Atheist Seeks to Use Religious Freedom Law to Remove ‘In God We Trust’ From U.S. Currency

Money Motto pdNEW YORK — A prominent atheist is again on a quest to remove the motto ‘In God We Trust’ from American currency after losing attempts to do so thus far, and is now seeking to use the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in his strategy.

As previously reported, atheist Michael Newdow, who has filed numerous suits challenging the mixture of God and government, first submitted a complaint in the Southern District of New York in March 2013, asserting that the motto violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution as it serves to proselytize unbelievers.

But in September of that year, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., nominated by Bill Clinton, rejected Newdow’s arguments, opining that “the inclusion of the motto on U.S. currency . . . does not violate the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution].”

He consequently appealed his case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, but last May, the court likewise ruled against the prominent atheist.

“The Supreme Court has recognized in a number of its cases that the motto, and its inclusion in the design of U.S. currency, is a ‘reference to our religious heritage,’” it wrote. “We therefore hold, in line with the Supreme Court’s dicta, that [the motto appearing on currency does] not violate the Establishment Clause.”

Now, Newdow is seeking plaintiffs for seven new lawsuits—one in seven of the twelve federal circuits—that challenge the motto from a different angle—the federal RFRA signed in the 1990s by then-President Bill Clinton.

“[C]hallenges to this practice under the Establishment Clause have, so far, failed,” he wrote in a recent guest post on Patheos. “Challenges under RFRA, however, are not as susceptible to misapplication. This is because every Supreme Court justice involved in the three RFRA cases heard to date has agreed that, under RFRA, religious activity may not be substantially burdened without a compelling governmental interest and laws narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“There is obviously no compelling government interest in having ‘In God We Trust’ on our money,” Newdow continued. “Accordingly, for those who feel that being forced by the government to carry a message that violates their religious ideals is substantially burdensome, lawsuits are now being prepared…”

He said that he is especially seeking families with children to be a part of the cases, since he believes that children will have greater influence on the courts.

“What we need mostly are families with minor children since the Supreme Court has indicated that it is more likely to uphold constitutional (and, presumably, statutory) principles when children are involved,” Newdow wrote. “Please be advised that the identities of any families with children will be kept ‘under seal’ in order to protect the children…”

“If you wish to participate—especially if you have minor children who you think will look back with pride as adults, knowing their parents gave them the opportunity to personally take part in strengthening civil rights in our country—please write to [me],” he reiterated.

Newdow did not outline whether he is seeking only atheists, or whether he believes atheism is a religion—one that is being burdened by the presence of the motto.

The motto “In God We Trust” has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864 and began being printed on paper currency in 1957. The phrase is to believed to have originated with the Star Spangled Banner, written during the War of 1812, which declares, “And this be our motto: In God We Trust!”

Following a Civil War-era proposal from a number of pastors to the U.S. Treasury Department that God be acknowledged on American currency, Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase obliged and ordered that a design be created. Its inscription was first upheld by Congress in 1864, and then again in 1873 when Congress passed the Coinage Act, which specifically declared that the secretary “may cause the motto ‘In God We Trust’ to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto.”

In 1956, Congress passed a resolution making “In God We Trust” the national motto, which was again upheld by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 by a 396-9 vote.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Lark62

    Why is it so important to plaster the word “god” all over everything?

    It reminds me of a dog claiming ownership of a tree, except maybe the dog is a bit more picky about where he leaves his “mark”.

    • Richard

      The importance is committing the country to God’s care and protection. America became the most powerful and affluent nation on earth because of the commitment by the founding fathers. Take the commitment away and you remove God’s protection and provision.

      If you don’t think so, review Israel’s history.

      • Lark62

        Where in our secular constitution is the authority to pick one religion and put an appeal to that god on a product every single American must use?

        Do you seriously have no clue how offensive that is?

        To all those asking “Why do you care? Why does it matter?” read what Richard wrote. How dare you use our national currency to kiss up to your god?

        If you want to pray, pray. But keep our government secular.

      • MountainDewFan4

        You see … not everyone in this country wants to “commit the country to God’s care and protection”.

        I don’t know if you’ve looked around at this country … violence, drugs, poverty, homelessness, disease, murder, child abuse, 9/11, etc. … It really doesn’t look like your “god” is doing a good job caring for or protecting this country?

        • April Johnson

          God gave men free will. It is their choices that have caused all the terrible things that are happening in this country. God has been with and prospered and protected this country since it’s inception until the people started throwing Him out of the country. Taking prayer and the Bible out of schools, removing the ten commandments out of public buildings, making abortion legal, and since then, approving of homosexuality and transgender and all kinds of perversions. The principles of God have been abandoned and the non-principles of “do what thou wilt” have been embraced. So why should God stay where He is not wanted?

          He has lifted His hand of protection from this rebellious country. If you think it’s bad now, just prepare yourself for much worse. We are living in the last moments of world history as we know it. Very soon our Lord Jesus Christ will be coming for the true believers in the rapture of the church. Then there will be a period of time (7 years) that will be unlike no other time since the earth was created and will never be again. Those who have hardened their hearts to God’s truth will be left and will experience Hell on earth then the reality of the actual place called Hell until the end of Christ’s thousand year reign of peace on the earth. Then they will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. It is each person’s choice of where they will spend eternity. God doesn’t want anyone to perish, but to gain salvation through the work of His son, Jesus Christ on the cross where He suffered and died to pay our sin debt in full and reconcile us to the Father so that where He is, we may be also.
          Hearing the truth, gives you the choice to believe or not. No one is being coerced or threatened into it. So why is such a big deal made about the mention of God in today’s society? We have the right to believe as we will just as others have the right to unbelief. It is popular to say that we are trying to force our beliefs down people’s throats, but in truth, it is those that don’t believe that are trying to force their unbelief on us by legalizing sin and trying to force us to recognize and accept it with threats to the way we live out our beliefs.
          Why not just call us crazy and go on with your lives? Why such a fuss? Maybe it is due to an underlying feeling of guilt or fear.

          Having “In God We Trust” printed on money doesn’t limit you from using it because you don’t believe. There is soon coming a day where in order to buy or sell, you are required on pain of death, to believe in and worship a world leader known as the Anti-Christ and take his mark on your right hand or forehead. Now that is having something forced down your throat!
          We Christians are a loving and peaceful people but we will not compromise our beliefs to make sin comfortable for others.

          I hope that you and as many others that can, see the truth, turn from your non-belief and join those of us that “In God We Trust”. Otherwise, what can you trust in? Government? Money? Pleasure? Science? These are all changeable and fleeting things. My God is steadfast and true. He never changes and His word is the rock I stand upon.

          • Black Lotus

            This comment represents why religion is dangerous. Lets look at it and clarify a few things.

            1. Prayer and the bible have not been taken out of schools (I assume you mean “public”). A child can still pray in school and read their religious tomes during any free time he/she has, and as long as the religious are not disrupting the class with their rituals everything is fine. What you are actually upset about is the fact that schools cannot lead children in prayer or force religious teachings on them and this is horrifying to you because you think that your belief is true and that everyone should believe as you do. This is wrong of you because what you believe infringes on the rights of others through forcing religious ritual on those who have differing belief systems.To be impartial, the public school system has to focus on generalized education for all who attend without injecting personal beliefs into that education. There are private and religious schools that cater to the vast majority of religions if you don’t want your child to be educated publicly. And then you have your churches and your home to indoctrinate your children in.

            2. Taking the “Ten Commandments” out of public buildings. Your “commandments” are particular to the Abrahamic “faiths”. Once again, not all people share your particular religious belief, and to be fair to all we have to keep public property secular and inclusive to all people of all or no religious faith. If we all pay for it we should all be able to share it without discrimination. I should be able to go to a park or government building and enjoy myself without having to be bombarded with YOUR beliefs.

            3. Abortion. You have every right to believe abortion is wrong, but you have no right through law to, once again, force your religious belief on someone else. If you think abortion is wrong, then don’t have an abortion.

            4. Homosexuality and “perversions”. Once again, if you don’t agree with a particular lifestyle or “perversion”, as you so lovingly put it, you don’t have to participate. I am sure that homosexuals are not forcing you to have sex with them, and if asked be a gay person to participate in gay sex you can always say “no”. I am sure they will understand. And, again, just because your religion says it is wrong doesn’t make it so for others who don’t share your :belief”. And if your religion teaches you that hating someone for being gay is okay, then you should reconsider a religion that makes you hate.

            5. “End-times”. Prove it. 2000 years of waiting should prove that it isn’t happening, especially since your religious tome stated that “the end” was supposed to begin in the lifetimes of those who wrote your “good” book.

            6. Threats of “hell”. Once again, prove it. Those of us who don’t believe in a “god” do not believe in your “hell”. If it isn’t ral it cannot be a threat. Like believing in a “god”, if you make the claim you must support said claim with evidence. I know you cannot do this (and scripture is not evidence… a book full of lies and contradictions does not qualify). And if you have to scare people into a religion, you should be ashamed of yourself. THAT is terrorism, and especially when done to children.

            7. “The Truth”. Truth is based on what can be proven to be real. Your “god” is not one of then. To believe in something based on “faith” is to ignore truth. Just because you believe it to be true doesn’t make it so. And it is very self-righteous of you to think you know what is true for everyone else. Your religion has brainwashed you into being this egotistical.

            8. Forcing beliefs on others. We non-religious don’t care what you “believe”, but we will have a voice when our rights are violated and the religious try to pass of “belief” as fact, then manipulate us through governing and law. Read and UNDERSTAND the First Amendment. And as for Jesus dying for our sins… there is no sustainable evidence that Jesus even existing, and even less that he was resurrected. There are myths that tell the same story thousands of years before your Christ myth (and many of the other tales in the bible as well), and you have just been convinced that the one version you have been told is true. And speaking of “sin”…

            9. Sin. That is a part of your belief system. Some of us do not believe in sin, but we do believe in RIGHT and WRONG. Just because you believe something to be a sin (here we go again) doesn’t make it so. Learn the definition of EMPATHY. There is no “god” required.

            10. “In God We Trust” on money. Money is how we buy goods and services. It should NOT be a lesson in religious belief, nor should it speak for me on what I believe when I use it. It is currency ONLY. Having this stupid motto on it does not limit me on using it, but it does give others I use it with the impression that I either agree with said motto or that I am okay with my and your First Amendment right being violated. Putting “In God We Trust” is endorsing religion and, knowing the history of why it was added to money, specifically one particular religion, it endorses on particular religion- Christianity.
            11. Compromising your beliefs. You are NOT compromising your beliefs by allowing others to have the same rights as you do. You are just violating theirs and trying to impose your will upon others. This is the twisted aspect of religion- it blurs the line between reality and belief, making the religious think they are justified in their bigotries and hate.
            12. The “Anti-Christ”. Once again, just because you believe it to be so doesn’t make it so. Evidence, please.
            13. Christians being a “loving and peaceful” people. Nope. Throughout history Christians have force-fed their religion to others through many acts of violence, including wars, genocide, torture to convert, etc., as have most other religions. Your religion is not free of atrocities, and your book even has stories of these crimes against humanity. And I know many Christians who, because of their bigotries and hatreds that are fueled by their beliefs, are just one step away from using that hatred to kill in the name of their “god”. Even today, in Africa, for example, Christians are killing Muslims by the thousands in a “crusade”. Christians have bombed abortion clinics and blowing up federal buildings here in the good ol’ USofA. You Christians may not be as violent as you have been in the past, but the acts still occasionally happen and the potential for violence is still great considering how many of you are armed with assault rifles and are just waiting for the “end” to come.
            14. “Join us”. Nope. Sorry, but I will NOT be brainwashed into any religion. How about putting our differences aside and working together to make the world a better place? How about creating a government that works with people of all walks of life that are not violent or negative? How about making money less of an issue and quality of life more of one? How about letting each person decide what pleasure is right for him/her? How about understanding what science is actually about and embracing the truths of reality? If science leads discovering that your “god” exists, then I will accept that as fact. Until then, I want to know as many truths as I can, and your “god” is NOT one of them, no matter how much you believe it to be true.
            Peace… even to the religious.

          • April Johnson

            I will not bicker back and forth with you. I will tell you though that I am no bigot and hate no one as a true Christian. Heinous acts in the past and in the present are committed by those who claim Christ but truly don’t know Him, neither is He living in them. Reading your reply saddens me, for your sake and for the millions of people that think as you do. May God open closed eyes and closed ears.

          • MountainDewFan4

            Sorry April. God will not save you. God will take take you into the clouds while he rains hell onto everyone else. It is all a myth.

            By the way, if you do not watch every single episode of Star Trek, you will not be one of the chosen ones that gets beemed onboard the Enterprise before the Klingons destory the Earth. So … you should really start watching Star Trek. How do I know that this will happen .. um because it’s written in a book that I read… and we all know that if it’s written in a book….. it MUST BE TRUE!

          • Debra Burnsworth

            I love how every Christian claims to be the only “true” Christian. No wonder there are over 40,000 denominations each with its own personal “twist” on what a good Christian is. And they wonder why we find it so hard to take them seriously.

          • MountainDewFan4

            Clap, Clap, Clap *APPLAUSE*. Very well said Mr Black Lotus. Extremely well thought out points throughout! I agree with every word of it! Thank you.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            WOW! Extremely well said, Black Lotus!

          • Debra Burnsworth

            One man’s truth is another man’s lie.

          • Randy Wanat

            Yes, yes…Madalyn Murray-Ohair and the Jehovah’s Witnesses were the cause of all the evil in America. Back in the good ol’ days, when you could drag homos and spooks from the bumper of your pick-em-up truck down a country road with impunity, things were so much more Biblical.

      • Nicole

        I am ok with this idea as long as the god is CTHULHU

      • Randy Wanat

        Yes, you’re right. Saying special words to gain the favor of a celestial wizard that every religion claims is theirs and bestows blessings upon them specially is certainly a valid understanding of how events play out in reality. Do you also think stepping on a crack will break your mother’s back?

      • Debra Burnsworth

        America is not made of 100% god believers. It is not a 100% Christian country. If it is going to go about trying for some god’s protection and care than it needs to acknowledge EVERY citizen’s god or rabbit’s foot or whatever each citizen depends on. Our government cannot just try to protect Christians. Non-Christians do not believe in any god protecting them. So by only petitioning one god you are leaving out a large chunk of Americans. And just because YOU believe in some god does not make it reality for the rest of us.

