“In God We Trust” Removed From Face Of New $1.00 Coins
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
November 27, 2006 - 11:34 PM on November 27th, 2006
“don’t think anything will satisfy the secular cleansing crowd besides totally erasing all reference to God from every single American mint”
No, I’m not satisfied, but I’ll admit that I’m a bit happy it’s on the side and not on the face.
“In God We Trust” and “Under God” are unconstitutional.
It’s only a matter of time.
Especially with republicans doing so poorly.
November 28, 2006 - 01:45 AM on November 28th, 2006
Given the views on wealth espoused by Jesus in the Bible, I’m surprised that Christians are intent on keeping the phrase there:
“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).
“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:44).
“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.” (Luke 14:33)
I don’t care for Xtianity in practice, but I can at least recognize that according to the teachings of Jesus, putting IGWT on coins is akin to putting it on the barrel of Guns.
November 28, 2006 - 06:56 AM on November 28th, 2006
Again, the left mindlessly attacks America. There is a historical context in recognizing that there is a God. Too bad you losers aren’t tolerant enough to recognize and tilerate it.
November 28, 2006 - 07:41 AM on November 28th, 2006
1- How so SF? There are 3 cases on the books challenging “In God We Trust”:
It has not been ruled unconstitutional by anyone in the courts.
November 28, 2006 - 08:06 AM on November 28th, 2006
2- solar, please don’t quote the Bible..
Rich people can be saved like anyone else if they do what God wants. Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy. And Paul said in Romans 2:11 that God doesn’t show favouritism. Anyone can be saved. It is the rich man that hordes his possessions whle others suffer, who may find himself turned away.
the call to love our neighbor–be it the neighbors in our homes, or church, or our community, or the world–includes a call to care about the physical, emotional, spiritual, relational, and financial needs of others.
Then Peter said,
Jesus said,
In other words, they gave up all to walk with the lord. That will be their reward. Although you won’t find it referenced too often, Peter was heard to say “In God We Trust” (hahahaha)
November 28, 2006 - 08:40 AM on November 28th, 2006
“none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”
This seems fairly unambiguous. What god wants is for us to “give up all” our possessions. Perhaps what he really means is “keep your possessions and screw the welfare mothers”—as my New Testament Greek is a bit rusty, I can’t be sure. If PCD’s not too busy committing treason, perhaps he could parce it for us.
If that’s not clear, how about:
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” {Matthew 6:19)
Perhaps Jesus means “Go ahead, serve God and mammon.” Where are the real scholars of Christianity when you need them? Snowy Egret?
Then there’s this one:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.”
or
“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.”(Acts 2:44).
Wow, that last one almost sounds like a call for the redistribution of wealth!! It can’t be, right? Wasn’t Jesus a good capitalist, and a firm believer in “trickle-down” miracles? Didn’t he know that if you heal Caesar, his health will trickle down to the lepers?
Again, I’ll recommend the writings of John Howard Yoder–probably the most important theologian since Barth (even more important than Pat Robertson, though it may seem unthinkable :wink
.
I find it funny that it’s usually the right howling and gnashing its teeth about how Un-Christian the left is when it’s the right that twists the words of Jesus to support its own sick worship of mammon.
Let me know what you think of Yoder. Even if you disagree with the metaphysics, he kind of blows your mind.
November 28, 2006 - 09:23 AM on November 28th, 2006
Before you know it thhe eco-wackos will demand we replace IN GOD WE TRUST with IN GAIA WE TRUST this is what the radicals want and as for the evil SECULAR HUMANISTS they would replace it with IN APES WE TRSUT:razz::mad:
November 28, 2006 - 10:29 AM on November 28th, 2006
7-I find it funny that it’s usually the right howling and gnashing its teeth about how Un-Christian the left is when it’s the right that twists the words of Jesus to support its own sick worship of mammon. You brought us Jesus and the Bible. It was you that decided to pick quotes that fit your arguement, yet you have no idea of the interputation..
November 28, 2006 - 04:21 PM on November 28th, 2006
8. as for the evil SECULAR HUMANISTS they would replace it with IN APES WE TRSUT
Some apes are more evolved than others…
9. “yet you have no idea of the interputation..”
Enlighten me. Show me why Jesus would have us slash welfare, kill for peace, and get rich doin’ it. I’d love to read your interpretation.
November 28, 2006 - 04:35 PM on November 28th, 2006
Honestly, of all the things to stick “God” on—-Money!? Even if you don’t agree with all of the things Jesus said that I cited above, don’t you think that smearing God all over cash is a bit tacky?
If you just want to see the word “God” on things, how about “In God We Thrust” printed on condoms? I honestly believe that even that would be more in keeping with the spirit (and the letter) of Jesus’ words than trying to spiritualize the almighty dollar.
November 28, 2006 - 07:02 PM on November 28th, 2006
In other words, they gave up all to walk with the lord. That will be their reward. Although you won’t find it referenced too often, Peter was heard to say “In God We Trust”(hahahaha)
At that same meeting, Mark observed “A lepton saved is a lepton earned” to which John replied “And the Lord helps those who help themselves”.
Okay Libs, Bible class is over for today. Now go back to hating Bush.
