One Nation Under God?

[Skull Pilot]

What is the over/under on the deniers accepting God in the 11th hour.

History has proven that many, many are not willing to take their last breath while denying God. Life becomes much more simpler when one is fading to black

-Geaux

Pascal's Wager

 

[AVG-JOE]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

 

[editec]

Why do some of us object to the words "UNDER GOD" in the pledge ?

Because we are taking an oath, and bringing GOD into THIS MAN MADE CONTRACT is offensive.

Keep GOD out of our politics.

If you don't understand THAT, then you need to reread the Federalist papers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Federal law added under god so federal law could just as easily restore the pledge to its original form.

I always opted out of the under god part as a student now I opt out of the pledge entirely.

But congress, nor the courts will ever vote or rule to strike the phrase. There's 71 years of legal precedent ruling in favor of the phrase to consider, since that law was passed in 1942.

Yeah change is bad I get it even though the change from the original was good.

More contradictions.

What? It won't change. The current state of our legislative system prevents it. And there is tons of legal precedent supporting it. And what exactly am I contradicting?

 

[Geaux4it]

What is the over/under on the deniers accepting God in the 11th hour.

History has proven that many, many are not willing to take their last breath while denying God. Life becomes much more simpler when one is fading to black

-Geaux

Pascal's Wager

Thanks for the link

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do some of us object to the words "UNDER GOD" in the pledge ?

Because we are taking an oath, and bringing GOD into THIS MAN MADE CONTRACT is offensive.

Keep GOD out of our politics.

If you don't understand THAT, then you need to reread the Federalist papers.

Perhaps you should read the Mayflower Compact. Perhaps he was intended to be part of our politics. History, my friend.

“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together...

The Mayflower Compact, 1620

And in the words of Benjamin Frankin:

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

-Benjamin Franklin

I also have read the Federalist papers, which clearly you have not:

Let us consider some of the ways in which the authors of the Federalist Papers display faith-based beliefs:

Essay 20, Topic 21, urges Americans to let their praise of gratitude for auspicious amity distinguising political counsels rise to heaven.

Essay 37, Topic 14, tells us that any person of pious reflection must perceive that in drafting the Constitution there is to be found in it a finger of that Almighty hand that has so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

Essay 43, Topic 30, asserts that nothing is more repugnant than intolerance in political parties, stressing the importance of moderation the essay concludes that one cannot avoid a belief that the great principle of self-preservation is a transcendent law of both nature and God...

Essay 1, Topic 4, concludes that in politics, as in religion, it's absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecutions.

Essay 2, Topic 4, refers to God in three separate instances, referring to the country they wrote that God blessed it with a variety of soils, watered with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. In other instance the author makes note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people. And in a third instance wrote that it appears like this inheritance was designed by God for a band of breathern united by the strongest ties.

Essay 31, Topic 2, informs us that theorems may conflict with common sense. Mathematicians agree on the infinite divisibility of matter, the infinite divisibility of a finite thing, but that this is no more compreshensible to common sense than religious mysteries that non-believers have worked so hard to debunk.

Essay 37, Topic 10, addresses how difficult it is to express ideas and words clearly, without ambiguity. The task of clear writing is lameted, for when the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.

Essay 44, Topic 24, sets forward the idea that there must be safeguards against the misuse of religion, in that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Essay 51, lets us know that in a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.

Essay 57, Topic 6, briefly elaborates that no qualification of wealth, birth, religious faith, or civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.

Federal Theology: God & Federalist Papers

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thomas Paine

“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”


“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

 

[jillian]

I live by faith, not by sight

-Geaux

which means evidence is irrelevant to you.

 

[jillian]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

no one is "offended" by your religious beliefs. that is your delusions speaking.

and why on earth would you think that people who don't believe in your brand of religion don't believe in G-d or somehow are offended by G-d? we just want your brand of religion out of our faces.... like the first amendment guarantees.

ranting theocrats are so funny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

no one is "offended" by your religious beliefs. that is your delusions speaking.

ranting theocrats are so funny.

As are liberal trolls.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

Then you're mind is closed to the concept of someone having a different belief system being tolerated as equal.

I can't help you to understand.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Just because you don't understand how I can possibly believe what I believe does not make it wrong, just a difference of opinion on an unprovable subject.

In the humble opinion of this average Monkey, tolerance of each others beliefs and life-styles is the DEFINITION of loving one another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What makes you think that people who don't share your beliefs are offended by your God?

