Under God

[rgelite]

Quote from nononsense:

Hi rgelite,

I did not start talking about rgelite/nononsense being clever or not clever. Upon seeing your almost endless list of quotations, not very enlightening for the subject at hand, I said goodness gracious, this fellow's trading must be hampered by all this.

I only wanted to be of some help. Putting aside your Ayn Rand and taking a look at John can only be beneficial. Over the last 100 there have been many Rand's, most already on the pseudo-intellectual garbage heap. John's work stands for some 2000 years.

Be good,

nononsens

Well, we're not clever you and I, that's right. We come at things honestly, though we disagree as to content and style.

Others on this board are known for their cleverness, not their intellect or Faith. You have to stay in the context of the thread; I can't read your mind.

As to the definitions I posted, they all took a minute to cut and paste, something easily verified by anyone willing to look for themselves at the posting times. As I said, someone else raised the issue of what the meaning of "god" was, so what I posted was in fact directly relevant. Furthermore, I don't trade in the evening, certainly not while posting to ET ever, so again you've departed into some non-essential (and baseless) assertions about me personally. How silly. Again.

None of my posts are on the intellectual garbage heap. That was pretty funny, you claiming that; I laughed out loud. Of course, you didn't cite any examples. People that come at knowledge in the way you do seldom can.

What is in fact on the intellectual garbage heap is the bible.

It's been there ever since The Age of Enlightenment began in the 18th Century. We know that's its proper place just as surely as we now know, among countless other things, that the earth isn't the center of the universe--something that Galileo asserted some 200 years prior and for which the Church (no need to define it) imprisoned him for the remainder of his life. For heresy.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

Excerpt:

"Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.

Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition."

So, if you're talking about the 16th Century, yes, my views would certainly have been cast onto an intellectual garbage heap. But if we're talking about today, it's your views that look up at the sea-gulls, nononsense. The only difference is, I won't condemn you to hell or imprison you. You'll keep doing that to yourself in the walls of your own mind.

 

[nononsense]

Quote from rgelite:

Well, we're not clever you and I, that's right. We come at things honestly, though we disagree as to content and style.

Others on this board are known for their cleverness, not their intellect or Faith. You have to stay in the context of the thread; I can't read your mind.

As to the definitions I posted, they all took a minute to cut and paste, something easily verified by anyone willing to look for themselves at the posting times. As I said, someone else raised the issue of what the meaning of "god" was, so what I posted was in fact directly relevant. Furthermore, I don't trade in the evening, certainly not while posting to ET ever, so again you've departed into some non-essential (and baseless) assertions about me personally. How silly. Again.

None of my posts are on the intellectual garbage heap. That was pretty funny, you claiming that; I laughed out loud. Of course, you didn't cite any examples. People that come at knowledge in the way you do seldom can.

What is in fact on the intellectual garbage heap is the bible.

It's been there ever since The Age of Enlightenment began in the 18th Century. We know that's its proper place just as surely as we now know, among countless other things, that the earth isn't the center of the universe--something that Galileo asserted some 200 years prior and for which the Church (no need to define it) imprisoned him for the remainder of his life. For heresy.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

Hi rgelite,

Let me quickly reply the following:
I never said that: "None of my[rgelite] posts are on the intellectual garbage heap." (If you like, you could say that both our posts are on Et's heap.)

As to your last paragraph. True, popular wisdom likes to talk about "The Age of Enlightenment". Serious students of philosophy and history don't get hemmed in by these platitudes. One could equally well say that the 18-th century started the ages of barbarism, both of the intellectual and bloody variety.

As to your example of Galileo, true a church tribunal condemned him. This cliche is repeated and repeated over again by the anti clericals like if it were the final and absolute verdict on many centuries of a most brilliant ascent of civilization. Nothing is further from the truth. Galileo's interaction with church history is a highly complex one. I suggest you read up a bit on this.

