Too make more room for the portraits?
The American mint has removed the official “In God We Trust” motto from the face of it dollar coin and has relegated it to the gold-colored coin’s thin edge. Mint officials said the reason for the change is to leave more room for portraits of former presidents and the Statue of Liberty.
See coin here. Click on the “Edge Lettering” to see what they have done.
Brian says: “Out of sight, out of mind”, I think. Perhaps our athiest friends who keep suing, with the help of the ACLU, are starting to get their way?
Jay says: Perhaps so. This could be some kind of sneaky attempt at a compromise, but don’t think anything will satisfy the secular cleansing crowd besides totally erasing all reference to God from every single American mint. Furthermore, those that support keeping this National motto on our coins are going to feel quite short changed indeed. This change won’t make either side happy.
Others blogging:
Musing Minds
The Anchoress
NoisyRoom.net
Don Surber
Woman Honor Thyself
The Amboy Times
Lord Nazh’s Daily Ramble
Church and State
Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah’s Military Guys
“No one here provided passages that contradicted them. In fact, you (all) failed MISERABLY in your attempts even to formulate a coherent line of counter-argument (of course, this was all much funnier in practice).”
You are not only cherrypicking, but missing the point. Anyone can interpret passages in the bible to contradict other passages. That isn’t difficult at all and really does nothing to further the conversation.
I provided the entire passages and thier accepted theological interpretation of said passage in post 56. I did not take specific lines out of context as solarc did, I gave the intretation of those lines contextually within the passage they appeared.
“Hmmmm. No one I’ve sent the “conversation”to has even commented that it was any sort of real debate.”
Of course it wasn’t a real debate, which is why I offered to solarc to take it to a formal debate site (post 45).
“Rather, they all had a good laugh about how one-sided it was and most mentioned that they were shocked that the Right Voided webmaster actually left it up.”
You have no idea how much this anec dotal evidence is comforting to me. (This is sarcasm, in case you were guessing).
So let me put one of you assumtions to rest kelmo. I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
“You never responded, so what, exactly, am I supposed to “pick up?”You had your chance to make an argument last November, t.i.t.s. Have you been studyin’ reel good?”
Perhaps you should try reading the thread, as it is obvious by the the above assumtions you’ve made that you haven’t. However if you need me to pat you on your butt and point you in a direction, the last thread I posted in which I received no specific response was post 56. If you wish, start from there. Tell me where my response was innaccuate, as those translations are pretty much accepted univesally in theological circles.
While solarc was a somewhat worthy conversationalist, I am beginning to think you are going to fall short of the standard he set. I respected him because of the honesty and vigour in which he set fourth his points, until he began to dwindle in his direct responces after post 56. Thus far, you provided nothing more than ad hominem attacks and anecdotal evidence that doesn’t amount to much.
I hope you are up to task.
(Patting Ted on the Butt and pointing him to the post…) Here’s the response that Solarc posted to your post 56:
TedintheShed is at least right”he’s not right about much”that there’s always a question in Jesus’ teachings of what we ought to take literally and what we ought to take figuratively. However, there’s a wider context for this story that Ted (and Texas) are, unsurprisingly, ignoring. This wider context is THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE. The meaning of the text is established not just by Luke 14, but by the rest of Luke, and Matthew, and Mark and John, and the lives of the apostles described in the Pauline letters insofar as they enact Jesus’ teachings.
Even without this wider context, however, which includes all the other passages I cited, passages that both Ted and Texas pass over in silence, I don’t think that one has to be as confused as Texas and Ted. Look, for example, to Luke verse 27: “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”Besides being an eerie bit of foreshadowing, the line must be read allegorically, right? We all know what it means to have a “cross to bear,”to make a sacrifice or to take on a burden. Verses 28-32 pass from this properly allegorical mode to the hypothetical: “If you were in this position, wouldn’t it be the case that you would do ‘X’?”Verse 33, however, is what clinches things. Just as all of these people must be willing to make sacrifices (figuratively or allegorically), “In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.”Here we find the passage from the hypothetical (as we’d already left the allegortical) to the literal. The context is more fully established in the story of Jesus and the Pharisees two chapters later. As I’ve cited: “No servant is able to serve two masters: he will either hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”It is not just any sacrifice that is at issue, but a sacrifice of all of your possessions exemplified by the giving up of your worship of mammon. There can be no middle ground between the Christian perspective and the worship of mammon. You can’t split the difference by saying, “Well, I’m humble, but I really love this riding mower.”You cannot serve God and mammon.