    • Tara

      It’s been there forever. Why is it so important to take it off?

      • uzza

        It’s been there since 1956. If that’s your idea of forever, can we assume that our eternal reward in heaven lasts only 59 years?

        • Tara

          lol….nope. For eternity. 🙂 My point was it’s a trivial thing…..if you don’t believe in God, why worry about Him so much?

          • Randy Wanat

            So, God is a trivial thing, or trusting in God is a trivial thing?

          • Debra Burnsworth

            Because it is OUR money and nation too… NOT just Christians. Why should it just represent Christian views?

          • Tara

            so, by your logic, it’s ok to take it off because it represents the views of non-christians?

          • sind57

            It represents all people who believe in a higher being. (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wicca, etc.,) If you don’t believe in God than you believe in nothing. So why be upset about nothing? Sounds like you can’t be happy unless you hurt those who do believe. Sounds hateful to me.

          • tempprofile

            You seem to lack critical thinking skills. Also, you don’t really understand what hateful means. It’s not hateful to have a word removed from our currency that shouldn’t be there in the first place. We are a secular nation. It doesn’t represent ALL people who believe in a higher being. That’s an ignorant statement at best. How does removing it hurt you? That’s like you putting a noose around someones neck and then they ask for it to be removed and you call them hateful because of it.

          • Iceman00767

            Don’t you atheist morons have anything better to do with your lives than to worry about whether or not 4 words appear on our currency? You people are insane. Are your lives that empty that you have to spend all your time & efforts being extreme iconoclasts? If you don’t believe in God then why does it bother you to see “In God We Trust” on a piece of paper? I don’t believe in Santa Claus but it doesn’t bother me that there is nowhere I can go during the holiday season without seeing an image of Santa.

          • Dana Logsdon

            Because the First Amendment says it’s unconstitutional.

          • Iceman00767

            No it does not.

          • Goddess of Wind

            Wa-wa-waaaaa! Need a tissue you nasty, whiny, petulant, pompous, arrogant turd?

          • sind57

            Why do you think it shouldn’t be there? Religious Freedom is part of our Constitution. We should be free to believe in the god of our choice, whether that be Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, an alien, nature, or even Santa among the few. With President Obama already trying to deny Catholics the rights to practice their beliefs through parts of his Health Care Plan, I find it “Extremely Important” to fight for that right to choose who or what you wish to worship.

          • Matthew Alton

            Tell ya what. Print “In Nothing We Trust” on half the money and we’ll call it a day. Simple, really.

          • Dana Logsdon

            Your point makes no sense. Why don’t we put the Nazi Flag on there? Some people believe in the ideology.

          • sind57

            Maybe because this isn’t Germany?

          • Iceman00767

            Since when does the word “God” represent ONLY Christian views?

          • sind57

            My point

          • Jim

            Why are you so conserned about something that you say does not exist? Perhaps it is not that but deep inside, in the quit times you do believe it to be true and the constant reminder pricks your conscence? Choose wisely my friend, because what you do not have any control over is your next heartbeat.

          • Randy Wanat

            Your deity is trivial?

          • Tara

            nope, God is anything BUT trivial. Taking His name off the money, in the whole scheme of life, is trivial.

          • Randy Wanat

            Is having it there trivial?

          • Tara

            oh brother….no, obviously to me, a believer, no. Holy smokes are you being purposely obtuse? It’s trivial to me for anyone to worry about such a thing considering the horrific things that are happening the world over.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, if you agree with it, it’s not trivial. But, if you disagree with it, it is trivial. Gotcha.

          • Dana Logsdon

            Money exists. Your god? Jury’s still out.

          • Tara

            Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

          • sind57

            I rather believe in God and find out he doesn’t exist, than to
            not believe in God, and find out that he does.

          • Dana Logsdon

            Let’s put “Jesus is imaginary” on there.

          • sind57

            You obviously have no understanding of the different religions. If it said, “In Jesus We Trust”, I could understand others wishing “their God”, ie;, Allah, Buddah, an alien, nature (Wicca) , Jehovah, etc, being also given space. You obviously have a hatred toward Christians and should go and find help in eliminating this problem so you don’t find yourself burden with health issues.

        • Go USA

          Still can’t answer the question. Typical atheist.

      • Lark62

        1. It hasn’t been there forever. It was added to paper currency during McCarthyism.

        2. It isn’t true.

        3. It alienates Americans who do not worship a monotheistic god, preferably the christian one.

        4. It gets used to justify greater 1st amendment violations. “Of course its okay for a first grade teacher to push Christianity. See it says god on a dollar bill.” (And yes, people really do use that argument.)

        5. Tradition is a really bad reason to piss on the Constitution.

        6. What possible secular reason is there for leaving it on?

        • Tim

          1954

          In the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government distinguishes itself from the secular Communist state by adding the phrase “one nation under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, it adopts the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto. Three years later, in 1957, the phrase “In God We Trust” begins appearing on paper currency.

          The importance of this move really relates to the U.S. idealism not to be secular as a representation of the country at large.

          It does none of the above list you presented.

        • Go USA

          If you don’t like it, leave. Find another country. China does not believe in God. They offer “great” freedom for atheists like you.

          • Lark62

            Say what? I’m not the one disrespecting the Constitution.

          • Go USA

            Yes you are. You are arguing against it.

          • Justin Russell

            I defended the US Constitution… That means the First Amendment that says no religion will be held above another. YOU don’t like that it shouldn’t be there YOU leave. Want a Theocracy, go to Iran. Want to be an American, follow the Constitution or GTFO. Stupid civilians like you make me want to puke.

          • Go USA

            Where did you defend the the US Constitution? Your wild dreams “don’t count, cl0wn.

            “That means the First Amendment that says no religion will be held above another.”

            That’s certainly not the Constitution of the United States of America, and certainly not the 1st amendment, loser.

            Here is the text of the 1st amendment, for the uneducated loons like yourself.

            “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.”

            So you can’t even get basic facts straight, jackass.
            No one wants a theocracy, you lame id10t. We just want militant atheists and muslim sympathizers like you under control.
            You don’t like it? Get out, leave, Go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, ..etc. I hear they treat militant atheist losers like you well there.
            This country can certainly be better without liars like you who claim to have defended it, lying through their teeth.

          • Justin Russell

            Fucktard… Old Town Maine. Care to back up your words, swing up this way you little keyboard warrior pussy lol

            As for where. I am a former member of the US Army you little civilian bitch.

            And if a fucktard like you doesn’t understand “paraphrasing” the First Amendment or has no idea that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means no religion will be held above another… well you are retarded.

            And you are the one wanting religious law… maybe YOU should get out of MY country and go to a country like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that HAVE Theocracies.

            Holy fuck you are a fucking retard and I mean that word exactly for what it is… I mean seriously, who fucking uses “Leet Speech” anymore lol Fucking loser

        • sind57

          In response to 3. A monotheistic god is still a god in that persons eyes and should be respected as well.
          In response to 4. My daughter is an elementary school teacher and I can tell you they do not allow the teachers to use any form to encourage Christianity. Also when my daughter was growing up, I volunteered for many activities (from K-12) and was involved with her school experiences. I didn’t see any religion being pushed. I did see a lot of teachers that were overworked because of how the majority of parents chose not to volunteer time. (If you work during the day there are a lot of sports, music, debate, etc., activities that teachers need to be present and would love parental or adult aunt, uncle, sibling help)
          In response to 5. Our Constitution allows us freedom of religion. We should be glad our government does not persecute us for our choices. Our Country was formed by people coming to America to seek religious freedom. This is an important part of our history not tradition.
          In response to 6. The same reason they leave on other icons. Look closely and you will be fascinated of how much is actually on our printed bills.

          • Lark62

            I respect everyone’s choice of god by preferring that none of them are put on our nation’s currency.

            We seem to agree that teachers should not push religion. But there are many that do. And they often justify their illegal behavior by pointing to a phrase plastered on the dollar bill.

            We have freedom of religion because no one is allowed to use the power of government to push their religion.

          • sind57

            I wonder how many people would be living here in this country if their ancestors did not come here seeking religious freedom. I can guarantee you that it would be significant. This is a part of what made Our Country Great. I say leave it on the money as a reminder that we still have this freedom. If you pay attention to President Obama you will find he is already trying to take away some of those freedoms.

          • Lark62

            How exactly does telling me that I trust in a god that I don’t believe exists remind me of my freedom of religion? That is totally nonsensical.

            Telling me that “we”, me included, trust in god is offensive, not a reminder of “freedom.”

            And my ancestor on the Mayflower came because his employer came. Some of the members of the Plymouth colony may have wanted religious freedom for themselves. But they had criminal penalties for anyone who did not follow their religion exactly as prescribed. That is a long way from freedom of religion.

            My irish ancestors fled famine and brought their religion with them. Here they met extreme anti-catholic discrimination.

            I’m fairly certain that the people kidnapped and sold into slavery would not describe their arrival in America as freedom.

            We have freedom of religion because the US Constitution says that no one – No One – may use govt authority or power to promote their religion. Our country is great because we respect and defend our constitutional protections.

            The token Obama bashing doesn’t rate a response.

      • Nicole

        And if it said .. In Allah we trust .. would you be equally unconcerned ?

        • Jane Steele Valentine

          This country wasnt founded on the principles of allah.

          • Lark62

            It sure wasn’t founded on the bible either.

            Most of the bill of rights is in conflict with the first half of the 10 commandments.

          • Nicole

            Oh that’s right .. the US Constitution begins “According to the revealed word of our lord Jesus Christ” …. oh wait .. it doesn’t .. it begins “We The People” .
            And let me direct you to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797 by the senate and then President John Adams which states

            Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
            any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no
            character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
            Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war
            or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is
            declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions
            shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the
            two countries.

            So it wasn’t founded on YOUR religion either

          • Tim

            I’m tempted to provide you a list of framers of our constitution which would differ with you especially the amendment clause of the first amendment. However it would not do much good, other than to suggest that our founders believed in private and public that “God” was a part of their lives. Many suggested the Bible, and many suggested Christ was important to their daily living. The fear was the founders did not want to be bound by a government religion, like that of the English. I posted above some of the history of that.

          • Nicole

            Let me put it this way .. what the founders believed in is irrelevant. I think we agree they did not want a government religion, thereby the first amendment. I would posit that the only way for government not to either establish a religion by law or deed is to remain neutral on the matter. There are two ways to do that .. acknowledge all equally or acknowledge none. Which makes more sense ?

          • Tim

            These issues are very fluid. You have states with state constitutions that the courts use for decisions. You have upper courts that do the same. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This phrase is referred to as the establishment clause. Although Europe had been torn apart by religious conflict for almost the entirety of recorded history, the establishment clause was most likely motivated by hostility towards, and suspicion of, the Church of England. By the time the American Revolution came about, Anglican priests were understandably held in high suspicion and the framers of the Constitution were reticent to create anything resembling an official Church of England in the United States.

            An Example would be: In 1952 the case of Zorach v Clauson: Raising the question of the constitutionality of off-premises religious instruction. In Zorach, the Court upheld the practice of giving public school students “release time” so that they could attend religious programs in churches in synagogues. Writing for the 6-3 Court majority in Zorach, Justice Douglas said the Constitution does not require “callous indifference to religion.”

          • Nicole

            I think there is a big difference between accommodating religious belief i.e release time, and say opening a city council meeting with a prayer. The first is accommodating the private practice of religion .. no problem with that as long as it is equally applied. The second is giving the weight of government endorsement to a religious practice. Which is also what “In God We Trust” does . It puts the weight of government endorsement behind a religious belief that not all hold to be true. That is what doesn’t work for me.

          • Tim

            People are spending so much time on what I consider to be trivial matters. Religion will most likely always be with us, since we all have the Freedom of religion. Endorsing “Christianity” really seems to be the issue. Nobody would likely complain too much if a Jewish Rabbi were to say a prayer before a meeting started. Just take a look at Congress when Netanayhu spoke to them. He had mentioned Moses, the 10 commandments that rested within the Chamber of Congress, and not many people were upset with that. I didn’t see a thing come from the “atheist” the only one upset was Obama and his administration. I really do see an attack on “Christianity” in that people say we were not built on judeo-christian principles, and then in the same breath say, it’s not fair that we were built on Christianity and it should be removed from Government.

          • Nicole

            I’ll ask you the same thing I asked someone else who made the claim the US is based on Christian principles. Can you cross reference the articles in the constitution to verses in the bible? And I will offer you the same example. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. Can you point to the prohibition of slavery in the bible ?

            Actually, every atheist group I know of thinks there should be NO prayer of any before a government function, Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc. The only reason it appears to be an issue with Christianity is that is the religion that is most prevalent and insistent on having prayer starting meetings. It isn’t hard to find instances of local government officials denying non Christian groups access to the opening prayer. Tennessee recently voted to make the bible the official state book. This is the kind of behavior that non Christians and frankly I think chirstians who DO understand the principles this country was founded on should find offensive. It makes one religion a privileged class over others. Regardless of whether or not the country was founded on Christian principles you surely don’t think the founders wanted one religious belief to be privileged above others ?

          • Tim

            Yes. This article explains the first question: Prayer is on the rise in the U.S. and as church going has come down, it seems people don’t want to be in a boring church but want to explore Christ in prayer and meditation. Now on to your question:

            Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any attachment to the Christian religion.” Such an assertion is a monstrous perversion of historical fact. The truth of the matter is that they were fearful of the potential interference by the federal government in its ability to place restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian religion. Consequently, they desired that the specifics of religion be left up to the discretion of the several states.

            Nevertheless, we must not think for a moment that the federal Framers did not sanction the nation’s intimate affiliation with Christianity, or that they attempted to keep religion out of theConstitution. On the contrary, the Christian religion is inherently assumed and implicitly present in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus Christ! Consider three proofs for these contentions (See Constitution of the United…, 1789).

            First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:

            [A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

            By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

            Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.

            Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:

            Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth….

            Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

            Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.

          • Nicole

            What the founders believed or did not believe is moot. Some were Christian some were Desists and some a Hybrid. Jefferson, while calling himself a Christian discounted all the supernatural events in the bible .. including the resurrection. So the beliefs of the founders were varied.