November 28, 2006 - 07:02 PM on November 28th, 2006
If they’re going to remove IGWT, I’d propose a replacement: “In The Left We Cannot Trust”
November 28, 2006 - 07:06 PM on November 28th, 2006
I don’t care for Xtianity in practice
Another wanker who can’t even give the religion the courtesy of typing the name completely.
But I’ll bet you’ll never type “Xlm” for Islam, will you? Or “Xist” for Atheist? No, because they’re your pals, your allies, and as such you respect them!
November 28, 2006 - 07:09 PM on November 28th, 2006
“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).
I’ve looked at the translation for this, and it seems there are several possibilties for interpreting the ancient writing of the word for “rich man”. It could also be translated to “Liberal”.
November 28, 2006 - 07:13 PM on November 28th, 2006
“‘In God We Trust”and “Under God”are unconstitutional.”
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
November 28, 2006 - 07:43 PM on November 28th, 2006
10- Why would I put Jesus into the arguement? I didn’t bring him up, you did. You said: I find it funny that it’s usually the right howling and gnashing its teeth about how Un-Christian the left is when it’s the right that twists the words of Jesus to support its own sick worship of mammon. So again, it is not the right injecting him into the arguement but the left trying to demonize ones belief in him…
November 28, 2006 - 07:45 PM on November 28th, 2006
11- If you just want to see the word “God”on things, how about “In God We Thrust”printed on condoms? No can do as some idiot would think that they could sue god if they ripped it, or put it on backwards..no telling the possibilities..
November 28, 2006 - 09:04 PM on November 28th, 2006
I want to show everyone here exactly why it is legal for the Ten Commandments to be placed on the local courthouse.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Any questions?
Also, does anyone know why the phrases “In God We Trust”and “Under God”are legal as they appear on our money and in oaths of office, and why it is legal for Christmas to be a national holiday?
I do.
November 28, 2006 - 10:29 PM on November 28th, 2006
Just wait the darwinist wackos will replace it with IN APES WE TRUST:mad:
November 29, 2006 - 02:13 AM on November 29th, 2006
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;â€
The court house shouldn’t just have the ten commandments; it should have giant stone tablets with the entire Koran. It should also include a massive star of David, statues of the entire Greek pantheon, an alter to sacrifice goats to Thor, and monuments to whatever other religions anyone else decides to invent.
I still haven’t heard an explanation of why “IGWT” should be printed on money of all things. Or why this is any better than putting it on condoms.
I’m also still curious about how you reconcile your “Xtian” values (the abbreviation is for you Robert:wink
with the things that Jesus actually said (see my post 7). More specifically, I’m looking for someone who can address these passages, passages that ostensibly come from Jesus’ own mouth (with the obvious exception of the one from Acts, which simply describes his behavior). I’m not going to be impressed if someone finds me a line about a rich king who was also a just king from the OT. The passages I cited are the one’s I’m talking about. Presumably, you don’t believe that Jesus said just anything.
This issue seems pertinent if you want to stick IGWT on coins. Apparently Robert is grossly insulted by anyone who types “Xtian,” but still supports behavior that opposes Christ’s specific teachings.
I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised that we find this sort of hypocrisy on the right. Beware of those who pray the loudest:
And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
November 29, 2006 - 07:04 AM on November 29th, 2006
21- you examples in #7 didn’t become anymore intelligent in 21! You exhibit no understanding of the meaning of the words you chose to use. You keep assigning this blame on the right and yet again you offer more proof that it is the left that keeps bringing Jesus to the table, it is the left that shows their ignorance when citing the bible, and it is you that haven’t quite learned that it became the motto to put on our money. Congress even took the time to legislate it. It is a good study. You may want to take the time to learn about it prior to making anymore arguements.
November 29, 2006 - 08:48 AM on November 29th, 2006
“The court house shouldn’t just have the ten commandments; it should have giant stone tablets with the entire Koran. It should also include a massive star of David, statues of the entire Greek pantheon, an alter to sacrifice goats to Thor, and monuments to whatever other religions anyone else decides to invent.”
Perhaps you understand, perhaps not. You are on the right track here even if you don’t know it.
However, my questions still remains unanswered.
November 29, 2006 - 08:49 AM on November 29th, 2006
Let’s see, Peejz, your post described yet another assault on religion by the ACLU and their atheist friends, this time in the form of taking IGWT off of coins. I’m asking you why keeping it on coins doesn’t conflict with Jesus’ teachings.
I’m responding to your paranoid post, dear.
You’ve offered no opposed interpretation of the specific lines I cited, though you keep implying that you could. Does this mean that you accept that Jesus said these things but you simply don’t care? Is Jesus only useful when you can pretend that he sounded like Reagan?
Why do we need IGWT on our coins? Do you have an answer?
November 29, 2006 - 08:51 AM on November 29th, 2006
TedintheShed,
What was your question?
And would you like to weigh in on the teachings of Jesus? Peejz seems to be spent.
November 29, 2006 - 08:56 AM on November 29th, 2006
Are you asking about the legality of IGWT?
