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
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!
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.
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!
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:
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.
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).
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.
One more thing…
Ted,
Where’s your response to my post 49? I provided detailed responses to your remarks.
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.
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.
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?
62.
“Nobody reads the bible that close anyway.”
Thanks for demonstrating my point, Benjamin.
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.
# 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
67
Just a fact
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…
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.
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…
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.
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.
# 70 ..nice jab at him though.
Thanks peejz. It was my intent. After all the dude thinks I’m a second class citizen.
74- Really, I must have missed that press conference.
# 70
You seem a clever sort Peejz. I’ll let you do the math.
OOOOOOOOOOoooops #75. my bad.:grin:
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:poorly, 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.
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.
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…
#78
solarc?
WORD
76- Oh because you are gay? Yes, those Democrats have been so good to you..what was I thinking..
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.
It looks like some righties got their asses handed to them on this one! Time to read a book for a change, guys…:lol:
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:
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.
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.
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…
85, troll be gone to Hell.
Does the right ever come out of these exchanges looking good? =))
87, Yes, we do. It is fools like you who resurect 8 month old threads that are the fools.
Seriously, though, “SolarC” embarassed you guys. You don’t usually see something so one sided on these blogs. Good fun.
89, No, SolarC just took off in a different direction moving the goalposts.
I thought he got tired of being kicked around and ran home to Mommy..
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…
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.
“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.
:d
94, your mind is closed (and wrong), and you aren’t going to convince us with your drivel.
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€
=)) Yeah, the above was pretty funny, imo. Solarc was a wanker, as I recall. Wasn’t he a member of the Church of Global Warming too? A real zealot.
“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.
Our judges say the final score is:
Solarc: 1
Right Voices: Googol
98, No, Robert, it is more like how the Pack steamrolled the Vikings, and we are the Pack.
“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.” <:-p