1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

In God Some of us Trust...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MobBoss, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. LucyDuke

    LucyDuke staring at the clock

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,582
    Location:
    where mise
    My question would be whether "In god we trust." is any different from "In God we trust." If you see a difference, you see (one of) the non-Christian's objection(s).
     
  2. Phlegmak

    Phlegmak Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,966
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Since I've annoyed Christians with my refusal to capitalize "god" when referring to the Jewish god, there's an obvious difference.
     
  3. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    It's the same with Lord and lord.
    Psalm 82: 6 " I have said, Ye are gods..." as referring to men who sit as gods for example judges. Most of the time God/Lord is used to take the place of one of the Hebrew names of God , as Jehovah for example.
    So "In god we trust" would probably be more accurate statement since Bin laden seem to go after the gods we trust the most.
     
  4. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,021
    Location:
    US of A
    Sorry I forgot to respond to this...

    I was raised Catholic, but I strongly support the Protestant Reformation as one of the best things to every happen to Christianity. Why that is is that it introduced freedom of conscience. In short, every person is responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own soul.

    There is no abandoning of the responsibility for yourself to what someone else says is right. It is personal responsibility in its most fundamental nature. No priest, no pope, no bishop, no minister, no reverend, no rabbi, no cleric, no ayatollah, is responsible for what you do that is right or wrong, you are. You are directly responsible to God for your life and your actions.

    Most religious leaders, of course, hate this. And Protestant Christianity in the US has now largely forgotten this, and rejoined the Catholic Church and the Muslims in saying the religious leader speaks for God, and people are to obey to the letter in all things as the way to salvation.

    But what of the people themselves? Are they better off blindly obeying or taking responsibility for themselves? I think that anyone who is deeply religious and has a brain and gives a thought to what that means must take responsibility for their own soul and actions.

    But when religion and state are not kept rigidly seperate, then that may well not be an option. Once you mate the moral authority of the church, whichever church, to persuade about what is right, to the secular power of the government to persuade by force, to arrest, to imprison, or worse, then it is a rare and strong person indeed that can maintain their own faith.

    Failure to separate church and state has the practical effect of placing the state as an obstacle between the worshiper and God.

    It removes and destroys freedom of conscience. It removes and destroys personal responsibility. And it drives people away from true and honest faith. It makes it more important to go through the motions that the church dictate rather than having true faith and understanding.

    Every time in history that that governments and churches have gotten together, it is faith and worship that has been the casualties. No matter what the men who claim to speak for god dictate, that is what people are required to do. No matter how wrong it may be.
     
  5. LucyDuke

    LucyDuke staring at the clock

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,582
    Location:
    where mise
    Well, that's just the thing. That god has to be God. I'm wondering how they would feel if it wasn't God, but just plain old god, that is the subject of the inscription.
     
  6. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    You're delusional.
     
  7. Mr. Dictator

    Mr. Dictator A Chain-Smoking Fox

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    9,094
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    for such a god fearing country, we seem to feel the need to remind god that we trust him. in fact, it seems to be like we're trying to convince ourselves.
     
  8. AngryZealot

    AngryZealot King

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    In any case, I think "In God we trust" is a stupid saying that discredits the achievements of our forefathers. Rather than giving them the credit they deserve, we thank some abstract intangible entity? Why not use a phrase that gives proper credit?
     
  9. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Well, there is the Baha'i that believe in a God.

    Hinduism with its various Gods.

    Shinto, which worship various spritual beings and Gods known as Kami.

    And as a bonus I will add at least one more:

    Zoroastrianism that worships the God Ahura Mazda often referring to him as the 'One God'. (zoom zoom).

    EDIT: Oh what the heck, lets give one more as a bonus:

    Sikhism, that believes in one God that can have many names learned through enlightenment.
     
  10. North King

    North King blech

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    18,145
    The Baha'i believe that there have been many messengers of God, including all the Jewish and Christian prophets. Thus this is the Judaic God.

    Never capitalized in academic, popular, or professional literature, nor in any media form. They are always "gods".

    Ditto.

    In the same tradition as the Judeo-Christian line, actually.



