One Nation Under God?

[rightwinger]

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists? I am not offended by a God I know doesn't exist. I am offended by simple minded people forcing their religious beliefs on me and my children
2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

Because the very reason it is there is political reactionism to godless commies in the fifties. Our country does not support religion that includes declaring that for some reason you are Gods favorite
3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

Again, what makes you thing atheists are offended by God? I am not offended by unicorns, fairies, trolls, or other magical beings

Agree.

Post after post saying that atheists hate god but I have yet to read where anyone actually does.

Its how some people USE their god that is objectionable.

Atheists do not hate god.......just many of the assholes who claim to worship him

 

[Pogo]

They were also the ones who had him nailed to a cross to die on trumped up charges too. Your point?

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for. Rome didn't give a shit who did what religiously; what they cared about was the power of Rome and any threat to it. Whether such charges were "trumped up" within Roman law at the time, we're in no position to judge. Starting a riot in the temple just as the local population was swelling for Passover certainly seems to have been a catalyst.

Well I skipped from post 1 to post 88; it seems in between the thread um.... evolved. Or devolved.

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for.

Pilate said he could find no fault with Jesus. He gave the Jews a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, he tried three times to dissuade the angry mob. But ultimately, the crowd insisted on having him crucified. So yes, the Romans performed the crucifixion, but the Jews sent him there, out of pure hatred having an insurrectionist and a murderer released.

The charges were trumped up, even Pilate said so in the Bible. Whether you consider the Bible a source of historicity or not is inconsequential.

Actually it's crucial. I could hardly have a variant opinion if I considered the bible historically accurate. And considering it was all brought to Nicea three centuries later for a mass editing and purging of variant stories --- I don't.

So we're left to deductive reasoning. Now why would the Jews ---- who were in the midst of three hundred years under the Roman thumb --- want one of their own sent to an execution that Rome specifically reserved for insurrection? If anything they'd want to save him from that. Simply does not pass any kind of smell test. So no, I don't believe it went down that way at all. I do believe somebody "adjusted" the story to fit an agenda.

And keep in mind, the guy who called the Council of Nicea together to ensure that everybody was telling the same story (and destroy all the previous ones) was putting a power base together for his empire. What possible motivation could he have? Think about it; what he was doing was creating a cultural (religious) glue to hold the empire together. The bible gives us impressions of people just walking around in robes philosophizing all day; when we think in realistic political terms according to the actual circumstances of the time, we get a far sharper and more realistic (and credible) picture. In contrast to this bucolic picture of simpleminded people whose most strenuous activity seems to have been to go fishing, the reality is there was a continuous political intrigue; there were spies; there were insurrectionists and there were centurions ready to squash them in the interest of power and empire -- which was what Rome was all about.

The fact is, the Jews were subjects of a brutal colonizer. They were in no position to want to collaborate with that colonizer, nor, certainly, was Rome under any pretense of taking orders from their vanquished subjects. Far, far from it. On the other hand, someone in their ranks who started walking around calling himself "King of the Jews" (or seeing others point to him and call him that) was going to rouse a swift Roman retribution. And Rome needed no prodding or suggestion from anyone on earth about nipping the slightest challenge to their authority in the bud. They virtually invented it.

Now it starts to smell right.


Not sure what the phrase "out of pure hatred having an insurrectionist and a murderer released" means. Was Jesus accused of murder?

 

[Pogo]

Luke was written in approximately 90 CE.

There's that too. Written from memory decades later, and then edited after everyone was long gone, centuries later.

Hell, we've got people on this board rewriting history of only 70 years ago. Imagine what we could do with a diary of the events of, say, 1714 -- a diary that wasn't even written down until 1770.

 

[Pogo]

Pilate nor Herod saw Jesus as a threat. Only the Jews did.

So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no guilt in this man." But they kept on insisting, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place." When Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was in Jerusalem at that time.

Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.

And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently. And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other.

Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him. "Therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!" And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23:3-25

You know -- there's a theory of thought that this Barabbas was Jesus Junior, literally ("bar" = 'son of'; "abbas" = 'master' or 'father', and he is after all rendered as "Jesus Barabbas", which can thus literally be read "Jesus Junior") and that what was going on there was that Jesus had tried to usurp Rome, got cornered, had his son captured in the chaos, and then gave himself up to spare his son. Presumably so that he (Junior) could have a chance at the throne that Jesus failed at. And when we say "throne" we mean a literal, earthly, solid material throne like any other worldly king, i.e. independence from Rome -- not a wispy idea of some hereafter. The day-to-day priority, after all, was getting out from under the Roman thumb.

