“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, 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.
December 2, 2006 - 05:19 AM on December 2nd, 2006
One more thing…
Ted,
Where’s your response to my post 49? I provided detailed responses to your remarks.
December 2, 2006 - 06:48 AM on December 2nd, 2006
Guys, I don’t really don’t want to see this F—ing liberal win this argument. If none of you can come up with an argument aganst him or her or it, you should just ban him.
Nobody reads the bible that close anyway.
December 2, 2006 - 08:46 AM on December 2nd, 2006
60- 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.
and by doing so, you have confirmed what Texas said here in 58: You are not trying to understand the words, you are trying to use them to meet your ends.
December 2, 2006 - 12:48 PM on December 2nd, 2006
63.
Peejz,
I’ve shown how the Gospels and the Pauline letters demonstrate that Jesus held a certain set of beliefs; and that the first church attempted to put these beliefs into practice, “interpreting” these beliefs through their own way of life. Jesus did have a position; it just wasn’t Reagan’s.
You’re clearly tremendously threatened by this. Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, do you think that your Christianity is consistent with your right wing beliefs, e.g., your bitching about the hostess eating welfare mothers, etcetera?
If you’re so certain that I’m warping the words of the text, why don’t you offer an alternative reading? You were the individual who posted the IGWT article in the first place, so you must have a carefully thought out opinion, right?
If not, why not change “Right Voices” to “Disciples of Mammon” (you could even make the ‘S’s in “Disciples” into little dollar signs). Wouldn’t this be preferable to your current state of total hypocrisy?
You’ve stated repeatedly that I’ve got it all wrong; you’ve questioned my motives, and so forth. I’m asking YOU, Peejz, to show mw where I’ve gone wrong. You’ve shown that you’re quite capable of scrambling to agree with the responses of Texas and Ted, but you haven’t shown that you yourself have given the least bit of thought to the issue. Are you going to show me where I’ve gone wrong—-this will involve actually reading the words of Jesus—-or will you just slink into the background and hope that someone else comes up with an answer that you can sign your name to?
December 2, 2006 - 12:50 PM on December 2nd, 2006
62.
“Nobody reads the bible that close anyway.”
Thanks for demonstrating my point, Benjamin.
December 2, 2006 - 01:38 PM on December 2nd, 2006
Solarc
I should be honest about me and the Bible. I do not believe in God. I want to, but I do not. My opinions are based on what I understand when I read the Bible. I have not (and will not) read what someone else understands when he reads the Bible.
That said, I find you insulting (not respecting the deepest held convictions of others by writing Xtians), dishonest (You are not trying to understand the words, you are trying to use them to meet your ends.), and childish (playing this circular game that has no real end while attempting to portray Christians as hypocrites while looking down on them with contempt).
One cannot be happy (in the deeper sense of the word) while holding contempt for others. Please get up out of your chair and find someone in need and ask them how you can help. I promise you will feel better about whom you are and why you are here.
62 – Benjamin
He (solarc) is playing a game that has no end. His premise is that “according to the teachings of Jesus, putting IGWT on coins is akin to putting it on the barrel of Guns.” Money is simply an efficient means to conduct trade. Nothing he has cited (or can cite) directly speaks to his IGWT argument.
December 2, 2006 - 03:11 PM on December 2nd, 2006
# 66 One cannot be happy (in the deeper sense of the word) while holding contempt for others.
Sure they can. Check out the Oval Office. You’ve seen that mindless grin. He seems happy enough (albeit slap happy).
Please get up out of your chair and find someone in need and ask them how you can help. I promise you will feel better about whom you are and why you are here.
For someone who proclaims his (her?) irreligiosity that certainly sounds preachy Tex
December 2, 2006 - 03:28 PM on December 2nd, 2006
67
Just a fact
December 2, 2006 - 05:08 PM on December 2nd, 2006
64- 1.) You didn’t cover all the Gospels, you chose a verse here and there..
2.) In the Catholic religion, we are taught that our Church chose which Gospels we will be allowed to see. In other words, there are more Gospels than those covered in the bible…so you didn’t cover all of them nor do you even have a grasp of what it is you are saying.