            As to their intent .. the Constitution’s inclusion of “Year of our Lord’ is meaningless. Since I can’t link to it

            Despite the secular nature of our national government, there ison e unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution. Article VII dates the Constitution in “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” But what does this mean for the principle of religious liberty?

            The answer is: nothing. Our dating system is an historical
            artifact of Western culture, and has no legal significance or
            implications for the meaning of the Constitution or the First
            Amendment. The American Colonies were established by Europeans; we naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our cultural heritage.

            In fact, the European dating system is infused with pagan
            holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite
            conclusions reached by accommodationists. We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law? Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin it’s sessions on the first Monday of December? Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of
            Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)? The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.

            To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words “Year of our Lord” in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it’s hard to imagine why. “The Year of our Lord” was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words “in the Year of our Lord.” That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.

          • Tim

            “What the founders believed or did not believe is moot.”

            So are you saying that the founder’s worldview was moot when framing the Constitution? I quote:

            1. Social critic Charles Krauthammer suggests that American Civil Religion consists of three major tenets: (1) belief in a Just Providence (whether “God” or not), (2) the sanctity of the social contract (our rights and obligations as citizens), and (3) tolerance of dissent. In his view, any practice that promotes any of these three tenets (including, for example, school time for silent meditation) should be constitutional. Do you agree?

            2. If it were to be satisfactorily demonstrated that a majority of those voting to propose and ratify the First Amendment had a narrow view of the application of the Establishment Clause, should the Court reverse course and overrule many of its established precedents in this area?

            3. What do you think about the suggestion made by Professor Laurence Tribe and others that “religion” should be given two interpretations–a narrow one for Establishment Clause purposes and a broad one for Free Exercise Clause purposes?

            We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. (Justice Douglas in Zorach v Clauson)

          • Nicole

            Perhaps my answer to this part of your post will answer everything else.
            What do you think about the suggestion made by Professor Laurence Tribe
            and others that “religion” should be given two interpretations–a
            narrow one for Establishment Clause purposes and a broad one for Free
            Exercise Clause purposes?

            If I am reading this right, I agree completely. In my mind the establishment clause refers to the government and the free exercise clause refers to individuals.

            That being said, in my mind the establishment clause is clear that government and it’s representatives needs to be neutral to religions. Repeating myself, this can be done one of two ways. Give all religions equal access or give no religion access. The first is cumbersome and results in the Satanic Church being able to hand out literature at schools. The second is simpler and places the issue of religion where it should be .. on the individual and their churches, Government functions should not open with a prayer , ,, tacitly endorses one religion over another or, if a non sectarian yet religious invocation is given, then it tacitly endorses religion over non religion. This goes against the establishment clause. Which brings us back to In God we Trust… it endorses religion over non religion, and excludes non believers. If I want to extrapolate .. If Americans trust in God, and I don’t believe in God, then I must not be an American… I am excluded from the WE.

            The free exercise clause refers to individuals. Government should not and can not prevent you from worshiping as you will, as long as it causes harm to none. Government can accommodate religion as long as it does it neutrally. That is to say you can’t allow release time for Christian study and deny it for Islamic study. You can have a generic moment of silence but the teacher can not lead prayer.

            It really isn’t that difficult. A Government is not a person and can not have religious beliefs and so can not practice religion. A person can have religious beliefs and should be as free from government interference when practicing it.

          • Tim

            For the sake of this discussion, let’s not put it into a “Christian word” definition Ok I’m going to try to address this from my perspective. (I’ll leave the other comment alone).

            1. Freedom of Religion is open to all religious faiths in the United States, not just Christian.

            2. 70.3% of the U.S. population defines themselves as Christian. In ten years it’s predicted that the majority will be Muslim in the U.S.

            3. Prayer is on the rise in the U.S. and the status of “None” applies to those that have no affiliation with a particular religion, in other words they don’t go to churches.

            4. A Government is made up of people. The government is of the people and by the people.

            5. State constitutions (Should state constitutions over-ride the U.S. Constitution?) Decisions in the state courts are very fluid, for instance, the Freedom of Religion Restoration act, is different for each state, than the federal act. 18 states currently have their own form of the act.

            6. If you really believe that “religion” isn’t present in Government institutions, and there has been no history of such, then you are not presenting a realistic scenerio.

            It’s very important that we remember this especially concerning this article:

            “In the Lincoln Room of the White House”

            “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

            Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

            But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

            Abraham Lincoln

            November 19, 1863

            Now I don’t know how much clearer I can be related to how God is viewed in history and in government.

            The quotes in question are apparently found on U.S. passports. Here are a few examples:

            “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” —Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

            “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” —Jefferson Memorial, Thomas Jefferson

            “We have a great dream. It started way back in 1776, and God grant that America will be true to her dream.” —Martin Luther King Jr.

            You can’t make this stuff up.

            FFRF is demanding that the U.S. State Department remove these quotes—which were actually said by real national heroes at historically significant moments about pivotal events in our nation’s history.

            For me it is simple. God is an important part of our lives, and I support Lincoln’s statements. The FFRF has been doing atrocious things, and my next post if you want to continue this discussion will lay them out, your choice.

          • Nicole

            1. I agree only adding non faith as well
            2. I am not sure where this came from. A recent Pew poll found that Islam has only grown by .5 percent where as NONES as a group have grown by 6.7% and Atheists by 1.5% (as part of the nones) . So while Islam may become the dominant religion if these trends continue the none and even the atheist will far outnumber them.
            3. I can’t find any reference to more people praying other than a Christian Science Monitor article. But fine .. I will grant that the vast majority of people in the US are religious and are likely to pray. It is a moot point.
            4. True. But not all people are religous and the government is supposed to represent ALL people that are part of it. The Bill of Rights is specifically meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is also why we are in a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
            5. Unequivocally no. The Constitution is the law of the land. If states can override it then it is meaningless and we as a country are meaningless. Your reference to RFRA is another story. That is a law, and a very different thing than the constitution. The Federal RFRA was passed to ensure that minor religions, in this particular case the native American use of peyote, would not be prevented from practicing their religions. Still Federal Law trumps State law, you can make a more restrictive state law, you can’t make a less restrictive one.
            6. Of course there are religious references all over the place. no argument there.
            7. I checked MY passport. The are only two quotes on it that mention god, the MLK quote you mention and a quote from the golden spike driven to join the two coasts of the nation by railroad. Both made by private citizens. There is also a quote from a Native American giving thanks to the Animal life in the world. I am not sure of your point .. that people in government have mentioned god ? Of course they have ? Should they .. NO.

            No need to detail what the FRFF is doing. I am very familiar with the organization. I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but would rather have them there than not there.

          • Tim

            I would not want to offend you Nicole, you are kind in our discussions, so I’m just going to say I disagree with you on ” So while Islam may become the dominant religion if these trends continue the none and even the atheist will far outnumber them.” Here is the actual Pew report:

            Here are other chief findings from the report:

            1. Islam will grow faster than any other religion over the next 40 years.

            2. The number of Muslims will equal the number of Christians around the world by 2050.

            3. Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

            4. The global Buddhist population will be about the same size it was in 2010, while the Hindu and Jewish populations will be larger than they are today.

            5. In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.

            6. India will retain a Hindu majority but also will have the largest Muslim population of any country in the world, surpassing Indonesia.

            7. In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion. Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.

            8. Four out of every 10 Christians in the world will live in sub-Saharan Africa.

          • Nicole

            No offense taken .. facts are facts and if I am wrong about something I want to be corrected. Ah .. I see .. in the original post you refereed to Muslims in the US. Here you are referring to worldwide population of Muslims. I could see Islam becoming dominant in the world, I stand my ground on it not becoming dominant in the US. As you not .. the nones are increasing in the US with no indication that they will decline in the US.

          • Nicole

            What I am saying is the intent of the founders overrides their belief. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was originally founded as Protestants and Americans for Separation of Church and State. One can have strong religious beliefs but still believe in church state separation.

          • Tim

            One can equally have strong religious beliefs and include them within Government. Ex.

            After the Union army was defeated at the Battle of Bull Run, President Abraham Lincoln declared a National Day of Prayer and Fasting:

            It is fit and becoming in all people, at all times, to acknowledge and revere the Supreme Government of God; to bow in humble submission to His chastisement; to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions in the full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and to pray, with all fervency and contrition, for the pardon of their past offenses, and for a blessing upon their present and prospective action.

            And whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the blessings of God, united, prosperous and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and crimes as a nation and as individuals, to humble ourselves before Him and to pray for His mercy…that the inestimable boon of civil and religious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing by the labors and sufferings of our fathers, may be restored.

          • Nicole

            Just because it is done and endorsed by the government doesn’t make it right. Salvery was endorsed by the government too. No I am not saying that slavery is the equivalent of religion., just that the government doing something doesn’t make it right.

          • Tim

            Nor would it necessarily be wrong. Certainly in the case of Lincoln it was necessary.

          • Nicole

            Since we are talking founder’s intent … The founder’s intent was the the national motto be E Pluribis Unum. So, shall we abolish In God We Trust and go back to the motto the founder’s so clearly wanted ?

          • Tim

            Before I answer that question, is this what you really want in our nation?

            When an angry atheist group like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) goes after something like the Holocaust memorial because it includes a Star of David, they do it because they hate anything to do with our Judeo-Christian heritage and to get in the public spotlight.

            When groups like the American Atheists pile on with an anti-Semitic diatribe, for example, telling Fox News, “It’s important that we not give the Holocaust to just the Jews,” they do it for the same reason—to grab a piece of the spotlight.

            But as soon as they have that spotlight, they rush to the absurd (as if that’s not absurd enough). Their answer to everything they don’t like or that offends one of their members is to make as if it never existed. If two intersecting steel beams were discovered in the midst of a national tragedy and really brought solace to real people, they say you have to hide it from the public and pretend like it didn’t happen—that it doesn’t exist. (See the Ground Zero Cross.)

          • Nicole

            So, what do I want for this country. THAT would be a long answer 🙂 But I will assume you mean as far as religion and the government goes. I simply want the government to get out of the religion business. No faith based initiatives, no days of prayer, no prayer before government functions or by government officials. Definitely no religious instruction in public schools, though true comparative religion courses or true bible as literature course would be OK. No Nativity scenes on government property. Religion is a personal matter ..it should be practiced by individuals and churches as they see fit and the government should keep it’s nose out of it.

            As for the Star of David. This is the kind of thing I disagree with the FRFF on. I understand their point that if you only represent the star of David on a Holocaust memorial you are excluding millions of others who died as well. A far better approach would have been to work to include the other groups.

            Likewise the Ground Cross. I thought it was stupid to make a thing about it. Personally, I couldn’t have possibly cared less. There are bigger more important issues to deal with.

            On the other hand, when the ten commandments were put up on the state house lawn and the Satanists wanted to put up a statue too ? Yep .. you better believe I think they should be able too. Come one come all. That is the way it has to work for it to adhere to the establishment clause.

          • Tim

            I have a question my friend. With your intellect, why are you an Atheist? I’ve always wondered why people such as yourself, kind, smart, (I could love on ya for a day and a half lol) select atheism over Jesus. I know its probably a crazy question to ask, but the majority of atheist’s I’ve spoken with are not nearly as intelligent, kind, and more than not, cruel. You are none of the listed. (I’m not talking about being a Christian). I’m talking about understanding who Jesus is. There can be a big difference between the two. (smile)

          • Nicole

            First, thank you for your compliments. Likewise, I feel you are intelligent, thoughtful and kind. Your question would take a long long response. Let me start by saying, I did not wake up one morning and found myself a non-believer. Perhaps the short answer is .. I went looking for god and didn’t find him. For a time I identified as born again and read the bible numerous times. Again, the short answer is the more I read it the less sense it made. Too many hoops to jump though to make things go together. So I drifted away from that, but I still believed in a god of some sorts, a temporary deist you might say till I found the answer I was looking for,. I looked at other religions and found they all suffer to one degree or another from the same issue Christianity (in my mind) suffer from. I finally started thinking about the proposition of god’s existence and the more I thought about it the more I came to the conclusion that the idea of god made no sense to me. As for my life’s philosophy I have settled the Chinese philosophy of Taoism . There are religions with gods and goddesses based on Taoism, that is not what I adhere to, just the philosophy itself which has no gods. I hope that answers your question

          • Tim

            Thank you for explaining. For me I think my wakeup call to believing in Christ was during a very tragic time in my life. My father was a minister as my grandfather and great grandfather was. But that was not the wakeup call. It was the experience I had that created a certainty at least to me, that there could be no other answer than Jesus aka God saved me. I reached out when there seemed to be no hope and I promise you that I would not have lived through that situation if I didn’t believe that God was there for me. That was about 10 years ago. Today I believe I’m a better man because of that experience. I could have easily stopped believing, but it’s not so easy to stop once you completely utterly believe there is God. That’s my story, and I appreciate you telling me yours.

          • Tim

            I didn’t mean that to sound forward lol. I meant I love people and your one of the good ones. Sorry about that.

          • Nicole

            Ha .. no worries at all. It takes more than that to offend me 🙂

          • Tim

            It’s still in use today. ex.

            Answer: E Pluribus Unum is Latin for “out of many, one.” Sometimes it is translated more loosely as “one from many.” E Pluribus Unum refers to the fact that the United States was formed as a cohesive single nation as the result of the thirteen smaller colonies joining together.

            The motto E Pluribus Unum was first proposed by the U.S. Continental Congress in 1782, for use on the Great Seal of the United States. The immediate inspiration for the use of this term is generally believed to be Gentlemen’s Magazine, which was an important men’s magazine published in England beginning in the early 18th century. It was a very influential magazine among the intellectual elite. Every year, Gentlemen’s Magazine would do a special issue, comprised of the best of the year’s articles, and the Latin term “E Pluribus Unum” appeared on the title page as a way of explaining that this issue of the magazine became “one issue from many previous issues.”

            E Pluribus Unum on Coins

            The first use of E Pluribus Unum on coins was in 1795, when it was used on the Half Eagle ($5.00 gold piece.) The reverse design motif is based on the Great Seal of the United States, and depicts an eagle holding a banner in its beak bearing the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM. The motto was first used on a silver coin three years later in 1798, and apeared on all U.S. gold and silver coinage shortly thereafter. However, E Pluribus Unum’s use on U.S. coinage wasn’t uninterrupted.