Again, looked at in the real terms of real world politics, this starts to smell better that what we get from the bible. Or should we say, the bible's editors working with a distinct political agenda.

 

[Pogo]

Pilate nor Herod saw Jesus as a threat. Only the Jews did.



Luke 23:3-25

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE


How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"
(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"
(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"
(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).


The Forged Origins of The New Testament

This is why there are so many parallels and similarities in certain parts of christianity and paganism.

Constantine forced pagans to build churches on the sites of their own places of worship and many incorporated pagan symbols into the newer buildings. Christianity was born as a way to fight paganism and it was christians who murdered so many pagans.

True.

Moreover, once the Church had its foothold and started to see philosophical insurrection within its own ranks -- somebody going rogue -- in came centuries of murdering Cathars, "heretics" and "witches". Again -- it's all about politics and power. Always has been.

 

[Disir]

Luke was written in approximately 90 CE.

There's that too. Written from memory decades later, and then edited after everyone was long gone, centuries later.

Hell, we've got people on this board rewriting history of only 70 years ago. Imagine what we could do with a diary of the events of, say, 1714 -- a diary that wasn't even written down until 1770.

Well, the gospels are actually considered war literature. They show up after the Jewish War. There is no historical Jesus. No eyewitness contemporary accounts. He didn't write anything down. Nobody else wrote anything down. But, it is like you say. Rewriting history or the lack there of.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

“Under god” and “in god we trust” are the epitome of Christian arrogance, imposed upon the entire Nation, where a significant number of this Nation’s population is neither Christian nor theist, whether such references to a deity are Constitutional or not.

 

[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.

Nonsense.

“Under god” and “in god we trust” are the epitome of Christian arrogance, imposed upon the entire Nation, where a significant number of this Nation’s population is neither Christian nor theist, whether such references to a deity are Constitutional or not.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” – Thomas Jefferson, 1781

 

[TemplarKormac]

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE


How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"
(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"
(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"
(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).


The Forged Origins of The New Testament

This is why there are so many parallels and similarities in certain parts of christianity and paganism.

Constantine forced pagans to build churches on the sites of their own places of worship and many incorporated pagan symbols into the newer buildings. Christianity was born as a way to fight paganism and it was christians who murdered so many pagans.

True.

Moreover, once the Church had its foothold and started to see philosophical insurrection within its own ranks -- somebody going rogue -- in came centuries of murdering Cathars, "heretics" and "witches". Again -- it's all about politics and power. Always has been.

So, I didn't think people were so prone to stereotyping and speculating.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for. Rome didn't give a shit who did what religiously; what they cared about was the power of Rome and any threat to it. Whether such charges were "trumped up" within Roman law at the time, we're in no position to judge. Starting a riot in the temple just as the local population was swelling for Passover certainly seems to have been a catalyst.

Well I skipped from post 1 to post 88; it seems in between the thread um.... evolved. Or devolved.

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for.

Pilate said he could find no fault with Jesus. He gave the Jews a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, he tried three times to dissuade the angry mob. But ultimately, the crowd insisted on having him crucified. So yes, the Romans performed the crucifixion, but the Jews sent him there, out of pure hatred having an insurrectionist and a murderer released.

The charges were trumped up, even Pilate said so in the Bible. Whether you consider the Bible a source of historicity or not is inconsequential.

Was Jesus accused of murder?

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I was referring to Barabbas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Atheists cannot hate GOD because one cannot hate nothing.

I mean seriously...how hard is that to figure out

Then why are they trying to remove all mention of him from the public sight? Seriously, it isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[Pogo]

This is why there are so many parallels and similarities in certain parts of christianity and paganism.

Constantine forced pagans to build churches on the sites of their own places of worship and many incorporated pagan symbols into the newer buildings. Christianity was born as a way to fight paganism and it was christians who murdered so many pagans.

True.

Moreover, once the Church had its foothold and started to see philosophical insurrection within its own ranks -- somebody going rogue -- in came centuries of murdering Cathars, "heretics" and "witches". Again -- it's all about politics and power. Always has been.

