abridgment by government. He is known as one of the founders of American religious freedom, and his phrase "a wall of separation between Church & State" has been viewed as emblematic by historians and by the modern United States Supreme Court.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Jefferson_Thomas_and_Religion

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.16    2 months ago
the original founding document for our country known as the declaration of independence clearly states otherwise.

It was written by a man, not by a god.   Men are fallible.  That includes the possibility that the god in which they believe (or the deity they believe exists) does not actually exist.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.1.18    2 months ago
The declaration was not the founding document.

It kinda was. Founding the country is what the document does.

A quick Google of "When was the United States founded?" yields the date of July 4, 1776. Controlling legal documents (i.e. Articles of Confederation and Constitution) may change, but the country has been officially "The United of States of America" since that day. The document is properly titled (just look at it) "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America." If you ever have to take a history test and you give a different date for the founding of America, I predict you will get that question wrong.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has referred to the writing and publishing of that document as "the first official action of this nation."

The DoI is nothing more than an eloquent divorce decree from the King by the American Colonies.

As I said, it is the founding document. But it's definitely more than that. It gives us key insight into where the founders stood and what their priorities were. It's not black letter law, but we don't ignore it in court either. It is useful in interpreting our laws and the Court has said so (brackets and bold are my emphasis):

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words:

"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."

While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter [The Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [The Declaration] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis 165 U.S. 150, 159 (1891).

Lest you think this was a one-off, this passage has been referenced and quoted by the Court again in later cases. Also, the Court routinely (just this week, in fact) cites legal traditions from the colonies and also from England that predate settlement in America. So, there is more to our laws than just the Constitution.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.21  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.20    2 months ago
t kinda was. Founding the country is what the document does. A quick Google of "When was the United States founded?" yields the date of July 4, 1776. Controlling legal documents (i.e. Articles of Confederation and Constitution) may change, but the country has been officially "The United of States of America" since that day. The document is properly titled (just look at it) "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America." If you ever have to take a history test and you give a different date for the founding of America, I predict you will get that question wrong.

Nothing happened after the DoI was written and signed. We had to win the revolutionary war first.  That and the creation of the Articles of Confederation created the US.   The DoI was nothing more than a statement that we were filing for divorce from the British King.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.1.21    2 months ago

This is a great example of how evidence is wasted on you. You ignore it totally. Then you just restate the same wrong claim and think you have changed something. That's cool, though. You go right on believing the US was not founded on July 4, 1776. Like I have said before, believe what you will; it's a free country, as we say (and founded on July 4, 1776).

I know I am wasting my time, but read up on the Second Continental Congress. The Continental Congress was the governing body of the union before the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. On July 2, 1776, they agreed to what is called the Lee Resolution, establishing the thirteen colonies as free and independent states. The full text of it reads as follows:

Resolved, 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.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The public document declaring this is the Declaration of Independence (officially adopted on the 4th and signed a month later).

The structure of this union is somewhat different than we are familiar with today. They hadn't fleshed out the federal system yet. But so what? That system has been ever-changing. We make changes all the time. Every time we do, we don't found the county anew.

We had to win the revolutionary war first.  That and the creation of the Articles of Confederation created the US.

Of course there was more to do and a war to fight. There is always more to do and another war to fight. That doesn't change the fact that the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of the United States of America. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.23  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @6.1.18    2 months ago
The declaration was not the founding document. It was a statement of separation and independence from the British king.

which was our founding...  the cornerstone. AKA our beginning.

even the following page is titled "founding documents" 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

nothing you say can change that either. so you are stuck with god given rights regardless how ya feel about that. the only way to shed the notion of god given rights from this country is? burn it down first.

again... good luck with that. 

cheers )

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.24  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.22    2 months ago
You go right on believing the US was not founded on July 4, 1776.

they will...  

and then they will try to convince us how they are "patriots who love this country.

while forgetting the countries birthday... LOL

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @6.1.14    2 months ago
all who deny God exist put all of our God given rights in jeopardy.  

Your typical sweeping generalization aside, prove God exists!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago

That's simply your opinion and mean's nothing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    2 months ago
That's simply your opinion and mean's nothing.

Pot meet kettle!

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago
It doesn't belong on currency.  It doesn't belong on court house walls.  It doesn't belong in the pledge.

Agreed. But the issue of having god on the currency has already been addressed by the SCOTUS, in their landmark case: Aronow v. United States (1970). The SCOTUS deemed having god on the currency to be "ceremonial deism," which essentially means the phrase means nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @6.3    2 months ago

I can get behind that.  It is meaningless.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.4  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago
It doesn't belong on currency

Why not? What does belong on currency? Why is there a particular need to include - or exclude - any particular thing on a piece of money? Who wrote those rules?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @6.4    2 months ago
Why not?

Why does it need to be? The Founding fathers didn't think it was necessary. Neither did the government for over 150 years. 

What does belong on currency?

Numeric denomination, place of origin and/or printing, someone's portrait, and E. Pluribus Unum.

Why is there a particular need to include - or exclude - any particular thing on a piece of money? 

I wonder that too. Some things are common sense to include like denomination value. I would imagine something to help foil counterfeiters would be useful too.

Who wrote those rules?

Probably the Dept. of Treasury and the U.S Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @6.4.1    2 months ago
Why does it need to be?

It doesn't. I would never say it "needed" to be there. Congress and the President decided they wanted it there, so there it is. We have all sorts of stuff on the money that doesn't need to be there. We also have a pyramid and some crazy all-seeing eye, but I don't see people crying and running into court about those things.

I'd say you need a value denomination and it needs to be identified as legal tender in the United States. Everything else is just decoration or anti-counterfeiting, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't give two shits about the motivation behind any particular feature. I might find it entertaining to look at, but the idea that it impacts me so personally that I would need to ask the court for a change seems pretty extreme.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.2    2 months ago
And I don't give two shits about the motivation behind any particular feature. I might find it entertaining to look at, but the idea that it impacts me so personally that I would need to ask the court for a change seems pretty extreme.

Probably because you are not a whiny snowflake, imagining all sorts of assaults on your freedoms.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.4.4  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @6.4.2    2 months ago
Congress and the President decided they wanted it there, so there it is.

Actually, the Knights of Columbus wanted it there and Congress and the President allowed it as an ideological response to the "Red Scare" of the 1950's. 

We have all sorts of stuff on the money that doesn't need to be there. We also have a pyramid and some crazy all-seeing eye, but I don't see people crying and running into court about those things.

The Founding Fathers put those on the currency originally. And people can complain about and challenge it if they want. But then, the all seeing eye is probably more vague and less understood than the word "god."

I'd say you need a value denomination and it needs to be identified as legal tender in the United States. Everything else is just decoration or anti-counterfeiting, as far as I'm concerned.

That would make sense and be practical.

I might find it entertaining to look at, but the idea that it impacts me so personally that I would need to ask the court for a change seems pretty extreme.

What ever works for you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.4.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @6.4.1    2 months ago
Why does it need to be?

It's the law of the land!

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.4.6  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.4.5    2 months ago

I am aware of that. But that doesn't answer why it needed to be. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.4.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @6.4.6    2 months ago
But that doesn't answer why it needed to be. 

No, it dosen't and saying "It's the law of the land" is never good enough when the Court comes to a questionable conclusion.

That was my purpose. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago
  It doesn't belong on court house walls.  It doesn't belong in the pledge.

what about our original and most cherished founding document?

  (declaration of independence)    does it belong there?

 
 
 
epistte
6.5.1  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5    2 months ago
what about our original and most cherished founding document?   (declaration of independence)    does it belong there?

Jefferson, who wrote the DoI, was not a Christian so he isn't referring to the Christian god.  he was a Deist or even an atheist.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.5.2  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5    2 months ago

The Abrahamistic god is not specified in the DoI. Neither does the DoI establish our system of laws and government. The Constitution does, which makes no reference of any god or deity of choice. The DoI was intentionally worded as it was to address the King of England, who was also head of the English Church, in a way he would understand. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.2    2 months ago
The Abrahamistic god is not specified in the DoI

wow, I did not know our founding fathers were one of the following followings.

  1. Islam.
  2. Hinduism.
  3. Buddhism.
  4. Sikhism.

which god do you think they are talking about?

tell me... which one?  seriously... that is so interesting... please tell me more? 

Neither does the DoI establish our system of laws 

of course not  the people who drafted it.... did.

and...  as im willing to be wrong here...  tell me, when exactly did christians first become the majority of our population?  1930's maybe? or was it earlier than that like the 1800's or something?

 

 
 
 
epistte
6.5.4  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.3    2 months ago
and...  as im willing to be wrong here...  tell me, when exactly did christians first become the majority of our population?  1930's maybe? or was it earlier than that like the 1800's or something?

The religious clauses of the Bill of Rights were written to protect the idea that we all have equal religious and secular rights, whether we are in the majority of 200+ million or a minority of one.   The idea that Christians have more rights because of their social majority is a tyranny of the majority and it is prohibited, so those of other religions or those of no belief do not have their secular or religious rights trampled or limited by the Christian majority.

 This idea should have been covered in your high school US history or civics requirement.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.5.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.3    2 months ago
when exactly did christians first become the majority of our population?  1930's maybe? or was it earlier than that like the 1800's or something?

Well, they were certainly the minority in the late 1600 when they first arrived, then they spent a hundred and fifty years murdering the current non-Christian residents or forcibly converting them at the point of a sword or end of a gun, and also forced their religion on the slaves they imported from Africa, so I'm sure somewhere in the mid-1800's they finally achieved their goal of Christian majority. So I guess we should all just bow down to them now, eh? Should we give them some sort of medal for their genocides, support of slavery and annihilation of peoples and cultures throughout the last several centuries?

Our founders intentionally left out any mention of Christianity in the constitution and specifically forbade any establishment of religion banning the United States from ever claiming to be officially a "Christian Nation". At best one can say America is a nation of Christians, it is the majority faith in the US. But that does not in any way change our constitution which protects not only the majority of Americans but also the minority Americans from the tyranny of the majority, from the tyranny of Christian dominionists and their vile ideology and desire to force their religion on ever around them.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.5.5    2 months ago
Well, they were certainly the minority in the late 1600 when they first arrived,

that is complete bs...

then they spent a hundred and fifty years murdering the current non-Christian residents or forcibly converting them at the point of a sword or end of a gun,

wait... let me get this straight. unless christianity started the day after our countries founding, your trying to tell me non christians spent 150 yrs murdering non christians or forcibly converted them to christianity?            or after our founding did they all just up and suddenly became christians out of the blue and then start murdering indians?

either way, there is one for the history books... LOL

next time, try not talking out of your ass.

our founders were christian/deist but either way most definitely theist. 

they wore their beliefs on their sleeves and out in public with no shame.

our mythical secular founding simply does not exist.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.6    2 months ago
our founders were christian/deist but either way most definitely theist.

fun fact.

in the declaration of independence you will find....

reference to "natures god"  and reference to their "creator"

typical christians believe in the "creator while diest's believe in a "natural god.

regardless, all of our founders were theist with not one atheist in the bunch.

  • secular founders?  not a chance. 

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.5.8  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.7    2 months ago

Nature's God and the creator aren't referring to god

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.9  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @6.5.8    2 months ago

Only on NT could I see someone say that the word "God" doesn't refer to God.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @6.5.8    2 months ago
Nature's God and the creator aren't referring to god

what exactly do those words reference?  

be specific please.... 

 
 
 
epistte
6.5.11  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.9    2 months ago
Only on NT could I see someone say that the word "God" doesn't refer to God.

The god of deism isn't the same deity as the god of Abraham.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.12  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.5.11    2 months ago
The god of deism isn't the same deity as the god of Abraham.