    Mobboss, the fact that you are clearly ignoring the fact that people never capitalize the G except in monotheistic religions, that all of popular and academic discourse holds true to that maxim... basically that you are quite obviously not attempting anything remotely resembling listening, suggests that you are either a complete idiot or just a troll. If you never acknowledge difficult responses except by ignoring their points and making as if you don't understand what they're saying, you will acquire one of the two labels.

    I want you to understand that that is what you are inviting.
     
  11. Shadylookin

    Shadylookin master debater

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,719
    Location:
    eternal damnation
    I think the whole God vs god thing is just being purposely stupid. You know quite well only Abrahamic religions use God as a proper noun for their god.

    what about atheists/agnostics that don't worship/trust a god?
     
  12. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,083
    Location:
    Canberra
    The argument that anyone who put "In God we trust" on US currency was thinking of being inclusive towards Shinto is straining credibility.
     
  13. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,969
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    I am glad the government is once again publically acknowledging their trust in me.
     
  14. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,826
    Location:
    the golf course
    I said it, I dont need to let it sink in :rolleyes: I already know the pledge and words/coins are popular, that doesn't make them constitutional. You need to let that sink in... How on Earth did you get the idea I said popularity determines constitutionality? The 1st Amendment be damned was a reference to the fact the courts are sacrificing principle to be politically correct.

    Because the 1st Amendment does not say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or denomination, and the religion is obviously the religion of those who wanted children repeating the pledge every day - Christianity. Why is that even at issue? Why does that even matter?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Where does it say any names of religions? It doesn't, it just says "establishment of religion". The state telling children to stand every day and pledge their allegiance to the state and it's God establishes religion - and violates the hell out of their religious liberty. The courts tried to skirt around that reality by striking down "mandatory" pledge taking, but thats BS - the state created the coercion driving children to either stand and recite or stand out and become a target of abuse.

    The words on coins are a different matter, and why is instructive... While the pledge coerces children into not only participating in a loyalty oath (we aint like the Commies :lol: ), but pledging allegiance to the state's God, words on coins make no demands upon us. Now if the law said I had to repeat the words on coins every day (like the Pledge) that would be establishing religion - and violating the hell out of my religious freedom.

    The 1st Amendment does not prohibit Congress from praying together... They make no demands upon you or me when they pray, to establish religion they have to tell us to pray too, or pledge allegiance to their God.
     
  15. a_propagandist

    a_propagandist The Light Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Where else?
    Mobby, still no answer to my post? Would those churchgoers be as open in your interpretation of "God" as you?
     
  16. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Thats not clear in the information on the religion I found online. In fact, they also believe Krishna and Buddha were also prophets of God, which would certainly not refect a Judaic God.

    Now that is really uncalled for. There is simply no need to call names simply because I dont agree with your position. And like me pointing out about Krishna and Buddha as being messengers of God in the Baha'i faith when you either ignored them or left them out purposely tells me your not precisely correct in your own opinions here.
     
  17. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Is there a law being made by congress in regards to this inscription?

    Does it establish a religion?

    Does it prohibit the free exercise thereof?

    The answer to all 3 is 'no'.

    Let me get this straight. You dont mind congress praying to open the session...but you object to "In God We Trust" being on the money or a building or whatever?

    That really doesnt sound very consistent to me at all.

    Your last post wasnt a question, but simply a statement. I didnt see where it required a reply.
     
  18. a_propagandist

    a_propagandist The Light Brigadier

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Where else?
    Let me rephrase. See, the word "answer" can also mean "rebuttal." I'm surprised you didn't know that. After all, "God" can mean anyone's god, right? It seemed like you were well-versed on the inclusive nature of names and nouns. So, any rebuttal then?
     
  19. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,655
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Question: "In god we trust" to do what? (Officially I mean, don't make something up)

    Anyway, "E Pluribus Unum" is much better in my opinion.

    edit: Well, now I took some time to read the thread, I'd like to comment that capitalisation is a really boring subject. Should there be a comma after God for dramatic effect? In God, <wait for it> we trust.
     
  20. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,826
    Location:
    the golf course
    of course, all appropriations are law... The question is not whether a law was written, but what the law requires. Words on a coin dont require anything from us, therefore it is not establishing religion.

    The last two anyway

    I dont object to words on a coin. Where did I say that? This is about the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is unconstitutional...
     

Share This Page