Just curious how many people here would know. It is NOT taught in public schools today. It would probably cause quite an uproar if it were announced over an intercom at most public schools in America! In God We Trust From Wikepida: The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D Eisenhower, is In God We Trust.[1][2] The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST as a motto for currency (but not as a National motto) first appeared on United States coins in 1864.[2] The 1956 law was the first establishment of an official motto for the country, although E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") had been adopted by Act of Congress in 1782 as the motto for the Seal of the United States and had been used on coins and paper money since 1795. Due to this act and uses, it had thus been unofficially considered to be the country's motto[by whom?]. The change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" was generally considered uncontroversial at the time[citation needed], given the pressures of the Cold War era. The constitutionality of the modern national motto has been questioned with relationship to the separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment. In 1970, in Aronow v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the motto does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.
Which god? There are so many. Were they Catholics, Puritans, Quakers, average run of the mill hypocrite Christians which most are, Lutherans? The list goes on. I am sure they think that whatever god flippantly put out like that is in their minds the "right" one but which one? I am pretty sure the god that the founding fathers worshiped the most was money and power. Maybe that was it.
Loop, that's just an historically uninformed point. I think perhaps you were trying to be funny. If you think that the God worshiped by Lutherans, Puritans, Quakers, Catholics or run-of-the-mill hypocritical Christians is different, then you have no awareness of what those denominations are about. God has numerous names and titles, such as YHWH or Jehovah ("I am"), LORD Almighty, etc. All the denominations you refer to, and pretty much 95% of all the founding fathers based their entire belief structures on the existence and authority of the God of the OT and NT, as revealed in the Bible. The groups you list, as well as the founding fathers in general, were of only one "religion," which was historical orthodox Christianity, and which believed in this one God. Our nation has certainly changed, and you are free to be agnostic, atheist, or whatever, and you are even free to mock Christianity--you are free to do so because the Christians who set our government established your freedom of speech and religion. It just is not accurate to portray the USA as set up by lots of religions, or trusting (initially) in lots of gods, or devised for power and money. As an historical fact, our nation's structure and constitution was implemented by European emigrants whose first commandment was that YHWH is God, and there is no other before Him. You can go ahead and take "In God we trust" off the money or whatever you want, since it may not apply to 21st century USA as a whole, but you cannot escape the truths of how our country came to be.
Why so defensive, rickysrun? I simply pointed out that for many, many millions of Americans "In God we trust" is not shallow nor generic. Then I noted that it's no surprise you aren't among them. No attacks were made, no judgement was passed. What gives?
This is my crazy theory. The god of America is money. That's why we put the motto there. “What is a god?” Something that you worship. “What does it mean to worship?” To act in devotion. In general, what are Americans devoted to? Yeah... let me start getting real nuts “Who will the anti-Christ be?” An entity which deceives. It will disguise itself in the robes of the Lord, but not really follow its teachings (only give it the superficial devotion – talk is cheap after all). It will promote itself as righteous and have very compelling reasons to support that claim. “What type of things would an Anti-Christ do?” Lie to people so it can take their money and kill with it (most of our taxes go towards the military). Promote materialism. Make adultery okay. Make homosexuality okay. Promote following God’s law is no longer required – it’s okay to dishonor the sabbath for your new god “Money”(among other things). “What is the sign of people that follow the Anti-Christ?” 666 - the mark of the beast will be a number on the palm or the head. Social Secure System (666 – letters each, also SSS - almost a six - I know I'm stretching it a little thin) A number you either have memorized (on your head) or are required to have as a card in your hand (in your palm).
The idea that money could be considered the God of America, I can buy that (no pun intended), but by the end of that post, "a little bit thin" is a little bit of an understatement.
If you read the Book, our Greeco/Hebrew God has pulled the rug out from so many of his most devoted followers that it is hard for me to see how anybody can trust Him. One thing I took away from Catholicism was the idea that God was always a mystery and there was no way our feeble brains could ever get a grip on what He was up to. Look at what He has done or allowed to happen to His Chosen People and tell me you trust Him. I will put my trust in nuclear weapons and free enterprise and hope for the best.
If you've sinned once in your lifetime, you deserve to be to die the most painful death possible, and rot in hell forever. I'm assuming all of us on this board have sinned at least once in our lifetimes, so why should we complain if things don't go our way? We're getting off easy.....well, at least I am.
If you've sinned once in your lifetime, you deserve to be to die the most painful death possible, and rot in hell forever. ================================= I am in real trouble!
The notion of original sin is such a sad and vulgar bit of Christian dogma. Sad because so many have taken it to be the truth of who they are. Fulke Greville gave perfect voice to this with his Mustapha: Oh wearisome condition of Humanity! Born under one law, to another bound, Vainly begot and yet forbidden vanity, Created sick, commanded to be sound: What meaneth Nature by these diverse laws? Passion and reason self-division cause. Is it the mask or majesty of Power To make offences that it may forgive?
Dio, I think I just read that (or a paraphrase of it) recently in a Hitchens essay. It's pretty good (created sick, commanded to be sound). Christianity is so poorly organized and logically defunct that the leaders must start indoctrinating their future members at young ages and threaten them with the penalty of hell to get them to come on board. That's sad.