Maybe we're just tired of being subjected laws in the Civil Code with no more reason for being there than "the popular God says it's wrong".

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

Then you're mind is closed to the concept of someone having a different belief system being tolerated as equal.

I can't help you to understand.

WHAT?!

I never said anything about being intolerant to another belief system. Have you not seen me defend Muslims right to worship freely? Such a brazen presumption is frankly offensive. My mind is closed to the fact that one faith or belief be superior than the other. I see Atheism as arrogant and self imposing. That still doesn't stop me from affording the same rights to believe what they want to believe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

no one is "offended" by your religious beliefs. that is your delusions speaking.

ranting theocrats are so funny.

As are liberal trolls.

Just because I don't share your belief in The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran doesn't mean I don't know something of the various religious teachings...

Is the above post an example of 'turning the other cheek'?



This is why many who profess a faith in Christ get little respect for that faith from me, AND why a few who claim the name of Jesus around here garner much respect from me.

Faith is a verb. Requires action.

 

[jillian]

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

no one is "offended" by your religious beliefs. that is your delusions speaking.

ranting theocrats are so funny.

As are liberal trolls.

so one is a troll if they point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

good luck with that. i suspect you are faced by "trolls" in every aspect of your \life.

now don't you have another good bye thread to do or some medication to take?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just because you don't understand how I can possibly believe what I believe does not make it wrong, just a difference of opinion on an unprovable subject.

In the humble opinion of this average Monkey, tolerance of each others beliefs and life-styles is the DEFINITION of loving one another.

You asked me to define God, please, define "unprovable." Another thing, you insist that you are correct, but you are just as lacking in evidence to prove God doesn't as you think I am in proving he does.

By the way, you accidentally quoted John 13:34

"I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another"

 

[TemplarKormac]

no one is "offended" by your religious beliefs. that is your delusions speaking.

ranting theocrats are so funny.

As are liberal trolls.

Just because I don't share your belief in The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran doesn't mean I don't know something of the various religious teachings...

Is the above post an example of 'turning the other cheek'?



This is why many who profess a faith in Christ get little respect for that faith from me, AND why a few who claim the name of Jesus around here garner much respect from me.

Faith is a verb. Requires action.

No, I am not turning the other cheek, especially when I am being provoked. She called me a "theocrat."

And if faith requires action, why are you using my behavior to justify your lack of action therein? Hmm? Why must I be the sole representative of the faith? And why must you let my behavior shape your overall opinion of it? Your logic is... faulty. Is it because you want to find someone who perfectly adheres to the teachings of Jesus? I'm sorry, you won't.

Romans 3:10

There is none righteous, no, not one

 

[jillian]

Just because you don't understand how I can possibly believe what I believe does not make it wrong, just a difference of opinion on an unprovable subject.

In the humble opinion of this average Monkey, tolerance of each others beliefs and life-styles is the DEFINITION of loving one another.

You asked me to define God, please, define "unprovable." Another thing, you insist that you are correct, but you are just as lacking in evidence to prove God doesn't as you think I am in proving he does.

By the way, you accidentally quoted John 13:34

"I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another"

why would one need evidence to prove that something does NOT exist? it doesn't work that way.

nor do i believe that G-d doesn't exist.

just not your version of G-d and your version of what G-d is has no place in my government.

history supports my view of that... not yours.

your faith is your business... . not mine.... and certainly not the laws of this country.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your remark indicates rebellion, not belief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. So I am puzzled by this response, truthfully.

Then you're mind is closed to the concept of someone having a different belief system being tolerated as equal.

I can't help you to understand.

WHAT?!

I never said anything about being intolerant to another belief system. Have you not seen me defend Muslims right to worship freely? Such a brazen presumption is frankly offensive. My mind is closed to the fact that one faith or belief be superior than the other. I see Atheism as arrogant and self imposing. That still doesn't stop me from affording the same rights to believe what they want to believe.

Dude... you're the one who said you were puzzled.

The bottom line is that when codifying the rules that we all have to live by, ALL people with a religious law book in their back pocket MUST have a reason other than "God says..." or "My religious story book says..." before restricting the behavior of all.

If you can't accept the lifestyles of the people who don't share your beliefs, you had better have something in your reasoning other than your ancient stories for why a particular activity should be punished or a particular life-style given second class status in the Civil Code.

This is all that the tolerant atheist asks.

Are there plenty of examples of intolerant atheists? Is The Pope a Catholic? Generalizing should of course be avoided.