This group is for those of all religions and beliefs to come together, share content, discuss religion, belief, faith, and so on.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Media RSS Feed Report media Federal Endorsement of Religion (view original)
Federal Endorsement of Religion
embed
share
next
 
Post comment Comments
Akalonor Creator
Akalonor Oct 2 2011, 1:55pm says:

I'm going to start writing this on my one dollar bills.

Also, The "Under god" in the US pledge of allegiance was added in the 50's to separate us from the 'evil godless commies' Whereas the pledge itself was made just to sell more flags.

+5 votes   reply to comment
Cervi_Messias Creator
Cervi_Messias Oct 2 2011, 6:09pm says:

Yes unfortunately this is correct, the united states by law isn't supposed to play favorites with religion.

think of it this way though. saying in god we trust means that we are actaully saying, we trust in a greay=ter ideal. which at the time for us seemed to be god.
in all reality it should be in liberty we trust, but its there and defacing money isn't going to change anything.

+4 votes   reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 2 2011, 9:04pm says:

The whole situation seems to be a bit ironic.

Because of some verses, to quote just one:
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Matthew 6:24

So what kind of god on that one dollar bill is trusted by its authors? Mammon, deified money?

Yes, neither of religions should be favoured, religion of money either.

+6 votes   reply to comment
Ojewejoriei
Ojewejoriei Oct 3 2011, 1:06pm replied:

We can only worship one as a god, but that does not mean we should reject all money - would get hard to survive if we did :P
'Hating' in biblical terms is not really 'rejecting', it is more like 'not putting in the first position'.

But you are right, is a country's constitution says so, no religion or idol should be favoured.

+4 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 4 2011, 5:52am replied:

But the irony just begins here!

For example, swearing on the Bible practised so widely in the US. You see, it's supposed to forbidden, there's a biblical quote for that, too:

Matthew wrote:Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Matthew 5:33-37

So, how Christian Christianity actually is?

+1 vote   reply to comment
Ojewejoriei
Ojewejoriei Oct 4 2011, 12:10pm replied:

The question is: how Christian are Christians.
It is just like westerners blaming terrorist attacks on 'Islam' (or even 'religion' in general: Moddb.com), while, as I believe, it is not Islam that executes the attack, but rather people who call themselves Muslim but haven't quite understood what to do and what not to do as a Muslim.

I think I remember somewhere in the Bible God says not to break an oath sworn on Him. I don't know if there are 'rules' concerning swearing an oath on God though.

But indeed, I think it is better not to swear an oath at al, for you may get yourself in really serious trouble (non-earthly troubles, that is).

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 4 2011, 1:42pm replied:

Yep. Actually, the question was "How Christian is the modern Christianity?" Also because many so-called Christian holidays, including Christmas and Easter, are rumoured to come from paganism. Whether they come from there or people invented them, there's no mention of them WHATSOEVER in the Bible. At least about them in their current forms (as rituals regularly observed).

Yes, swearing was allowed in the OT:

Quote:Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’

Just like it was OK to stone a rebellious child in the OT, while in the NT you can't even scold a child, because it may get disheartened. Pretty much of what was said in the OT has been revised in the NT.

+2 votes   reply to comment
Ojewejoriei
Ojewejoriei Oct 4 2011, 2:20pm replied:

That's right, the Christmas tree for example is from nature religions.
Wondering, is it bad to have a Christmas tree? It is heritage from paganism and thus wrong for Christians. But just having it for decoration, not worshipping it or something, is that bad too?
11 of the 12 tribes of Israel were exterminated for mixing culture and religion with pagans, I don't want to be exterminated :S

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 4 2011, 3:19pm replied:

Jeremiah 10:1-5

Jeremiah wrote:Hear what the LORD says to you, people of Israel. This is what the LORD says:
“Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the heavens,
though the nations are terrified by them.
For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good.”

It seems that Yahweh (that is supposed to be the 5th density caretaker of the Earth according to "alternative sources of information", "a jealous god" that is sometimes confused with the 8th density Unity/true God, in fact according to alternative sources, we are Yahweh on a planetary level) and his approach to it is that anything useless and anybody doing useless things is to be simply thrown into the fire.