You’re clearly tremendously threatened by this. Wow..I guess you are not too bright are you..I am in no way threatened by your comments, I just have gotten quite a laugh at how you chose to say it is the right that invokes Jesus’ name, yet it was you that did so…poorly, but you did it..As I said before, I have no problem discussing religion, just come to the table with some knowledge…
December 2, 2006 - 05:12 PM on December 2nd, 2006
67- not at all Eben, it was an honest assessment of the situation..Sure they can. Check out the Oval Office. You’ve seen that mindless grin. He seems happy enough (albeit slap happy). seeming happy and being happy are 2 very different things. Just because we think he looks happy does not mean he feels happy..nice jab at him though.
December 2, 2006 - 05:32 PM on December 2nd, 2006
64- By the way Solarc..you must have missed where I originally responded to your verses…it was all the way up in #6..:wink: Now I won’t ever call shiloh dumbass again…
December 2, 2006 - 05:56 PM on December 2nd, 2006
Congratulations, RV posters. You have soundly defeated my understudy, solarc, in this lengthy debate. But don’t get too excited, one day when he has matured and become more capable, no doubt he will attack again with a much stronger capability.
Of course solarc has not admitted defeat and he never will; that is the very first lesson of Leftist indoctrination and he was well taught. Of course my post here will no doubt embarass him and he will protest and deny it. The sole reason I am posting here is because yet another lesson, which he still needs to learn, is when to cut and run. There are many other debates on many other threads, plus so many hit and run guerrilla attacks to be made on conservative blogs that us activist Leftists must manage our time resources properly. Spending way too much time on a clearly lost argument is not good management.
You are to be commended, grasshopper solarc, for your tenacity in fighting this losing battle. But now it is time to move on.
December 2, 2006 - 06:12 PM on December 2nd, 2006
Terrific responses guys. I guess I’ve learned to respect the deep religiosity of the right.
I feel terrible about posting hateful things like “give up your worship of mammon” and “give to the poor.”
I realize now that Jesus wants a strong national defense and a boot on the throats of the welfare queens.
December 2, 2006 - 06:55 PM on December 2nd, 2006
# 70 ..nice jab at him though.
Thanks peejz. It was my intent. After all the dude thinks I’m a second class citizen.
December 2, 2006 - 07:47 PM on December 2nd, 2006
74- Really, I must have missed that press conference.
December 2, 2006 - 10:21 PM on December 2nd, 2006
# 70
You seem a clever sort Peejz. I’ll let you do the math.
December 2, 2006 - 10:22 PM on December 2nd, 2006
OOOOOOOOOOoooops #75. my bad.:grin:
December 3, 2006 - 03:39 AM on December 3rd, 2006
I should be honest about me and the Bible. I do not believe in God. I want to, but I do not. My opinions are based on what I understand when I read the Bible. I have not (and will not) read what someone else understands when he reads the Bible.
That’s unfortunate as you’re understading seems to be quite limited. As I noted above, you clearly go into your reading looking for verification of a set of (dangerously naïve) political assumptions; naturally, you see what you want to see. I’m not particularly interested in your own faith in God, so you don’t need to confess to me.
That said, I find you insulting (not respecting the deepest held convictions of others by writing Xtians), dishonest (You are not trying to understand the words, you are trying to use them to meet your ends.), and childish (playing this circular game that has no real end while attempting to portray Christians as hypocrites while looking down on them with contempt).
First of all, why is it such an insult to abbreviate Xtian? Is it an affront to justice when someone on this site types SCOTUS? Is SCUBA an insult to deep see divers? Second, I’ve invited people to show where I’m “dishonestly”manipulating Christ’s words. No one (certainly not you) has provided a satisfactory counterargument. Third, I’m trying to explain to people who claim to follow the teachings of Christ what Christ actually said. In so doing, I’ve been called an idiot, a hemmoroid, a nutcase, a loser, a tosser(?) unintelligent, dishonest and now childish. As far as my use of “hypocrite”goes: If you claim to order your lives according to Jesus’ teachings, but you neither know nor care to know what those teachings are, it seems to me that you’re a hypocritite. Did you have another defintion in mind?
One cannot be happy (in the deeper sense of the word) while holding contempt for others. Please get up out of your chair and find someone in need and ask them how you can help. I promise you will feel better about whom you are and why you are here.