            In 1834, E Pluribus Unum was removed from gold coins to mark a minor debasement in the fineness of the gold. Once again, the silver coins soon followed, and E Pluribus Unum didn’t appear on any U.S. coins again until 1866, when it returned to several coin types, including the Half Eagle, Eagle ($10 gold piece,) Double Eagle ($20.00 gold piece,) silver One Dollar, and Quarter Dollar. In 1873, a law was passed that required E Pluribus Unum to appear on all U.S. coins when new designs went into effect, and the motto appears on all U.S. coins to this day as a result.

          • Nicole

            If a Christian nation had been the intent of the founders, they would have put that in the Constitution, front and center. Yet the text of the Constitution contains no references to God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity. That document does not state that our country is an officially Christian nation.

            Not only does the Constitution not give recognition or acknowledgment to Christianity, but it also includes Article VI, which bans “religious tests” for public office. Guaranteeing non-Christians the right to hold federal office seems antipodal to an officially Christian nation. The language found in Article VI sparked some controversy, and a minority faction that favored limiting public office to Christians (or at least to believers) protested. Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate, later reported that some felt it “would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” But, as Martin noted, the article’s language was approved “by a great majority . . . without much debate.” The Christian nation argument just wasn’t persuasive.

            In addition, the First Amendment bars all laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and protects “the free exercise thereof.” Nothing here indicates that the latter provision applies only to Christian faiths.Finding no support for their ideas in the body of the Constitution, Christian-nation advocates are left to point to other documents, including the Declaration of Independence. This also fails. The Declaration’s reference to “the Creator” is plainly deistic. More obscure documents such as the Northwest Ordinance or personal writings by various framers are interesting historically but do not rise to the level of governance documents. When it comes to determining the manner of the U.S. government, only the Constitution matters. The Constitution does not declare that the United States is a Christian nation. This fact alone is fatal to the cause of Christian nation advocates.

          • Randy Wanat

            Trivial matters like contraception. Whoops, you seem to have forgotten that your opinion of what is trivial is not universal nor does it dismiss its relevance.

          • Tim

            That may be true, so when I say Trivial, you will now know that is my perspective. What does contraception have to do with my comment? I don’t see anything I stated, related to contraception. Are you on the same page with my comment or are you trying to give a parallel perspective, because I have no idea what you’re referring to.

          • Randy Wanat

            Yes, parallel perspective. Apologies if it wasn’t clear.

          • Tim

            Not a problem, Thanks. So are you asking me if Contraception is Trivial? Again I don’t see the parallel based on my comment, but if you’re saying Contraception to me is Trivial, then I would have to say based on the Hobby Lobby decision it isn’t Trivial. I’m referring to cakes, flowers, and T-shirts.

          • Randy Wanat

            No, I’m not. One might view the motto’s text and its appearance on government property as problematic, while another may not. Likewise, one might view access to insurance-covered contraception as trivial, while another might not. Whose position is correct? Sometimes the best answer is a gray and not black or white. How gray is the question.

          • Tim

            What question? What is the point of this conversation since you cannot determine what your own answer would be. You say grey, I say green. What is the correct position? What “motto” are you speaking about? The one that states “under God” as an example: I see nothing grey about that. Seems like Lincoln was pretty much about black and white.

            In the Lincoln Room of the White House

            Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

            Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

            But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

            Abraham Lincoln

            November 19, 1863

          • Randy Wanat

            In a global sense in this case, what Lincoln said is irrelevant. If relevant in a particular context, it’s fine. However, when people are specifically seeking out quotes referencing religious ideas, historical context has been discarded for ideological purposes, and what might have been appropriate ceases to be so.

          • Debra Burnsworth

            Some of our founders may have thought it a good idea, personally, to have a god in our lives. But, they knew that to force people to would be religious oppression. That is why it is not mentioned in our Constitution. To force people into religion would make American no better than theocratic Muslim countries.

          • Tim

            I agree with your statement.

          • sammy13

            The currency does not reference Christ. It references God, the Judeo-Christian God of the bible. And read the Constitution of the US, truly read it, and look at where we get our freedoms and liberties from; Our Creator.

          • Nicole

            Please cross reference the Constitution to the Bible .. list article and the related bible verse. You are making a claim .. it is your job to prove it .. not mine

          • Nicole

            For example .. the 13th Amendment freed the slaves in the US .. please point to the bible verse that says people should not own slaves

          • Brenda Cressey

            Exodus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

          • Nicole

            Hmmmm the NIV version of the bible is translated as
            16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.” … This is an injunction against kidnapping NOT an injunction against slavery. . In fact Exodus 21:1 – 11 are instructions of how to treat your Hebrew slaves with a way to mark and keep them for life. Then .. In Exodus 7 we find instructions on selling ones daughter. Exodus 20 tells us it is ok to beat our slaves as long as we don’t beat them to death. Bad economics I suppose. Exodus 28 tells us that if, while beating our slaves they lose an eye or a tooth they are to be set free. Leviticus 25:44-46 tells us to take our slaves from foreign countries.. and you get to keep the children of your slaves as a bonus. In Deuteronomy we learn that if you go to war, you should kill all the men, and keep all the women and children for yourself .. perhaps not exactly slavery .. but pretty close. In the New Testament we have Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18 all telling slaves to obey their masters. ! Peter is especially interesting since it enjoins the slave to obey both fair and unfair masters. Do I need go on, the verse you quote says that stealing someone is a crime not the selling of them, The verses I quote clearly support the practice of slavery. Try again.

          • Brenda Cressey

            The scripture I quoted was taken from the King James Version. All other versions of God’s Word are taken from the King James Bible. While there are other versions that are quite accurate, the New International Version has changed over 65,000 words from the King James Version. You gave a wonderful example of why it’s important that we heed to God’s command to NOT change words in the bible.
            Revelation 22:18,19

            “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

            Stealing and kidnapping don’t exactly mean the same thing but what else would you steal OR kidnap a human being for other than to make them a slave in some way?

          • Nicole

            Ummmm .. you do know that the original bible was not written in English ? If you are concerned about ‘not changing god’s word’, I suggest that you learn Hebrew and Aramaic. Because ANY translation is going to be lacking and will change words. One of the most famous mistakes is the translation of the word for young woman in reference to Mary to read virgin and that is how we got the story of a virgin birth. Google it if you don’t believe me. As for why the NIV version changed words is because our understanding of the ancient languages has improved greatly since the 1600’s when the KJV was translated and so .. later translations are more accurate. True .. the only reason one might steal someone might be for slavery .. yet the verse is saying that someone who steals a human should be put to death whether the stolen human was sold or not. Selling the person into slavery is not the crime here .. stealing them is. The verses I quoted CLEARLY support slavery .. both old and new testaments. Sorry .. I still don’t buy that your verse is an injunction against slavery. If God had wanted that he could have simply had and eleventh commandment. Thou shall neither buy nor sell another human, neither Hebrew or foreigner shall you own. Clear and to the point .. nope .. he gave us rules for the buying and selling and treatment of slaves. Not buying your verse.

          • Brenda Cressey

            Why would you even read ANY bible when you don’t believe in God? You seem a bit angry over something you don’t believe is real. It’s ok though, Jesus love you too.

          • Nicole

            This is changing the subject and not addressing the points I am making. Whether I am angry about something or not doesn’t matter .. I am making valid points and you are sidestepping them

          • Nicole

            I frankly couldn’t care less what you believe or don’t believe .. until you want to make it part of the government. Then I will definitely get in your face.

          • Brenda Cressey

            It’s already part of the government or nobody would be arguing about it.

          • Nicole

            No it isn’t .. people are trying to make it part of the government and to force it on people who don’t agree

          • Randy Wanat

            Distraction.

          • Brenda Cressey

            Slavery in those times was not what it was like with the slavery in the United States. You are the one twisting the scriptures around to say what you want them to. You need to understand context and background to study the bible properly. “Context” means the verses surrounding the one being studied, especially verses on the same subject. By “background” I mean who is speaking, to whom they speak, etc. These are just a particular form of considering all the Bible says (see the last point). Words have different meanings in different contexts. We learn the correct meaning by how the word is used. To understand the Bible properly we must realize that sometimes it accurately records the fact that fallible people do or say sinful things. Every Bible word is infallible, but sometimes it infallibly records the sins or lies of fallible people.Psalm 14:1 quotes “There is no God.” But who says this? The fool says it. The Bible accurately records, not that the statement is true, but that foolish people truly do say it.
            Job 2:9 says “Curse God and die.” But who says this? Job’s wife said it, and was immediately rebuked by Job.

          • Nicole

            Please explain how slavery was different. I will be happy to copy an paste all of the surrounding passages of the bible that I quoted that refer to slavery to provide context. I am not sure how owning someone for life, being able to beat them, separate families is very different from the slavery in the US. But I am open to explanation.

          • Tim

            Easily explained. God did not sanction slavery, it was man who decided to conquor others and make them slaves, ex. Pharoah of the OT slaved the Israelites for over 400 years. They were freed from slavery. Slavery was also in the NT an act that kept blood lines together. Often persecution by Romans put pressure on the Jews to do something to keep families together. This resulted in “slaves” those that sought out work in order to stay in a family unit. Back to the OT, slavery in the sense of the word depending on their treatment (abuse) could carry the death penalty for individuals who abused their slaves. Of course there were plenty of instances of war – and thus slavery as a result of wars. Jesus did not condone slavery, and he stood for the poor, the sick, and those that were slaves to Rome. Paul often spoke to new Christians telling them to treat a person in slavery (the Roman Church mostly which had slaves by default) with respect, dignity and love. Likewise the slave was instructed to love their master. Often the master had more wealth, and the relationship between the two became one with wealth assisting the poor with work, housing and food. In return a slave would do tasks. There was an emphasis on the relationship, and that anyone as a slave would also stay with their families, so people that were poor would actually volunteer to provide for their families, and again keep the blood line of their ancestors (a tradition).

          • Nicole

            Sounds like the sanctioning of slavery to me

            Leviticus 25:44-46
            44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You
            may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
            members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
            property. 46 You
            can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make
            them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites
            ruthlessly.

          • Tim

            War time slavery. It existed. However if you like I will quote the information from the Bible that confirms my statements about slavery. The OT is historical as written, something the Jewish nation used to create laws. The NT is the new Covenant of Christ which fulfilled the prophesies of Isaiah. There were roughly 1575 fulfilled prophesies Jesus accomplished. Notice the context by which Leviticus is talking. “come from the nations around you” indicative of Wars going on between rival Kings. The book of Kings explains those things

          • Nicole

            Slavery ,, moral .. or immoral? For me immoral .. always.

          • Tim

            Oh without a doubt slavery is a terrible thing. We see even today the slave trade, women being picked up at football games in parking lots and sold into the slave trade. It hurts me to know human kind can be so cruel. I don’t condone the types we see today. It’s against every fiber of freedom I aspire to, for people of any country.

          • Nicole

            My point exactly .. slavery is wrong. You know it, I know it. God.. not so much. It is condoned and in some cases encouraged in the bible.

          • Tim

            No. God never condoned slavery. I explained the meaning of slavery during those times, God freed slaves. Ex. The Exodus. That is an error in your interpretation of the Bible. Tell me all of the scriptures that the Bible references slavery, and I will explain to you each and every one of them. I already have in fact. Others have argued the point you make, but there simply is no basis for God nor Christ to condone slavery as merely slaves like for instance slavery of the Black.

          • Nicole

            eviticus 25:44-46New International Version (NIV)

            44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          • Tim

            Sorry I fell Ill and was unable to respond. Here are scholars who explain in detail the situation at that time.

            Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. The price of a slave is supposed to have varied from thirty to fifty shekels. See Leviticus 27:3-4, note; Exodus 21:32, note; Zechariah 11:12-13, note; Matthew 26:15, note. It was the object of Moses, not at once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and to mitigate it. The Law would not suffer it to be forgotten that the slave was a man, and protected him in every way that was possible at the time against the injustice or cruelty of his master. See the notes at Exodus 21.

            If he borrowed money, they were not to demand interest; or if food, they were not to demand any addition, any larger quantity, when it was returned (cf. Exodus 22:24; Deuteronomy 23:20-21), from fear of God, who had redeemed Israel out of bondage, to give them the land of Canaan. In Leviticus 25:37 וחי is an abbreviation of וחי, which only occurs here. – From Leviticus 25:39 onwards there follow the laws relating to the bondage of the Israelite, who had been obliged to sell himself from poverty. Leviticus 25:36-46 relate to his service in bondage to an (other) Israelite. The man to whom he had sold himself as servant was not to have slave-labour performed by him (Exodus 1:14), but to keep him as a day-labourer and sojourner, and let him serve with him till the year of jubilee. He was then to go out free with his children, and return to his family and the possession of his fathers (his patrimony). This regulation is a supplement to the laws relating to the rights of Israel (Exodus 21:2-6), though without a contradiction arising, as Knobel maintains, between the different rules laid down. In Exodus 21 nothing at all is determined respecting the treatment of an Israelitish servant; it is simply stated that in the seventh year of his service he was to recover his liberty. This limit is not mentioned here, because the chapter before us simply treats of the influence of the year of jubilee upon the bondage of the Israelites. On this point it is decided, that the year of jubilee was to bring freedom even to the Israelite who had been brought into slavery by his poverty, – of course only to the man who was still in slavery when it commenced and had not served seven full years, provided, that is to say, that he had not renounced his claim to be set free at the end of his seven years’ service, according to Exodus 21:5-6. We have no right to expect this exception to be expressly mentioned here, because it did not interfere with the idea of the year of jubilee. For whoever voluntarily renounced the claim to be set free, whether because the year of jubilee was still so far off that he did not expect to live to see it, or because he had found a better lot with his master than he could secure for himself in a state of freedom, had thereby made a voluntary renunciation of the liberty which the year of jubilee might have brought to him (see Oehler’s art. in Herzog’s Cycl., where the different views on this subject are given).

          • Randy Wanat

            To be clear: God specifically condoned Hebrews purchasing gentile slaves from foreign slave traders, and they had the right to beat the slaves as frequently as they saw fit, so long as any particular beating didn’t result in death within a couple days, and these slaves were considered property that could be sold, traded for goods or services, and passed down to heirs or given as dowry gifts. The slaves were to labor as their owners commanded with no compensation, and killing a slave was a civil offense (I.e., punishable by a fine). They did not have rights as citizens, and were not free to leave.