You make weird claims, don't support them, and don't connect them to anything. It's like a living non sequitur.

What's on the dollar? Is it God? Or is it God?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.12    2 months ago
What's on the dollar? Is it God? Or is it God?

none of the above.             it is God.

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

but, ya know what is od? and odd as well?

good - god =                O

devil - evil =                  D

 

OD defined:

the natural energy present in all things. / attributed to god.   (my words)

go here for other words.... natural god

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/od

or here for the euphemism of god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/od

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.14  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @6.5.11    2 months ago
The god of deism isn't the same deity as the god of Abraham.

the deists natural god also being our creator is not a huge stretch  

how do you know the god of abraham is not also natures god

 

cheers

 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.5.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.6    2 months ago
unless christianity started the day after our countries founding, your trying to tell me non christians spent 150 yrs murdering non christians or forcibly converted them to christianity?

I guess some things need to be explained a bit more slowly for some.

When Christians showed up on these shores, specifically the Spanish, around 1565, they were the minority in America.

"Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated that the pre-Columbian population was as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

These indigenous people were often slaughtered or converted at the point of a sword, forcible conversion. Then, as more Christians showed up bringing their slaves and swords, they continued to ravage the native populace and claimed their religion gave them the right to do so. White Christian supremacy reigned and the population of natives and non-Christians plummeted over the next 200 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

I can only imagine how deeply inserted ones head must be to not see my very obvious point. I've no doubt there are sign language trained chimps who would be able to understand such basic facts when laid out so plainly. I believe one has to work at being intentionally obtuse in order to not see it.

 
 
 
Kavika
6.5.16  Kavika   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.5.15    2 months ago

The forced conservation of American Indians went on into the 1980's. (Indian Boarding Schools)

Native religions were outlawed and severely restricted by law starting in the late 1800's and remained that way until the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom act of 1978.

To this day many of our sacred sites are destroyed for so called progress. Greed is the real word that should be used. 

White Christian supremacy reigned and the population of natives and non-Christians plummeted over the next 200 years.

It's known as the ''Doctrine of Discovery''. Which were Papal Bulls issued in the 15th century by the Catholic Church (Inter Caetera). They were adopted into US law in 1823 in Johnson vs M'intosh. The Marshall trilogy (SCOTUS) are the decisions that adopted the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' into US law. 

 
 
 
epistte
6.5.18  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.14    2 months ago
the deists natural god also being our creator is not a huge stretch  

how do you know the god of Abraham is not also natures god

 

cheers

Do you know the differences between Deists and Christianity? Desists believe in a god that started the universe and just walked away having nothing to do with what he created. It has been called the absentee landlord god.  They do not pray or worship that god.

 
 
 
epistte
6.5.19  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.12    2 months ago
You make weird claims, don't support them, and don't connect them to anything. It's like a living non sequitur. What's on the dollar? Is it God? Or is it God?

Since those words were put there at the behest of the Catholic fraternal organization the KofC as a response to the supposed atheist Russia, it is obviously the Christian god.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.5.20  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.12    2 months ago

Deists believe that there is a creator who appears to be entirely hands-off.   Deists make no pretense to know anything about said creator.

The God of Abraham, in contrast, is claimed to be known in significant detail by many.   ( Of course their views vary considerably. )

To wit, a deist would not, by definition, consider the God of Abraham to be the creator in which they believe.

Do you disagree?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.21  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @6.5.20    2 months ago

You're talking about theology and dogma. None of that is on the money. It just says "God." That covers a lot of ground and a lot of options. You guys want to act like it says "Jesus." It doesn't.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.5.22  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.21    2 months ago

I have made no comment about which God is referenced on our currency.   My comment explained deist ‘god’ vs. theist ‘god’ in response to  your complaint that epistte did not do so.

Do not presume, I personally do not mind that ‘In God we trust’ appears on our currency.

 
 
 
katrix
6.5.23  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.21    2 months ago
It just says "God." That covers a lot of ground and a lot of options. You guys want to act like it says "Jesus." It doesn't.

It clearly means the Christian god, just as Allah would clearly mean the Muslim god.  No other religion refers to their deity as "God."  Well, I suppose some Jewish people do, but my understanding is that they are really supposed to use G-d instead. 

E. Pluribus Unum offends some people because they are conspiracy theorists who believe it references the New World Order's plans to unify the entire world's systems (currency and all others) ..

Some Christians think that having the Masonic symbol on it is a satanic thing ... I never knew that the Masons founded the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses until I just read the article linked below.  And the Eagle on the currency is actually a phoenix, disguised as an eagle to suck us into Satanism ... Just ... wow!

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/satan_on_our_dollar.htm

Great thing about our currency is that it has something to offend all different kinds of people!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.24  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @6.5.23    2 months ago
Great thing about our currency is that it has something to offend all different kinds of people!

Which makes it all the more weird that the only cases we seem to hear about are about people who are faux-offended by God.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.25  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @6.5.23    2 months ago
It clearly means the Christian god

How would you know that just by looking at the money?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.26  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @6.5.22    2 months ago

Yes, I understand the difference. The point of the debate is whether or not some specific religion is being endorsed on the money. If we're able to argue about it, I think that's a good sign that "God" on the money is pretty vague.

 
 
 
katrix
6.5.27  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.25    2 months ago
How would you know that just by looking at the money?

Because I know that the word God is used to refer to the Christian god, not other gods.  It's not vague at all.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.28  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @6.5.20    2 months ago

The money is just money. It doesn't come with a primer on religious theory. So, reading any context into it is adding ones own biases to the interpretation. Congress and the Treasury can't be held responsible for every random interpretation a person might make. That way lies madness and uninteresting currency.

While there is undoubtedly history behind anything the government does, we also have a history of non-denominational religious references that are generally felt to be respectful of all faiths. If Congress wanted to get all Christian on the money, they could have, but what they ended up with is more in keeping with traditional non-denominational practices.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.29  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.25    2 months ago
How would you know that just by looking at the money?

Maybe God told them?

 
 
 
katrix
6.5.30  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.28    2 months ago
It doesn't come with a primer on religious theory

It doesn't need to.  God is only used to refer to the Judeo-Christian god.  No other religion refers to their god(s) as God.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5.31  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @6.5.27    2 months ago

Judeo-Christian tradition has multiple names for God. If Congress had wanted to put names on the money, it could have. The money could say "In YHWH we trust" or "In Elohim we trust." It doesn't, though. "God" is vague. Different words for it exist in cultures with different languages. American money is in English, so the English word is used. It's a word from Old English that derives from German. And ancient Germans didn't start out as Christians. Original Christians would not have used that word, so there is no justification for saying that it must be Christian.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.32  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @6.5.30    2 months ago
No other religion refers to their god(s) as God.

Even Wiccans worship a God and a Goddess.

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.5.33  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.9    2 months ago

True enough.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.5.34  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.3    2 months ago
I did not know

Exactly!

our founding fathers were one of the following followings.

Many were deists.

which god do you think they are talking about?

Pick one.

of course not the people who drafted it.... did.

The Constitution establishes our system of laws.

tell me, when exactly did christians first become the majority of our population? 1930's maybe? or was it earlier than that like the 1800's or something?

We do not have a tyranny by the majority. A religious majority of the population does not automatically affirm a religious based nation.

our mythical secular founding simply does not exist.

Except for the whole Constitution thing.

reference to "natures god" and reference to their "creator"

Funny how they don't explicitly state "God" or the "God of Abraham," or something definitive like that.

secular founders? not a chance.

But secular government, absolutely!

what exactly do those words reference?

No, references to deity/ies:
1.Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (can be any deity attributed with the creation of the world)
2.endowed by their Creator (definatively not just the Christian God since it is talking about an individual person's Creator)
3.Supreme Judge of the world (many deities are describe thusly)
4.protection of Divine Providence (every deity)

The Declaration of Independence is the document by which we declared ourselves a completely separate nation from Great Britain -- nothing more. It was put in terms that the British king would be able to understand, which is why a "Creator" is referenced therein. It is NOT the basis of our laws and government. The Constitution, on the other hand, IS the basis of our laws and government, and it -- very deliberately -- does NOT mention God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or deity, and the Founding Fathers evidently had a specific purpose in mind in doing so.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.35  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.34    2 months ago
The Declaration of Independence is the document by which we declared ourselves a completely separate nation from Great Britain -- nothing more.

as the original founding document, the declaration of independence is much more than you'd like to admit.  it is the very soul of our country and its founding.

which is why we celebrate that document and our independence every 4th of july.

a never ending, yearly reminder of our god given rights to be free from tyrannical bs.

 there is not enough leftwing spin on the planet to change that... LOL

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.5.36  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.5.35    2 months ago
as the original founding document, the declaration of independence is much more than you'd like to admit.  it is the very soul of our country and its founding.

I know exactly what the DoI is and what it says. You're the one trying to make it more than it is.

there is not enough leftwing spin on the planet to change that... LOL

There's not enough rightwing spin to change the fact that this country is meant to be secular with a religiously neutral government.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.5.37  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @6.5.36    2 months ago
You're the one trying to make it more than it is.

as our nations most cherished document im not sure that is possible. and removing the notion of god given rights from that document is also... impossible.

this country is meant to be secular with a religiously neutral government.

only secular as in our govt does not force people to join an official govt church. nor is our govt a theocracy in any shape or form.  but if you think you are free from religious influence?  try again. 

the word god is not going to be washed off our money and crosses will always stand for our beliefs.  (never going to change)  

speaking of the declaration of independence... the 4th of july is just around the corner :)

 
 
 
Jim of the Great Northwoods
7  Jim of the Great Northwoods    2 months ago

Why would the phrase in god we trust upset one who trusts there is no god?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jim of the Great Northwoods @7    2 months ago

It's not upsetting.  Annoying I guess.  

 
 
 
epistte
7.2  epistte  replied to  Jim of the Great Northwoods @7    2 months ago
Why would the phrase in god we trust upset one who trusts there is no god?

It's the idea of separation of church and state that is at issue.  The government should not be endorsing a god or religious belief on our money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8  Texan1211    2 months ago

What exactly are those opposed so vehemently against God on our money offended by?

Are we to believe that they take money out of their pocket and read it (other than denomination)?

What are they so scared of?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8    2 months ago
What exactly are those opposed so vehemently against God on our money offended by?

Why does god need to be on money to begin with? Especially since it wasn't there originally?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    2 months ago
Why does god need to be on money to begin with? Especially since it wasn't there originally?

Because Congress said so.

Whether it was there in the beginning is immaterial.

No one is hurt by it being there, so why the fuss?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.1    2 months ago
Because Congress said so.

I am aware Congress allowed it.

Whether it was there in the beginning is immaterial.

Not really. The Founding Fathers clearly didn't intend for it.

No one is hurt by it being there, so why the fuss?

So someone has to be hurt in order for something to be considered wrong or questionable?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    2 months ago

The Founders certainly didn’t opposeit

One of the first laws passed by the Congress was to establish paid chaplains who open each day's session in both the House and Senate with prayer.  We have never had a non Christian chaplain appointed to that. We’ve never had a day of Congress in session without prayer.

From the Library of Congress

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

John Jay, former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts

John Adams

October 11, 1798

"we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    2 months ago
I am aware Congress allowed it.

So why ask when you knew the answer?

Not really. The Founding Fathers clearly didn't intend for it.

Did the Founding Fathers intend for women to have the right to vote, or for slavery to be illegal? Like I said---immaterial.

So someone has to be hurt in order for something to be considered wrong or questionable?

No, and snowflakes are perfectly free to whine and bitch about it all they want.

