In God We Trust?

gnomon · Feb 16, 2006

FeathersinHair said:
*whispers helpfully* They weren't pagan at the time, thank you kindly.

Who, Rome? Think they were.

Feathers in Hair · Feb 16, 2006

As we consider them now, yes. However, the term 'pagan' evolved when the Abrahamic faith became the 'civilized' one. 'Pagan' was originally meant 'country bumpkin', or something similar- denoting that the person who believed in such gods did so because they weren't civilized enough to be familiar with this up-and-coming faith.

So, if we're referring to a time when the Romans considered their gods/ the Greek and Egyptian gods the only gods, they wouldn't have been called 'pagan' gods. They would have simply been known as The Gods.

gnomon · Feb 16, 2006

FeathersinHair said:
As we consider them now, yes. However, the term 'pagan' evolved when the Abrahamic faith became the 'civilized' one. 'Pagan' was originally meant 'country bumpkin', or something similar- denoting that the person who believed in such gods did so because they weren't civilized enough to be familiar with this up-and-coming faith.

So, if we're referring to a time when the Romans considered their gods/ the Greek and Egyptian gods the only gods, they wouldn't have been called 'pagan' gods. They would have simply been known as The Gods.

An irrelevant distinction in this context.

Feathers in Hair · Feb 16, 2006

gnomon said:
An irrelevant distinction in this context.

As you state your religion is 'Irrelevant', I thought you'd be pleased! (Just kidding, and not very well, I suspect.)

I do apologize if it was irrelevant, however. I sometimes get frustrated when it seems as if my opinion is being ignored because I'm not a monotheist nor an atheist. The only semi- useful point I was trying to make was that the gods that some people now call pagan were once thought to be the only gods worth believing in to their worshippers, too.

Mark1615 · Feb 16, 2006

Mike182 said:
im glad you love the world you are apart of, but now, i must ask you this - when you say "then for god's sake, join me" - are you Proselytizing?

You may be joking, Mike, but that hardly counts as "proselytizing."

Mark1615 · Feb 16, 2006

mormonman said:
It's just another step to take God out of everything. It says in the scriptures that once a nation forgets God, His wrath will come upon them. Our great country can and will crumble if we forget our God.

Well said.

Feathers in Hair · Feb 16, 2006

It depends on who is defining the term, Mark. In this case, I believe he was referring to RF's. In this case, RFs' rule 19, which mentions

not converting others to your individual religion or beliefs.

Mark1615 · Feb 16, 2006

FeathersinHair said:
It depends on who is defining the term, Mark. In this case, I believe he was referring to RF's. In this case, RFs' rule 19, which mentions

How does one go about converting someone online? Isn't it a choice for one to change beliefs?

Feathers in Hair · Feb 16, 2006

Mark1615 said:
How does one go about converting someone online? Isn't it a choice for one to change beliefs?

I honestly don't know, nor do I think it is related to the topic of this thread. I was simply pointing out what I believe Mike was referring to, that particular rule. The full rule states:

19.) Proselytizing will not be tolerated. This forum is for sharing, discussing and understanding other religions and ideas, not converting others to your individual religion or beliefs.

One can share, discuss, and seek to understand others without attempting to convert them to or away from another religion. It is, indeed, a choice for a person to change their own beliefs. However, when one is coming to a forum for the purposes of education, debate and discussion, it is not their usually their choice to want to read posts that attempt to convert. Because we trust that there are enough forums out there that people can choose to go to, should they wish to read such posts, we hope to not have to deal with such posts here.

On the seperate topic of whether or not it is possible to convert online, I believe it is. Should one wish to debate this subject, another thread can be opened to that effect.

wmam · Feb 16, 2006

FeathersinHair said:
*whispers helpfully* They weren't pagan at the time, thank you kindly.

I understood your meaning and agree only that those who believed in them did not know them to be pagan but for those that did not know and believe in them may have thought them strange and different. I really didn't and don't want to debate the meaning of the word "pagan" but I do believe that my point was well taken by most and was understood. We as a nation, or a people, shouldn't be so self centered to think that we are the only ones in history to experience good times. We here in the good ol' USA are only a couple of hundred years old where other nations are some what older. Look at China. What is the predominate religion there?

retrorich · Feb 16, 2006

steve at JRM said:
I think our country has became one of the most powerful on earth is because we do trust in God. Think about it, in 200 years, we've become more successful than other countries that have been around for a couple of 1000.

Yes, once we had slaughtered the Native Americans and stolen their land, we did all right. Slaves kidnapped from Africa helped a lot also. More recently, we invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason, resulting in the death of thousands of people and the waste of billions of dollars which could have been spent for more constructive purposes.

In God We Trust. With Hypocrisy, We Act.

mormonman · Feb 17, 2006

retrorich said:
Ah...Mitt Romney: The poster boy for homophobia. Perhaps he could choose Sen. Santorum as his running mate on the Bigots for Jesus ticket. Their campaign slogan could be "Go STRAIGHT to Heaven!" :biglaugh:

As a conservitive, Romney doesn't believe in gay marrital rights, just like most other conservitives. There is no radical belief here.

retrorich · Feb 17, 2006

mormonman said:
As a conservitive, Romney doesn't believe in gay marrital rights, just like most other conservitives. There is no radical belief here.