            Explain how that is distinguishable in any significant way from 19th century slavery, and explain what about the former makes it somehow preferable. Then, explain what makes it moral versus the immoral latter. Then, explain how an explicit condoning of the former isn’t exactly that.

          • Tim

            If you are the same person that previously told me that President Lincoln was as you say it, irrelevant than I have nothing to say to you.

          • Nicole

            Hi Tim .. welcome back, I am glad you are feeling better. Thank you for all the information and your diligence in gathering it all. .. but the first line of your note says it all “Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted.” .. Both you and I agree that slavery is immoral, yet the bible sanctions it. I am not sure how you accept the bible as the word of God when it is clearly sanctioning an immoral act.

          • Nicole

            Hi Tim and welcome back. I am glad you are feeling better. Thank you for the effort you put into this post, but you could have stopped at “Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. ” Well there’s your problem .. slavery is permitted. God hates shrimp, but slavery is ok. This is the crux of the issue God may be ok with slavery, but I am not. I can’t, in my mind, think that the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe didn’t tell people not to own other people. You know it is wrong, I know it is wrong .. God .. not so much. Of course, slavery is not the only issue I have with the bible, .. but it is the most obvious.

            Ok .. I just reread you post .. and I have to disagree that the law of Moses was meant to discourage slavery. In Leviticus 25:44-46, you are told you can pass your slaves on to your children. How exactly is that discouraging slavery? Why not set them free at your death ?

            Rather than start in Exodus 5 .. Lets start in Exodus 4.

            4 If
            his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the
            woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man
            shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

            Here the servant is given a choice . freedom if he leaves his wife and children .. or he can ‘voluntarily’ give up his freedom to stay with them. Is that a choice ? Would you leave your children in that situation ? Is that discouraging slavery ? I think not.

            I am not trying to change your mind about the bible, I really have no issue with what other people believe as long as it is kept personal and they are not harming others. My philosophy is dance where you want as long as it isn’t on someone else’s feet.

            And so we have come full circle back to In God We trust. In my mind, In God We Trust takes religion out of personal belief and makes it sanctioned by the government and that .. is dancing on my feet. I am as much as a citizen as any believer, but I most certainly do not trust a God that sanctions
            slavery .. I am not part of the We .. and so am excluded.

          • Tim

            “God hates shrimp?” Where does it say in the Bible that God hates shrimp. Jesus certainly explained that what was unclean to eat, is clean to eat.
            You can’t change my mind about the Bible. That is why I encourage you to study the Bible on Biblehub. God is a foundational truth in America, you can’t avoid it. My question to you is if there is a God (and I’m sure there is) are you smart enough to understand the plan of God, Christ. I completely disagree with you on slavery as being something condoned. Slavery existed, and it still does today. My question to you is this. If you are so strongly in denial that God does not condone slavery, why aren’t you a slave? More to the point, what have you done to eliminate slavery where you know it exists?

          • Nicole

            Of course it doesn’t literally say God hates Shrimp, you know that as well as I. You also know perhaps even better than I the verses that imply that if God doesn’t hate shrimp, he certainly doesn’t want us to eat them.. at least in the old testament. Though I think calling something an abomination could be construed as hating, but that is semantics and we don’t need to go there.

            Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
            9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
            10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
            11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
            12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

            Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
            9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
            10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

            The point is God takes the time to define dietary laws (whether they are still in effect or not) detailing what can and can’t be eaten but couldn’t find time to add a law banning slavery.

            Why am I not a slave?.. I got lucky. A different time or different country and things might have been very different. What am I doing to end slavery? Not enough. But then, I am not the all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe. If I was I would have added this to the bible:
            “Thou shall neither buy nor sell another human whether Hebrew or foreign, nor shall you own a male or female slave. Any one of you who own a man or a woman shall set them free from bondage”

            According to the Webster’s online dictionary, condone means :
            to forgive or approve (something that is considered wrong)
            to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue

            Please explain how this passage does not condone slavery at least according to the second definition of the word.

            Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

            44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

            So here is my question to you. Why didn’t God explicitly ban slavery when he had no problem banning many other activities? I figured out how to do it (If I could) why didn’t he ?

            As for Christianity being part of America’s history .. of course it is. Foundational ? I think not. I am still waiting for the Constitution to be cross referenced to the bible. How exactly does “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion” come from the bible? Or relate to any biblical tenet.

            Or this ? from Article IV The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

            Then consider that biblical law differs for Jews and Gentiles, how does that line up with the 14th amendment which is known as the equal protection clause ?

            Regarding God’s plan, if this is it, it is a very very poor plan. Without a doubt, if I was all powerful and all knowing, I could do better. Here is an easy start. I wouldn’t have created Lucifer aka Satan. No Satan, no fall of man, nobody gets nailed to a cross and we live happily ever after in Eden. Or … if for some reason I didn’t know Satan was going to cause the fall, I would have at least annihilated him after the war in heaven and not given him free reign to do whatever mischief he wanted to. As it stands, likely billions of people will suffer eternal damnation. No, not a very good plan at all.

          • Tim

            As we continue to go over and over through Leviticus you will see many things as instructions to the Israelites since they did were being given laws they knew very little about because God freed them from Egypt and their slavery. Leviticus is an instruction book for living in the culture of that time like the children those people were. They were locked up in slavery by Pharoah for over 400 years, and God was not wanting them to live liked the Egyptians of that time were living, because of sin. Concerning slavery, and since we live by the new Covenant through Christ taught in the New Testament please read the following concerning slavery. You may also want to continue Leviticus 1:15 to the end. Now lets pull all of this together. Ex 2:23, Ps 15:3 Proverbs 23:17, Matthew 9:13, Luke 15:7, Luke 18:13, Romans 5:8, John 8:34, Rom 6:6, Rom 7:14, Gal 3:28, Gal 4:3, Eph 6:5, 2 Peter 2:19. Lets finish up with this slavery thing and then I can address your other misconceptions.

            Question one for you afterwards is

            1. Do you believe there is a God, which by the Bible is aka Christ?

            2. Do you support prisons? In other words is it right to keep a prisoner doing slave labor to serve a sentence based on his actions against the law (our laws, then apply the same reasoning to the laws that God presented to the Israelites).

            Now, I’m going to present you with a little education about purpose, especially concerning Gods’ purpose:

            1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempteda by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
            4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’
            5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
            “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
            and they will lift you up in their hands,
            so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
            7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test. ”8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
            10Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ”11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

            Do you notice who controls the world? Do you notice that Satan used early scripture to try to make a point that Jesus recognized and corrected Satan on. My question to you is this: Are you putting the Lord God to the test as Satan was doing?

            When it comes down to the ultimate decision in your life, would you be more inclined to be controlled by:
            1. Satan and deception with no boundaries and live in the world he has taken over, or,
            2. Would you be inclined to live for a man that gave up his life to save you, no matter what you have done good or bad in your lifetime?

            That choice is easy for me, is it easy for you?

          • Nicole

            Tim .. you are sidestepping the question why you do not think Leviticus 25:44-46 does not condone slavery. Whether or not the New Covenant abolishes slavery has nothing to do with the fact that God condones slavery in the old testament. I don’t condone slavery .. you don’t condone slavery. God did.

            I will definitely put the God of the bible and any other God to the test. I have a brain and I will use it. If I see that God doing things that make no sense .. Genocide, killing innocent babies. slavery, human sacrifice, eternal punishment., Then I have to reject that God as either imaginary, or evil. Either way, not worthy of my worship.

            As for your final question, it is a false dichotomy. There are many more choices than the two you offer. So I choose neither. I neither believe in your God or or your Satan. I am controlled by myself and live as best as I can to better myself and others when possible. I am not a sinner, I make mistakes and do my best to rectify them and not repeat them.

            And frankly I have a serious problem with a doctrine that posits the idea that Hilter could be in heaven if at the last moments of his life he accepted Christ while Ghandi is suffering eternal torture if he did not. If you think that is a just system, we have a serious, serious disagreement.

            Here’s a question for you, the first born of Egypt that god killed ? Are they burning eternally in hell ? As best as I can see ,according to your doctrine, they are. Is that a god worthy of worship ?

          • Tim

            In answer to your question, I have no knowledge of what hell will be like. Your sidestepping my questions. Will you answer them? I will move from your answers once I understand your position. Again as I have explained, and you have read over and over again, God does not condone slavery, we have been through those explanations how many times now. But you insist to continue forward. So once again I will explain something to you.

            Easily explained. God did not sanction slavery, it was man who decided to conquor others and make them slaves, ex. Pharoah of the OT slaved the Israelites for over 400 years. They were freed from slavery. Slavery was also in the NT an act that kept blood lines together. Often persecution by Romans put pressure on the Jews to do something to keep families together. This resulted in “slaves” those that sought out work in order to stay in a family unit. Back to the OT, slavery in the sense of the word depending on their treatment (abuse) could carry the death penalty for individuals who abused their slaves. Of course there were plenty of instances of war – and thus slavery as a result of wars. Jesus did not condone slavery, and he stood for the poor, the sick, and those that were slaves to Rome. Paul often spoke to new Christians telling them to treat a person in slavery (the Roman Church mostly which had slaves by default) with respect, dignity and love. Likewise the slave was instructed to love their master. Often the master had more wealth, and the relationship between the two became one with wealth assisting the poor with work, housing and food. In return a slave would do tasks. There was an emphasis on the relationship, and that anyone as a slave would also stay with their families, so people that were poor would actually volunteer to provide for their families, and again keep the blood line of their ancestors (a tradition).

            1. Why did God free the slaves from Egypt if he condoned slavery?
            2. What is the purpose by which Jesus came into the world?
            3. What is the plan that God aka Jesus taught?
            4. Do you believe that God exists? Even if you think its a negative?
            5. Are you better than someone that believes in Christ and his teachings?
            6. When you put anything to the test, do you believe you in turn are being tested as well? What loyalty do you hold true to?
            7. Ghandi had some great things to say about Jesus, who would condemn Ghandi?
            8. Answer the question related to prisons, do you support prisons? Do you feel it is necessary to put people under the hands of a government for breaking the law. If you do, you obviously can apply the same reasoning to God to punish those that sin. Our own model is of punishment could easily be explained as a similar model that God impliments. Does God want us to be evil, does Christ? No, does our government want us to be evil, to break our laws, No. Do they both equate. Yes.

          • Nicole

            1. Why did God free the slaves from Egypt if he condoned slavery?

            There is little if any evidence that the Hebrews were actually slaves in Egypt. No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
            And this from an article in the Jerusalem post
            “The short answer is “no.” The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists. The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it. “

            But that doesn’t answer your question. The answer is simple.. IF the story is true, then God freed them because they are his chosen people. The bible is clear on this. He didn’t free all the slaves, just the Hebrew ones. The laws in the bible regarding slavery are different for Hebrews and foreigners. That is why I keep going back to Leviticus 25:44-46, because it clearly condones the owning of other people as property to the point of being able to hand them down to one’s children. The very first line of that passage says that you can buy your male and female slaves from foreigners .. how much more condoning can you get ?

            2. What is the purpose by which Jesus came into the world?
            3. What is the plan that God aka Jesus taught?
            I will punt on these two questions. Not because I don’t want to answer them, but because there are so many answers depending on the particular flavor of Christianity. So .. if you want to discuss these topics, I would ask that you provide your particular view of them and I will respond.

            4. Do you believe that God exists? Even if you think its a negative?
            I consider myself to be an Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic for Gnosis .. to know. I don’t claim to know if a god exists or does not exist, I do not believe a god exists.

            5. Are you better than someone that believes in Christ and his teachings?
            Nope, nor are they better than me.

            6. When you put anything to the test, do you believe you in turn are being tested as well? What loyalty do you hold t rue to?
            I am not 100% sure what you are asking here. So, if this does not answer your question please know I am not trying to avoid. I think the answer to the first part of your question is yes. By challenging any belief, I am by force challenging my own. If I present a question that is satisfactorily answered I have to reassess my ideas and thoughts.
            What loyalty do I hold true to? I am even less sure about the part then the previous. I think you are asking me my philosophy of life? If so then I would consider myself a Taoist. An important note about Taoism. There is philosophical Taoism and then there is religious Taoism. I am a philosophical Taoist.

            7. Ghandi had some great things to say about Jesus, who would condemn Ghandi?
            Just because Gandhi had great things to say about Jesus does not mean he accepted him as his savior. I think Jesus had some pretty good things to say too… I am particularly fond of not judging people , loving your enemy and taking care of the poor and sick. Assuming that Gandhi did not accept Jesus as his savior, according to my understanding of some Christian doctrine .. he is burning in hell as we speak. That may not be true if the Calvinist view is correct and he is one of the Chosen. It really depends on the flavor of Christianity.

            8. Answer the question related to prisons, do you support prisons? Do you feel it is necessary to put people under the hands of a government for breaking the law. If you do, you obviously can apply the same reasoning to God to punish those that sin. Our own model is of punishment could easily be explained as a similar model that God implements. Does God want us to be evil, does Christ? No, does our government want us to be evil, to break our laws, No. Do they both equate. Yes.

            I support the idea of removing criminals from society at large. I do not support prisons in their current form. I believe that the goal of prisons should be to reform and to allow someone to reenter society as a law abiding member. I reject the notion of punishment as revenge for wrong doing. So, I cannot apply the same reasoning to God and his supposed treatment of sinners. Prison is (generally) finite not intentionally tortuous. God’s punishment is intentionally torturous and eternal. Would you applaud a parent who, after finding out that his child rejected him, locked her in the basement and tortured her every day for the rest of her life with no hope of ever leaving? That is more analogous to the most common concept of hell than prison is. Let me ask you a question.. Can you think of a crime where you would feel good about torturing someone for five hundred thousand years? How about a petty crime ? Because in God’s eyes, all sin is the same.

            I have answered your questions as best as I may. I will watch the show you suggested as soon as I am able.

            I have two questions for you.

            If I walked up to you and said .. “You are to buy your slaves from Canada and Mexico”, would you say I was condoning slavery? If yes, how is that different from Leviticus 25:44-46? If no, how does it differ? This is a yes or no question, either I am condoning slavery or I am not.

            Is there a way to send you my email address privately .. this way of
            communication is quite cumbersome.