Staying within the bounds of your example in cosmology and astronomy, the history of science clearly shows the continuous contributions made by church (pre)-scientists to the development of this branch. An easy but highly scholarly introduction to this is "The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories" by Professor Heilbron.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-5490112-7637766?v=glance&s=books

I suggest you look at this. This will clear up a lot of your questions about the Church, Galileo and how we got to your "Age of Enlightenment". What happened after that, you fill in yourself.

Be good,

nononsense

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

For those who are interested, this nation was almost entirely Protestant until the mid 1800's. In the mid 1800's a wave of large Catholic and Jewish immigrantions occurred and the nation still retained a large Christian consensus. Ben Franklin, who humanists love to claim as their own, wrote the following in his pamphlet "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America":

"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country with having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the forbearance adn kindness with which the different sects treat each other, by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country."

Clearly Ben, who was a non-Christian Deist, was a greater authority than the modern "secularizing" scholars of today that like to pretend that this nation was not founded on an appeal to God.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Just as important, notice that all fifty of the state constitutions appeal to or pray to the Almighty God of the universe.

Furthermore, all 13 of the original state constitutions refer to Almighty God as the author of liberty, etc. Here are a few examples of the preambles:

North Carolina, 1868:
"We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almight God, the sovereign ruler of nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties..."

New Jersey, 1844
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and relgious liberty which He hat so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing..."

Rhode Island, 1842
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, greatful to Almighty God for the civil and relgious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing..."

New York, 1846
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Virtually all of the founders were for a strong State government and a weak federal government and a nation built with an appeal to God. The idea of atheism was anathema to them: virtually all would have appealed to a deity for guidance and protection...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

".....an establishment of religion."

The key phrase: an establishment of religion.

Does placing the word God on money establish a religion?

Does having the word God in the pledge establish religion?

The religions leaders around the world wish it were that easy to establish a religion, but they know that is false.

The key component necessary for establishment for a religion is missing. The theists know this, as do the atheists, if they are honest.

What is that key ingredient, the foundation of all religions, that make religion separate from "science" or the secular.

Come on, we have heard it a thousand times from the atheists why they don't practice religion.

First an analogy as a point of illustration.

---------------------------------------------------------

A man gathers all the ingredients to make a cake. He mixes them together following a recipe, and pours the batter into a cake tin.

He then puts the cake tin in an oven, sets the timer, and comes back when the timer goes off.

To his surprise, he finds no cake. What he finds is a cake tin filled with batter.

What went wrong? What is the missing ingredient?

He forgot to turn on the oven.

Having the ingredients mixed together were not enough. The baking of the cake required a hot oven to turn batter into a cake.

---------------------------------------------------------

So, does the saying of the word God, turn a man into a religious practitioner?

If a man repeats the word God, does that make him a follower of a religion?

If a country places the word "Christ" on money, and you handle that money, does that make you a Christian?

If you went to England, and used money in which it had a photo of the queen, would that make you a subject and follower of the queen by virtue of handling it?

If you went to a foreign country, and the custom for living there was to say some pledge that had the word Mohamed in it, would that make you a Muslim?

Is simple repetition of a word, or the saying of a particular name of God sufficient to convert someone to a religion?

Again, the clerics, priests, ministers, evangelists, all wish it were that easy.

Repetition of a word that is commonly used for God, or repeating a word that is commonly used for a specific God (Zeus, Odin, etc.) even if having an understanding of what a word is, doesn't in itself constitute practicing of a religion.

Nope. Simply repeating a word, or name of God doesn't suddenly make one a follower of a religion, any more than mixing batter and placing it in a cold oven produces a cake.

The key ingredient of a practice, or habit, that makes it a religion is faith.

Faith is the most important, if not the only requirement for the establishment of a religion. This faith also is extending beyond the simple belief in the existence of God, to a trusting in God. A man may believe in the existence of God, but not trust in God, so that man is not following a religion (at least not one I know of. I don't know of a religion that teaches existence of God, but distrust of God at the same time).

The state makes absolutely no talk of faith in God, nor the requirement for faith in God anywhere in pledge, or in on our money.

