One Nation Under God?

[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.

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"

Unprovable subjects are those which cannot be proven, like how life started and what happens to the software that drives our flesh when life in our bodies comes to an end.

Unless a Monkey admits that nobody KNOWS the origins of life and nobody KNOWS what lay at death's door, his mind is closed on the subject and further discussion is moot.

Step one in establishing a strong faith in whatever you believe is to understand that true faith involves the risk of being wrong.

Monkeys HATE Being Wrong.​

`​

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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

So that should be construed as intolerance? Why are you assigning these things to me?

Your opinion of Christians is stereotypical, and honestly, you are too lazy to find out the truth of my faith. You would much rather sit back and judge it from an ivory tower aloft. It's rather disappointing. Avail yourself of knowledge before you dole out your judgements.

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.

Um. I do. I am a firm believer of the law as well. Just because I am a Christian does not excuse me from obeying the law. The Bible says love one another, love thine enemy, do unto others as you would have them do to you, etc.

There are plenty of things that suggest we don't treat other lifestyles as "second class." In Romans 13, I am commanded to respect the governing authorities, thusly the law, because just law is divinely inspired. Thus if I disobey the law, I disobey God.

I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but it is intellectually dishonest. I don't have to accept any lifestyle, nor do you. But you sit there demanding I accept yours. In this land of freedom, that's too bad, my friend.

And as far as generalizing goes, you administered a heavy dose of it earlier (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If this is how Christians act, then I want no part of it. This is why they get no respect from me."


Lastly, who do I want to punish? What are you afraid of?

 

[AVG-JOE]

One Nation Under God?

Step one is to define 'God'.

You'll find that as the definitions get more specific, unity of nation becomes less and less apparent.



By using the lovely and extremely generic term 'God', unity, at least on paper, can be preserved.

`​

Thank you, a rational response.

I agree with the first part. But why do most people construe 'God' to represent Judeo-Christian beliefs?

Welcome to America and The West. You'll find that the "most people construe 'God' as..." will also vary from country to country. In India, most people do not construe God as the Judeo-Christian God, while in neighboring Pakistan most people construe God to be The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, but unlike The West, a heavier emphasis is placed on the writings found in The Koran.

It's all relative and therefore a strict matter of opinions and faith in those opinions.

 

[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.

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"

Unprovable subjects are those which cannot be proven, like how life started and what happens to the software that drives our flesh when life in our bodies comes to an end.

Unless a Monkey admits that nobody KNOWS the origins of life and nobody KNOWS what lay at death's door, his mind is closed on the subject and further discussion is moot.

Step one in establishing a strong faith in whatever you believe is to understand that true faith involves the risk of being wrong.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348859-monkeys-hate-being-wrong.html#post8903916​

`​

Wait what? That's the most closed minded thing I've ever heard.

Unless this monkey is willing to entertain the possibility of life after death, and that some super intelligent being created life on earth, he is thusly and likewise closed minded himself, rendering all further discussion moot. Plus this monkey should avoid insisting that one point of view is wrong, and would need to learn that he could risk being wrong himself. Stalemate.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is, for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

 

[strollingbones]

Who said,'when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross?


sinclair lewis.....

simple as that

 

[AVG-JOE]

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"

Unprovable subjects are those which cannot be proven, like how life started and what happens to the software that drives our flesh when life in our bodies comes to an end.

Unless a Monkey admits that nobody KNOWS the origins of life and nobody KNOWS what lay at death's door, his mind is closed on the subject and further discussion is moot.

Step one in establishing a strong faith in whatever you believe is to understand that true faith involves the risk of being wrong.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348859-monkeys-hate-being-wrong.html#post8903916​

`​

Wait what? That's the most closed minded thing I've ever heard.

Unless this monkey is willing to entertain the possibility of life after death, and that some super intelligent being created life on earth, he is thusly and likewise closed minded himself, rendering all further discussion moot. Plus this monkey should avoid insisting that one point of view is wrong, and would need to learn that he could risk being wrong himself. Stalemate.

I never said that one point of view is right and another is wrong, I said that tolerant folks understand possibilities, and the definition of 'believe'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unprovable subjects are those which cannot be proven, like how life started and what happens to the software that drives our flesh when life in our bodies comes to an end.

Unless a Monkey admits that nobody KNOWS the origins of life and nobody KNOWS what lay at death's door, his mind is closed on the subject and further discussion is moot.

Step one in establishing a strong faith in whatever you believe is to understand that true faith involves the risk of being wrong.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348859-monkeys-hate-being-wrong.html#post8903916​

`​

Wait what? That's the most closed minded thing I've ever heard.

Unless this monkey is willing to entertain the possibility of life after death, and that some super intelligent being created life on earth, he is thusly and likewise closed minded himself, rendering all further discussion moot. Plus this monkey should avoid insisting that one point of view is wrong, and would need to learn that he could risk being wrong himself. Stalemate.

I never said that one point of view is right and another is wrong, I said that tolerant folks understand possibilities, and the definition of 'believe'.

Oh, if that's all you're after, I have no problem with "possibilities." On the other hand, I've seen compelling evidence through myself and others that all those "possibilities" lead to justify the belief and the existence in/of a God. You believe what you want to believe, and I tolerate it. I ask the same of you, too.