No one is hurt. If they claim they are, they are lying to you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    2 months ago
So why ask when you knew the answer?

I wasn't asking who allowed it. I was asking why it needs to be there. "Because Congress said so" is not really an answer.

Did the Founding Fathers intend for women to have the right to vote, or for slavery to be illegal? Like I said---immaterial.

Also a false equivalency. 

No, and snowflakes are perfectly free to whine and bitch about it all they want.

No doubt the other side of the issue would do the same if things were reversed.

No one is hurt. If they claim they are, they are lying to you.

How do you know? What makes you qualified to determine the validity of such a claim?

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.3    2 months ago
The Founders certainly didn’t opposeit

Funny how we don't see god mentioned in the Constitution nor was god originally included in the Pledge or on the currency. Now why do you suppose that is?

One of the first laws passed by the Congress was to establish paid chaplains who open each day's session in both the House and Senate with prayer. We have never had a non Christian chaplain appointed to that. We’ve never had a day of Congress in session without prayer.

And some of the Founding Fathers also took issue with that too. Of course, if a non-Christian wanted to acquire such a position, they could not be refused based on their religious affiliation alone either.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.5    2 months ago
How do you know? What makes you qualified to determine the validity of such a claim?

Common sense.

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.7    2 months ago
Common sense.

Usually in claims of injury or harm, medical and legal experts can determine what harm occurred and/or how it impacted someone. I would think that carries more weight in a court than what you deem "common sense.".

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.8    2 months ago

If you can make a case for injury or harm, then do it.

I surely didn't expect everyone to get the common sense part, and obviously with good reason.

I defy you to tell me how someone is injured or harmed by the words "In God We Trust" on money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.8    2 months ago

If you can show me someone injured or harmed by those four little words on money, I'll show you a snowflake!

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.9    2 months ago

I'm not the one making any claims of personal harm or injury. You're the one making the unilateral statement that no one is harmed. You simply do not know that with absolute certainty. If someone does claim harm, then they have to demonstrate it. Hence the aforementioned necessary medical and legal expertise and consultation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.11    2 months ago

Okay, so you think it is possible that someone could be harmed or injured by 4 words on money.

All I want to know is how that would occur.

If you don't know, then I will gladly stand by my statement that no one is injured or harmed by 4 words on money.

The very idea of that is preposterous.

Is THAT why you believe it possible?

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.12    2 months ago
All I want to know is how that would occur.

Apparently whoever was so bent over this that they took it court couldn't explain it either.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.3    2 months ago
The Founders certainly didn’t opposeit

They didn't oppose it, because it didn't exist. It wasn't in use until the Civil War and wasn't ratified by Congress as the motto until 1956. The founders used  “E Pluribus Unum” and put it on the Great Seal. In fact the committee to design the Great Seal with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson tossed out various theistic ideas. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.14    2 months ago

In response to the 'Red Scare' - the Russkies are coming, the Russkies are coming!!!!!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    2 months ago
So someone has to be hurt

anyone hurt by a word on our money needs to be hurt like that a whole lot more. 

it will toughen up their skin. make them a stronger person.

we don't placate every emotionally challenged person in this country and change things just because a few people get butthurt over a word.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.17  livefreeordie  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.14    2 months ago

You misstate my point.  The Founders had no issue with the government acknowledging God and His supremacy over our lives.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.17    2 months ago

That is true, LFOD, but they also chose not to use it. They must have had their reasons. 

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but let's not pretend that this was part of their vision. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.1.16    2 months ago

That's not really for you to decide, now is it? 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.20  livefreeordie  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.18    2 months ago

I made no statement or suggestion that they had this as part of their vision.  I simply stated what is fact. The Founders had no issue with the acknowledgment of God.  That doesn’t equate to a mandating of that acknowledgment 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.20    2 months ago
 That doesn’t equate to a mandating of that acknowledgment 

Exactly! Which is why there are opponents to having it on our money. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.22  evilgenius  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.17    2 months ago
The Founders had no issue with the government acknowledging God and His supremacy over our lives.

The Founders were largely Deists. Deist believe there was a creator, but asserted that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of the universe. Jefferson himself rewrote the Bible removing the miracles including the immaculate conception and resurrection of Christ. They were physiological free thinkers not theologians.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.1.23  livefreeordie  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.22    2 months ago

That is revisionist history from anti-Christian historians

https://americanvision.org/2971/were-the-founders-deists/

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.24  evilgenius  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.23    2 months ago
That is revisionist history from anti-Christian historians

I think we are done here. Posting a link to an ultra-conservative religious website would be an example of confirmation bias.

 
 
 
epistte
8.1.25  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.17    2 months ago
You misstate my point.  The Founders had no issue with the government acknowledging God and His supremacy over our lives.

I doubt that you want to go there,

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”


Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Thomas Jefferson

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.1.26  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.23    2 months ago

The only revisionist history presented comes from those claiming the U.S. is a "Christian nation" or was founded on Christianity,  god, the bible, or other similar and factually incorrect claims.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.1.27  pat wilson  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.3    2 months ago

800

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.28  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  pat wilson @8.1.27    2 months ago

and that would be why the "clergy do not make laws for our nation. 

but we all still have freedom of religion. including politicians.

if the vast majority rules?  we are still a christian nation.  for now... LOL

with 75% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2015.

but times, they are a changing... LOL

cheers :)

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  livefreeordie @8.1.3    2 months ago

Great post.  Thanks for putting it in here on my seed.  It’s right on.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1.30  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.10    2 months ago

🌨🌨❄️❄️❄️🌨🌨❄️❄️🌈🌨❄️

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.31  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.2    2 months ago
So someone has to be hurt in order for something to be considered wrong or questionable?

feelings do not count. we don't change things just to protect the butthurt.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @8    2 months ago
What are they so scared of?

You might get Jesus cooties on you.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @8.2    2 months ago

God is interpretive. Many religions believe in "God" without Jesus. 

 
 
 
devangelical
8.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.1    2 months ago
Many religions believe in "God" without Jesus

I wonder what kind of afterlife those people can expect. maybe some NT evangelicals can let us know.

to the topic -

I'm for the strict separation of church and state per the US Constitution. after almost 250 years of official wink and nod bias towards the dominant religion has gotten us where we are today. society being terrorized by fringe activist segments of that religion intent on imposing their versions on everyone else. they bring nothing to the banquet, yet demand a seat at the table and a voice at the dais. IOW, get that bible bs off my money.   

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.1    2 months ago

So, what you're saying is people are going to need more than just one cootie shot.

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.4  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @8.2    2 months ago
You might get Jesus cooties on you.

I'm always wearing my cootie protector diamond ring, so that isn't a problem. 

It is that pesky concept of separation of church and state that is at issue. Religion and the government are to be kept separate for the protection and freedom of all people. 

Why should a reference to the Christian god be on our currency?  Why not FSM, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, or Horus? maybe instead we should keep all religious reference off of our money and just use E. Pluribus Unum instead.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @8.2.4    2 months ago
for the protection and freedom of all people

Protection from what? A word? How does the word "God" on the money inhibit anyone's freedom?

Why not FSM, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, or Horus?

Go for it. Maybe you can lobby Congress for it. There's already a pyramid and an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. Egyptian religious symbols don't seem to bother you.

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.6  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.5    2 months ago
Protection from what? A word? How does the word "God" on the money inhibit anyone's freedom?

It is a state endorsement of religious belief and of one religion in particular. It may seem minor but it is still a violation of the separation of church and state. What would be changed or harmed by removing it? 

Why should a religious reference be on the money and part of the pledge when both were added much later and are not original or necessary?

Go for it. Maybe you can lobby Congress for it. There's already a pyramid and an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. Egyptian religious symbols don't seem to bother you.

That is Masonic symbolism and should also be removed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @8.2.6    2 months ago
Why should a religious reference be on the money and part of the pledge when both were added much later and are not original or necessary?

The justices rejected that argument.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.5    2 months ago
Protection from what? A word? How does the word "God" on the money inhibit anyone's freedom?

Come on, dude, you know how harmful the words "In God We Trust" are!

Oh, wait--you aren't a snowflake and probably won't be having kittens over words on money that have been there probably your whole life or damn near it.

Go for it. Maybe you can lobby Congress for it. There's already a pyramid and an all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. Egyptian religious symbols don't seem to bother you.

Oh gosh, now you just opened up another can of worms. Surely someone will go apeshit over those too, right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @8.2.2    2 months ago

Has the words being on our money caused you very much strife in your life?

Is it something you actually think about every time you handle money?

Have you ever met someone who was coerced by the government into joining any religion?

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.10  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.7    2 months ago
The justices rejected that argument.

What then is the purpose of having a religious expression on our currency, especially when there is no supporting evidence of that or any other religious deity existing?

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @8.2.6    2 months ago
It is a state endorsement of religious belief

Maybe. So what. You said there was harm. Your statement is not evidence of that. You said people needed to be protected. You haven't supported that statement.

and of one religion in particular.

Which religion is that?

Why should a religious reference be on the money and part of the pledge

Because people want those things there. That's how government of, by, and for the people works.

not original or necessary

So what? Most of the things we encounter in life are neither original nor necessary. That doesn't mean they must go away.

That is Masonic symbolism

Who cares what the symbolism is?

should also be removed

Why? I like it there. People like pyramids. They're neat.

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.12  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.11    2 months ago
Maybe. So what. You said there was harm. Your statement is not evidence of that. You said people needed to be protected. You haven't supported that statement.

It matters greatly because religion and the state are to be kept secular. You don't have a problem because it is your religion that is being endorsed. 

Which religion is that?

Don't be dense because you know very well that it is the Christian religion 

Because people want those things there. That's how government of, by, and for the people works.

The Bill of Rights is not to be ignored by popular opinion or vote. Those 10 ideas are not merely a suggestion.

So what? Most of the things we encounter in life are neither original nor necessary. That doesn't mean they must go away.

What is gained by doing it that is worth ignoring the 1st Amdnement?

Who cares what the symbolism is?

It matters. It is a visual statement of support. 

Why? I like it there. People like pyramids. They're neat.

Then buy a few acres and build your own.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @8.2.12    2 months ago
It matters greatly because religion and the state are to be kept secular

Religion is to be kept secular? I'm going to assume that's a typo.

Anyway, as I have said elsewhere, don't just cite the rule and call it a day. That's lazy. Don't come in here with "buh buh buh church and state." You said people had to be protected. You mentioned harm. You have been asked to show where the harm is, and all you respond with is something about church and state. Where is the harm?

you know very well that it is the Christian religion

Really?! Because in @6.5.9 and @6.5.18 you seem to be arguing that it's some "Deist" God and not the God of Christian religion.

And anyway, how would someone just looking at the dollar bill "know" - based on the evidence in their hand - that "God" was specifically a Christian reference?

It matters greatly because religion and the state are to be kept secular

The Bill of Rights is not to be ignored by popular opinion or vote.

Another fact not tied to an argument. The Bill of Rights is not being ignored. Guess that settles that.

What is gained

Makes people happy. We do a lot of things for just that reason.

ignoring the 1st Amdnement

The 1st Amendment is just fine.

It is a visual statement of support

So? We support lots of things.

Then buy a few acres and build your own.

That's pretty stupid. Don't troll me or we're done.

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.2.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.1    2 months ago

But for about 2000 years now none can come to the Father except through His Son.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.2.15  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @8.2.4    2 months ago

Out of many. One.  One nation, under God, indivisible...

 
 
 
Gordy327
8.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @8.2.15    2 months ago
Out of many. One.

The original motto as put forth by the Founding Fathers.

One nation, under God, indivisible...

Altered in the 1950's. It was originally: One nation, indivisible...