          • Tim

            Nicole, Thank you in all sincerity for answering my questions. I find that our discussion is by far the most logical and well thought out discussion I have had. (Your question is thought out, and I will respond) but first I want to give you some insight into the ‘situation’ transpiring with Pharaoh and notable passages for consideration.

            First the background of the Exodus-conflict (Exodus 1.8ff):

            Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. He said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. They built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites. The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them.

            The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.” But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?” The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.”

            Second, let’s make some observations from this text:

            Pharaoh is attempting actual population control, not simple domination. The specific mention of ‘lest they increase’, means that the initial attempt to reduce Israelite population was by forced labor. This was specifically designed—according to the text—to limit population growth (and/or reduce population numbers). Think about this for a second—how would work reduce fertility or reduce population? Answer: by working the men/women to death (or miscarriage, in some cases). This is not simple execution, but an incredibly torturous means of killing off fertile males and females! This is not contraception—it is the labor-death-camps mentality…. authorized and instigated by the leader of Pharaoh.

            When this doesn’t work, Pharaoh resorts to infanticide, via the Hebrew midwives. This ploy doesn’t work, so he escalates the program.

            The final stage is full-court infanticide. All the Egyptians (including slave-girls…) would have been involved in this program. Every Egyptian household would have been legally obligated to kill all male babies of the Hebrews upon birth, by drowning. There is no reason to believe they all did this, of course, but the text does indicate that all the Egyptians hated the Israelites. [It should be noted that Egypt was ‘famous’ for its anti-Asianic bigotry. One of the most quoted inscriptions of the period starts with “thou vile Asiatic…”]

            Again this is research I’m doing (and I thank you for putting me to the task, because I’m discovering things myself through the studies). So this is part 1, some background. The ultimate conclusion will be drawn as I continue since we are limited by space in the comment section.

            If you would like to send me an email, please provide it, and I will send you a confirmation email since I do not want the public to see my name which is in my email address. We can continue from there if that is suitable. Once I send the confirmation which would be immediate, then you could edit out your email address from the comment (deleting the comment doesn’t always delete the comment here) I look forward to our private conversation if that is something of interest to you.

          • Tim

            We can estimate the population of Egypt based on the following: “It is difficult to assess the size of the average Egyptian family from surviving records. Late Middle Kingdom documents from the town of al-Lahun mention families with between two and six children, but Middle Kingdom stelae often show much larger family groups. A late-Twentieth Dynasty list of households at Dayr al-Madina gives an average of six people per family, but this probably does not include infants, or grown-up children who had left home. The evidence of stelae and tombs from Dayr al-Madina shows that families with eight or ten children surviving into adulthood were not uncommon.” [OT:CANE:377f]
            We can then estimate the number of slaves based on the population of the Egyptians and the residences of the slaves that Pharaoh captured during the war-time conflict against the Israelites. Ramesis was the most brutal Pharaoh, and yet his father, and grandfather (the lineage) were the ones that conquored the Israelites because of the threat of the numbers of the population that were expanding by the Israelites, (actually threatening to overtake the populace of ancient Egypt. (more to follow on that research).
            ______________________________________________
            2 and 3. I’m not really looking for a Christian perspective, the questions were made as a followup to a statement you provided indicating that God’s Plan is a very poorly constructed plan. Of course I disagree with that statement, based on the teachings of Christ and the recording of his life, which can be evaluated through the Bible, the historian Josephous and the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. More or less I’m asking simply for an opinion there.
            ______________________________________________
            4. I can conclude then that although you have a position concerning the God of the Bible, you really don’t believe the Bible, and thus God. I could say based on those decisions that you’re complete argument would be based solely on bias and without real commitment to understanding. If you were to say that you believe in God and the Bible, and you questioned slavery with a real intent on understanding then I could more respectfully engage in this discussion. However that becomes reasonably impossible as an atheist to accept or deny.
            _______________________________________________
            7. This goes to show again a statement that is not fully comprehendable. Allow me to explain. Ghandi was a representation of a sound philosophy, and could appreciate the teachings of Jesus. (He wasn’t so fond of the labeled Christian). You had referred or mentioned Hitler as being someone that could possibly enjoy the gifts of God through some late in the end repentance. If God is, then God knows the heart, if God knows the heart, then it would be unrealistic to believe that Hitler would be “Saved”. To go further, if you can imagine what “Hell” really is, it is the separation from God. As an example on Youtube an atheist had a near death experience (which by the way changed his life moving away from atheism) in which he described “Hell” as being without senses, except to experience a claustrophobic fog of nothingness. Complete Separation from everything and no memory of anything during that time, except for this fog of separation from everything he knew. (I hope you can see this man talking if you get a moment on youtube).
            _______________________________________________
            8. You have basically explained what “Hell” would be. Total separation from all things including God himself. You have been led to believe that “Hell” for mankind is about torture. In my opinion and from what I understand from my studies, Hell isn’t designed for mankind. Hell is designed for Satan and those that follow Satan. (My two cents here. Hell would be well deserved for Satan since I personally contribute all origins of evil through Satan’s hatred of God, and God’s creation, Man/Woman.) I am willing to describe the meaning of Hell to you, again through scholars if you have an interest.
            ________________________________________________
            So far, your answers seem to indicate that you may have at one time been raised in some church setting in your youth, which has led to your current position and philosophy. I have discussed many times issues like these with atheist philosophies and in most instances, originally they belonged or went to a particular church or venue of religion. So I can understand reasons why people become atheists. What I don’t necessarily understand is the cruelty of comments by those of the “Atheist” and the “Christian” that are hardcore in nature without applying any reasoning at all, other than a natural bigotry (again studies done and represented in “are we all bigots” through the show “Through the wormhole”. I find the science applied there and the scientists that are presenting their studies of a keen interest of mine.
            ______________________________________________
            My conclusion on this text is, that to discuss strengths and weaknesses of Biblical interpretation, without a real understanding within context, culture, and principles that can be applied, would normally be null and void if there were not some innate belief that God is possible, even though an individual of higher learning would not consider that possibility, and yet earnestly argue against God (examples such as Dawkins) is not based on any fact, but merely on either wishful thinking, or bias. The same could be true of most topics, however religion, politics, even the brain function of liberals and conservatives have been studied, the conclusion is that it’s not possible for either side to consider the other side’s position (again a study about Bigotry from the same source mentioned above)

          • Tim

            Now in answer to your question: Although you are wanting a conclusion to a beginning by asking for a yes or no, I will give you a one word answer.
            Schindler. I know you are a smart person Nicole and I want you to think about that answer, and ponder on it. This is in answer to the question related to Canada and Mexico.

          • Nicole

            Tim .. I have a busy weekend ahead .. painting, dancing, friends etc .. I mention this so you don’t think I am ignoring you. In the meantime .. you can write to me at [email protected]. This is a junk email I use when I need to give an email address to get into a site but don’t want to get on their email list. Once I get your email there I will send you something from an email address I actually use.

          • Tim

            I want to encourage you to watch “Are we all bigots”. Morgan Freemans show “Through the wormhole” and then come and discuss with me these issues. It will likely change your perception, it did mine.

          • Tim

            I wanted to answer the end of this question if I might.

            “Genocide, killing innocent babies. slavery, human sacrifice, eternal punishment.”

            The only human sacrifice that I know of that God is willing to provide, was his only Son. Concerning innocent babies, lets look at this.

            Another Scholars study on God and Egypt, the Pharoah’s decision

            CLAIM: Why are the people of Egypt held responsible for the actions of Pharaoh? Isn’t this cruel and unusual? They didn’t disobey God. Why would they be held responsible?

            RESPONSE: A number of responses can be made:

            First, the Egyptians were far from innocent. Pharaoh had murdered all of the infant Hebrew boys by drowning them in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22). Egypt had grown rich by enslaving the Jewish people for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). While Pharaoh carried out this plot, the Egyptian people benefited from his decision to enslave the Jews. Now, the Egyptian people were being held culpable for standing idly by, while this was happening. God had promised to curse those who cursed Israel (Gen. 12:3). If God did not act, he would have been reneging on his promise to Abraham.

            Second, while Pharaoh killed every Hebrew infant boy, God only judged the firstborn of Egypt. God’s judgment was mild in comparison to Pharaoh’s judgment. Moreover, the text never states that Pharaoh’s edict (to kill the Hebrew infants) was ever rescinded. It’s possible that the Pharaoh was currently killing the Hebrew boys at the time of the plagues.

            Third, some Egyptians escaped from judgment with the Hebrews. Exodus 9:20-21 demonstrates that some of Pharaoh’s own advisors were spared from judgment, during the plague of hail. Exodus 12:38 states that a “mixed multitude” of people escaped Pharaoh along with the Israelites. If these escaping Egyptian households were struck, it isn’t likely that they would flee along with the Israelites. Moreover, even the instructions for the Passover meal mentions the “alien,” who decides to participate in the Passover supper (Ex. 12:19). Therefore, when the text says that “all” of the Egyptian households were struck with a plague (Ex. 12:29), this no doubt refers to those unbelieving households.[1]

            Fourth, the tenth plague was last on the list, because it was a last resort. Pharaoh had been warned by God for nine straight plagues. God had given Pharaoh multiple opportunities to change his mind and avoid judgment. Pharaoh, on the other hand, did not give the Jews any “ways out,” when he killed the Hebrew boys. While God waited patiently and gave many chances for repentance, Pharaoh gave none.

            Fifth, the firstborn sons of Israel were below the age of accountability. Isaiah writes that there is an age before a child is able to “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is. 7:16 NASB). The children of Israel were not held responsible for the sins of their parents during the Wandering, because they had “no knowledge of good or evil” (Deut. 1:39 NASB). David said he would go to be with his infant baby, who had died (2 Sam. 12:23). David believed in an afterlife, and he thought that he was going to be with God after death (Ps. 16:10-11), and the New Testament authors claim that he is in heaven, too (Rom. 4:6-8). This demonstrates that his infant must be in heaven. In addition, Jesus implies that little children will be in heaven (Mk. 10:14; Mt. 18:3; 19:14). Because God judged the children of Egypt, he would have brought them immediately into his presence in heaven, because they are below the age of accountability.

            Sixth, God has certain moral rights over human life that we don’t. As the author and creator of life, God has a unique right over all human life. Philosopher Richard Swinburne writes, “God as the author of our being would have rights over us that we do not have over our fellow humans.”[2] To illustrate this, a parent has certain rights over their own children, which they do not have over other children (e.g. discipline). Since God is the creator and sustainer of all people, he decides how long we get to live (Ps. 139:16). God takes everyone’s life at some point. It’s called death. We acknowledge this, when a surgeon is bringing someone back to life. We say that he is “Playing God.” God allows everyone to die; the question is –when? We live everyday –not as a right –but by the mercy of God. When God took the lives of the firstborn in Egypt, he was acting on prerogatives that rightly belong to him. In fact, these Egyptian boys probably died in their sleep (“Now it came about at midnight…” Ex. 12:29). Of course, the Hebrew infants were given no such mercy, drowning in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22).

            Seventh, the God who took the firstborn son gave up his own firstborn son. We would be remiss if we didn’t point this out. While we might feel horror at the fact that God would judge the firstborn of Egypt, we need to remember that we’re dealing with the same God who paid this great and terrible price himself by giving up his “only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16). While God is willing and able to judge, he was also willing to take our place in judgment.

            In most every culture that has been in existence there has been a just cause for retribution against atrocities. It is remiss to think that God would warn Remesis 9 times over what Pharaoh had been doing to innocent people, before his final act. God even allowed those of Egypt to enter the Israelites own homes to be saved if they desired to do so, and yet Pharaoh had no mercy at all, even enjoyed the torture and killing of innocent Israelites, many times over. There were no warnings, Pharaoh was all powerful or so he thought. That Nicole is pure evil, and you if you study the Bible long enough will see the recurring theme that God will not allow pure evil to exist, but will give fair warning, over and over again. This is the perfect example of that.

          • Tim

            Nicole, if you reference the Biblehub, that web site’s purpose is to approach scripture, through scholars, historians, theologians, archeologists etc. Non denominational, strictly designed for deep study. You can get every question you might have answered there in a way that is informative and based on the research of countless people all over the world.

          • Nicole

            Types of Slavery Permitted by the Bible

            The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

            Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)

            Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection
            from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants
            (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead
            of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity
            to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early
            settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well
            treated and when released, given generous pay.
            Voluntary permanent slaves

            If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut..
            15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The
            law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there
            are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their
            needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary
            to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that
            puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal
            freedom.
            Thief or criminal making restitution

            A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If
            a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then
            he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when
            enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
            Pagans could be permanent slaves

            Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may
            have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that
            are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live
            as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families
            who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may
            become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you,
            to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect
            to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with
            severity over one another.

          • Tim

            Excellent you have provided most of what I spoke about. Thanks.

          • Nicole

            Since we are talking context …. here is the context of the verse you provided — KJV .. no slavery context here.

            13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

            14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

            15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

            16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

            17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

            18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:

          • Nicole

            And the ones from exodus .. in context — what part of it’s not ok to own people am I missing ?

            21 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

            2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

            3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

            4
            If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or
            daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall
            go out by himself.

            5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

            6
            Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring
            him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his
            ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

            7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

            8
            If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then
            shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall
            have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

            9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

            10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

            11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

          • Brenda Cressey

            The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom. The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.” Furthermore, “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18). Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.” The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon). The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world. God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption. So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

          • Nicole

            Wait .. are you telling me that God simply could not have don’t own people ? He had no problem giving rules for almost every other aspect of life .. why not this one ?

            Note … Foreigners most certainly could be possessions and permanent. You can even will them to your children. How is that not property.

            Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

          • Brenda Cressey

            Just because people did it doesn’t mean God allowed it. There are lots of things people are not supposed to do but they do them anyway.
            Leviticus 25:44-46 is not so much a command from God that we follow but rather for the Israelites to follow. These particular verses applied to the poor Israelites who would sell themselves to a rich Israelite to provide a living for themselves and their families.

          • Nicole

            Your explanation is a fail. As you can see .. Leviticus 25:44-46 is NOT about poor Israelites, but about buying slaves from other countries, that they become the Israelite’s property and …. and you can will them to your children. This particular passage is quite quite clear .. this is about buying people as property.