If you still feel confused as to whether or not to take these passages literally, one way to decide is to look to how the apostles of Jesus actually understood them. I suspect that you’d at least privilege them as readers even if you’ve neglected the voluminous commentary on the bible available in any bookstore. The best way to to understand the early years of the church is to turn to their description in the Pauline letters. I’ve cited some verses from Acts that specifically describe the Christian relationship to property. Here’s another brief passage: “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”Clearly there’s more to being humble than just “knowing”that you are. One must make actual material sacrifices. It might be more difficult than just telling yourself that you’re humble, and it might go against some of your deepest desires and most firmly held prejudices, but this is what Jesus asks us to do.
[End of Solarc's post]
That’s it. It doesn’t exactly look like cherrypicking, does it? What was your response, t.i.t.s. (or is it just another unsupported assertion that theologians “universally accept” your interpretations — btw, ever hear of a citation)?
You need to show me how you’re dealing with Solarc’s refutation of your “argument.” I included it above in case you’d forgotten (‘pat’ ‘pat’). You’ve had a year to think about it, right? Incidentally, I’m still interested in knowing why someone so interested in seeming educated would actually believe in God anyway.
Actually Kelmo, you need to read what was said and make your own arguements. As we have said, solarc chose to run and hide and you seem to have popped up to cheer him on..go to his his blog and be a cheerleader and come here and add value to the conversation..stop wasting bandwidth with your stupidity.
I haven’t been on this site long, Pam, but you sure don’t seem to have anything of any intellectual substance to contribute.
102.
Yes, I saw the non-response that solarc posted. It was:
“56, 57. Typical and deserves no reply.” as posted.
The rest did not address the post what so ever. If you wish to address how he misinterpreted Luke 27 (which was how he unsuccessfully deflected his non-response in 56), we can do that as well.
As I said, I provided what is the accepted theological interpretation of the verses that were directly referenced. Solarc responded with a non response. The gibberish that followed did not at all address my post, nor does it even address accepted interpretation of the posts that he moved on to, simply because his interpretation was thoroughly discredit. He speaks about the interpretation of the gospels as a whole, but doesn’t even understand the difference between the synoptic gospels and the canonical gospels so it is unlikely he has a valid interpretation of those gospels as a whole.
That aside Kelmo, I was expecting an original response from you. Instead, you choose to quote solarc as you response.
Unoriginal and uninspiring. Not unexpected though, as you’ve done nothing more that parrot. Are you a Democrat or a Republican, I wonder? With that much parroting, you must be one or the other.
If you wish to further the conversation, I suggest original thoughts, instead of parroting others.
Moving on…
Let me restate for your convenience: solarc was stating that a rich man could not get to heaven. I say that if this was true, then the first gospel that he quoted (Luke 14) would have that message, other wise it would not fit into solarc’s interpretation of the message of the gospels as a whole. I provided accurate theologically accepted interpretation of Luke 14 that was not as he claimed. If the smaller part (Luke 14) of the message was as such, then by solarc’s failed logic the greater interpretation of those are also as such.
Thus solarc’s interpretation of the gospels message as a whole was inaccurate.
104- I am Pam and also Peejz..I am the one that will be deleting your comments if you have nothing original to add to the conversation. This will be your last warning.
Hey Elmo don’t let the door hit you on the way out…
105: “I provided what is the accepted theological interpretation of the verses that were directly referenced.”
This is an empty assertion if you don’t back it up with a reference. Check the writings of Tillich, Yoder and Barth (probably the most important theologians of the last hundred years). Your interpretation is NOT the accepted theological interpretation. It may be the interpretation provided by preachers to make their sheep feel good about their greed, but it is NOT the interpretation held by trained theologians. I can provide you with references if you promise to read the texts and post their conclusions.
“He speaks about the interpretation of the gospels as a whole, but doesn’t even understand the difference between the synoptic gospels and the canonical gospels so it is unlikely he has a valid interpretation of those gospels as a whole.”
What would this have to do with his specific interpretation? You need to make an argument rather than simply asserting that something is “unlikely.”
“the first gospel that he quoted (Luke 14) would have that message, other wise it would not fit into solarc’s interpretation of the message of the gospels as a whole.”