But for about 2000 years now none can come to the Father except through His Son.

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.17  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @8.2.15    2 months ago
Out of many.

That is the phrase that should appear on our currency.

One.  One nation, under God, indivisible...

This cannot be true because there is no evidence to support the claim that a sentient religious creator exists.

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.18  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @8.2.14    2 months ago
But for about 2000 years now none can come to the Father except through His Son.  

That is an unsupported religious belief. Religion and the state are to be kept absolutely separate.

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.2.19  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @8.2.18    2 months ago

This isn’t the state and I wasn’t addressing the state.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.2.20  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @8.2.17    2 months ago

It is true and we pledge allegiance to our flag and country under Him.  

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.21  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @8.2.20    2 months ago
It is true and we pledge allegiance to our flag and country under Him.  

How can we have a country under god when you cannot put forth any evidence that your god exists? Belief isn't the same as proof and you have been told this countless times by numerous people.  A child believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny does not mean that they actually exist. It only means that they do not understand the most basic concepts of logic.   Your religious belief does not constitute proof or even evidence, but is an admission of a lack of logical thought and instead of a preference for emotions. 

I will never pledge allegiance to a country, a flag, or a myth.

I have no gods and no masters. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.2.22  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @8.2.21    2 months ago

You have no allegiance to America?  

 
 
 
epistte
8.2.23  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @8.2.22    2 months ago
You have no allegiance to America?  

Why should I when politicians and judges can be bought or sold by private interests? I will defend our rights in the Constitution and other people of a society but I will not pledge allegiance to a government.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
9  Tessylo    2 months ago

Vehemently?

Scared of?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @9    2 months ago
Vehemently?
Scared of?

What part do you need explained?

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    2 months ago

Good question.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @9.1.1    2 months ago

No it's not, it's stupid.  

I don't vehemently oppose it.

I'm not scared of it.  

Again, it's stupid.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.2    2 months ago

The only stupid is the opposition to our national mottos on our national currency.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
9.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Heartland American @9.1.3    2 months ago
The only stupid is the opposition to our national mottos on our national currency.  

"In God we trust" was used first used during the Civil War and only ratified as THE national motto in 1956. Until then our de facto motto was “E Pluribus Unum” (“from many, one”) that was put on the Great Seal by the original Congress in 1782. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were tasked with designing a seal and motto almost immediately after signing the Declaration. 

In the 1770s and ’80s Congress opposed a theistic motto for the nation and the choices below were rejected.

  • “Choice of Hercules”
  • “Moses lifting up his Wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh, in his Chariot overwhelmed with the Waters.”
  • “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

Only “E Pluribus Unum” was agreed on and survived the committee.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @9.1.4    2 months ago
The only stupid is the opposition to our national mottos on our national currency.
"In God we trust" was used first used during the Civil War and only ratified as THE national motto in 1956.

So he was correct. People are opposed to the national motto being on money.

For some strange reason. It has been on there for the majority of all of our lives if not our entire lives, and for decades, no big deal. No one was forced by govt. to join any religion, no religion was granted anything special or unique.

People are getting their panties all twisted up over basically nothing.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @9.1.4    2 months ago

Mottos can change. I think we should go with "Needz moar bacon!"

The internet style spelling is particularly apropos of our times and the value of adding bacon is, of course, timeless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.6    2 months ago
Mottos can change. I think we should go with "Needz moar bacon!"

Oh, gosh, no!

WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE WILL BE FAUX-OFFENDED OVER THAT!

Think of the religions who don't allow the eating of pork, think of the vegans, think of the toothless!

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    2 months ago
Think of the religions who don't allow the eating of pork, think of the vegans, think of the toothless!

Hmm. You're right of course. I hadn't thought of that. Clearly, my Pork Privilege is showing. I need to get woke.

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.9  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.5    2 months ago

Isn’t it amazing how bent over and butt hurt some are that their side lost this case before the US Supreme Court.  They are just upset that printed posters of the national motto with or without US Currency and of our flag with the words of the current pledge are being put up in our schools in many not so urban school districts and it’s virtually impossible for the bigot hate group FFRF to threaten to sue a school over such displays.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.10  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @9.1.9    2 months ago

The real bottom line of secular opposition to the motto and the pledge.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.11  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.8    2 months ago

It’s true that Jews,Muslims, and some Christians don’t eat pork or other creatures mentioned.  

 
 
 
epistte
9.1.12  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.6    2 months ago
Mottos can change. I think we should go with "Needz moar bacon!" The internet style spelling is particularly apropos of our times and the value of adding bacon is, of course, timeless.

Bacon is overrated 99.5% of the time. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10  The Magic Eight Ball    2 months ago

if a word... any word hurts you?

you will have a miserable life.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10    2 months ago

How stupid.  The word(s) don't hurt.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10    2 months ago
if a word... any word hurts you?

I take it you'd be fine and vote to just leave it as it is if some group of religious conservatives had forced "In Allah We Trust" onto our money back in the 1950's? I'm not saying those words would hurt anyone, but they certainly don't belong on our currency.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2    2 months ago
if some group of religious conservatives had forced "In Allah We Trust" onto our money back in the 1950's?

this is a christian nation so the chances of that? were always ZERO

go talk to your imagination elsewhere... fantasy bores me.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.1    2 months ago
this is a christian nation so the chances of that? were always ZERO

A "Christian Nation" you say? Where does it say that in the constitution? I recall the constitution explicitly stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." so it would be quite a revelation if you can show where in the constitution it states we are a "Christian Nation".

In fact, in the original 1796 treaty of Tripoli stated "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.". And yes, I've heard all the tired ridiculous excuses as for why that shouldn't be binding and that it was later removed from the treaty, but it still remains, our founders did express that sentiment 223 years ago and completely left out any mention of the United States being any sort of "Christian Nation" from the constitution.

You asked if "any words hurt you", I didn't realize you only meant "any 'Christian' words", as it appears you would, in fact, be against "In Allah We Trust" emblazoned on our money.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2.2    2 months ago
A "Christian Nation" you say?

yepp.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

the document you speak of is derived from the notions contained in the declaration of independence. our "original founding document... try reading that.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

and when you do read it...

 the words "natures god" and the words "their creator" are not talking about the govt or our parents... LOL

 
 
 
epistte
10.2.4  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.3    2 months ago
the words "natures god" and the words "their creator" are not talking about the govt or our parents... LOL

Do these ideas sound familiar? Jesus, god, and Christian are never mentioned. 

Deism – Enlightened Emptiness
Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision. Deism believes that precise and unvarying laws define the universe as self-operating and self-explanatory. These laws reveal themselves through “the light of reason and nature.” Reliance on the power of reasoning exchanges faith for human logic. Here are some examples of deist reasoning:

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.1    2 months ago

Demonstrably false!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.3    2 months ago
the document you speak of is derived from the notions

Along with many "notions" from other secular sources, but they intentionally left out any mention of Christianity.

the words "natures god" and the words "their creator" are not talking about the govt or our parents... LOL

That's hilarious. That's the best you can do to claim we're a "Christian nation"? To claim in another document, not our constitution, it says "natures God" and "creator" and you jump to "That proves it! Christian Nation! See, right there, ah ha...". I feel like I should look around for the hidden cameras because you can't be serious. It's beyond absurd.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2    2 months ago
if some group of religious conservatives had forced "In Allah We Trust" onto our money back in the 1950's?

Is this Saudi Arabia? If it were, or some other country steeped in Muslim culture, I would totally understand and never complain.

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.8  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.1    2 months ago
this is a christian nation

No, what a ridiculous thing to say.  Not true. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @10.2.8    2 months ago
Not true.

yer funny...

 75% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2015.

that my friend is what a christian nation looks like.

but, true enough. our country is becoming less christian as time goes on.

then again, past trends are not always indicative of future trends.

and maybe people just stopped admitting they are christians out loud?

who knows... LOL  people are weird like that ya know

cheers :)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.9    2 months ago
that my friend is what a christian nation looks like.

Nope. That's what a nation of Christians looks like. A Christian Nation is one where the Christian religion is the established government religion and the laws are made for Christians by Christians catering to biblical beliefs and traditions. It would look something like a Christian version of Iran, which is sadly what some worthless pieces of trash religious zealots desire, but it's never going to happen here because our founders were smart enough to ban any establishment of religion. This wasn't by accident, they had come from England and Europe and knew very well the how the whore of Babylon worked and chose to keep that bullshit out of their laws, thank goodness.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2.10    2 months ago
That's what a nation of Christians looks like.

if you walk in a bar and 75% of the people there are gay

guess what... you are in a gay bar. (not that there is anything wrong with that)

as 75% of our population is christian.

guess what... you are-in a christian nation.  (not that there is anything wrong with that)

cheers :)

 
 
 
Heartland American
10.2.12  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.11    2 months ago

Well said.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Heartland American @10.2.12    2 months ago

I think some confuse the term " christian nation" with the term " theocracy" 

I blame bush and the every child left behind act for the confusion here... 

cheers :)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.11    2 months ago
if you walk in a bar and 75% of the people there are gay guess what... you are in a gay bar.

Total nonsense. I guess that would be an easy mistake to make for someone who doesn't get out much or is an incel staying home 24/7 imagining what other people do at bars, fantasizing about gay sex, but there are many clubs and bars where gay Americans frequent that aren't "gay bars". They are just regular people who enjoy a night out just like anyone else. If the club or bar isn't catering to the gay community or advertise themselves as a gay bar, then they're just a bar regardless of whether a group of eight lgtbq friends walk in when there's only two other people in the bar (that's over 75% if you're not all that good at math). I guess if it was your bar you'd kick out the group of gay Americans so as to keep from being mistaken as a gay bar then, right?

America is for all, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. It's not a Christian Nation no matter how much some sick fucks want it to be. 

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.15  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @10.2.9    2 months ago

No, there may be Americans that identify as christian, but that is not a christian nation.  It is a christian IN a nation.  Majority or not.  And how christian is christian?  Because their parents were, did they just tick the box?    This is why its so important to define what you mean by 'christian nation'.  Now you are just trying to say more identify as christians with no context.    Not the same thing.   Doesn't make a 'christian nation' by my definition. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
10.2.16  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2.14    2 months ago
Total nonsense.

no not really, but this conversation as a whole is total nonsense.

there is a difference between a "christian nation and a "christian theocracy.

one is a nation populated by christians and the other is a nation where god is the leader and controls all laws thru some supposed divinely inspired human we might call clergy or priest.

if you still do not know which is which go here. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

without that distinction between govt or population we are talking about two different things. how could we possibly ever agree?  

  • if one goes by form of govt? yes this is not a christian nation
  • if one goes by population in the bar?  yes this is still a christian nation.

personally, I think the hard left is simply offended that the word christian is being used at all. I reckon as the left can not even handle the word god on the dollar bill, having the word christian associated with their country must seriously hurt like hell/  

and i'm done playing racquetball on this issue. so, gone for the night

cheers :)

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
11  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 months ago

The solution is to take the quarter and hold it in your hand while using your thumb to rub off the in god we trust. According to the manufacture of tootsie pops it takes 364 licks to get to the tootsie roll.

Start rubbing, let us know how many it takes.

 
 
 
Ender
12  Ender    2 months ago

I think it is fitting. To a lot of people, money is god.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @12    2 months ago
To a lot of people, money is god.

Well played, and accurate. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
12.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @12.1    2 months ago

The love of money is the root of all evil.  Those who put their love of money or anything else above their relationship with God make that their god instead.  