Why do you immediately assume that I don’t work with charities? That I don’t tithe? By the way, when you’re sitting at yor computer, at least put some pants on! How do I know that you’re naked from the waist down? I just do! I’ll tell you one thing: I certainly don’t do charitable work to make my self “feel better about who I am.” Is even your understanding of charity coded in selfish terms? The work I do is in the name of social justice, not feelgood crap.
He (solarc) is playing a game that has no end. His premise is that “according to the teachings of Jesus, putting IGWT on coins is akin to putting it on the barrel of Guns.”Money is simply an efficient means to conduct trade. Nothing he has cited (or can cite) directly speaks to his IGWT argument.
I hope you can understand why nothing in the Bible could “directly”speak to the issue. We do, however, find numerous references to the dangers of confusing God and mammon, as well as to Jesus’ rejection of money and his demand that his followers do the same (which, we learn in Paul’s letters, they do). We also have the great story about Jesus throwing moneylenders out of the temple. In all cases, what’s at issue is a separation of Christianity and cash, a separation that printing IGWT on money obscures.
You didn’t cover all the Gospels, you chose a verse here and there.
I’ve cited quite a bit more than “a verse here and there.” I’ve also suggested that readers on this site consult the wider context. Have they? I don’t see it. You see, Peejz, your criticisms of my “selective”readings remain pretty toothless so long as you don’t come up with a better, more complete, more accurate reading. Clearly, you can’t.
In the Catholic religion, we are taught that our Church chose which Gospels we will be allowed to see. In other words, there are more Gospels than those covered in the bible:so you didn’t cover all of them nor do you even have a grasp of what it is you are saying.
Your priest is correct about the number of gospels—-I noted other gosples (particularly Thomas) in an earlier post. Is your point that these other gospels contradict Christ’s teachings in the canonical gospels? Which gospels are you using to prop up your argument? I invite you to cite the passages that you have in mind. You do have passages in mind, right Peejz? You’re not just desperately grasping at the possibility that something somewhere might contradict what I’ve written?
I just have gotten quite a laugh at how you chose to say it is the right that invokes Jesus’ name, yet it was you that did so
oorly, but you did it..As I said before, I have no problem discussing religion, just come to the table with some knowledge.
Silly me. I thought that organizations like focus on the family, the 700 club, and the moral majority, and individuals like Pat Robertson and others generally coupled their right wing hate with their shoddy misinterpretations of scripture. Doesn’t GWB, Caesar himself, claim that Jesus changed his life? Why, I even thought that the “religious right”as a concept came into existence with the election of Reagan.
You can keep pretending that the passages aren’t there Peejz. You can continue to let your selfish, hateful political views blur your understanding of Jesus’ teachings. You should, however, at least find a way to pretend more convincingly that you’ve thought about the issue. One way would be to actually engage with the passages that I’ve cited. This engagement will have to be better than the weak job you did at the beginning of the thread. I responded to it quickly and you immediately slinked off, no doubt hoping that one of the five or six readers of this blog would respond for you. They’ve tried, but the words of Jesus aren’t as easily twisted as all that.
It’s more sad than funny to hear you say things like “your reading is selective”or “come to the table with some knowledge”when these comments have nothing to back them up. Where are your worked out responses? Why don’t you tell me why the right’s bitching and moaning about welfare queens, its support of torture, and now its transparently cynical desire to hold onto the coupling of God and mammon with this whole, stupid IGWT imprint is anything but contrary to Jesus’ teachings.
Or, just amdmit that you don’t give a damn.
December 3, 2006 - 09:00 AM on December 3rd, 2006
Solarc
Let me add arrogant to the list (you’re understading seems to be quite limited….you clearly go into your reading looking for….I’m not particularly interested)
How clairvoyant of you to assume a limited knowledge because I have stayed focused on one thing (Luke 14) while you are determined to jingle your shinny keys over here and over there in an attempt to dazzle the less equipped.
Do you even bother to read ALL the words others post (arrogance)? Is this another ID ALERT? How can you make an analogy between Scuba and the deepest held convictions of a Christian.
Your paragraph that starts “Why do you immediately assume that…” is asinine and a clear red herring.
“find numerous references to the dangers of confusing God and mammon.” Life is full of dangers. The bible lists many. It does not mean we (as a people) don’t go out each day and face the world and potential problems. It means we are cautious of the dangers.