            And again .. because this particular passage is only for Israelites is insulting. Slavery is WRONG… it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Whether is it for everyone .. or just the Isaelites .. it is wrong. Please don’t insult me by saying this is OK because it is not for us.

            Leviticus 25:44-46
            44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You
            may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
            members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
            property. 46 You
            can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make
            them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites
            ruthlessly.

          • Brenda Cressey

            You need to go back and read from the beginning of the book of Exodus. You clearly have no idea what’s going on here. If God is okay with slavery then what need did He have to send Moses to lead the Israelites out of captivity? Do you think He would of allowed the Pharaoh of Egypt to keep them?

          • Nicole

            OK .. god is against the slavery of Israel. BUT Leviticus 25:44-46 makes it CLEAR that the Israelites owning slaves from other countries is just fine. I don’t want to hear about Israeli slavery .. what about owning slaves from other countries. What about Leviticus 25:44-46 . That is all I want you to address .. from here on in.. till you address it .. my only response will be to post Leviticus 25:44-46.

            ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You
            may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites
            ruthlessly.

          • Brenda Cressey

            The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom. The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.”1 Furthermore, Christian apologist Paul Copan states: “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18).
            Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.” The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon). The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world. God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption. So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            I’ll tell you what I told Randy,Nicole: Since you claim to…”take the Bible at face value”…why don’t you ask Almighty God Himself why He instituted these guidelines for His Theocratically-ruled Nation(Again,the Nation of Israel,not”us”,i.e.non-Hebrews.Why is it so hard for you to get that?).Ask Him,Nicole-He’ll answer you.

          • Nicole

            I hope you will forgive my answering your question with a question. What makes you think I haven’t asked and heard nothing but silence.

            Please let me point you to 1 Peter 3:15
            But 4sanctify 5the Lord God in your hearts, and always vbe ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the whope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

            I await .. YOUR answer

            I don’t know what you think about atheists and how we became athiests, but none I know rolled over one morning and said “You know, I think I will stop believing in god today”. Nor are we angry at god, nor do we just want to sin .. all common tropes. No, most of us were believers. Some devout fundamentalist, some studying for the ministry, some ministers for many years. Most all have one thing in common, we asked questions and got no answers. We searched and found nothing, usually over the course of years. So, please keep in mind that I have come to this place in life after much searching, self examination and thought.

            So, if I may .. if you are ok with slavery, genocide, mistreatment of women, the sacrifice of children in the bible, then maybe I shouldn’t be the one asking questions .

          • Randy Wanat

            Have you asked Vishnu why Shiva feels compelled to destroy?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            If I was Hindu,I probably would,Mr.Wanat…but I get the impression that Hindus don’t ask those type of questions.I’ll have to get back to you on that. (The real question is,who can compel a”god”to do anything?).

          • Randy Wanat

            The real question is, why do you tell people to ask your deity questions when they don’t believe in it, but you wouldn’t ask someone else’s deity a question if you don’t believe in it? Do you see how absurd it is when you do that, just like you see it as absurd if a Hindu were to do that? You are expecting others to do something you find absurd when you’re expected to do it. Don’t you think you should think about that and reconsider the practice of telling nonbelievers to talk to beings they don’t believe in if you wouldn’t do the same thing? You know what that practice is called, right?

          • Nicole

            I am just asking questions that are based on my understanding of what is written in the bible .. which as I say I take at face value. One the other hand you are supposed to be ready to answer my questions and defend your faith. ..

            1Peter 3:1515 But
            sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an
            answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
            with meekness and fear:

          • Randy Wanat

            Slavery in those times? You have not read your Bible. They could buy slaves from the non-Hebrew societies, keep them as property (under certain conditions, Hebrew slaves, too), beat them to within an inch of their lives, and sell them if they were u pleasing. Additionally, if they conquered a city, they would keep the virgin girls as slaves. So, if you mean “white people didn’t enslave the people they conquered in colonial America,” you’re right, but that’s a rather insignificant distinction. And, as slaves were property, there were no rules against a master raping slaves in the Bible, either. Remind us how it was different. Then, remind us how the most moral being possible couldn’t find a way to say, “don’t own other human beings as property.” Somehow we can say it, but such an idea is never forwarded by anybody ever in the Bible stories.

          • Brenda Cressey

            The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom.
            The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.” Furthermore, “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.” Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18).
            Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.”
            The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon).
            The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world.
            God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption.
            So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, biblical teachings were adequate to end slavery over the course of thousands of years. Millennia of slavery worldwide were acceptable according to your apologetics. How many centuries of institutionalized slavery would it be moral for a country to sanction?

            Why was slavery ok to allow to continue for thousands of years, but mixing fabrics and putting tassels on cloaks was of such importance that it merited explicit commands? Do you think it would make more sense to stop slavery and let the tassels and fabric come about over time, or vice versa? Which seems the more moral strategy, the more compassionate and loving strategy? If you found a slave ring operating and they were wearing mixed fabrics, would you give more priority to their sartorial choices or the fact that they are enslaving other human beings?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Randy,read what the Biblical scholars outlined,again, only this time evaluate what was written a little more slowly.Hopefully you’ll get some actual understanding.Properly speaking,your questions should be directed at Almighty God; He has ALL the answers you seek.—PEACE IN HIM!

          • Randy Wanat

            Explain the demonstrable functional difference between “asking God,” asking Thor, and asking a tree.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Sorry,Randy…as a mature,analytical adult,I don’t waste my time engaging in buffoonery; I have MY answer.Whichever one of those you listed you think will provide YOU an answer that will satisfy you,have at it,my friend(Reply not required; I won’t travel down the Road to Nowhere with you.Enjoy your trip.)—TO Almighty God be THE GLORY!!!!

          • Randy Wanat

            You see it as mockery because you believe in one and not the others. But, for those who believe in Thor, your belief and the tree would be mockery. And, for the pantheist, your belief and Thor would be mockery. If you asked Vishnu a question, what would happen? You may think, “well, that is absurd, because I don’t believe Vishnu exists, so why would I ask something I don’t believe exists to answer a question?” Why would that be any different for me and your deity? You’re approaching me as though I am beginning from the same base belief that your god exists and none of the other thousands do. That is your failure of understanding and lack of thoughtfulness. You should no more expect me to take seriously your recommendation to ask your deity anything than you would a Hindu telling yo to ask Vishnu something.

            Did you care about making a compelling point, or did you think I would be persuaded by circular reasoning? I promise, it is not a wise approach, to assume your god beliefs are universal. It’s arrogant and shows a lack of care about the other person as a person. If you want to be taken seriously, start by taking others seriously. I didn’t dismiss your beliefs; I lumped them in with other beliefs. One religion is just as true as another as far as I am concerned according to the evidence. “Ask God” is a foolish attempt to avoid having to think for yourself about why anybody should believe what you believe. Perhaps you should study epistemology a bit and ask yourself why you should believe your religion. Avoid logical fallacies. See where you end up. If “I don’t care if it’s actually true as long as I am comfortable” is the final destination, then there’s nothing compelling behind it.

          • Matthew Alton

            Odd. As a mature analytical adult I can see that gods are purely human inventions. Would you be so good as to produce your evidence for general examination? Where is Yahweh?

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Yawn…we all of us see (or not ) what we want to see,Mr.Alton.The idea that “gods”are the invention of men certainly has some validity,I readily concede that as far as it goes.But that’s irrelevant to this particular conversation; there has never existed any civilization that has had no concept of a god,or number of gods,since mankind’s existence.The point is,at least from my perspective,is whether the concept of a god or gods has any basis in reality,and from the Christian perspective there is no doubt about that.Atheists are continually carping about being shown some type of visual representation of God(as you just did),but from our point of view(Christians) that’s simply childish and ill-informed. It may surprise you to realize this,but we assess and measure the reality of Almighty God’s Presence by the effects of said Prescence.Gravity and atoms can’t be seen,but if one steps of the ledge of a 20-story building,the effects of gravity’s reality will make itself immediately apparent,no? Jesus said that God is Spirit,which would obviously rule out any normative visualization as it’s commonly understood,but there’s absolutely NO DOUBT throughout the roughly 2,000 years since Jesus’ Ascension concerning the EFFECTS of that Spirit’s Awesome Prescence,and frankly a man( or woman ) would be a fool to try to discount it. Again,I want to be clear here: I’m not a Comparative Religion scholar,so I don’t presume to speak for religion at large,if you will.But after 25 years of study,I think I’m qualified to speak about the Christian Faith,which technically speaking is NOT a”religion”,but a Relationship with a Person,said Person being the Risen Saviour.I’ve known HIM since October 4th, 1976(I’m 60 years old.)So…there it is,Mr.Alton; if you want to continue this dialogue,the ball’s in your court.I have been,and obviously still am,a born-again, blood-bought, Spirit-filled child / servant of Almighty God for almost 40 years to date.As I mentioned,I’ve been an actual student of the Christian Faith for over 25 years now,and I love every aspect of learning about Who (Jesus the Christ) is and what I believe.In all those years,no atheist has EVER put forth an argument that’s even come close to invalidating my faith in God Almighty,and I’ve studied quite a few:Bertrand Russell,Robert Ingersoll,Victor Stenger,Richard Dawkins,etc.etc.But trust me,Mr.Alton,once you’ve met Jesus the Christ yourself,well…atheistic rantings turn into the puerile,empty,asinine drivel they are,not worth the breath it takes to spew them or the paper wasted to write them.Speaking only of myself(although I suspect untold millions of Christians would agree),I could no more cease being a child of Almighty God than I could cease being my own mother’s child;the idea is a rank absurdity.It would be like standing on the nearest street corner and screaming out,”Hey,everyone! Guess what? I’m not actually human!!”. I’m pretty sure that the men in the white coats would quickly appear,LOL!—So,there you have it,Mr.Alton.Your turn now.Oh,and by the way: You want to see Yahweh,Jehovah,the Great I AM,EI SHADDAI—Look at Jesus.Isn’t that what HE said? PEACE IN CHRIST, ALWAYS!

          • Matthew Alton

            Yawn…we all of us see (or not ) what we want to see,Mr.Alton.

            Perhaps. The question is whether the things we choose to “see” actually exist in an objective sense. You “see” a god. I do not. You make claims of the existence of this god. I dispute them.

            The idea that “gods”are the invention of men certainly has some validity,I readily concede that as far as it goes.But that’s irrelevant to this particular conversation; there has never existed any civilization that has had no concept of a god,or number of gods,since mankind’s existence.

            Yes. Precisely as it should be if I am correct and gods are a purely human construct. We would expect to see previously unknown Polynesian societies concoct gods which reflect purely Polynesian concepts. What do we actually see? Exactly. Please explain how the independent invention of obvious psychological phantasms supports your argument. If your god Yahweh is the one true god why wouldn’t each society discover Yahweh on its own? Why do you need missionaries? Ridiculous.

            The point is,at least from my perspective,is whether the concept of a god or gods has any basis in reality,and from the Christian perspective there is no doubt about that.

            I have grave doubts.

            Atheists are continually carping about being shown some type of visual representation of God(as you just did),but from our point of view(Christians) that’s simply childish and ill-informed.

            Preposterous. I’ll make my own argument here. You make yours. Okay?

            Let’s take radio waves for example. See the problem? As a rational, modern, highly educated person I am compelled to accept the reality, in some sense, of radio wave. Am I not? Are you not? Do we require “visual” evidence? Of course not. We require a radio. Same with atoms and bacteria and philosophies and the Australian continent which many of us, including me, have never seen. Would it be rational to deny the existence of these things? Visual evidence indeed. Try again.

            Any evidence whatsoever of your imaginary friend will be admitted. Any evidence whatsoever. Anything. Seriously.

            It may surprise you to realize this,but we assess and measure the reality of Almighty God’s Presence by the effects of said Prescence [sic]. Gravity and atoms can’t be seen,but if one steps of [sic] the ledge of a 20-story building,the effects of gravity’s reality will make itself immediately apparent,no?

            Any what was it exactly that established this cause and effect relationship? Seriously, would you like to experience real actual analytical thought? Then explain how gravitation can be explained exclusively by the action of a god. Simple exercise. You’re correct, yes? Then simply demonstrate your proof. I’ll help you with the logic. You’re not even a beginner.

            Jesus said that God is Spirit,which would obviously rule out any normative visualization as it’s commonly understood,but there’s absolutely NO DOUBT throughout the roughly 2,000 years since Jesus’ Ascension concerning the EFFECTS of that Spirit’s Awesome Prescence,and frankly a man( or woman ) would be a fool to try to discount it.

            Gibberish. We have yet to establish the existence of a god. Sneaking Jesus in is not going to fly.

            Again,I want to be clear here: I’m not a Comparative Religion scholar,so I don’t presume to speak for religion at large,if you will.But after 25 years of study,I think I’m qualified to speak about the Christian Faith,which technically speaking is NOT a”religion”,but a Relationship with a Person,said Person being the Risen Saviour.I’ve known HIM since October 4th, 1976(I’m 60 years old.)

            I don’t believe you.

            So…there it is,Mr.Alton; if you want to continue this dialogue,the ball’s in your court.I have been,and obviously still am,a born-again, blood-bought, Spirit-filled child / servant of Almighty God for almost 40 years to date.As I mentioned,I’ve been an actual student of the Christian Faith for over 25 years now,and I love every aspect of learning about Who (Jesus the Christ) is and what I believe.In all those years,no atheist has EVER put forth an argument that’s even come close to invalidating my faith in God Almighty,and I’ve studied quite a few:Bertrand Russell,Robert Ingersoll,Victor Stenger,Richard Dawkins,etc.etc.But trust me,Mr.Alton,once you’ve met Jesus the Christ yourself,well…atheistic rantings turn into the puerile,empty,asinine drivel they are,not worth the breath it takes to spew them or the paper wasted to write them.Speaking only of myself(although I suspect untold millions of Christians would agree),I could no more cease being a child of Almighty God than I could cease being my own mother’s child;the idea is a rank absurdity.It would be like standing on the nearest street corner and screaming out,”Hey,everyone! Guess what? I’m not actually human!!”. I’m pretty sure that the men in the white coats would quickly appear,LOL!—So,there you have it,Mr.Alton.Your turn now.Oh,and by the way: You want to see Yahweh,Jehovah,the Great I AM,EI SHADDAI—Look at Jesus.Isn’t that what HE said? PEACE IN CHRIST, ALWAYS!