I know that it came into being under Eisenhower as a way of once again framing the coldwar as Christians vs. others (sounds familiar). Here’s an hitorical-legal discussion of one of the challenges and the court response:
The 1978 MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL case was decided at the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. There, the court invoked the notion of “secular purpose,” suggesting that like prayer at government meetings or other displays of religiosity in government, the motto was “really” no religious. The court declared with regard to the motto “In God We Trust,” that “Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. ” The Ninth Circuit had reached a similar conclusion in the ARONOW v. UNITED STATES case in 1970
November 29, 2006 - 09:46 AM on November 29th, 2006
Jesus wanted nothing more than a strong national defense, closed borders, and a crackdown on those lazy welfare mothers.
November 29, 2006 - 10:10 AM on November 29th, 2006
What was your question?
It was plainly stated in post 19.
And would you like to weigh in on the teachings of Jesus? Peejz seems to be spent.
Not really, as I know them well already (two uncles and a cousin are pastors- it is in my family) I’d rather watch this one from the sidelines and see how it pans out.
November 29, 2006 - 10:17 AM on November 29th, 2006
So…
In post 27, I offered a response to the question about the legality of IGWT. As far as Xmas goes, I assume that it’s a case of coding it as, at least in part, a secular holiday. Since Dec. 25th isn’t actually Jesus’ birthday, the tree has roots in earlier pagan traditions, Santa’s got his own history, and the merchandising aspect isn’t very xtian anyway, it isn’t a leap to call it more secular than not. Plus, it’s great for the economy, right?
November 29, 2006 - 10:28 AM on November 29th, 2006
31.
Very good.
So you have established the the Supreme Court ruled that it indeed legal. Is it also your standing, or do you side with SFL in saying “”In God We Trust”and “Under God”are unconstitutional.”?
As for Christmas, it is legal because like MLK Day and President’s day, it recognizes a philosopher that has a great influence on our society.
As for your religious arguments with Peezj, being a Christian I don’t consider the Bible to be the word of God. That said, I also know that one can use the Bible like one uses the internet- to prove virtually any stance on most any topic.
November 29, 2006 - 10:31 AM on November 29th, 2006
I’m still waiting for the answer Peejz. Why is putting IGWT on money the Christian thing to do? Why isn’t it just a particularly transparent case of the worship of mammon?
Maybe, for the first time ever, you should just admit that in posting the whole IGWT “scandal” in the first place, you really hadn’t thought much about the issue. Or rather, that you’d thought about it as a REPUBLICAN and not as a CHRISTIAN.
November 29, 2006 - 10:41 AM on November 29th, 2006
As for Christmas, it is legal because like MLK Day and President’s day, it recognizes a philosopher that has a great influence on our society.
That’s actually very clever. If Aristotle ever gets his own holiday, I’ll be the first to wrap myself in the flag.
As far as the constitutionality of IGWT goes, I supposes that if it’s in the books, it’s in the books. If it comes up again, and the courts decide differently, then I guess we can all agree that it’s unconstitutional.
If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case: As an atheist, I’d strike it down as unconstitutional; as a Christian, I’d strike it down as offensive.
I also know that one can use the Bible like one uses the internet- to prove virtually any stance on most any topic.
That’s why I’m trying to stick to the words of Jesus, and even then to those words that appear in, or are corroborated by,the gospel of Matthew (usually privileged among the gospels do to its greater detail). Hence my comment that I’m not going to be satisfied by an example of a minor profit from the OT talking about a king who was both rich and holy. It seems to me that, for Christians, the actual words of Christ should be central (hence all of the bibles with his words in red ink).
November 29, 2006 - 11:37 AM on November 29th, 2006
That’s actually very clever. If Aristotle ever gets his own holiday, I’ll be the first to wrap myself in the flag.
No, not clever, but a matter of law.
And this is where your argument falls apart. If you wish there to be an “Aristotle Day”then as a citizen it is within your right to petition your Congressmen to propose a bill on the floor of the Capital. It would be voted upon (once/if it moves from Comittee), and struck down or accepted as was President’s Day, MLK Day and Christmas. Create the grass roots movement to implement it, if need be.
As far as the constitutionality of IGWT goes, I supposes that if it’s in the books, it’s in the books. If it comes up again, and the courts decide differently, then I guess we can all agree that it’s unconstitutional.
If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case: As an atheist, I’d strike it down as unconstitutional; as a Christian, I’d strike it down as offensive. ,
But you’ve made neither case.
That’s why I’m trying to stick to the words of Jesus, and even then to those words that appear in, or are corroborated by,the gospel of Matthew (usually privileged among the gospels do to its greater detail). Hence my comment that I’m not going to be satisfied by an example of a minor profit from the OT talking about a king who was both rich and holy. It seems to me that, for Christians, the actual words of Christ should be central (hence all of the bibles with his words in red ink).
Matthew is among the 4 Gospels that often contradict each other. Quoting the Bible in this instance is no better than quoting the Bible in an attempt to prove God exists to an aethiest, especially when only quoting selecting passages. Those passage taken singularly is often taken out of context as a result. What is being done here by both you and Peejz, IMO, is a complete misuse of the Good Book.
November 29, 2006 - 12:36 PM on November 29th, 2006
Religious condoms?
I thought everybody uses condoms religiously! If not, they sure should be! I like the ones that say “Go Zoroaster!” on the side…but if you prefer a little graphic of Buddha printed on yours, or whatever…
November 29, 2006 - 01:11 PM on November 29th, 2006
35.