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.2  lib50  replied to  Heartland American @12.1.1    2 months ago

Do you realize you are describing Trump?  And why we are calling out the hypocrisy and acceptance of things in opposition to that statement?  In fact, you describe the gop and conservatives, who always use money as a measure of most importance.  Look at Trump's lies and character, all against christianity.  Yet we hear from evangelicals and other gopers 'but we got our tax cuts, look at the money', 'preachers need more money for that private jet',  success is measured in money.   How could you miss that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
12.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @12.1.1    2 months ago

At least money is tangible and more practical. 

 
 
 
charger 383
13  charger 383    2 months ago

Does "in God we trust" on money mean that God is guaranteeing that our money will always be good?    

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
13.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 months ago

I thought it means in God we trust all others pay cash. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.2  Tacos!  replied to  charger 383 @13    2 months ago
Does "in God we trust" on money mean that God is guaranteeing that our money will always be good?

Maybe it should say "In raising the debt ceiling we trust."

 
 
 
epistte
13.2.1  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @13.2    2 months ago
Maybe it should say "In raising the debt ceiling we trust."

Or we could abandon the idea of failed supply-side economics and go back to a rational tax system instead if giving millionaires, billionaires and corporations a pass on their taxes.  

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Republican so we could return to his tax numbers.

 
 
 
Heartland American
13.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @13.2.1    2 months ago

Or we could repeal the 16th amendment and return to the gold or at least go to a silver standard.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
13.2.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @13.2.1    2 months ago

His tax numbers were inherited from FDR and neither he nor Truman changed them.  It took a Democrat named Kennedy to realize change was needed.  Also the 1986 law eliminates a lot of loopholes and deductions in exchange for lower rates.  Are you prepared to bring back all those loopholes too along with FDR’s rate?  

 
 
 
lib50
14  lib50    2 months ago

If one is secure in their faith, they don't need to go out and push it on to the world.  Live and speak those ideals, show the kind of person you are.  People will be attracted to that loving goodness.  Which was supposedly the basis for religion in the first place.   Forcing others to acknowledge or accept a personal belief is not right.  I don't really care about the words on money, what I care about is the intent of those who feels so strongly they need to make everybody go along with their insecurities.  It's more of 'look at me, I wear the flag pin' (or I support the unnecessary inclusion of putting god in government).  Like bragging, if you need to show it off,  you don't really have it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
15  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

They should have just argued that a belief in "god" is childish as fuck and we as a nation should be better than that. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @15    2 months ago

Well Thrawn, you know some children have a hard time letting go of their imaginary friends.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1    2 months ago

Is the Supreme Court composed of children?  

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.2  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.1    2 months ago
Is the Supreme Court composed of children?  

Some adults never mature emotionally and fully examine what they have been told as children. That is what Socrates is referring in his quote The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living. We are not meant to go through life mindless of our surroundings and our beliefs. This idea of questioning what you have been told and how the truth looks when you have believed myths is also referenced in the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. 

The idea of nobility suggests elevation of the few over the ignoble many, which is why if you scratch many a noble ideal you can sniff the unmistakable aroma of elitism. The ideal of the examined life is noble for precisely this reason. It sounds unobjectionable: an encouragement to be fully human, to use our highly developed faculty of thought to raise our existence above that of mere beasts. For if we don't think, we are no more than animals, simply eating, sleeping, working and procreating. And though it may be a bit strong to say such lives are not worth living, all but a minority of ethical vegetarians would agree that they are much less valuable than fully human ones.
 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.2    2 months ago
That is what Socrates is referring in his quote

Socrates? You believe Socrates existed? Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Socrates?

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.4  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.3    2 months ago
Socrates? You believe Socrates existed? Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Socrates?

We know for a fact that he did. He was born in 470BC and died in 399 BCE. We have his writings that were preserved by followers and we know what he looked like. 

http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/People/Socrates/

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.4    2 months ago
We know for a fact that he did

Prove it. Preferably with your vaunted "empirical" evidence. I don't think you know what that word means.

He was born in 470BC and died in 399 BCE

Yeah? Where's the body?

We have his writings

We have no such thing. You clearly know very little about Socrates. There are no writings extant attributed to Socrates. Not one. What we have are writings attributed to his alleged students, like Plato. And the oldest fragments of manuscripts of Plato's writings that we have are from six or seven hundred years after he supposedly died. Full manuscripts are separated by 1300 years from his death. So, even the ordinary historical evidence for Jesus is superior to that of Socrates or any of his students.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.6  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.5    2 months ago
We have no such thing. You clearly know very little about Socrates. There are no writings extant attributed to Socrates. Not one. What we have are writings attributed to his alleged students, like Plato. And the oldest fragments of manuscripts of Plato's writings that we have are from six or seven hundred years after he supposedly died. Full manuscripts are separated by 1300 years from his death. So, even the ordinary historical evidence for Jesus is superior to that of Socrates or any of his students.

Are you claiming that Socrates did not exist and is a mythical Greek figure? Plato as a contemporary and a student of Socrates.  We have the writing of Diogenes Laërtius to support this. 

 There are no first-person accounts of Jesus. The Gospels come 2-3 generations later.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.6    2 months ago
Are you claiming that Socrates did not exist and is a mythical Greek figure?

Ask yourself that question. Did I make that claim or are you playing the idiotic "so what you're saying is . . . " game? You're the one making claims you can't support.

I see goalposts moving again. You said we had the writings of Socrates. What happened to that? Where is your empirical evidence for any of these people?

There are no first-person accounts of Jesus.

That's not true either. Your miseducation on Jesus is shocking. Like I said: hit Google. Get educated.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.8  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.7    2 months ago
That's not true either. Your miseducation on Jesus is shocking. Like I said: hit Google. Get educated.

What sources are you referring to that have 3rd party non-religious evidence that supports the existence of Jesus? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.1    2 months ago
Is the Supreme Court composed of children?  

More like child-like mentality on some things. Believing imaginary things is rather childish.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.10  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.9    2 months ago

So 75+% of American adults are rather childish in your opinion?  

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.11  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.10    2 months ago
So 75+% of American adults are rather childish in your opinion?  

Would you be less opposed to that idea if it was rephrased as 70% of Americans views on religion are not based in logic and cannot be supported with facts?

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.10    2 months ago
So 75+% of American adults are rather childish in your opinion?  

Yeah, pretty much. If anything, that's probably a rather conservative estimate. I wouldn't limit that to just Americans either. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @15.1.11    2 months ago
Would you be less opposed to that idea if it was rephrased as 70% of Americans views on religion are not based in logic and cannot be supported with facts?

That's a nice way of putting it. It's too bad I'm not as eloquent as you epistte. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @15.1.11    2 months ago

Who cares? We know that we believe by faith and will be saved by grace through that faith. The people demanding proof will get none until they see the second coming with their own eyes.  Others will accept as “proof” the fraud of the great deceiver who will try to present himself as proof God exists.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.15  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.12    2 months ago

Because you and your secularist friends appointed themselves to sit in judgement over our beliefs and relationship with God? 

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.16  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.15    2 months ago
Because you and your secularist friends appointed themselves to sit in judgement over our beliefs and relationship with God? 

You're giving us far too much credit because we cannot manage to get people elected in a party primary but apparently, you are convinced that we sit in the final judgment (that we do not believe in, which is a feat of its own) of 70% of the population. I only wish that we had the organizational ability. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.14    2 months ago
We know that we believe by faith and will be saved by grace through that faith.

Key word there is "believe," as in that's all it is and nothing more!

The people demanding proof will get none until they see the second coming with their own eyes.

Until then, there's no reason to accept any empty claims.

 Others will accept as “proof” the fraud of the great deceiver who will try to present himself as proof God exists.  

What "proof" would that be? Presenting oneself as a god is also a baseless claim, as well as delusional. 

Because you and your secularist friends appointed themselves to sit in judgement over our beliefs and relationship with God?

Your paranoia is showing again. Sounds like quite the conspiracy theory too, and I've heard a few doozies in my time. Although, that does make me wonder: what makes you think your beliefs, and especially the claims based on nothing more than those beliefs, are free from challenge or scrutiny? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.8    2 months ago
What sources are you referring to that have 3rd party non-religious evidence that supports the existence of Jesus?

I'll give you two, which is more than you deserve.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, writing near 100AD: Confirms Jesus was executed by a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate, that Christianity originated in Judea, and Christianity was significant enough to be persecuted by Nero in the 60s AD.

Lucien, a mid 1st century Greek author: Confirms that Christians exist and worship a man who was crucified, understands that Christians consider themselves brothers because of the teachings of “their lawgiver,” they worship this leader as God, they believe in eternal life, and they held their property in common to meet the needs of the poor.

Those are both 3rd party, non religious sources that are perfectly valid historical evidence of Jesus and his earliest followers. Both are superior in their closeness in time to anything we have for Socrates, and they are sources that aren't trying sell anyone on Jesus as students of Socrates might have been. i.e. they are, at worst neutral sources, maybe even someone hostile. Yet no one goes around saying we have "no evidence" for Socrates.

You said there was NO EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed. So, you don't get even to get to judge the quality of these sources (even though they're pretty damned good) like I know you want to. They are both evidence of the existence of Jesus. I could give you more if I thought you'd have even the slightest bit of respect for it. I'm not even posting these for you. I'm doing it for open minded people who might actually be interested.

And, in case anyone is wondering, I know of several more sources, which I will be happy to share.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.19  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.18    2 months ago
Tacitus, a Roman historian, writing near 100AD: Confirms Jesus was executed by a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate, that Christianity originated in Judea, and Christianity was significant enough to be persecuted by Nero in the 60s AD.
Lucien, a mid 1st century Greek author: Confirms that Christians exist and worship a man who was crucified, understands that Christians consider themselves brothers because of the teachings of “their lawgiver,” they worship this leader as God, they believe in eternal life, and they held their property in common to meet the needs of the poor.

Both are second-hand knowledge because neither of these men ever met Jesus.

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.19    2 months ago

So what? That's how history works - particularly ancient history. You said you wanted it to be someone non-religious but the people who met him tended to believe. 

Are you suggesting that Tacitus was lying? Are you suggesting that his knowledge of Pontius Pilate and the execution of Jesus was somehow faked? That he somehow got that information by reading a Bible?

You said there was NO EVIDENCE that Jesus EVER existed. You keep trying to move the goal posts. You don't have the integrity to admit that what you said was 100% wrong. You are totally dishonest in these discussions. I knew the effort was wasted on you and you only confirmed it.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.21  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.20    2 months ago

You are 100% correct in every word you wrote in that post.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.20    2 months ago

Apparently Gauis Marius, seven time counsel of Rome, who was the most  powerful man in the world around 100 B.C., didn't really exist because their is no surviving  contemporary documentation of his life. It's all second hand....

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.23  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.20    2 months ago
So what? That's how history works - particularly ancient history. You said you wanted it to be someone non-religious but the people who met him tended to believe. 

Are you suggesting that Tacitus was lying? Are you suggesting that his knowledge of Pontius Pilate and the execution of Jesus was somehow faked? That he somehow got that information by reading a Bible?

You said there was NO EVIDENCE that Jesus EVER existed. You keep trying to move the goal posts. You don't have the integrity to admit that what you said was 100% wrong. You are totally dishonest in these discussions. I knew the effort was wasted on you and you only confirmed it.

Jesus as the son of God never existed. The story likely began with an itinerant radical Jewish minister who got himself killed by both the Jewish religious authorities and the Roman political power because of his radical ideas. The story was fleshed out after that point to become the son of god with the addition of a virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection.   

Jesus as the son of God was a creation of the Romans.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.24  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.22    2 months ago
Apparently Gauis Marius, seven time counsel of Rome, who was the most  powerful man in the world around 100 B.C., didn't really exist because their is no surviving  contemporary documentation of his life. It's all second hand....