And apparently you don't believe in spell check. :biglaugh:

Darkdale · Feb 17, 2006

mormonman said:
As a conservitive, Romney doesn't believe in gay marrital rights, just like most other conservitives. There is no radical belief here.

This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with bigotry - and it is a shame that equal rights seems to be a radical idea to Christians.

retrorich said:
And apparently you don't believe in spell check.

I'm sure you could deal with the content, right?

retrorich · Feb 17, 2006

Darkdale said:
This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with bigotry - and it is a shame that equal rights seems to be a radical idea to Christians.

Well said! Frubals to you.

I'm sure you could deal with the content, right?

I tend to judge a post not only by content, but also by the degree of literacy with which it is written. If MormOnman is so proud of being a conservative, he would do well to learn how to spell it correctly.

Darkdale · Feb 17, 2006

retrorich said:
I tend to judge a post not only by content, but also by the degree of literacy with which it is written. If Mormanman is so proud of being a conservative, he would do well to learn how to spell it correctly.

True - but if we became real grammar nazis it would detract from the debates.

And it is a good thing I can use spell check, because I spelled grammar incorrectly.

retrorich · Feb 17, 2006

Darkdale said:
True - but if we became real grammar nazis it would detract from the debates. And it is a good thing I can use spell check, because I spelled grammar incorrectly.

And I spelled Mormonman incorrectly, and was unable to correct it before your lightning-fast reply. Pride cometh before a fall.

Mike182 · Feb 17, 2006

wmam said:
I understood your meaning and agree only that those who believed in them did not know them to be pagan but for those that did not know and believe in them may have thought them strange and different. I really didn't and don't want to debate the meaning of the word "pagan" but I do believe that my point was well taken by most and was understood. We as a nation, or a people, shouldn't be so self centered to think that we are the only ones in history to experience good times. We here in the good ol' USA are only a couple of hundred years old where other nations are some what older. Look at China. What is the predominate religion there?

im not convinced that the way to measure the "greatness" of a country is to count how many christians there are in it - but i think this is a topic best left for another debate

CaptainXeroid · Feb 17, 2006

retrorich said:
Yes, once we had slaughtered the Native Americans and stolen their land, we did all right...

Most of the American Natives died of diseases the contracted from the European settlers. True, many were rounded up, under illegal orders from Andrew Jackson, but one people conquering another has been going on through history. It's nothing new, and no amount of self-loathing by today's people will undo it.

retrorich said:
...Slaves kidnapped from Africa helped a lot also...

If you do some reading, you will find that the slave trade started with rival African tribes trading prisoners of war for rum. I'm not defending the practice, but rather pointing out that you are (purposely) mistating events for dramatic effect.

retrorich said:
...More recently, we invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason, resulting in the death of thousands of people and the waste of billions of dollars which could have been spent for more constructive purposes...

This is a topic for a whole other series of threads that have already been beaten to death. I think faulty intel is more to blame than 'In God We Trust' for the Iraq debacle.

retrorich said:
...In God We Trust. With Hypocrisy, We Act.

The early American settlers believed that God led them to the 'New World' and it was their 'Manifest Desinty' to spread His gospel far and wide. While I don't agree with the way they did it, I don't see that they took actions that were contradictory to what they espoused, therefore, the hypocrisy part of this statement is inaccurate.

Anyway...we can argue this until we're blue in the face, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that we will not see 'Under God' nor 'In God We Trust' removed from the pledge of allegiance and our money respectively in my lifetime. I will turn 37 this year, and I am taking care of myself better these days so I plan to be around a LONG time.:jiggy:

retrorich · Feb 17, 2006

CaptainXeroid said:
If you do some reading, you will find that the slave trade started with rival African tribes trading prisoners of war for rum. I'm not defending the practice, but rather pointing out that you are (purposely) mistating events for dramatic effect.

The fact is that Africans were forced into slavery, and America helped continue their slavery.

The early American settlers believed that God led them to the 'New World'...

:biglaugh

id they utilize other methods of navigation as well?

... and it was their 'Manifest Desinty' to spread His gospel far and wide.

"Manifest Destiny to spread his gospel"? Looks like Bush is continuing that hypocritical policy.

I will turn 37 this year, and I am taking care of myself better these days so I plan to be around a LONG time.:jiggy:

I hope you are around for a VERY long time, my good friend--even if you continue to vote Republican.

I will turn 65 this April, and I hope I will at least live long enough to see Bushtard out of office!

In God We Trust?

Well-Known Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Well-Known Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Member

Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Active Member

SUPER NOT-A-MOD

Ammon is awesome

SUPER NOT-A-MOD

World Leader Pretend

SUPER NOT-A-MOD

World Leader Pretend

SUPER NOT-A-MOD

Flaming Queer

Following Christ

SUPER NOT-A-MOD