No, not clever, but a matter of law.
And this is where your argument falls apart. If you wish there to be an “Aristotle Day”then as a citizen it is within your right to petition your Congressmen to propose a bill on the floor of the Capital. It would be voted upon (once/if it moves from Comittee), and struck down or accepted as was President’s Day, MLK Day and Christmas. Create the grass roots movement to implement it, if need be.
First of all legal and clever need not be mutually exclusive. Second, how is an off-handed remark an “argument”that then “falls apart”? Where were my premises? My conclusion? I could care less if Xmas is a national holiday. I’m happy to have the time off of work. I also think that Aristotle’s a great thinker (the metaphysics, not the politics).
But you’ve made neither case.
Why do you think that I was trying to? This isn’t what I’ve been arguing here. I’ve been arguing that Xtians ought to recognize that stamping the name of God on money is as much a deviation from Christ’s teaching as stamping it on bullets and more of a deviation than stamping it on condoms.
Matthew is among the 4 Gospels that often contradict each other. Quoting the Bible in this instance is no better than quoting the Bible in an attempt to prove God exists to an aethiest, especially when only quoting selecting passages. Those passage taken singularly is often taken out of context as a result. What is being done here by both you and Peejz, IMO, is a complete misuse of the Good Book.
First, of all, there are more than four synoptic gospels. I accept Thomas as a valid source text while some include others as well. As I noted, Matthew tends to be privileged (for reasons that I don’t completely agree with such as faulty historical work, and for reasons that seem valid such as greater detail and corroboration from Mark, Luke, Thomas, and usually John).
Second, quoting the bible to prove the existence of God to an atheist is a case of circular reasoning–a formally valid procedure. Arguing that the act of printing IGWT on money contradicts the explicit words of Jesus is not circular reasoning.
Third, I invite you, or Peejz, or anyone else to show me where JC contradicts himself in the gospels. The only case I can think of is in the (relatively late) gospel of John’s assertion that JC is actually God incarnate, something more difficult to argue for based on the content of the other gospels. Even then, it’s not the reported words of Christ but an omniscient narrator’s description that’s at issue.
Fourth, you’ve stated both that the four gospels contradict each other and that I should abstain from citing specific passages “out of context.” But if the whole is contradictory, then no holistic context exists. How do you reconcile these two positions? The first denies the existence of the very holistic context to which the latter demands attentiveness.
Finally, I don’t see why trying to get Jesus’ words right and to understand what he actually said is a “misuse of the Good Book.” I’m happy to quote the passages leading up to and following those that I quoted. Hell, I’ll even include the transliterated intralinear Greek. I’m not taking these passages out of context. I’m sorry if this undermines what you or Peejz or anyone else wants Jesus to be. I don’t think that too many Xtians would be happy with the proposition that Jesus says whatever we want him to say”if that’s your position, you have a lot of arguing to do. Barring that, it seems paramount to actually understand Jesus’ position. Something that no one responding to my posts has given the slightest indication of doing.
November 29, 2006 - 01:14 PM on November 29th, 2006
oops. Circular reasoning is a formally invalid procedure. (That correction probably wasn’t necessary)…
November 29, 2006 - 01:36 PM on November 29th, 2006
There is no such thing as an Xtian, solarc, so you don’t know any. If you are talking about “Christians”, that’s different. I’ve looked all through the Bible and haven’t found even one example of Christ being referred to as “Xt”, so there is no basis for the use of “Xtian”.
I will not even banter about the subject with someone who uses such offensive terminology because to do so shows their fundamental orientation and it is one that is not worth arguing with.
November 29, 2006 - 01:54 PM on November 29th, 2006
Right, Rbrt. Who cares what Jesus said. Your real target is abbreviations.
You never make any points anyway, so feel free to make good on your promise not to “banter.”
November 29, 2006 - 03:26 PM on November 29th, 2006
solarc- how long you been around here? ~2 weeks and counting now? Surely not long enough to render a valid opinion on the quality of my posts.
“Forgive him for he knows not of what he speaks”
November 29, 2006 - 03:53 PM on November 29th, 2006
Ted- When did the SCOTUS determine it was legal? They have offered no opinions as best I can find…could you cite the case? Other federal courts have, but I have not seen a case where the SCOTUS made a ruling on IGWT.
November 29, 2006 - 04:30 PM on November 29th, 2006
41.
So make an argument already.
November 29, 2006 - 04:57 PM on November 29th, 2006
#39
November 29, 2006 - 05:05 PM on November 29th, 2006
#40
November 29, 2006 - 08:40 PM on November 29th, 2006
tosser…
November 30, 2006 - 02:07 AM on November 30th, 2006
I’m still waiting for Peejz to either demonstrate that my interpretation is faulty or admit to not having taken the Christian perspective of the whole IGWT issue into account.
November 30, 2006 - 09:03 PM on November 30th, 2006
First of all legal and clever need not be mutually exclusive.
Yes, they are.
Second, how is an off-handed remark an “argument”that then “falls apartâ€? Where were my premises? My conclusion? I could care less if Xmas is a national holiday. I’m happy to have the time off of work. I also think that Aristotle’s a great thinker (the metaphysics, not the politics).