I must go. Our family has been asked to light the Advent candle at church this morning.
December 3, 2006 - 09:14 AM on December 3rd, 2006
78-You should, however, at least find a way to pretend more convincingly that you’ve thought about the issue. One way would be to actually engage with the passages that I’ve cited. Why give more thought to your stupidity. You tried to tell us that we invoke the name of Jesus and then when pushed you bring up specific organizations as if all Christians follow the words of Pat Robertson, focus on the family, the 700 club, and the moral majority.. Your first big mistake was assuming that the religious right started with Reagan…As I have said, you really have no concept of the church and it’s teachings…you cherry picked some verses and ran with them..you were answered and didn’t like what you heard…
December 3, 2006 - 09:28 AM on December 3rd, 2006
#78
solarc?
WORD
December 3, 2006 - 09:32 AM on December 3rd, 2006
76- Oh because you are gay? Yes, those Democrats have been so good to you..what was I thinking..
December 3, 2006 - 12:06 PM on December 3rd, 2006
Let me add arrogant to the list (you’re understading seems to be quite limited:.you clearly go into your reading looking for:.I’m not particularly interested)
Add whatever you’d like; its clear that you can’t come up with anything better than name calling.
How clairvoyant of you to assume a limited knowledge because I have stayed focused on one thing (Luke 14) while you are determined to jingle your shinny keys over here and over there in an attempt to dazzle the less equipped.
Wow, that metaphor’s on the verge of slipping away from you, isn’t it? I responded to your comments on Luke; you’ve yet to do the same re: the myriad passages I’ve cited.
Do you even bother to read ALL the words others post (arrogance)? Is this another ID ALERT? How can you make an analogy between Scuba and the deepest held convictions of a Christian.
I wasn’t drawing an analogy between scuba driving and Christianity, but showing how absurd it is to think that an abbreviation is in any sense offensive. There’s nothing offensive about SCOTUS, SCUBA, or Xtianity. They’re abbreviations for the sake of brevity. Should I take offense at all of your spelling and grammatical errors?
Your paragraph that starts “Why do you immediately assume that:”is asinine and a clear red herring.
Whoa, way to engage. You must have been the captain of your debate team.:roll:
Life is full of dangers. The bible lists many. It does not mean we (as a people) don’t go out each day and face the world and potential problems. It means we are cautious of the dangers.
Jesus doesn’t say “Be careful when you mix God and mammon,”he says that you must choose one or the other. It’s not a question of a safe combination, one attentive to dangers, but of a complete déliaison. Do you understand the difference?
I must go. Our family has been asked to light the Advent candle at church this morning.
How nice for you and your family.
Why give more thought to your stupidity.
Because its becoming more and more obvious that you know nothing about the religion that you claim guides your life. You’ve embarrassed yourself. Even some of your right wing readers (e.g., Benjamin) are telling you to try anything to save face.
You tried to tell us that we invoke the name of Jesus and then when pushed you bring up specific organizations as if all Christians follow the words of Pat Robertson, focus on the family, the 700 club, and the moral majority.
I didn’t say that all Christians follow the teachings of these groups. I said that these groups “generally coupled their right wing hate with shoddy misinterpretations of scripture.” In other words, the right prances around waving the bible even though the teachings of Jesus contradict the right’s hateful, selfish politics. During the presidential campaign of 2000, Bush named Jesus Christ as his “favorite philosopher,”and Bush routinely ends speeches with the words “May God continue to bless America.” The groups I mentioned are a few examples of the coupling of the right and a “Christianity”that is hardly worthy of the name.
As I have said, you really have no concept of the church and it’s teachings:you cherry picked some verses and ran with them..you were answered and didn’t like what you heard.
Please. Even your right wing readers aren’t convinced. I’ve responded to all of your silly little challenges. I’ve cited dozens of verses. I’ve invited you again and again to engage with them. You swing between assuring me that you could if you wanted to and insisting that you already have. You’re embarrassing yourself and looking more and more like the hypocrite you are. Admit that you have a lot of work to do or admit that you don’t care what Jesus said. Either would be more intellectually honest than the sloppy, transparent charade that you’re carrying on now.