No, this is faulty reasoning. You cannot argue that because something that’s forbidden in Matthew goes unremarked in Luke (for example) we’re justified in assuming that it’s affirmed in Luke. A lacuna in one gospel is just that: a lacuna. It’s not grounds for drawing a positive conclusion. To do so, you’d need to demonstrate a positive denial in Luke of what’s affirmed in Matthew. At least then you could push toward an aporia (though this still wouldn’t prove your point).
You fail to do so, however. Instead, you provide a reading of one parable, a reading that solarc actually does respond to. I assume his reference to posts 56 & 57 is a typo as his OWN post is post 57 and he does respond to your reading of Luke. The issue is precisely the moments when you pass between the allegorical and the literal — I personally disagree with his characterization of the hypothetical as a specific moment insofar as the distinction between allegorical and literal is properly rhetorical while the distinction between hypothetical and literal is a modal distinction. This is always the key moment in any textal hermeneutics — suffer not a witch to live, anyone?
Now… where does that leave us? At issue is a specific interpretation of a passage from Luke. You haven’t shown that your reading negates the reading that solarc provides, only that your reading is a possible alternative reading. The opposed readings must, therefore, be judged on their relative merits. I suspect that you’re conscious of this fact, which is why you try to insist that your reading is the accepted theological interpretation (an argument from authority to provide additional weight). My tendency, however, is to assume that a text (here, the New Testament) is consistent until it proves me wrong. The myriad passages that support solarc’s position (from the other gospels) allow us to assume that the words of Jesus constitute a logically consistent text. The actual practices of the first church demonstrate precisely what ought to be taken literally (the very literal renunciation of earthly wealth) — and I’m sure you’d agree that Paul has a privileged postion among biblical exegetes. What’s the upshot of your reading, exactly?
Hi,
I wonder if anyone will read this, but if so, I’m certainly interested in what the response will be….
The debate about placing IGWT on coins has popped up again since the argument is going back to court today. I’m of the belief that it should not be placed on currency and was trying to share this with some fellow Christians. I believe it to be sacreligious and that it trivializes the name of the Lord.
So, I did a search on Google and came across this thread trying to find more biblical evidence for this thought and discovered that the only person here who argues the same opinion seems to be some weedy college student liberal. What the heck?
Actually, to be fair, no one ever argued his point back but rather seemed to derail the topic and just tried to catch him out on minor details. But I’ll ask his question again to see if there happens to be anyone who is a Christian and can successfully argue this point.
Why IGWT should or should not be placed on currency?
Thank you,
Mike
109- Mike, I am not sure who you are referring to as the weedy college liberal..Solarc came here to try and talk bible, but it didn’t work out..if you look, he did it in the second response, and in fact was the one that derailed the conversation.
I am not sure how one would come up with biblical reference to God’s name on currency, as it is not mentioned in the Bible, nor are conversations limited to just Christians on this topic or any other.
I am not sure how one could argue that it is sacrilegious when the words are “IN GOD WE TRUST” and there is no image attached.
Solarc in post 32 quoted the following;
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”(Matthew 19:24. Similar verses are in Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25).
After reviewing the original, ancient Hebrew text and considering the meaning of words in their contextual usage, I come up with a slightly varying version:
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a Leftist to enter the kingdom of Godâ€.
In response to 110:
I don’t see why it would matter if there’s an image on the coin — I think that you’re confusing “sacrilegeous” with (the literal meaning of) “idolatrous.”
Anyway, it could be sacrilegious if, in the New Testament, Jesus says that the celebration of earthly wealth is incompatible with a Christian life. Reading over the post, I think that solarc did a good job of showing this (based on specific biblical citations). I’ve talked to my priest about this, and he agreed with solarc’s position.
Then why do so many Christians think that IGWT should be on coins?
First of all, they probably think that taking it off of coins is equivalent to, e.g., taking it out of public life more generally.
Second, I guess that they also might be afraid of the implications of the absolute division between earthly and heavenly wealth — this is basically what my priest suggested.
So… here’s my bigger (hypothetical) question: If Jesus really does say that we should rid ourselves of earthly wealth, give everything to the poor, etc., would we (meaning people posting on this site who consider themselves Christians, myself included) be willing to do so? If not, why not?
Thanks for reading.