If in the course of the discussuion this was’nt part of your argument, then why did you post it? If you want to move this from an informal setting to a formal debate site- I have no problem doing so.
You used the aristotle/flag analogy to counter my Jesus/phisopher analogy, and your argument did not past muster, as I demostrated.
Why do you think that I was trying to?
If I may quote you: “If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case: As an atheist, I’d strike it down as unconstitutional; as a Christian, I’d strike it down as offensive.”. If you weren’t trying to make the case then 1) you wouldn’t have been making the case through out the thread regarding why IGWT is offenseive as a Christain and 2) you started the sentence “If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case…”
This isn’t what I’ve been arguing here. I’ve been arguing that Xtians ought to recognize that stamping the name of God on money is as much a deviation from Christ’s teaching as stamping it on bullets and more of a deviation than stamping it on condoms.
As I said, you haven’t made the case yet, or as you said “as a Christian, I’d strike it down as offensive.”. I will illustrate why later in the post.
First, of all, there are more than four synoptic gospels. I accept Thomas as a valid source text while some include others as well. As I noted, Matthew tends to be privileged (for reasons that I don’t completely agree with such as faulty historical work, and for reasons that seem valid such as greater detail and corroboration from Mark, Luke, Thomas, and usually John).
First of all, if you are quoting verses in the bible as valid, you must realize that they all must be considered valid if mking the case to mosttraditional Christians (be forwarned- I am NOT a traditional Christian). You can not dismiss one scripture in favor of anothe that contradicts it, as you did earlier.
Second, I am not refering to the synoptic gospels, but the he four canonical gospels.
Third, you are incorrect about the synoptic gospels: there are only three. Matthew, Mark & Luke are the three. John is not considered as it is stylistically, different, although not contextually.
Second, quoting the bible to prove the existence of God to an atheist is a case of circular reasoning–a formally valid procedure. Arguing that the act of printing IGWT on money contradicts the explicit words of Jesus is not circular reasoning.
This is where you misunderstood the statement. An atheist worldview is dictated by logic and reasoning. They plainly state that events writen in the Bible can not generally be corroborated. This is why quoting the Bible to prove the existance of God or even to prove the meaning of Jesus’ words as quoted by four different men (who often plainly quote the events differently) in invalid.
This leads me to why I said that both you and Peejz are using the bible incorrectly. IMO, it misses the point of the entire book if one uses it to prove or disprove in IGWT is something a Christian approves of. The Bible is a roadmap for a soul to find the path to God, not to decide such petty things as coin structure.
Third, I invite you, or Peejz, or anyone else to show me where JC contradicts himself in the gospels.
Hopefully you know as well as I do that what you say is an impossibilty as Jesus can not contradict himself in the gospels, for he did not write them. I snipped the rest, as it seems irrelevant after this statement.
Fourth, you’ve stated both that the four gospels contradict each other and that I should abstain from citing specific passages “out of context.”But if the whole is contradictory, then no holistic context exists. How do you reconcile these two positions? The first denies the existence of the very holistic context to which the latter demands attentiveness.
See above, regarding the proper use of the Bible. It is not the word of God IMO, but a road map to find the path to God as writen by men.
Finally, I don’t see why trying to get Jesus’ words right and to understand what he actually said is a “misuse of the Good Book.”I’m happy to quote the passages leading up to and following those that I quoted. Hell, I’ll even include the transliterated intralinear Greek. I’m not taking these passages out of context. I’m sorry if this undermines what you or Peejz or anyone else wants Jesus to be. I don’t think that too many Xtians would be happy with the proposition that Jesus says whatever we want him to say”if that’s your position, you have a lot of arguing to do. Barring that, it seems paramount to actually understand Jesus’ position. Something that no one responding to my posts has given the slightest indication of doing.
No, I can see where you have taken some passages out of context, as Texas displayed in another thread. The problem is literature is that it can easily be interpreted in different ways.
Oh, and I’ll be the first to admit that in regarding the Bible, I am indeed a relativists.
But we are all.
May I ask, what relativist position do you take? Are you a Christian, an atheist, an Xtian?
December 1, 2006 - 03:04 AM on December 1st, 2006
TedintheShed,
“You used the aristotle/flag analogy to counter my Jesus/phisopher analogy, and your argument did not past muster, as I demostrated.â€
No, I didn’t. I didn’t try to “counter”anything. You described the justification for Xmas’ constitutionality. I said that it was clever (simply meaning that I found the justification interesting). I then said that I wish Aristotle had his own holiday (but honestly, I don’t care enough to do anything about it). You then demonstrated the “falsity of my argument”(?!?) by suggesting that I take part in a grassroots movement to make an Aristotle day.
“If I may quote you: “If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case: As an atheist, I’d strike it down as unconstitutional; as a Christian, I’d strike it down as offensive.â€. If you weren’t trying to make the case then 1) you wouldn’t have been making the case through out the thread regarding why IGWT is offenseive as a Christain and 2) you started the sentence “If you’re asking me how I would have decided the case:’â€
I assumed that when you said that I wasn’t making the case you were still referring to the whole question of constitutionality, which I haven’t been arguing throughout the post. You’re correct that I’ve been discussing the question of how Christian the presence of IGWT on coins is.
