Thread: A Good Discussion - Stay on Topic

  1. #61
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    That was the Mosaic was fulfilled when Christ came...He brought the higher law.

    I don't care who's "law" it is, you stated...

    >>> the bible would never say.

    ... I was simply pointing out you were wrong.

    What you have done now is use a classic political tool, you have effectively become a "spin doctor" - a common trait of religious types of any creed when confronted with the reality in their "holy books". In that respect, religions in general are very similar to politics, all in the interpretation.

    So how does one interpret the term "under god" - the bigger question is why should one have to in the first place?
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  2. #62
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    > Where the crap do you get that idea?

    He's not being serious.
    Always one to take a potshot at mormonism when I get the chance . Sorry

  3. #63
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Plano, Texas, United States
    >Always one to take a potshot at mormonism when I get the chance . Sorry

    Sorry didn't realize u were just joking.
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  4. #64
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    near a computer
    Christianity, Judaism and Islam all worship the same god anyway.

    All religions, except for atheists and Bhudists, agree to super natural beings controling/interfeering in our lives.

    So the 'under god' only excludes a few.

    My objection would be based on the seperation of church and state (not the bridge referred to by GWB).
    But then I don't have to say it.

    I had to sing "god save our gracious queen" when she ruled another country and later something about how being "girt by sea" advanced Australia.

    Not surprisingly our nation, stolen from the natives by force and filled with convicts, wants a song about a thief who commits suicide rather than face justice as its national athem.
    (look at the words of 'Waltzing Matilda'. He steals a sheep and when caught, drowns himself rather than be arrested. Aussie to English: swagman = tramp, billabong = small lake, jumbuck = sheep, squatter = land owner, trooper = police)

    >>"And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, not prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them." - Mormon 9:7-8<<


    To paraphrase:
    "If you don't beleive in our version of god then you just haven't tried or are too stupid to understand."

    So if you don't accept this book as absolute truth and actual word of god, it can only be if you are too stupid to understand it.

    >>Instead of completely eliminating religion, teachers could very easily encourage students to search religion thouroughly and decide if there is a religion that seems true to them.<<

    So you did this?

    Please tell me how you discounted other religions. That is decided their version of god was untrue or incorrect and validated your religion as correct.

    Did you (as I did as a child rasied as a Methodist) just accept what your parents, teachers and 'holy men' said?
    I had an epiphany in Nepal, when faced by a man who beleived so strongly in his god he cut an inch off his left arm each year to prove his worthiness. At that point I understood the true power of faith and the crux or religion. (and did not like it one bit)

    Did you first study these religions and come to an empirical choice as to which was correct, right for you.

    Or did you already have a religion and so a (semi) closed mind to these other choices? (think of a jury biased/informed by press reports at a criminal trial)

    >>Either they're both true or neither of them is true.

    'Pascals Wager'
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  5. #65
    Am I the only one that doesn't see why people care so much if we have "under God" in the pledge, really how many of the people who argue for it or against it say the pledge every day. In my school we say it every other day, but still no one really pays much attention to it. In my 20th century Government class we have had discussions on this topic and some people who never say it with the rest of the school actually expressed their opinion on it, that seems a little wrong to me.
    Give me a bad reputation!!!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    This is actually a simple matter to me.

    We are not making anything more wicked than it already is, by failing to do something (ei saying "in god we trust"). If we didn't add any statements with "god" into anything to do with our government, we wouldn't become any more evil. If you don't declare your love for god in your signature, are you becoming more evil? No...

    If you add it into your signature, then remove it, are you becoming any more wicked? No....

    The fact is, the lack of the statement would suggest no political favoritism in any "religion." It simply leaves it out.

    And one more thing. You say it does no good to tear down the government and rebuild it. If your car is rusting, you can't just paint over it. You need to remove the rust. Get what I'm saying?

    My main point is that, the lack of any religious statement in anything to do with the government is the DEFAULT. Any adding statements clearly is suggesting something about one religion over another. If there is NO statement, it leaves all religions equal. That's as simple as it gets.

    Any comments?

  7. #67
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    >>> Any comments?

    Yes, I think that is what I said.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    I don't understand how "In God we Trust" really infringes on someones rights. Yeah, it is there, but they are just some words on paper, or in a speach. God isn't strictly for the Christian religion. God is in fact just a supreme ruler. The definition specifies no links to Christianity what-so-ever. So when they say "In God we Trust", couldn't they be speaking of any of those religions gods?
    "When I die I want to pass peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did, not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

  9. #69
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    That's not the point. It acknowledges a supreme ruler, which shouldn't be acknowledged in the government according to the 1st.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    I apologize, but I am under time pressure and have not been able to read more than the first 1 and a half pages. But one thing that has come up multiple times is that the US was founded to be a Christian nation.

    So here is something to ponder: The Treaty with Tripoli

    The Treaty with Tripoli was signed during the beginning of Adams's term. It was unanimously approved by the Senate, and signed by Adams. It was not a long and complicated treaty at all, with 12 Articles and a few sentences for each. Adams declared that he agreed with every single article. It was a big deal back then, which was not long after the founding of this nation.

    Article 11 begins: "As the United States are not, in any way, founded on the Christian religion..."

    I will be happy to debate this overall point about the founders' intent upon my return, but consider that for the moment.

  11. #71
    I'm so sick of hearing people tell me to just not say that line. If you take that line out, it isn't the pledge, it is a fragment of the pledge; therefore it is not showing your pledge of allegiance to the united states.

    They should just take it out and get it over with. They need to get all references to religion completely removed from the government. There shouldn't be anything to discuss.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Adrian, heh I didn't read all of the replies yet...

    I guess we just think alike

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Opinion on GOOD digicam
    By Shadow in forum A Brief History of
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2003, 05:37 PM
  2. Question about atheists
    By gcn_zelda in forum A Brief History of
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 08-11-2003, 11:50 AM
  3. Game Design Topic #1 - AI Behavior
    By TechWins in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-11-2002, 10:35 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 04:37 PM
  5. A good book on algorithms for C
    By pritesh in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-16-2001, 02:12 AM