We knew what he did, when he was born, when he died and what his actual name was, unlike Jesus.  Jesus the son of God is a religious myth. 

https://www.ancient.eu/Gaius_Marius/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.24    2 months ago

We don’t know when marius was born. Did you read your own link?

he was the most famous and the most powerful man in the world yet there are no first hand sources surviving. All the sources that survived are second hand, some from centuries later.

to claim that Because  their is no “first hand” proof of a provincial preacher from that era that survived  as proof of anything is idiotic.  Almost nothing survives.

It always amazes me how zealots are quick to throw reason and common sense out the window in their crusade to claim that Jesus as a historical figure never existed. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.23    2 months ago

[deleted]

You can't admit what you wrote. You make claims that are easily disproved (like your claim that we have the writings of Socrates). You make a lot of proud declarations about ancient history, but it's abundantly clear you have no idea what you're talking about. All you have is your militant atheist bias and when facts get in the way, you start dancing around.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.26    2 months ago

The existence of a real human being who was crucified because of his public statements around ~30AD and was the basis for what eventually became Christianity is certainly plausible.   I doubt that anyone would have problem with that since it is not uncommon to have charismatic people making claims and gaining a following.    

Biblical scholars are a bit divided on the historicity of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth but many are indeed satisfied that such a person (or even persons) most likely did exist.   See Dr. Bart Ehrman for a prime example of the Jesus most likely did exist camp and Dr. Richard Carrier who offers that the odds that there was a single figure is about 1 in 3.

There is hardly any information to go on to verify that the biblical Jesus of Nazereth actually existed,  but if one is merely speculating on the likely existence of a charismatic human being whose life and violent death inspired Christianity, this is not too extraordinary.    Similarly with Socrates.   It is not so extraordinary for Plato to have had a teacher who he described, chronicled and named.   In both cases (Jesus the human being and Socrates) the level of evidence required to satisfy the claim is rather low.

Now, move to the claim that Jesus is the Son of God, performed great miracles, died, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven to resume His hypostasis role.   Here we have one of the most extraordinary and influential claims in history.   The level of evidence required to support such a claim is rather high.   Much higher than that which is required to support the claim of a charismatic human being.


To wit, maybe you and epistte should clarify what you mean by 'Jesus'.    Are you talking about a human being who wound up being the historical seed for Christianity?   Or are you talking about God in human form and all that comes with it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.27    2 months ago
To wit, maybe you and epistte should clarify what you mean by 'Jesus'

I don't have to clarify anything. I wasn't even talking about Jesus. She said there is no evidence that he ever existed. I had to call BS.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @15.1.23    2 months ago

A creation of the Romans? jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif 

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.30  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.29    2 months ago
A creation of the Romans?

The 1st-century man who would become Jesus of the Bible was likely a religious martyr because he was a radical, but he wasn't claimed to be the son of god. With time the official story was embellished by Rome with a virgin birth, him performing miracles and resurrection after the cruxifiction as the followers of "Jesus" become a more populous offshoot of Judaism.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.28    2 months ago
She said there is no evidence that he ever existed. 

I could not find where she made the claim, but it makes a big difference if by 'Jesus' epistte meant:

1. A charismatic human being (or beings) who was put to death for his public statements and in so doing inspired Christianity.

-or-

2.  God in human form and all that comes with it (the divine hypostasis who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven).

If epistte is using 'Jesus' in reference to the divine hypostasis [2] and you are simply referencing an historical human being [1] then you are talking past each other. 


Addendum:   The claim using Jesus [1] requires relative little supporting evidence.    The claim using Jesus [2], in contrast, requires very high quality evidence given how extraordinary the claim.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.32  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.31    2 months ago

I said that Jesus as the son of god and the person described in the 4 gospels never existed.  Jesus as a charasmatic human being likely did exist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @15.1.32    2 months ago

I agree that the claim of Jesus (the Son hypostasis described in the Bible) has no supporting evidence.   It is, currently, merely a claim made by the Bible.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.30    2 months ago

By "Rome?!"

You know Rome was persecuting Christianity almost from its inception, right? Is this what people believe now?   Its truly amazing what the fringe believes..Rome created Christianity to spend its energy persecuting it?

There are history books on the 1st Century available.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.35  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.34    2 months ago
By "Rome?!"

You know Rome was persecuting Christianity almost from its inception, right? Is this what people believe now?   Its truly amazing what the fringe believes..Rome created Christianity to spend its energy persecuting it?

There are history books on the 1st Century available.

By the 3rd century, Rome found a way to make the Christians both useful and governable when Constantine made Christianity a permissible religion of the Roman empire. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.35    2 months ago

Yes, hundreds of years later the Empire made its peace with Christianity. But the core christian beliefs were already in place by then.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.37  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.36    2 months ago
Yes, hundreds of years later the Empire made its peace with Christianity. But the core christian beliefs were already in place by then.

They were not in agreement with Jesus as the son of god.

Most general Bible readers have the mistaken impression that Matthew, the opening book of the New Testament, must be our first and earliest Gospel, with Mark, Luke and John following. The assumption is that this order of the Gospels is a chronological one, when in fact it is a theological one. Scholars and historians are almost universally agreed that Mark is our earliest Gospel–by several decades, and this insight turns out to have profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story” and how it was passed down to us in our New Testament Gospel traditions.

The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.

He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.37    2 months ago

You seem to be forgetting the other Gospels, and pretty much all the New Testament were written Before the reign of Constantine. Singling out mark  while ignoring everything else written around that time makes no sense.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.39  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.38    2 months ago
You seem to be forgetting the other Gospels, and pretty much all the New Testament were written Before the reign of Constantine. Singling out mark  while ignoring everything else written around that time makes no sense.

I am saying that they are not in agreement and since Mark was the earliest it should be taken as a hint.

 I understand that you want to believe in Jesus as the son of god but there are very real reasons why others do not. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.40  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.31    2 months ago
I could not find where she made the claim

@15.2

A 6-year-old knows that Santa isn't real so why do adults continue to believe in Jesus when there is no evidence of him actually existing.

No qualifiers. No nuanced definitions. None of the other BS she has tried to couch it in since she made this absurd claim.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.37    2 months ago
They were not in agreement with Jesus as the son of god.

What garbage. If they all included the same exact details, you'd claim they were just copying each other. There is no justification for saying that three of the gospels are unreliable because one doesn't mention something they mention. Your confirmation bias on this topic is stunning.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.42  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.37    2 months ago
They were not in agreement with Jesus as the son of god.

I advise you to stop making blanket claims about antiquity. You're like 0 for a kajillion.

Pliny the Younger was tasked by Trajan with investigating Christians for the purpose of persecuting them. Writing around 112AD, he confirms that Christians met weekly, sang about God, viewed Jesus as God, had a code of morality based on his teachings, contributed what wealth they had to meet each others' financial needs, and they were evangelistic. In short, Christians had a pretty good idea what they were all about very early on.

Now, all one has to do is read Paul to see that there was disagreement about many things among Christians, but so what? That doesn't mean anything except that there was some very deep stuff happening that regular people had a hard time wrapping their heads around. Even the Gospels reveal that Jesus was frequently having to correct his disciples because they misunderstood him all the time. That says way more about people than it does about Jesus. 

But I could throw out an ancient recipe for biscuits and you would call it proof that Jesus never existed. You are that invested in your atheism, which you always claim is not a "belief."

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.40    2 months ago
No qualifiers. No nuanced definitions. None of the other BS she has tried to couch it in since she made this absurd claim.

Given, as you note, no qualifiers how do we know that she was referring to Jesus the person rather than the Son of God?

One hint is that she is talking about adult belief in Jesus.   Belief in Jesus (unless you are a Muslim) is that he was the Son of God.    Why assume she was not talking about the divine belief (Jesus as the son of God)?   Makes more sense to assume she was talking about Jesus as the son of God.

On top of that, look at what she was responding to:

Thrawn @15 - They should have just argued that a belief in "god" is childish as fuck and we as a nation should be better than that. 

Thrawn's quote clearly disambiguates since it establishes the context of:  belief in "god".     It makes no sense for epistte to reply to Thrawn's comment by speaking of the mere human being Jesus rather than the divine (son of God) Jesus.


Looks like epistte is stating that there is no evidence for the divine Jesus.   How do you read this otherwise?

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.44  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.43    2 months ago

She has had multiple opportunities to say "that's not what I meant." Instead, she has continued to argue, demanding ever-changing standards of evidence because she thinks she can dismiss them. Don't bother trying to spin her comments for her. You are wayyyyyy too late.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.44    2 months ago

By pretending that I am spinning you are actually the one doing the spinning Tacos!.

You gave me the link to her claim.   I read it and the context quote.

Show me specifically where I am spinning.   Identify the flaw in my logic.

In other words, I ask again, how does one take the words you pointed me to as epistte speaking of Jesus as a person rather than Jesus as God?

Do not just attack me, explain the flaw in my logic.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
15.1.46  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.42    2 months ago
That says way more about people than it does about Jesus.

I think that's the point you seem to be avoiding. Nothing in the gospels or anywhere else has ever even claimed to be Jesus' own writing. Everything has been some ancient persons version of events translated and deciphered by other people hundreds of years later to be cobbled together by people who not only never knew the carpenter some claimed to be divine, but were literally murdering Christians up until a decade or so before Constantine supposedly had his visions and claimed the God of the Hebrews helped him defeat Maxentius and claimed he fought in the name of the Christian God at the battle of Milvian bridge.

So yes, the cobbled together bible says far more about the people who cobbled it together than it does about any supposed holy man labeled "Jesus" decades after the fact. Not a single word written in the gospels was contemporary. And today, we have millions of people basing their religious beliefs on a bunch of self centered power hungry religious zealots interpretations of letters written decades after the supposed "prophet" lived and taught that were selected by ex-pagan priests newly turned Christian when the Emperor of Rome took a liking to the Hebrew God and attributed some of his military victories to him.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.47  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.44    2 months ago
She has had multiple opportunities to say "that's not what I meant." Instead, she has continued to argue, demanding ever-changing standards of evidence because she thinks she can dismiss them. Don't bother trying to spin her comments for her. You are wayyyyyy too late.

What are you claiming that I said? I am bordering on abandoning this discussing with you because you are very emotional on the subject of religion and that doesn't bode well for having a rational discussion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.48  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.45    2 months ago
explain the flaw in my logic

This has already been done. I can't help that you refuse to acknowledge it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.49  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @15.1.46    2 months ago
Nothing in the gospels or anywhere else has ever even claimed to be Jesus' own writing.

That's not important. The same is true of Socrates and Alexander the Great, but no one goes around claiming they never existed.

translated and deciphered by other people hundreds of years later

If you go through these threads, you will see that I have cited multiple sources with varying and even conflicting agendas that date to the first century. Again, we don't have anything that close to the source for Socrates or Alexander and yet no one questions their existence or the things they said and did.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.50  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.1.47    2 months ago
you are very emotional on the subject of religion

Look in the mirror. You are talking about yourself. I have supplied actual historical evidence supporting my position. You make claims that Jesus never existed and you continue to make those claims in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. You are the one who gets emotional about this stuff and you are the one who ALWAYS accuses others of that very thing when you realize you can't back up your wild claims [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.48    2 months ago

Claiming a true rebuttal is not the same as actually delivering one.  Stumped, eh?

Further, epistte has recently made it clear that she was talking about Jesus as God (the normal, most common meaning), not simply a human being.    So your argument does not even apply.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.39    2 months ago
I am saying that they are not in agreement and since Mark was the earliest it should be taken as a hint.