“First of all, if you are quoting verses in the bible as valid, you must realize that they all must be considered valid if mking the case to mosttraditional Christians (be forwarned- I am NOT a traditional Christian). You can not dismiss one scripture in favor of anothe that contradicts it, as you did earlier.â€
You’re referring to my remark about John, I suspect. At no point during my argument did I “dismiss it.” I merely stated that, although the Gospels are generally consistent (something that you denied in an earlier post), John’s references to Jesus’ divinity aren’t present in all of the gospels. I’m the one who’s been arguing that Jesus does not contradict himself (see below) and challenging Peejz or you or anyone else to show me the contradictions.
“An atheist worldview is dictated by logic and reasoning. They plainly state that events writen in the Bible can not generally be corroborated. This is why quoting the Bible to prove the existance of God or even to prove the meaning of Jesus’ words as quoted by four different men (who often plainly quote the events differently) in invalid.”
No, you’re incorrect about this. The impossibility of using the Bible to prove the existence of God results from the fact that the only way to privilege the Bible as a source—-that is, the only way to have it function as more than “words as quoted by four different men‗-is to assume that its origin, or its justification is divine. This is the nature of the circulus vitiosus. Again, you described the issue as using the Bible to prove the existence of God. If the question were whether the existence of the historical Jesus could be proved by the Bible, your comment would be (more) valid. As it stands, it isn’t.
This leads me to why I said that both you and Peejz are using the bible incorrectly. IMO, it misses the point of the entire book if one uses it to prove or disprove in IGWT is something a Christian approves of. The Bible is a roadmap for a soul to find the path to God, not to decide such petty things as coin structure.
The “path to God”is made up of “petty things,”decisions we make day to day—-whether to steal a piece of gum, step over a beggar, support a certain political platform, etcetera. Most of our lives aren’t spent battling (literal) demons or facing Satan one-on-one. Jesus is very explict about the dangers of Mammon worship. The case of IGWT seems to be a clear case. If your argument is that the words of Jesus shouldn’t play a role in the “petty things”that make up our day-to-day lives, I think that is goes beyond being a “non-traditional”Christian. If this isn’t what you believe, you need to explain how the words of Jesus conflict with what I’ve been saying. You haven’t.
Hopefully you know as well as I do that what you say is an impossibilty as Jesus can not contradict himself in the gospels, for he did not write them. I snipped the rest, as it seems irrelevant after this statement.
Obviously Jesus didn’t write the gospels, but you’re badly mistaken as to the implications of this fact. If I write a novel about a character, ‘X,’ and ‘X’ says “I love pie”on page 3 and “I hate pie”on page 8, he’s contradicted himself, even though he didn’t write the novel. Contradiction describes a logical state of affairs, not an instance of authorial psychology. The case is even more obvious where historical persons are concerned.
No, I can see where you have taken some passages out of context, as Texas displayed in another thread. The problem is literature is that it can easily be interpreted in different ways.
I responded to Texas’ comments on another page. He only cited one context that (he hoped) could challenge what I’d written. Instead, the passage that he cited further supported what I was saying—-did you actually read his post?
May I ask, what relativist position do you take? Are you a Christian, an atheist, an Xtian?
Clearly, there’s an act of interpretation involved in every textual analysis; nonetheless, this isn’t the same as total relativism. Thorough relativism would evacuate Jesus’ words entirely—-this is what it would take to make him sound like Reagan, I suppose.
I’m a little concerned about your motivations in asking me about my own beliefs. If I give the wrong answer, then you’re free to disregard my comments for personal reasons, right? That being said, I’ll leave you with a quote from Franklin:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity…
December 1, 2006 - 03:38 PM on December 1st, 2006
My response to the comments from the Rangel page:
“I just reread your post and wanted to add one more thing. It is a fool’s game to base your life on ONE VERSE out of the Bible. Most verses could be contradicted with other verses if you ONLY extrapolated meaning from the single verse. You must glean meaning from the whole chapter.â€
That’s why I’ve cited a series a verses and invited others to check them against their wider context.
“That is why I responded to your Luke 14:33 with 14:11. The meaning of the chapter is not to “give up all your possessions,”it is to be humble in all situations.â€
The two are not mutually exclusive. One must be humble (14:11-14:32); moreover, “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” The other passages that I’ve cited substantiate this reading.
“I implore you to read the chapter with an open mind.â€
I do. I first came to my study of Jesus’ teachings when I was too young to care a bit about politics, about democrats and republicans, about Supreme Court decisions. I was amazed by them then and I’m amazed now. It pains me to think that people go to his words only to find substantiation of their political beliefs (and ignore whatever doesn’t fit). Obviously, I have political views now; still, if the words on the page don’t change your view of the world, you’re not reading closely enough “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.â€
“It isn’t the pont of one verse correct another, but the context of those two verses within the parable themselves. This means all of the verses taken as a whole, and not singularly.”
The story of Luke 14 is indeed about a rich man, and Jesus concludes the story just as I stated that he does: By telling his listeners to give up all of their possesions. Everyone loves to think that he or she is “humble.” Jesus is, however, aware that one should have the strength of his or her convictions: Give up everything. This provdes the capstone of the narrative.
This passage is not ambigous:
“None of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”(Luke 14:33).