If it doesn't hold any functional, scientific, reasonable, or charitable, or beneficial/benedictory value to anyone, a DIRECT one, then it's simply useless.

Also that energy, time and even money you spent on cutting that tree for Christmas, you could use for helping the poor, learning a new thing that could be of use to somebody, rethinking and thinking about your mistakes, etc.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Yuribeard7
Yuribeard7 Oct 5 2011, 4:34pm replied:

They were not exterminated they were scattered. Exterminated means wiped from existence. Christianity being contaminated by paganism is the reason I left the church and became Messianic. Now I just follow what the Bible plainly says without adding or subtracting from it.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Yuribeard7
Yuribeard7 Oct 5 2011, 4:39pm replied:

Jesus taught from the Old Testament and changed nothing. For example, the foods that were unclean then are STILL unclean now. He said "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." Fulfill in ancient Hebrew means "to confirm". What Jesus was talking about concerning children was that anyone who tries to turn a child away from God would have been better off had he never been born.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Delta_6
Delta_6 Oct 14 2011, 7:43am replied:

We Don't Not Attack You USA People...The Stupid Terrorist do That...But They Do Have a Good Point To Attack The USA(just Like We Attacking the Roman in the Past)BUT NOT WITH BOMB AND TERRORISM...Back Then We Use Men Just Like a Real War Not Some Coward Tactic(Although Effective But It's Still a bad Thing To Do...Cause We have Rules That FORBIDDEN US TO DO THAT ) Sorry For Screaming At You ;)

+2 votes     reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 20 2011, 2:57pm replied:

And when I said that "you could use [that energy, time and money] for helping the poor" didn't actually meant materially poor, or what is commonly referred as "the poor".

Meant all kinds of poverty, those mentally poor, spiritually poor, rationally poor, etc. There are tens (if not hundreds) of sorts of these. You can find them all around.

You can also find very rich people... "rich" people, but why does it always seem like there are very few of them around...

+2 votes   reply to comment
ithilienranger
ithilienranger Oct 4 2011, 8:06am says:

This is misinformation, this was never stated in the U.S. Constitution. It was first talked about in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. In recent years, the courts have ruled for separation of church & state.

+1 vote     reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 4 2011, 8:39am replied:

Yeah sure, Obama swearing on Abraham Lincoln's Bible:
Youtube.com

+1 vote   reply to comment
Akalonor Creator
Akalonor Oct 5 2011, 5:28pm replied:

Separation of church and state was discussed by Jefferson yes, but was based on the first amendment which reads:
["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." ]

+3 votes   reply to comment
ithilienranger
ithilienranger Oct 5 2011, 6:48pm replied:

To my knowledge there are no laws that determine that the U.S. currency has a religious statement. It is just based on popular opinion which changes over time. I don't have a problem with a religion neutral government. It's when people start pushing anti-religious agendas in the guise of separation of church and state that I have a problem.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Akalonor Creator
Akalonor Oct 5 2011, 10:32pm replied:

I'm not seeing your point. The evidence is there. It's not under the guise of separation of church and state, this is a national currency, acknowledging the church, which it shouldn't be.

+2 votes   reply to comment
feillyne Staff
feillyne Oct 6 2011, 12:38pm replied:

So it's better to push secular agendas under the guise of religious agendas? As you read in the Bible (if you read it at all), God is supposed to have nothing to do with money.
Luke 16:13, Acts 8:18-20, and many other passages

So why is this on currency? Material issues, such as a national currency, as Akalonor says, shouldn't acknowledge the church.

Even Theodore Roosevelt thought it sacrilegious to do so. In either case, whether for Christians or Non-Christians and others, it shouldn't be there. For MANY reasons.

+3 votes   reply to comment
InsanityPays
InsanityPays Dec 4 2013, 10:32am says:

'murica answers to no one
(except maybe Reagan- America loved Reagan... Reagan and trans fats...)

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

Discuss.

Image Details
Type
Other
Date
Oct 2nd, 2011
Size
400×300
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only