Since I was an atheist for 27 years--now a born-again Christian for 25 years--I feel I can far better evaluate you atheists than you can come close to seeing the other side. I certainly do believe that people are, at their core, sinful and evil, and that only through salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can that be overcome. Besides the Bible saying so, it is a pretty obvious observation from just looking around. It's not "sad" but rather it's just true. The good news is that Jesus died for your sins, if you will accept him. You can, of course, reject that. Although, when you get that first fact wrong, falsely believing that people are good, and it is just the circumstances of society and government making them bad, you naturally become a socialist liberal who believes that all this bad can be eliminated with just the right government intervention. With no valuable moral, religious or philosophical beliefs to take up their time, atheists naturally have nothing better to invest in than "hope and change" through political means. I personally find that "sad," but I don't hate you for it. It flows, as I said, naturally from what you believe, or in this case, don't believe. So, I accept your view, although I believe you are missing the truth. What I find telling is the venom you have for my beliefs (not just mine, but an ever-growing fraction of mankind over the past 2 thousand years). Probably not a majority of the world, but certainly not a backward, failing philosophy as you would have it. If you are content to live a god-less life, and die into meaningless dust, why would you be so angry with us who choose to live spirit-filled lives and enter into God's presence when we die? Are you jealous? You talk about Christians the way Aggies talk about Longhorns on a football message board. Your amazing condescension is anti-intellectual, even from an academic standpoint. If you went to live in South America or somewhere where there was an aboriginal religion, would you mock them to their face and accuse them of stupidity? Do you think Native Americans, with their belief in a Great Spirit, are as misled and stupid as slugs? Where do you get the cheek and impoliteness--portraying the legendary Ugly Americans--to afford no cultural respect to traditions you do not (apparently) understand?
vy, you ignore the doctine of "original sin", which is doctrine and not fact. How one tends to view others (inherently wicked, evil, etc.) is often times how a person views onself.
I didn't ignore the doctrine of original sin. I said that my observation supported it. I agree that (unless you happen to be persuaded by the Bible) it is an opinion, and not a "verifiable fact." My response was directed to the permission you give yourself to be so insulting to Christians who believe in facts that cannot be verified to be true or untrue. As a math major at UT, I found Goedel's theorem to be very important in defining what can be proved to be true or not true from certain axioms. Science (or even math) is not even close to being as airtight as secular people suppose. As to sinfulness, let me ask you this. If you even counted "obvious" sin--selfishness, lying, stealing, lust, unwarranted pride, violence, abuse of self and others, hypocrisy, unkindness, etc.--and you assessed the performance of all people as failing or succeeding in any given day... and if you considered those people as fungible products such as cars or computers that you expect to perform properly as made... would you not say that people are astonishingly flawed morally? (Now, physiologically, the performance of the human body is off the charts as far as quality and success, but as to moral decisions, you must agree that you would not accept these results in your phone, computer or car.) So, we all do seem to be inescapably flawed morally, that is, inescapably sinful (to use the Christian term). Original sin is a doctrine that arrives at this result a different way, but surely--if you accept any moral code whatsoever-- you agree that all people are flawed morally. Suddenly the crazy Biblical principal is "accidentally" perfectly descriptive of the reality of what we observe. This is what I started to observe about Biblical principles--they just kept being accidentally and luckily true to my observation. Imagine that.
Perham1, do you have children? I have 2 and my observations of both lead me into a greater belief in original sin. Of course an infant can only sleep, eat, cry and poop. But once they get to be about 6 months they understand basic things. And at that time sin becomes easily observable. As they age the sin manifests itself in more and varied ways. Children don't have to be taught to hit, throw fits, run off, scream at others, share, etc. They (we) do it all naturally.
I am completely familiar with the doctrine of original sin. Completely! If you haven't committed a great deal of your time to learning and appreciating Christianity for a quarter of a century, I doubt you are going to pull something out of your hat that I don't know. My post was to try to lift YOUR understanding up, and I chose to speak to you as a non-believer, assuming that you would not be persuaded by scripture. So, what I said was that my own observation, and what is, I think would be apparent to most genuine seekers of truth, is that people are naturally sinful, and morally broken--all of them. My point is that the doctrine of original sin so happens to line up with my objective observations in the world, so it doesn't take a lot of brain-washing to get me there on scriptural grounds. As for babies, that is a specific area that Christians have divided views, with the main position being that there is some age of accountability--which would likely still be a very young age from your perspective. An often-discussed situation in the Bible is David and Bathsheba's first child, which died near birth and was said to go to heaven. For me personally, I knew in my spirit that I was sinful and needed a savior, and no one had ever even argued original sin to me. How about you, you certainly are at an age of accountability--do you think that you are a sinner? If there is, in fact God, and you have deliberately rejected him, will you claim "unfairness" if he rejects you?
vy, if you're using "observation" to support original sin, then you obviously don't know what original sin is. A newborn baby is born with original sin, according to Christian dogma. There is no way to observe that. And original sin is not the same as "normal" sin. You seem to not understand that as well. Everyone is "sinful", as in "not perfect". Whether a savior is "needed" is a religious issue, not suprisingly proffered by a religion that also happens to claim that they have the only true savior. And "as for babies", there is no contention whether original sin applies to them. It does. (edit to add: according to Christian dogma) The issue is whether those babies go to hell before they are baptized, not whether they are immune to original sin. The more you try to tell me that you understand original sin the more you convince me of what you don't know. edit to add: let me emphasize that "observing" the sinful acts of man (be they children or adults) in no way supports the concept of "original sin" as subscribed to by Christians. Original sin is a doctrine, not an observable act of nature. Neither Judaism nor Islam has such a concept.
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perham would have you believe it doesn't. If no one is perfect, what makes them imperfect? They must be flawed in some way at birth, otherwise it would be possible for us to live a perfect life. Or is it just that we are perfect at birth and it is the world teaching us to sin?