So, I didn't think people were so prone to stereotyping and speculating.

--- huh?

I'm lost... who's speculating about what?

 

[Pogo]

Pilate said he could find no fault with Jesus. He gave the Jews a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, he tried three times to dissuade the angry mob. But ultimately, the crowd insisted on having him crucified. So yes, the Romans performed the crucifixion, but the Jews sent him there, out of pure hatred having an insurrectionist and a murderer released.

The charges were trumped up, even Pilate said so in the Bible. Whether you consider the Bible a source of historicity or not is inconsequential.

Was Jesus accused of murder?

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I was referring to Barabbas.

I sort of figured that out, though I still can't navigate the sentence -- but you cut all the meat out of the post and left the least important part.

 

[AVG-JOE]

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

Good call.

Any attempt to answer the unknowable questions of how life arose, how monkeys became Sentient Monkeys, and / or what happens to the software that drives the flesh after the flesh is dead is a religious discussion.

As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a 'religion'.

Well, as convincing as that might be to an outsider, there is no evidence to suggest that Christianity "is a man made creation." In fact the notion of such is rather offensive, imo. I am also of the belief that my faith extends beyond the organized part. Christianity is not purely limited to a building, nor do you need money to promote it. However, we are commanded to give one tenth of all of out our profits to God. As we live in a money driven society, it would be impossible to spread our faith effectively without it.

But while we are on the subject, using such logic on the lines of " As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a religion":

I'm sure people such as the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," for example, solicit donations for their cause as well. So as I see it, even Atheists think they have all the answers, too and are just as compelled to take in money to drive their points home. As such, I would see atheism as a 'religion' as well.

Awesome! Understanding that tolerating a belief or life-style in the eyes of the law does not equate to condoning it personally is a real sign of political maturity.

I disagree with your statement that "Freedom From Religion Foundation" could be considered a religion under my definition, because they aren't promoting specific answers to the questions of origins and after-life, they promote political tolerance for all of the unprovable guesses on the table.

 

[Disir]

Atheists cannot hate GOD because one cannot hate nothing.

I mean seriously...how hard is that to figure out

Then why are they trying to remove all mention of him from the public sight? Seriously, it isn't that hard to figure out.

Off public property--there is a difference.

 

[Disir]

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.

Nonsense.

“Under god” and “in god we trust” are the epitome of Christian arrogance, imposed upon the entire Nation, where a significant number of this Nation’s population is neither Christian nor theist, whether such references to a deity are Constitutional or not.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” – Thomas Jefferson, 1781

Are you familiar with John Locke? Everything in the DOI is based on the Second Treatise of Government. It is located here:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Second Treatise Of Government By John Locke.

This means that we don't cherry pick.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

“Under god” and “in god we trust” are the epitome of Christian arrogance, imposed upon the entire Nation, where a significant number of this Nation’s population is neither Christian nor theist, whether such references to a deity are Constitutional or not.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” – Thomas Jefferson, 1781

“In god we trust’ was imposed upon the whole people in 1956, the consequence of Christian arrogance and an unwarranted fear of ‘communism.’

The Nation flourished just fine without it before then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Atheists cannot hate GOD because one cannot hate nothing.

I mean seriously...how hard is that to figure out

Then why are they trying to remove all mention of him from the public sight? Seriously, it isn't that hard to figure out.

They’re not, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

Seeking to compel government to obey the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate in accordance with the original intent of the Framers is not removing religion from public sight.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies only to government entities, not the private sector such as churches.

 

[G.T.]

I'm an agnostic, which means "I don't know."

That said, instead of having to rescript your entire post and answer line by line, I'll answer within it in bold and attribute each part to myself:

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?
Not offended by any God or Gods. What's offensive if people who presuppose his existence and would like to enforce it in any type of way on a public level, because public things are a shared payment by all tax paying citizens and having an issue with how those funds are being used on my kid is perfectly within reason. - g.t.

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.
It's irrational to not want some robotic sounding meme beaten into your own children containing parts you don't even subscribe to? That's completely rational. - g.t.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?
False premise for me personally. I'm not offended by God, I'm offended by State recognition of a deity. Not even offended really, it's just annoying and flies in the face of freedom of ideas really. -g.t.

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?
It's not even true. - g.t.

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God. No, it isn't. - g.t.