December 6, 2006 - 11:03 AM on December 6th, 2006
It looks like some righties got their asses handed to them on this one! Time to read a book for a change, guys…:lol:
December 6, 2006 - 02:25 PM on December 6th, 2006
Here’s a better explanation of the meaning: It is shorthand for “Do Not Trust the Left” and means that if and when Liberalism takes over, the U.S. as the Founders knew it is finished. Over. Even they knew if the frauders, grifters, and plantation owners (those three terms describe much of the Democrite coalition) reached critical mass, it would be impossible to keep America great.
I agree with them…:grin:
December 6, 2006 - 04:49 PM on December 6th, 2006
if and when Liberalism takes over, the U.S. as the Founders knew it is finished. Over. Even they knew if the frauders, grifters, and plantation owners (those three terms describe much of the Democrite coalition) reached critical mass, it would be impossible to keep America great.
Don’t be an idiot, Rbrt, the US as the founders knew it (which means both smaller government and slavery, the good and the bad), has been gone for better than century. The democrats had little to do with it.
March 22, 2007 - 10:32 AM on March 22nd, 2007
It is amazing how a fight breaks out over these things. I pose some questions: Why is there a problem with God? Why it there a problem with Jesus? Why out of all the know claimed deities is Jesus, God and Holy Spirit used as a curse words? We are uspet (believers in Christ) when someone uses the name of Christ in a disrespectful manner. Using X for Christ is shown as lack of respect for Him. If someone you love who nothing but wonderful, would you appreciate someone calling them a name that hurts? We get upset when our child comes home crying from some other kid calling them names. So why not this be upsetting to us. You don’t know Him how can you judge Him. This thing with the coin is just a beginning of what is to come. Yes, Christ asked to give up all and follow in an attempt to show that what is here is not going with us when we die. Don’t get attached. But also all that we have comes from God. I believe the motto “In God We Trust” is used as reminder of that and we look to Him for everything. It’s like saying I am for God and all things are His. Now you can throw around all the arguements you want about any of this. But in the end are you sure, really sure, you are right in what side you stand. And if the answer is yes, then let things fall as they may. We all face the fact of death. Are you ready for lies beyond? I know I am. I hope you are too.
November 15, 2007 - 10:04 AM on November 15th, 2007
It is a national embarassment to have the phrase “In God We Trust” written on our currency. I say this because it seems like what we are really saying is this, “Money is the God of America”. We should be ashamed to see this on our money. If the only way that christians can have faith and peace of mind is to see what they believe written and inscribed everywhere you turn, then they a sorry lot indeed…
November 15, 2007 - 10:18 AM on November 15th, 2007
85, troll be gone to Hell.
November 18, 2007 - 03:01 PM on November 18th, 2007
Does the right ever come out of these exchanges looking good?
November 19, 2007 - 07:09 AM on November 19th, 2007
87, Yes, we do. It is fools like you who resurect 8 month old threads that are the fools.
November 19, 2007 - 09:14 AM on November 19th, 2007
Seriously, though, “SolarC” embarassed you guys. You don’t usually see something so one sided on these blogs. Good fun.
November 19, 2007 - 09:19 AM on November 19th, 2007
89, No, SolarC just took off in a different direction moving the goalposts.
November 19, 2007 - 10:13 AM on November 19th, 2007
I thought he got tired of being kicked around and ran home to Mommy..
November 19, 2007 - 11:49 PM on November 19th, 2007
So… You seriously think that you “won the debate?” That’s amazing. I’ve been showing my friends this thread for a laugh.
Oh well…
November 20, 2007 - 12:56 AM on November 20th, 2007
Wow…who resurrected this old debate? Entertaining…
“So: You seriously think that you “won the debate?”That’s amazing. I’ve been showing my friends this thread for a laugh.”
Yes, because ad hominem attacks are the mark of a winning debate strategy.
Kudos to solarc for actually making an intellectual argument. As for the rest of you cheering him like third graders cheering on a friend in a playground fight perhaps you have more fruitful pursuits in life you should focus on.
Unless, of course, you wish to continue the convesation in his place?
C’mon Kelmo…what excuse do you have to avoid it? I want to read it…
Oh, and FTR solarc last response to me was:
“One more thing:
Ted,
Where’s your response to my post 49? I provided detailed responses to your remarks.”
If you review post #49, it is by a poster named “Jesus. He posted:
“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€.”