Even the phrase "In God We Trust" and the words of themselves are not enough to establish a religion, any more than mixing cake batter is enough to bake a cake.

The words have to be said, and taken with full faith and meaning, at least according to the religious leaders of all the religions. Faith is like the heat of the oven, that converts the batter to cake. Faith converts the non religious man to a religious man.

If Stu were to repeat the Lord's prayer each and every day because he lost a bet with a theist, or to read passages from some particular religion's scriptures because of a bet, would that make him a follower of that religion? Nope. Not unless he was doing that daily practice with faith in God. Daily practice itself is not enough to constitute a religious practice. He might do it "religiously" (meaning he did it daily without fail according to the terms of the bet) but doing so in a faithless manner would negate the real religious aspect of it.

Does an actor playing Christ on stage, automatically make him a Christian and practitioner of the Christian religion? No, he could be an atheist playing a part....they call it acting.

So, show me where the government is establishing faith in God by placing the word God in the pledge, or on the money we use.

Without the practice of faith in God, there is no religion, clergy everywhere will tell you that.

The government is not establishing a religion by having the word God either in the pledge or on our money.

I believe in matters of deciding what the framers wishes were, we should employ some common sense, something I see lacking from those who are terrified of the word God.

I assure you, simply saying the word God will not make you a follower of God. The word God appears a multitude of times in the writings of atheists.

Keep the faith baby, keep the faith!!!

 

[Turok]

ART, you are a freak and a dumbass baboon with no redeeming qualities in life whatsoever.

It's ok folks, as with my earlier "ART is an idiot" post, it's just to prove a point.

JB

PS: (you see ART would normally go off one of his little hypocritical name calling sermons, but right now he knows he must avoid that because in his own mind he has so eloquently argued that words don't actually have a common meaning and those words I said could just as easily be taken as "ART, you are a truffle and an ethereal whisper with no instant framework in space however.")

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Sticks and stones.....

The listener of your directed words, having no faith in your words, though the words are clearly understood, those words will remain at the same time intelligible and meaningless for the listener.

When it comes to certain talking points, those talking points can be proved only when intent itself is proven. A double entendre is the tool of both the "clever" and the "hack" and can be spoken by either friend or foe. A word can enjoin or divide as the love or hate is in the intention.

The reality before our society, is how difficult it is to confront the true meaning and intent of the words of dead framers who spoke an English language separated from America by more than 200 years of societal "evolution."

Quote from Turd OK:

ART, you are a freak and a dumbass baboon with no redeeming qualities in life whatsoever.

It's ok folks, as with my earlier "ART is an idiot" post, it's just to prove a point.

JB

PS: (you see ART would normally go off one of his little hypocritical name calling sermons, but right now he knows he must avoid that because in his own mind he has so eloquently argued that words don't actually have a common meaning and those words I said could just as easily be taken as "ART, you are a truffle and an ethereal whisper with no instant framework in space however.")

 

[nononsense]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

For those who are interested, this nation was almost entirely Protestant until the mid 1800's. In the mid 1800's a wave of large Catholic and Jewish immigrantions occurred and the nation still retained a large Christian consensus. Ben Franklin, who humanists love to claim as their own, wrote the following in his pamphlet "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America":

"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country with having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the forbearance adn kindness with which the different sects treat each other, by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country."

Clearly Ben, who was a non-Christian Deist, was a greater authority than the modern "secularizing" scholars of today that like to pretend that this nation was not founded on an appeal to God.

Hi Shoeshineboy,

It is very pertinent to bring this out. If you want to understand the different paths of development between continental Europe and the American realm, this is certainly not a bad place to start.

Be good,

nononsense

 

[stu]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



The reality before our society, is how difficult it is to confront the true meaning and intent of the words of dead framers who spoke an English language separated from America by more than 200 years of societal "evolution."

Not difficult at all. The words speak for themselves.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

All you appear to want to do is say words have no meaning until someone puts their own meaning to them.