5. We see these traits and emotions via the actions of others, but we don't necessarily see these things happening inside of them. That doesn't mean they should be discounted as being unreal or nonexistent. irrelevant/banter/etc. - g.t.

6. Professor Antony Flew

Professor Antony Flew was a Professor at Oxford and one of the most prominent Atheists of his generation. For 50 years he championed atheism, stating that "one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces," but in 2004, he converted to deism, being compelled to do so by the theory of intelligent design. He later commissioned a book in 2007 majorly written by Roy Abraham Vargese There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which incited New York Times Religious Historian, Mark Oppenheimer to claim the man was in "mental decline" and that he had Vargese do most of the work. He acknowledged that he did have him do most of the work because in fact he was 84 at the time. But he also unabashedly criticized Oppenheimer for drawing attention away from the real premise of the book: the collapse of rationalism. He had this to say about atheists who accused him of betrayal:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you can think of and none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

7) What do you make of Mr. Flew's metamorphosis into a deist from devout atheist? Do you believe he did this in light of his senility or old age? I would think it incredibly bigoted to take down a man for revising his positions on religion, soon as they no longer matched yours. take him down? or simply disagree with him.... - g.t.

8) And finally, what do you make of his belief in intelligent design, something courts all across America have forbade schools to teach? I think that it is an irrational belief without proof. - g.t.

"The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and 'coded chemistry'? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem."

actually no, it is most definitely biology. - g.t.

again, my own text is within this quote in bold and attribution.

 

[Pogo]

Good call.

Any attempt to answer the unknowable questions of how life arose, how monkeys became Sentient Monkeys, and / or what happens to the software that drives the flesh after the flesh is dead is a religious discussion.

As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a 'religion'.

Well, as convincing as that might be to an outsider, there is no evidence to suggest that Christianity "is a man made creation." In fact the notion of such is rather offensive, imo. I am also of the belief that my faith extends beyond the organized part. Christianity is not purely limited to a building, nor do you need money to promote it. However, we are commanded to give one tenth of all of out our profits to God. As we live in a money driven society, it would be impossible to spread our faith effectively without it.

But while we are on the subject, using such logic on the lines of " As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a religion":

I'm sure people such as the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," for example, solicit donations for their cause as well. So as I see it, even Atheists think they have all the answers, too and are just as compelled to take in money to drive their points home. As such, I would see atheism as a 'religion' as well.

Awesome! Understanding that tolerating a belief or life-style in the eyes of the law does not equate to condoning it personally is a real sign of political maturity.

I disagree with your statement that "Freedom From Religion Foundation" could be considered a religion under my definition, because they aren't promoting specific answers to the questions of origins and after-life, they promote political tolerance for all of the unprovable guesses on the table.

TK's definition is flawed that it at base defines a "religion" as any philosophy that uses money to propagate itself. By that definition ultimately Colgate-Palmolive becomes a "religion" when it advertises its particular brand of toothpaste. I think the original point lost in transition here was of one proselytizing, i.e. active rather than passive propagation; the idea of "missionary". That it takes money to do that really isn't the point; any use of media materials takes money. That's simply how a material economy works.

There's something woefully insecure about a religion (or any social philosophy) that's so tenuously based that it finds it necessary to propagate itself by force. A valid philosophy should be self-discovered voluntarily by a seeker, not foisted upon them by some cultural foreigner. Such forced proselytization takes form from the overt to the subtle; from a missionary sailing across an ocean to "spread the good news to the savages", to the obnoxious street preacher on the corner with a bullhorn, to a legislator plunking the Ten Commandments on the steps of City Hall or inserting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance --- which by itself is, I submit, already a form of religion.

(This part of the OP (the Pledge) methinks was unnecessarily neglected; for a country that writes a constitution professing to avoid foisting a religion upon its citizens, we spend an inordinate amount of energy doing just that -- not only in the form of the chosen European tradition extant at the time, but even to the point of inventing our own national form of religion; one that worships itself. I submit that the Pledge of Allegiance is itself a form of religion, being a prayer to a piece of cloth (or as the bible might put it, a "false idol"), invented by the same nation that professes to be above all that.)

I think this dynamic -- "forced thought" if you like -- is the basis for a great deal our differences, and certainly the raison d'être of an entity like Freedom From Religion, whether the religion in question is spiritual or national (which is a distinction without a difference).