Neither is this one:
“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).
nor
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me”(Matthew 19:21).
nor
“The church of believers were of one heart and soul, and none claimed anything as belonging to himself, all property was common property. There was not one needy among them, because those who owned land or houses sold them and brought the monies to the apostles, and they would distribute it to whoever had a need.” (Acts 4).
nor
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back”(Luke 6:30)
The examples do add up, don’t they? Again, I invite you to look at the longer sections that these passages are taken from. If you’d like, I can include the entire chapters in the comment box. I assume, however, that you all have Bibles,, and there are plenty of versions online as well.
“In this case, personally approving of “IGWT”on a coin in no way invokes a love of money or of following said path. That said, doing so or not doing so is has nothing to do with the matters of the spirit at all. If the case were as Solarc suggested, then anyone using money would be sinful, including the poor.”
The lines I cited earlier (taken from the “Discourse on Ostentation” of the Sermon on the Mount) are:
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will 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.”
Jesus’ words are incomprehensible to you, Peejz, because you assume that “of course it would be absurd to do away with money.” This is why you can say that “any use of money would be sinful,” as though this thought is the most ridiculous thing you can imagine. The Christian response is already present in the words I’ve cited:
“All believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions were his own but they shared everything they had.”
Again, no one, not the rich man and not the beggar would use money because “No one claimed that any of his possessions were his own but they shared everything they had.” To be in Christ is to be rid of mammon, completely rid of mammon. This is the only way because “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will 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.” You can try, but you’ll fail.
If this seems absurd to you it’s because you’ve closed your mind to Christ’s teachings.
“That is exactly the point. Well said. Solarc is trying to argue that it is the right that uses the Bible to further their cause..He is a prime example of the left baiting the right with the Bible and not having the understanding of what it is he is saying.”
I’m not arguing that Jesus is “on the leftâ€; I’m arguing that those who invoke his name ought to look very closely at his words rather than coming to the text with a set of assumptions about Jesus’ politics—like that Jesus would want to see the name of God emblazoned on coins.
I came to my politics through an engagement with his teachings. Can you honestly say the same? You don’t have to answer right away.
December 1, 2006 - 03:59 PM on December 1st, 2006
48. Man, TitS sure likes to pretend that hes the resident right wing intellectual. Like anybody with google couldnt get all of the same information and pretend to make points.
Texas is the only person who responded to solar c at all, and at least he wasnt arrogant about it even if he didn’t end up being right.
I agree with solar c. You all should actually read the bible instead of just ptetendign that you’re above the whole debate.
Also, TitS needs to go back to high school.
December 1, 2006 - 04:08 PM on December 1st, 2006
I am angered that solarc presumes to know what I think. Such arrogance has been the downfall of humanity before (Google “Fruit of The Tree of Knowledge”) but no matter how often the story is told, there is always some impudent twit that presumes to speak about that which he cannot even credibly pretend to understand.
solarc, you are commanded to stop opining and posting your drivel on any subject of Christianity whatsoever. Further, I don’t want you as a member of my Church; go somewhere else, anywhere that is a better fit for your deranged musings; perhaps the Church of Satan or whatever I really don’t give a “damn”.
December 1, 2006 - 04:08 PM on December 1st, 2006
I’m happy to argue if anyone’s actually willing to read the gospels and rethink their assumptions.
December 1, 2006 - 04:10 PM on December 1st, 2006
I am angered that solarc presumes to know what I think. Such arrogance has been the downfall of humanity before (Google “Fruit of The Tree of Knowledgeâ€) but no matter how often the story is told, there is always some impudent twit that presumes to speak about that which he cannot even credibly pretend to understand.
solarc, you are commanded to stop opining and posting your drivel on any subject of Christianity whatsoever. Further, I don’t want you as a member of my Church; go somewhere else, anywhere that is a better fit for your deranged musings; perhaps the Church of Satan or whatever I really don’t give a “damnâ€.
Wow, that was tasteful. Way to engage!
December 1, 2006 - 04:15 PM on December 1st, 2006
Man this site is pathetic. I know that only like 5 or 6 people ever post on it and they always agree with each other, but its bad even for that.
Somebody finally makes a real argument and the only thing anybody does is call them names and pretend to be jesus and tell them to piss off.
The right has really lost touch. Its not christian, its not anything.
December 1, 2006 - 04:46 PM on December 1st, 2006
53-I’m happy to argue if anyone’s actually willing to read the gospels and rethink their assumptions. so if we go along with you you ill discuss it?
How about you leave religion out of the equation as you have no idea what you are talking about!
December 1, 2006 - 04:50 PM on December 1st, 2006
51-Texas is the only person who responded to solar c at all,
Obviously illiterate…
55- the only thing anybody does is call them names and pretend to be jesus We’ve asked solar to stop doing this..the one that brought Jesus into this..:roll:
December 1, 2006 - 09:22 PM on December 1st, 2006
solarc
Your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY is amazing. It is pointless to discuss this with you. I find it hard not to be insulting. You seem incapable of understanding what others are saying.
Your words from 37…. “I don’t see why trying to get Jesus’ words right and to understand what he actually said is a “misuse of the Good Book.”I’m happy to quote the passages leading up to and following those that I quoted.
You are not trying to understand the words, you are trying to use them to meet your ends.
