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.

“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 God”.

)

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.

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

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?

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.