If such confusion wins a debate to you folks, then I can see why you’d look up to Matthias as a demi-god of logic and reason.
November 20, 2007 - 12:19 PM on November 20th, 2007
“Unless, of course, you wish to continue the convesation in his place?
C’mon Kelmo:what excuse do you have to avoid it? I want to read it:”
Well, the “conversation” seems to have been settled a while ago (Solarc: 1; Right Voices: 0). Personally, I’m quite certain that God doesn’t exist, so I have a hard time getting too excited about biblical hermeneutics. However, if you’re interested in metaphysical (rather than exegetical) question of theism/atheism, I’d be happy to go a few rounds.
November 20, 2007 - 12:33 PM on November 20th, 2007
94, your mind is closed (and wrong), and you aren’t going to convince us with your drivel.
November 20, 2007 - 01:04 PM on November 20th, 2007
If you review post #49, it is by a poster named “Jesus. He posted:
“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€.â€
November 20, 2007 - 01:55 PM on November 20th, 2007
“Well, the “conversation”seems to have been settled a while ago”
Evidently that isn’t the case, as your continued responses to this thread has shown. Solarc dwidled on the topic, even failing to acknowledge or even understand the difference between the synoptic gospels and the canonical gospels. He would cherry pick points that he thought he could further. Sometimes he was able to, but most often was not unable.
The entertaining part to me is your seemingly need to plant a flag of victory months after the fact in order to justify your own beliefs.
If you knew anyting about debating, you would see that is entirely besides the point. Not suprising though, as small minded people think small.
So, if you wish feel free to pick up from solarc’s last post that actually addressed me.
Perhaps you’ll learn something.
“Personally, I’m quite certain that God doesn’t exist, so I have a hard time getting too excited about biblical hermeneutics.”
Of course you are- simply demonstrating you entirely miss the point.
November 20, 2007 - 02:25 PM on November 20th, 2007
Our judges say the final score is:
Solarc: 1
Right Voices: Googol
November 20, 2007 - 03:28 PM on November 20th, 2007
98, No, Robert, it is more like how the Pack steamrolled the Vikings, and we are the Pack.
November 21, 2007 - 08:24 AM on November 21st, 2007
“He would cherry pick points that he thought he could further. Sometimes he was able to, but most often was not unable.”
Watch those double negatives, t.i.t.s. Anyway, reading through the thread, solarc provided relevant passages from most of the books of the New Testament. 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). But maybe you actually do believe that you won!?!
Hmmmm. No one I’ve sent the “conversation” to has even commented that it was any sort of real debate. 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. I guess that I should be thankful that it’s still here.
That’s why I initially commented on the exchange (and forwarded it to so many of my friends). None of them could believe how badly you performed (since the typical characterization of the right is that it actually knows something about the bible, or at least does a decent job of hiding behind it). I’m really hoping that more people send it on.
“So, if you wish feel free to pick up from solarc’s last post that actually addressed me.”
Here’s solarc’s post:
“Where’s [Ted's] response to my post 49? I provided detailed responses to [his] remarks.”
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?
“Solarc: 1
Right Voices: Googol”
I really have to forward the whole solarc exchange to more people!! They can all see how Right Voided scored a “googol.”
November 21, 2007 - 09:17 AM on November 21st, 2007
“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.
November 25, 2007 - 12:17 AM on November 25th, 2007
(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.
November 25, 2007 - 07:41 AM on November 25th, 2007
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.
November 25, 2007 - 09:58 AM on November 25th, 2007
I haven’t been on this site long, Pam, but you sure don’t seem to have anything of any intellectual substance to contribute.
November 25, 2007 - 02:10 PM on November 25th, 2007
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.
November 25, 2007 - 03:30 PM on November 25th, 2007
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.
November 25, 2007 - 07:25 PM on November 25th, 2007
Hey Elmo don’t let the door hit you on the way out…
November 25, 2007 - 07:39 PM on November 25th, 2007
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?
December 4, 2007 - 03:24 PM on December 4th, 2007
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
December 4, 2007 - 03:53 PM on December 4th, 2007
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.
December 4, 2007 - 06:50 PM on December 4th, 2007
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€.
May 6, 2008 - 03:09 PM on May 6th, 2008
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.