That's not what we are discussing. You claimed that Rome invented the belief in Jesus as a deity.  That's simply false as the basis of the Christian religion (including the 3 other Gospels you ignore) were written about 200 years before Constantine's conversion.  

tand that you want to believe in Jesus as the son of god but there are very real reasons why others do not.

I'm an atheist. I just believe in honesty.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.53  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.51    2 months ago
So your argument does not even apply.

Your self-proclaimed authority to decide on the validity of someone's argument holds zero water with me. [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.53    2 months ago

Always the same pattern when someone cannot formulate a calm, logical rebuttal.   Deflection, unsupported  declarations, going personal, etc.

I suspect most readers see through those tactics.

Show where my logic is wrong rather than employ sideshow tactics.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.55  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.54    2 months ago
Show where my logic is wrong rather than employ sideshow tactics.

I won't be trolled (or sea-lioned or whatever we're calling it these days). Try it on someone else.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @15.1.55    2 months ago

All sideshow, no debate.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.57  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.56    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.58  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.1.52    2 months ago
That's not what we are discussing. You claimed that Rome invented the belief in Jesus as a deity.  That's simply false as the basis of the Christian religion (including the 3 other Gospels you ignore) were written about 200 years before Constantine's conversion.  

tand that you want to believe in Jesus as the son of god but there are very real reasons why others do not.

I'm an atheist. I just believe in honesty.

According to Bible historian Bart Ehrman, the early church did not consider Jesus to be divine man-god but was only a prophet. The divinity was a later addition. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.59  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @15.1.58    2 months ago

He’s clearly wrong... 

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.60  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.59    2 months ago
He’s clearly wrong... 

Do you have a Ph.D. in divinity? How many books have you written on the subject?

He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger. Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Bart+Erhman&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.59    2 months ago
He’s clearly wrong... 

Because ... ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @15.1.58    2 months ago

This would be a good seed.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
15.1.63  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @15.1.58    2 months ago
ian Bart Ehrman, the early church did not consider Jesus to be divine man-god but was only a prophet. The divinity was a later addition. 

You keep moving the goalposts and creating new arguments.

You falsely claimed the Romans created the tenants of the Christian religion. The link you provided proves you wrong.  

No matter how many times you obfuscate, the core beliefs of Christianity, including the divinity of Christ, were in place before Rome accepted Christianity.  The timeline isn't confusing. Just admit you are wrong. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.64  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.59    2 months ago
He’s clearly wrong...

How so? What do you have to offer that proves him wrong?

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.65  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.61    2 months ago

Because early Christians saw him crucified and then saw Him raised as spent time with Him for 40 days and some witnessed him ascend to Heaven and saw angels at the tomb after resurrection and after the ascension saying the second coming would be like manner. The believers knew from the beginning that Jesus is the Son of God, the messiah. It was never as the man above suggests.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.66  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.65    2 months ago
Because early Christians saw him crucified and then saw Him raised as spent time with Him for 40 days and some witnessed him ascend to Heaven and saw angels at the tomb after resurrection and after the ascension saying the second coming would be like manner.

Too bad there isn't any evidence to support such  assertions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @15.1.65    2 months ago

Many modern day individuals claim to have been abducted by aliens.   There are millions who insist the world is flat.   Some claim Elvis sightings.  And, closer to home, there are millions who insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Claims of truth by individuals with a cause is unreliable.  2,000 year old claims with no evidence but the ancient writings in the Bible is  mythology.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.68  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.67    2 months ago
Claims of truth by individuals with a cause is unreliable.  2,000 year old claims with no evidence but the ancient writings in the Bible is  mythology.

But for some reason, some people completely accept claims for or on behalf of a god with no supporting evidence and with no questions asked. But with anything else,  claims made are more suspect. Go figure.

 
 
 
epistte
15.1.69  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @15.1.68    2 months ago
But for some reason, some people completely accept claims for or on behalf of a god with no supporting evidence and with no questions asked. But with anything else,  claims made are more suspect. Go figure.

It is circular logic to continue their currently held confirmation bias beliefs.  If they question the deistic legitimacy of the Bible then they also must question their religious views, which they do not want to do because their entire world view would them be open for critical thought. They would rather continually patch a sinking house built on a foundation of quicksand that to build a strong foundation on stone. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.1.70  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @15.1.69    2 months ago

And In God We Trust is still our national motto.  It’s still on all of our currency.  Under God is still in our pledge and both are in our schools in many districts around the country.  Have a nice day! God bless you one and all.  

 
 
 
epistte
15.2  epistte  replied to  Thrawn 31 @15    2 months ago
They should have just argued that a belief in "god" is childish as fuck and we as a nation should be better than that. 

A 6-year-old knows that Santa isn't real so why do adults continue to believe in Jesus when there is no evidence of him actually existing. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/K5LRFDrhnjKvk8QU8

https://images.app.goo.gl/bLiAbAfCoFKV37tv5

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @15.2    2 months ago
A 6-year-old knows that Santa isn't real so why do adults continue to believe in Jesus when there is no evidence of him actually existing. 

Jesus is the adult version of Santa.

 
 
 
epistte
15.2.2  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.1    2 months ago
Jesus is the adult version of Santa.

And the Easter bunny.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.2    2 months ago
there is no evidence of him actually existing

That demonstrates either an astounding level of denial or ignorance.

 
 
 
epistte
15.2.4  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.2.3    2 months ago
That demonstrates either an astounding level of denial or ignorance.

Let's examine this claim of your further if you don't mind. Where is the empirical evidence that any sentient religious deity exists or has ever existed? 

1.)The Bible is the obvious work of man so you can not claim that it is proof of god. 

2.)The fact that the universe exists is not proof of god and that argument is known as the watchmaker's fallacy. Just because a watch needs a creator to exist doesn't mean that the universe needs a sentient creator to exist.

3.) Your religious belief or that of 2 billion other people also does not constitute evidence of a god. That argument is a popularity fallacy.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.2.4    2 months ago

You can't even stay on your own topic. You claimed there was no evidence that Jesus ever existed. I basically said that's wrong and you come back with a whole bit of shit that I never said:

you can not claim that it is proof of god

The fact that the universe exists is not proof of god

does not constitute evidence of a god

I never said one word about proof of God. I responded to your comment about Jesus.

Even then you want build a new goalpost. You said,

there is no evidence of him actually existing

and then when you started rambling about God and Creators, you said

Where is the empirical evidence

Empirical evidence is a narrow subset of "evidence." You made no such distinction previously. I'm not going to debate something with you where you change the subject every time. It's unproductive and shows what you're really about.

Google "evidence for Jesus" and spend some time getting educated. The shit you said about "no evidence" is 100% wrong.

 
 
 
epistte
15.2.6  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.2.5    2 months ago
You can't even stay on your own topic. You claimed there was no evidence that Jesus ever existed. I basically said that's wrong and you come back with a whole bit of shit that I never said:

Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either as a man or as a man-god?

Google "evidence for Jesus" and spend some time getting educated. The shit you said about "no evidence" is 100% wrong.

Logically it is not my responsibility to find your evidence. Please post it or admit that you are wrong.  The Jesus claim of Tiberius is 2nd-hand at best and is not proof.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @15.2.5    2 months ago

Like virtually every debate here concerning any religion or God, it seems to always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".

Sigh.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @15.2.6    2 months ago
Where is the empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus

You didn't say anything about empirical evidence. You said there was "no evidence" that Jesus existed. Asking for empirical evidence about someone who has been dead for 2000 years is stupid. There's no empirical evidence for Julius Caesar. Evidence? Of course. Empirical? No way. There's no empirical evidence for the existence anyone from that time unless you've got a body and some DNA you want to trot out.

 
 
 
epistte
15.2.9  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @15.2.8    2 months ago
You didn't say anything about empirical evidence. You said there was "no evidence" that Jesus existed. Asking for empirical evidence about someone who has been dead for 2000 years is stupid. There's no empirical evidence for Julius Caesar. Evidence? Of course. Empirical? No way. There's no empirical evidence for the existence anyone from that time unless you've got a body and some DNA you want to trot out.

Where is the evidence for the existence of Jesus that is verifiable via a 3rd party non-religious source and not needing religious belief or faith? 

The Bible or anything stemming from it is not evidence of Jesus when it needs faith or religious belief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.7    2 months ago
Like virtually every debate here concerning any religion or God, it seems to always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".

Okay, let's have a debate on the claim of a flat Earth, the claim of an Earth < 10,000 years, the claim of alien abductions or the claim of Allah granting 70 virgins to martyrs in Heaven.

Lets go with flat Earth for now:

  • Someone claims the Earth is flat.
  • Is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up that claim with evidence?
 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.10    2 months ago
Is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up that claim with evidence?

Do you not realize TiG, that when someone makes an irrational and unsubstantiated claim, they don't have to back that claim up with any evidence, as long as they say they "believe" it? It's as if they think mere belief makes them exempt from any scrutiny or challenge.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.10    2 months ago
Okay, let's have a debate on the claim of a flat Earth, the claim of an Earth < 10,000 years, the claim of alien abductions or the claim of Allah granting 70 virgins to martyrs in Heaven.
Lets go with flat Earth for now:
Someone claims the Earth is flat.
Is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up that claim with evidence?

No.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.12    2 months ago

I agree.   When someone makes an extraordinary claim in general, is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up the claim with evidence?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.11    2 months ago
It's as if they think mere belief makes them exempt from any scrutiny or challenge.

What I find curious is if someone has nothing, really, to offer better than an exasperated:  'I just believe' does that ever (maybe later on) give them pause?   Would they not ask themselves if it really makes sense to believe something just because other human beings claim that it is very, very good to believe it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.13    2 months ago

Looks like my earlier post is 100% spot on.

The article isn't about the existence of God.

The article is about a lawsuit over the words "In God We Trust" appearing on our money.

Somehow--like virtually every debate even remotely involving God or religion--it has now boiled down to nothing more than "Prove it".

Sigh.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.13    2 months ago
When someone makes an extraordinary claim in general, is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up the claim with evidence?

Extraordinary claims should be challenged, if for no other reason than to expose how weak and unsubstantiated they are, or expose the person making the claim as intellectually lazy and/or ignorant and therefore lacking any credibility.

What I find curious is if someone has nothing, really, to offer better than an exasperated: 'I just believe' does that ever (maybe later on) give them pause?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Would they not ask themselves if it really makes sense to believe something just because other human beings claim that it is very, very good to believe it?

There could be a "peer pressure" facet to it. I'd say it has to do with emotional comfort, even if it is irrational.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.15    2 months ago

Did you have trouble reading my post?   There was no 'prove it' stated or implied.

In fact, I just asked you a generalized version of the question you had just answered.

Why dodge such an easy question given you answered the first one?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.16    2 months ago
Extraordinary claims should be challenged

I agree.  It is quite reasonable to challenge an extraordinary claim.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.19  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.18    2 months ago
It is quite reasonable to challenge an extraordinary claim.

Absolutely. As the old saying goes (I might be paraphrasing here), "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Somehow, some people think that doesn't apply to them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.17    2 months ago

Look at posts 6.1.5,  8.2.10,  8.2.17,  8.2.21, 15., 15.1.8, 15.1.9, 15.1.11, 15.1.13, 15.2, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.4, 15.2.6, 15.2.9 and then tell me I am wrong about it devolving into "Prove it".

I believe I have told you before to keep your snark to yourself, but in case I didn't, I am now.

If I already answered, seems foolish to keep asking.

But whatever.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.20    2 months ago

Those have nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Why dodge such an easy question?

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.21    2 months ago
Those have nothing to do with the question I asked you.