I asked you to read the CHAPTERS and you reply with “I first came to my study of Jesus’ teachings….” THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED. A valid response would be “I have read the entire chapter and this is my conclusion….”
I stated “You must glean meaning from the whole chapter” and you respond with “That’s why I’ve cited a series a verses…” after I just stated it is a fool’s game to pick one verse. —-Intellectual Dishonesty alert—- I talk about chapters and you respond with verses.
I state the meaning of Luke 14 is not to “give up all your possessions,”it is to be humble in all situations,”and you dance around it with “The two are not mutually exclusive” and then restate the single verse.
Here is a link to Luke 14
I challenge everyone to read the chapter and respond with which verse in the chapter BEST describes the intended lesson.
December 1, 2006 - 11:18 PM on December 1st, 2006
Solarc, you still don’t seem to get this. Here is the entire passage of Luke 14, so that we may look at it as a whole:
1 On a sabbath he went to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees, and the people there were observing him carefully.
2 In front of him there was a man suffering from dropsy. 2
3 Jesus spoke to the scholars of the law and Pharisees in reply, asking, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not?”
4 But they kept silent; so he took the man and, after he had healed him, dismissed him.
5 Then he said to them, “Who among you, if your son or ox 3 falls into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?”
6 But they were unable to answer his question.
7 He told a parable to those who had been invited, noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table.
8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not recline at table in the place of honor. A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him,
9 and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say, ‘Give your place to this man,’ and then you would proceed with embarrassment to take the lowest place.
10 Rather, when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, ‘My friend, move up to a higher position.’ Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.
11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Then he said to the host who invited him, “When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment.
13 Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind;
14 blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
15 One of his fellow guests on hearing this said to him, “Blessed is the one who will dine in the kingdom of God.”
16 He replied to him, “A man gave a great dinner to which he invited many.
17 When the time for the dinner came, he dispatched his servant to say to those invited, ‘Come, everything is now ready.’
18 But one by one, they all began to excuse themselves. The first said to him, ‘I have purchased a field and must go to examine it; I ask you, consider me excused.’
19 And another said, ‘I have purchased five yoke of oxen and am on my way to evaluate them; I ask you, consider me excused.’
20 And another said, ‘I have just married a woman, and therefore I cannot come.’
21 The servant went and reported this to his master. Then the master of the house in a rage commanded his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in here the poor and the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
22 The servant reported, ‘Sir, your orders have been carried out and still there is room.’
23 The master then ordered the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedgerows and make people come in that my home may be filled.
24 For, I tell you, none of those men who were invited will taste my dinner.’”
25 Great crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and addressed them,
26 “If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
28 Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?
29 Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him
30 and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’
31 Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?
32 But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.
33 In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.
34 “Salt is good, but if salt itself loses its taste, with what can its flavor be restored?
35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear.”
This chapter of Luke generally addresses with a spiritual issues: Places of Honor (1-14), the parable of The Grat Banquet (12-24) and what it takes to be a Discipleship (25-35).
This particular chapter addresses several issues, but what I am soecifically going to address is the context that includes Luke 14:33. The group ofm passages that addresses the particular topic I am going to explain is Luke 14:31-33
31 Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?
32 But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.
33 In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.
I will repeat: without these other passages, one is taking Luke 14:31 out of the context of this parable. They are for all intents and purposes unseperable. So, what does it mean?
First, what is doesn’t mean: unlike what Solarc said, this does not mean that in order to follow Jesus, one must give up all of their possesions. Although Texas also gave a geat counter argument, he almost got it correct in the “being humble” suggestion.
What Jesus is saying is that if you wish to truly be a follower, you must be prepared to overcome any obstacle the He will throw in front of you. Thus, you must consider the price of discipleship, just as tyhe king mentioned in Luke 31. All decisions forthcoming must be made in the light of the Will of God. If that means the sacrifice is all of your woldly possessions, the that is the sacrifice one must make if he clls. this DOES NOT MEAN that one must automatically disregard his possesions. In a round about way, this is the “humbleness” that Texas referred.
The rest of the passage also ties into this theme, the costs and requirements of discipleship (specifically 25-35).
December 2, 2006 - 02:32 AM on December 2nd, 2006
56, 57. Typical and deserves no reply. Still, Peejz initial post concerned IGWT on coins and that dirty ACLU that’s trying to take it off. No actual indication that the ACLU was incolved, of course, just typical paranoid ravings. I assumed that the pro-God on coins “argument” was coming from a mistaken Christian perspective. I am, however, less and less certain that Peejz has any relationship to Christianity, so perhaps I was wrong. Peejz gives no indication of ever having read the bible or of taking any of Jesus’ teachings seriously.
58. I’ve read the WHOLE CHAPTERS AND I’VE DRAWN MY CONCLUSION. How’s that, Texas? You clearly don’t have any understanding of what I’ve written. My context isn’t any single chapter, but THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE. That’s why I keep citing across specific gospels to make my point. If I keep repeating specific passages, it’s not that I’m taking them out of context; it’s because I believe that they concretize a message that exists throughout THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE. You, on the other hand, have responded with a misreading of a single chapter. I assume that you have no response to anything else that I’ve cited. You have a lot of work to do.
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 on 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, Havin