 

[guno]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

Dispelling the myth of a ‘Christian nation’

Dispelling the myth of a 'Christian nation' | OnFaith

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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

So that should be construed as intolerance? Why are you assigning these things to me?

Your opinion of Christians is stereotypical, and honestly, you are too lazy to find out the truth of my faith. You would much rather sit back and judge it from an ivory tower aloft. It's rather disappointing. Avail yourself of knowledge before you dole out your judgements.

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.

Um. I do. I am a firm believer of the law as well. Just because I am a Christian does not excuse me from obeying the law. The Bible says love one another, love thine enemy, do unto others as you would have them do to you, etc.

There are plenty of things that suggest we don't treat other lifestyles as "second class." In Romans 13, I am commanded to respect the governing authorities, thusly the law, because just law is divinely inspired. Thus if I disobey the law, I disobey God.

I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but it is intellectually dishonest. I don't have to accept any lifestyle, nor do you. But you sit there demanding I accept yours. In this land of freedom, that's too bad, my friend.

And as far as generalizing goes, you administered a heavy dose of it earlier (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If this is how Christians act, then I want no part of it. This is why they get no respect from me."


Lastly, who do I want to punish? What are you afraid of?

Do you believe that gay and straight marriages should be treated equally under the Tax Code and the Social Security Act?

Why or why not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Joe, I couldn't help but notice your sig line.

~Treat the Earth well... It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
~We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
` --Native American Proverbs

You do realize how spiritual Native Americans were, right? Just curious.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So that should be construed as intolerance? Why are you assigning these things to me?

Your opinion of Christians is stereotypical, and honestly, you are too lazy to find out the truth of my faith. You would much rather sit back and judge it from an ivory tower aloft. It's rather disappointing. Avail yourself of knowledge before you dole out your judgements.

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.

Um. I do. I am a firm believer of the law as well. Just because I am a Christian does not excuse me from obeying the law. The Bible says love one another, love thine enemy, do unto others as you would have them do to you, etc.

There are plenty of things that suggest we don't treat other lifestyles as "second class." In Romans 13, I am commanded to respect the governing authorities, thusly the law, because just law is divinely inspired. Thus if I disobey the law, I disobey God.

I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but it is intellectually dishonest. I don't have to accept any lifestyle, nor do you. But you sit there demanding I accept yours. In this land of freedom, that's too bad, my friend.

And as far as generalizing goes, you administered a heavy dose of it earlier (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If this is how Christians act, then I want no part of it. This is why they get no respect from me."


Lastly, who do I want to punish? What are you afraid of?

Do you believe that gay and straight marriages should be treated equally under the Tax Code and the Social Security Act?

Why or why not?

I believe in equal treatment under the law. Why? Because not only does the 14th Amendment make it deadly clear, Matthew 7 makes it clear I should reserve passing judgement on unbelievers, lest I be judged with the same standards and fail to meet them myself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

Dispelling the myth of a ‘Christian nation’

Dispelling the myth of a 'Christian nation' | OnFaith

Um no.

Acknowledging God

 

[AVG-JOE]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

No.

We are a nation of many flavors of Christians, several flavors of Muslims, and a plethora of other tastes, based both in the ancient Abrahamic tales and other stories, and we keep a certain peace by not making a definition of God a requirement in most religious discussion.

Americans, thank (insert your preferred Deity here), are a bunch of pussies when it comes to defining their religious discussion, and I for one am glad for it. It would break my heart to see Americans begin to defend their various beliefs at the point of a gun like the Sunnis and the Shiites do overseas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words ''under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words ''In God We Trust'' on our coins and ''God bless America'' uttered by presidents at the end of important speeches.

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge that includes the assertion that there is a God.
'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

The beauty of America and the good ol' USA is that the requirement to actually define 'God' in religious conversation is for the most part rare, and the more generic we keep 'God', the easier it is to pretend we're all on the same page.

So, are we Christians being told how we should define our own God? Isn't that a bit... presumptuous?

No.

We are a nation of many flavors of Christians, several flavors of Muslims, and a plethora of other tastes, based both in the ancient Abrahamic tales and other stories, and we keep a certain peace by not making a definition of God a requirement in most religious discussion.

Americans, thank (insert your preferred Deity here), are a bunch of pussies when it comes to defining their religious discussion, and I for one am glad for it. It would break my heart to see Americans begin to defend their various beliefs at the point of a gun like the Sunnis and the Shiites do overseas.

Fair enough. Though, I would never resort to such barbarity to defend my beliefs, that is unless I was forced to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words ''under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words ''In God We Trust'' on our coins and ''God bless America'' uttered by presidents at the end of important speeches.

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge that includes the assertion that there is a God.
'One Nation Under God' - NYTimes.com

Overturned in 2010 via an appeal of the earlier 2002 ruling:

Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District (also known as Newdow v. Carey), Nos. 05-17257, 05-17344, and 06-15093, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld the constitutionality of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in public schools. The 2–1 majority found that the recitation did not constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution.

It was an appeal from the Eastern District of California, which ruled that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school is unconstitutional based on the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the words "under God" violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution in Newdow v. United States Congress in 2002. That case was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned on an issue of standing in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow in 2004.

Newdow v. Carey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . which has nothing to do with socialism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

. . . which has nothing to do with socialism.

Huh?