That is freaking hilarious, coming from someone who responded to this post:

Like virtually every debate here concerning any religion or God, it seems to always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".

with THIS:

Okay, let's have a debate on the claim of a flat Earth, the claim of an Earth < 10,000 years, the claim of alien abductions or the claim of Allah granting 70 virgins to martyrs in Heaven.
Lets go with flat Earth for now:
Someone claims the Earth is flat.
Is it unreasonable to ask the person to back up that claim with evidence?

I am not dodging anything, it is just not worth the effort or time to me to indulge you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.22    2 months ago
I am not dodging anything, it is just not worth the effort or time to me to indulge you.

So in other words, dodging. Got it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.23    2 months ago
So in other words, dodging. Got it!

Looks like someone should simply read what is written instead of attempting to interpret it.

So in other words...

Yeah. Made-up bullshit words.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.25  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.10    2 months ago

Actually, let’s talk about the Supreme Court and allowing “In God We Trust” our national motto to remain so and continue to be on our currency along with our other national motto?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.26  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @15.2.21    2 months ago

Why dodge staying on the topic of the seeded article?  Seems a simple enough thing to do, doesn’t it?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.27  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.22    2 months ago

Well said.  When secularists come on our seeds, they should stay on topic and if they don’t ignore while the seeder flags each and every one of the derailment attempts as off topic.  You could declare an impasse with Gordy and TiG...

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.28  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.23    2 months ago

Not dodging.  Staying on topic.  Try it sometime.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.29  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.24    2 months ago
Looks like someone should simply read what is written instead of attempting to interpret it.

Someone did.

Made-up bullshit words.

Your words, not mine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.26    2 months ago

I was done responding until you made your comment.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.31  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.28    2 months ago
Not dodging.  Staying on topic.  Try it sometime.  

That's hilarious coming from you!

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.32  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.31    2 months ago

I’m just enjoying the rage and anger of those whose side lost this great decision by the court. jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.33  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.32    2 months ago

Who's angry?

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.34  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.33    2 months ago

[deleted] not too urban school districts posters are being put up with our flag and the pledge and of our motto with or without currency.  They can’t totally cleanse our schools of all references of any type toward or about God now.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.34    2 months ago
Anti theistic religion secularists.

Those words together do not make sense.

They hate that in rural and conservative not too urban school districts posters are being put up with our flag and the pledge and of our motto with or without currency

Another sweeping generalization I see.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.36  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.35    2 months ago

Why would secularists who are against theistic religions not make sense?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.37  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.36    2 months ago
Why would secularists who are against theistic religions not make sense?  

You're the one not making sense. And given your penchant for sweeping generalizations, it's quite obvious too.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.38  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.37    2 months ago

Too many it seems view all expressions of a conservatives personal opinion on the issues to be a sweeping generalization.  A sweeping generation is expressing an opinion while conservative.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.39  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.38    2 months ago
Too many it seems view all expressions of a conservatives personal opinion on the issues to be a sweeping generalization.  A sweeping generation is expressing an opinion while conservative.  

It's obvious you don't even know what a sweeping generalization is. I suppose that's why you keep making them all the time.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.40  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.39    2 months ago

Oh whatever...  it is simply a conservative speaking our mind about our ideological and or theological opposition on any given issue or issues.  So you’d naturally think I’m making them all the time. And I stand behind and make no apologies for each and every single one of them without exception.  Is that sweeping enough for you?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.41  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.40    2 months ago
Oh whatever...

That seems to be the best rebuttal you have to offer.

it is simply a conservative speaking our mind about our ideological and or theological opposition on any given issue or issues.

As I said, you don't even know what a sweeping generalization is. 

[Deleted]

Is that sweeping enough for you?

No, just plain ignorant. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.42  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @15.2.4    2 months ago

Because you and a few thousand are correct and the 2 billion are all wrong....Not!

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.43  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.42    2 months ago
Because you and a few thousand are correct and the 2 billion are all wrong....Not!

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.44  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.41    2 months ago

Nope, sweeping generalization as defined by you and a couple others is simply a religious conservative expressing our opinion or attempting to speak our mind on a given issue.  

[deleted]

[looking] forward to the next coh rewrite so that we can discuss and then vote to jettison or at least greatly modify that term. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.2.45  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @15.2.43    2 months ago

Because you and the select few who believe as you do know it all. jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.2.46  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @15.2.44    2 months ago
Nope, sweeping generalization as defined by you

Nope. Here is the definition of a sweeping generalization: A sweeping generalization occurs when a writer or speaker takes a general rule and applies it too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy. 

Because you and the select few who believe as you do

I've made no mention of my beliefs.

know it all.

You said it, I didn't.

 
 
 
John Wythe
16  John Wythe    2 months ago

The Origin of the Separation of Church and State

Americans can be justifiably proud of their founding fathers’ insistence on a separation of Church and State. And, yet, surprisingly, very few Americans seem to understand what their founding fathers meant by this concept.

Conservative politicians take pride is saying that the US is, primarily, a Christian nation and that their Christian forefathers fought King George in order to have the freedom to practice Christianity as they saw fit.

Liberal politicians tend to take an opposing view – that separation of Church and State means that the concept of God has no place in government. In fact, some go so far as to say that landmarks such as a plaque stating that George Washington attended a specific church, should be removed, as it compromises the separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, both these groups have got it wrong.

So, let’s take a step back and have a look at what caused Thomas Jefferson to repeatedly insist that the separation be implemented in the US Constitution.

Mister Jefferson attended the College of William and Mary, where he received the customary university education, but went on to study law privately under George Wythe in Williamsburg, Virginia. Mister Wythe was not only his teacher, but his mentor, a man in his latter years who not only imparted knowledge to the young Jefferson, but wisdom. He frequented the Raleigh Tavern with his pupil, but additionally brought him to banquets at the mansion of Governor Fauquier, in an effort to expand his outlook. 

I believe that it’s safe to say that, when Mister Jefferson completed his education at age thirty-four, he had both the energy and imagination of youth and the wisdom of the elders at his command. The former gave him his drive and the latter provided him with the farsightedness that guided the writing of the American Constitution and the future direction of the new nation.

George Wythe lived conveniently next door to the Governor. (His home is still there today, as is his small study where he taught the future president.) On the other side of his home was Bruton Parish Church. In the 18th Century, one could not be elected to office unless he was a member of the Church of England. As Attorney General, Mister Wythe tolerated this, but taught his pupil that, as a free man, he should not be required to be an Anglican.

To add insult to injury, Mister Jefferson was not a Christian, but a Deist, as were several others of the founding fathers. He did believe in his own form of a God and even referred to him in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, but did not ascribe to him the power of miracles and omnipotence, as described in the Bible.

In addition, he regarded Jesus as an admirable human being, but did not regard him as anything more. (In later years, he would create his own Bible, by removing much of what he considered to be latter-day additions to the King James Bible, leaving little more than the words of Jesus.)

In spite of his beliefs, Mister Jefferson was required to be a (paid-up) member of the Anglican Church in order to sit in the House of Burgesses and he chafed at this requirement.

However, he was a deep believer in the concept of God as a being with both consciousness and conscience, who, he believed took no direct part in the affairs of man, but did create all men as equals and therefore entitled them to “certain unalienable Rights”.

But he saw the Church differently. He regarded it as a political organization, controlled by the King, intended to dictate morals and acceptable behaviour.

Mister Jefferson was entirely comfortable with the concept of a moral God as a principle upon which to base a government. However, he distrusted the inclusion of the Church.

Comedian George Carlin once said, “I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.” Had Mister Jefferson been in the audience, I believe he would have nodded his approval.

Today, politicians tend to treat God and Church as being one and the same. In the perception of America’s founding fathers, they were entirely different entities. One was a creator, the other was a controller and, at times, a usurper.

Not coincidentally, it was the latter description that they ascribed to governments. The Constitution was written not only to outline what their new government should be, but in what ways it should be limited to keep it from being a controller and a usurper.

In past history, much good has been done in the name of the Church, but, indeed, whenever it has become a political power centre, it has abused this position. This is evidenced by the Crusades, the Medici’s, the Spanish Inquisition and more.

Today, we see this same problem manifesting itself, particularly with the destruction of Europe by religious zealots.

Individual spirituality lies at the very core of what makes a person moral. However, a strong personal moral fibre, and an adherence to a religious organization which dictates blind obeisance to itself are, in fact, polar opposites.

The former offers a moral compass to the individual; the latter, especially when connected to a government, trounces mankind’s natural morality and increases the potential for oppression by that government.

As in so many other things, America’s founding fathers had the right idea with the separation of Church and State. The phrase still exists today, but its original intent has been largely lost.

Should its true meaning be revived, we can be fairly certain that it won’t be done by the political class.

By Jeff Thomas

Contributing to kitco.com


As I say Have you ever seen a serpent talk? The Bible tells you not to believe in Magic. So why do so many churches teach magical teachings? Why did someone buy the plate to the King James Bible from England around 1812, When stereotype printing was begun in the USA? Even though we had an American English version of it already, they just did not have plates for stereotype Printing made yet. In fact, they did not start printing paper money until there was stereotype printing. Before Stereotype printing was invented it was a 3 person operation to run a printing press.

As for that Serpent that talks, They don't it means something else. You may say that Adam was using the wrong head and tricked Eve With a Diamond. (Even Coal & Oil belong to a Family Tree)

 
 
 
Heartland American
16.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  John Wythe @16    2 months ago

What exactly does all that have to do with the Supreme Court decision vs Newdow?  Are you using all that to say the court was right or wrong in its decision? 

 
 
 
nightwalker
18  nightwalker    2 months ago

What a lot of fuss for nothing. Well, anything to argue over.

In my willful ignorance, I convinced myself that the words "in god we trust" was meant as a gentle reminder and warning that the value of money can fluctuate, can be lost or stolen and in any event was considered for most people just a means of transaction. 

But with GOD, GD it, God was steady and eternal. Sort of a anti-greed message.

See? that was nice.

My other theory, is that each bill has a scripture on it, a $5 has 5 scripts and so on, and some people think you should gather and hoard these scripts as brownie points to get into Heaven, as just sort of a subconscious side-hedge (money is holy by those words) and another extra excuse for being greedy.

Take your pick, it's a silly response to a silly argument. Replace "in god..." with "shit don't smell" and as long as it spends the same, I'm fine.

jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1  Gordy327  replied to  nightwalker @18    2 months ago
I convinced myself that the words "in god we trust" was meant as a gentle reminder and warning that the value of money can fluctuate, can be lost or stolen and in any event was considered for most people just a means of transaction.

IGWT was meant to ideologically separate us from communism and the then Soviet Union.

 
 
 
Heartland American
18.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1    2 months ago

Which was greatly resented by the secular progressive left in America which to this day believes that the wrong country won the Cold War. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @18.1.1    2 months ago
Which was greatly resented by the secular progressive left in America

Nope. Only to those who appreciate the separation of church and state.

which to this day believes that the wrong country won the Cold War. 

You just can't help yourself with the sweeping generalizations, can you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
18.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @18.1.1    2 months ago
... which to this day believes that the wrong country won the Cold War.

Amazing.   I thought buying the YEC evolution-is-pseudo-science nonsense was ridiculous enough.   But you also think progressives in the USA wish the USSR was around and dominant?   Almost like taking every obvious position and inexplicably believing the opposite to be true.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
18.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @18.1.2    2 months ago

Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy and their actions are evidence that my contention is correct. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
18.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @18.1.4    2 months ago
Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy and their actions are evidence that my contention is correct. 

Wow, TWO whole politicians, eh? Point out where they specifically said they thought the wrong country won the Cold War! Such a statement would definitely have been recorded somewhere.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211