            You do seem completely convinced of your absurdities. I have no hope of convincing you of anything. I write for the young and impressionable in our audience. May the best lunatic prevail.

            Peace be upon you.

          • Randy Wanat

            Apologists for other religions claim that their religions are unique because they’re not religions, but rather relationships with their god(s). What a coincidence.

            If you expect people to take you seriously, try backing up claims with evidence, rather than claiming it’s true precisely because there is no evidence. That’s what intellectually honest people do.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Sorry,Mr.Wanat,but you’re really not making a coherent case here.I myself am firmly convinced that whatever the criteria of proof for Almighty God’s existence would be that would satisfy the closed atheist mind,it probably doesn’t exist,so…I’m content to let people like yourself believe(or not) what you will.As for your claim that various religions base their claims of some supposed”uniqueness”on their relationships with their god(s),my studies of comparative religions has never revealed the reality of any such claim . According to the Dalai Lama,there is no Creator God in Buddhism,so exactly what do Buddhists have a relationship with? Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy that is not dependent upon the existence of a god or gods to maintain itself,so it’s certainly NOT comparable to the Christian Faith in that sense.To my knowledge no other religion has a Person remotely comparable to the Risen Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,so I have no idea what you’re talking about.I once had a conversation with an atheist in which I invited him to account for the origin of The Christian Faith WITHOUT the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,and of course he couldn’t do it,and neither can anyone else,including you.You might put forth some far-fetched theory or speculative hypothese,but if history has any reality,The Christian Faith is as real as history gets,and again,NOTHING can explain the origin of said faith without the Resurrection;even secular historians don’t try to do so.So…whatever you choose to believe or not believe,Christianity has stood,and will stand on the Rock of Christ(NOT Peter,sorry catholics),until time ends.As I said,I don’t presume to speak for”religions”,but I can and WILL speak for the One who saved me on October 4th, 1976,at 2 o’clock in the morning in a jail cell in Belzoni, Mississippi.So…there it is,Mr.Wanat.Believe what you will,sir; my testimony of my faith is as real as this phone I’m typing this message to you on,and your unbelief moves me not one whit.As I told the other poster,NO atheist argument has EVER,nor will any such argument,EVER presuade me that Jesus Christ is in ANY sense not who He and The Word of God says He is; you would be more successful in attempting to persuade me that I’m not a human being,or that’s not actually the Sun shining high in a clear,noonday sky.If you need more “proof”than that,sorry,I can’t help you.That’s above my pay grade.—PEACE IN CHRIST,ALWAYS!!

          • Randy Wanat

            I hardly find it intriguing that someone with a bias toward their own religion would find the other religions lacking. I have read apologists making your exact argument about relationships and other religions being less than their own. Why should anybody take your rendition of the argument any more seriously than any of the others?

            Steve says chocolate ice cream is the best. He says he has tried all the others, but chocolate is definitely the best.

            Mike says vanilla ice cream is the best. He says he has tried all the others, but vanilla is definitely the best.

            John says strawberry ice cream is the best. He says he has tried all the others, but strawberry is definitely the best.

            Now, imagine that Steve, Mike, and John have invested a portion of their own identities into the idea that their favorite flavor is the best.

            Now, imagine that it’s not ice cream flavors, but religions. That’s you, and every other apologist offering this same argument. You all see your own as uniquely a relationship with a god or gods, and you all find everything else mere ritualism, dogma, and social conformity. Well, none of you have managed to get beyond the claim stage regarding uniqueness. You all claim everything else sucks and yours is the best, and you all offer anecdotes, scriptures, and feelings as your justifications. That wouldn’t be enough to persuade you about any of the others, but you expect it to persuade others when it’s you saying it. Do you understand why that is foolish?

          • Matthew Alton

            According to the Dalai Lama,there is no Creator God in Buddhism,so exactly what do Buddhists have a relationship with?

            I see what you did there. You pretended that Mr. Wanat said, “All other religions…” when he really said “Other religions…” Nifty trick. Should go over well with the two-digit IQ crowd. Just like reality TV.

            In the interests of intellectual honesty, let’s try it again with Islam instead of Buddhism. Just cut & paste “Allah the Benevolent and the Merciful” in place of “God the Creator” and substitute “The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him)” for “The Risen Savior Jesus Christ” and you’ll start to get the point.

            As for how Christianity might have gotten started without the resurrection myth? Who cares? I suppose the Christians would have made something else up. Think about Islam’s “night flight” myth wherein Mohammad flies up to heaven on a horse. Muslims accept this as a genuine historical fact. They even have a horseshoe print on a rock to “prove” it. How would Islam have fared without this myth? Do you care? I don’t. If you had been born into the Islamic faith your perspective, statistically speaking, would be precisely reversed. Mine would be precisely the same: both myths are factually false.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Wow…you are actually somewhat amusing in your arrogance presumptions,Mr,Alton.I’m going to presume something myself here regarding your remarks,and say that it’s obvious that the old adage is true”inveterate liars think everyone else is lying too”… (1),in my reply to Mr.Wanat,I did NOT use the phrase,”all religions”;I said”various other religions”. (2),I was unaware that you knew me well enough to label me a liar and accuse me of pretense.But then again, I guess I should have been warned by your arrogant dismissal of the Church’s well attested-to origins by your insulting claim that,and I quote:…”I suppose the Christians would have made something else up”…such hubris is truly mind-boggling in it mindless,hysterical gall.And you tout yourself as somehow intellectually superior to Christians,who have by the Grace of Almighty God produced some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind? Are you serious,sir? Really?? Wow.As for Islam,I’ve not studied this particular belief they have,so I can’t comment on it;I wasn’t aware that Islam’s central tenents focused on this particular(alleged) incident.At any rate,your accusations of pretense on my part and the assumed need that Christians would have simply”made something else up”as you obviously believe they made up Christ’s Resurrection(There were no Christians when the Event occurred;they were all still Jews.),says a lot about your character,Mr.Alton-sadly.At any rate,I’m done with this issue.You can believe(or disbelieve) whatever you will; my 40 years of abiding in,walking with,and loving with all my heart,soul,mind,and strenght The Risen Saviour my Lord Jesus Christ remains undiminished; indeed,unbelievers like yourself only serve to strenghten it more and more,so I actually appreciate your pejorative attacks on my Faith! Thank you,and may the God you don’t believe in bless you!! [ P.S.—in order for a thing to be”factually false”,there has to exist actual facts that can,in fact,falsify it.Can you or anyone else produce any such facts that can falsify the Resurrection Account,Mr.Alton,something beyond”I just don’t believe it”,or”the Church made it up”,according to YOU? I await your reply.]

          • Matthew Alton

            May the Noodley Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you, sir! Ramen!

          • Matthew Alton

            See how this is completely devoid of content? If you have something useful to contribute, by all means type it out, man!

          • Brenda Cressey

            If everyone followed ALL the biblical teachings perfectly we would not be arguing about what is written on our money.

          • Randy Wanat

            Right, because you wouldn’t be telling a man how things work. You’d know that you ought to keep quiet and have your father or husband explain things to you.

          • Brenda Cressey

            That’s a really pathetic attempt to slam something you have no real knowledge of. I would suggest you actually read (and study) the bible before you go around criticizing what you THINK is in there. Our forefathers knew what was in the bible that’s why they included God in our constitution….that IS why God is on our money. God promised to bless the nations who choose to obey the word of God. Our country started out that way and America has been blessed for many years. Now we are taking God out of our country and out of our lives and now our country is falling apart. Keep trying to remove God and see what happens. I can promise that you will not be happy with the results.

          • Matthew Alton

            Ad hominem. You’d be stunned to discover how literate and informed many atheists are. Some of us were forcibly raised on Christian filth. Trust me, we’re intimately familiar with it.

            Very few Christians have actually read the Bible. If they did read it there would be a lot more atheists in the world.

          • Randy Wanat

            I don’t suppose you’ve read Paul, then. You should, because Paul explicitly says some shouldn’t teach men about religion, and should ask their husbands if they have questions about it. Perhaps it is YOU who should read the Bible.

            Also, you never showed where God is specifically mentioned in the constitution. I already mentioned anno domino, which was merely the dating convention. No further mention of any deities are made anywhere in it. But, you claim otherwise. Prove your case by showing the line from the constitution that speaks of a specific deity.

            You have already lost all credibility on both subjects. You can fess up and earn some back, or you can continue lying to me and to yourself. It’s entirely up to you.

          • Brenda Cressey

            I never claimed that the word “God” is written in the constitution. If you had read what you claimed to have read about slavery you would know what God has to do with the American government and you would know why it is so important not to “remove” God from our government. Also, could you be more specific about what it is you think I should read about the apostle Paul? I assume that is who you are talking about since there is no book in the bible called “Paul”. I have not lost credibility with anyone who has knowlege of what is between the covers of the bible – only with those who THINK they know simply because they took some verses and applied them to their own beliefs to try and prove their own opinion.

          • Randy Wanat

            Are you sure you never said God was in the constitution? Edited to add: “Our forefathers knew what was in the bible that’s why they included God in our constitution…” Your words. You said God is in the constitution.

            Also, the constitution (an amendment, actually) explicitly forbids slavery. Your Bible explicitly endorses slavery. Why would it be critical to have an endorsement of slavery enshrined in our government?

          • Matthew Alton

            This is true. I’d have been killed on Yahweh’s orders the first time I got sassy with my parents. If they let that slide then I’d have gotten killed by my own tribesmen for questioning the existence of Yahweh. If my mom were found not to be a virgin on her wedding night then her dad and her husband’s dad would have caved her head in with rocks on her dad’s door stoop. I wouldn’t have been born at all.

            It’s nice to know that there are wholesome forms of slavery and genocide that are pleasing to Yahweh, though. What with all of the righteous global floods and dashings of babies’ heads on the rocks Yahweh makes Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin look like pikers.

            When there is absolutely nothing that your god can do to convince you that he is evil, how can you claim to be remotely moral? Defending slavery and genocide is evil. Isn’t it?

          • Brenda Cressey

            I never claimed to be “remotely moral”. And speaking of defending genocide, I bet you support abortion don’t you? God NEVER commanded parents to kill their children and I firmly believe He has a special place in hell for those who hurt children. God is not the evil one, the devil is. And so are the people who follow him instead of God.

          • Matthew Alton

            I never claimed to be “remotely moral”.

            Dang. I do. I claim to be as good a person as I can be. Why are you not able to be remotely moral?

            And speaking of defending genocide, I bet you support abortion don’t you?

            Sure do. Do you support in vitro fertilization? Sure you do. Do you know how it’s done? Of course not. Well, here it is. The doctor removes dozens of eggs from the prospective mother and puts them in a petri dish, mixes in daddy’s contribution, and looks at the resulting situation through a stereomicroscope. Some of the eggs will be fertilized. Maybe 40 or 50. The doctor then selects the plumpest and healthiest ones and puts them into Mom’s uterus. There is about a 25% chance that an egg will stick to the uterine wall and become a person. So the doctor puts 4 eggs into Mom. So far so good.

            Guess what happens to the rest of the fertilized eggs? Well, in Europe they are used for medical research because they’re a good source of stem cells. But in the US they are all flushed down the crapper. Think if it. 40 or 50 human souls aborted. Unless they’re just fertilized eggs.

            Where do you stand on this super important issue, Christian?

            Now, 3rd trimester abortions? Killing an organism that has the capacity to feel pain? Whole ‘nuther matter. We can discuss that one. Try to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure on Mom’s say so.

            God NEVER commanded parents to kill their children and I firmly believe He has a special place in hell for those who hurt children.

            Please.

            Psalm 137:9
            Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks

            Yahweh had no compunction about drowning hundreds of thousands of babies in the great flood, did he? God’s body count as reported in the Bible is over 2 million. Satan killed how many, a dozen? Job’s family? And that was with Yahweh’s express permission. Over a bet. Yahweh would be a psychopath if he actually existed. Mercifully, he is pure fiction. As is the devil.

            God is not the evil one, the devil is. And so are the people who follow him instead of God.

            This is the same god and devil for which you cannot produce a shred of objective evidence? Yes? Dismissed.

          • Randy Wanat

            God never commanded parents to kill their children? Are you sure? Maybe the name”Abraham” rings a bell?

          • Nicole

            There is a lot of contention amongst scholars which is the best english translation of the bible .. google it .. the KJV is NEVER mentioned as the most accurate english representation of the bible. Never. it is always WAY down the list.

          • Brenda Cressey

            The King James Version is the ONLY version translated by a GOD-ORDAINED English King. The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS,” according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king’s name was “James,” which is the English word for “Jacob,” whom God renamed “Israel,” because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God’s form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. Nobody owns the copyright to the King James Version although the original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the “printer” to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV’s without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

          • Nicole

            God ordained King ? Care to prove that ? As for how many versions have been printed with or without paying royalties .. doesn’t mean a thing in relationship to accuracy. Oh .. and KING Henry the 8th also had the bible translated and published in English.

          • Nicole

            From the Wikipedia page ..
            The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell,
            Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed
            the clergy to provide “one book of the bible of the largest volume in
            English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said
            church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most
            commodiously resort to the same and read it.”

          • Nicole

            Don’t think I haven’t noticed you ducking the slavery questions

          • Brenda Cressey

            I didn’t duck your slavery questions I told you that you need to learn to study the bible properly before you can make an intelligent conversation about it.

          • Nicole

            I am just accepting it for what it says, assuming the all powerful all knowing god of the universe would reveal his word in a way that is clear and easy to understand and that should be taken at face value.

          • Nicole

            One other thing .. most slaves in America were not kidnapped by white slavers .. they were bought from other Africans who did the kidnapping.. there is no prohibition about buying someone who was kidnapped .. just the kidnapping itself.

          • Randy Wanat

            Prove that any king has ever been ordained by a deity that has never been demonstrated to exist.

            The Koran is the only book written by a single source directly chosen by Allah to be his prophet. Therefore, the Koran is true.

            See? Making stuff up works for anything!

          • Nicole

            Another way of looking at the verse you quote is to change it to read “And he that stealeth a television, and selleth it, or if it be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

            the crime here is stealing the television .. the rest of the verse says it doesn’t matter if you sell it or not. You might be stealing someone for ransom.

          • Nicole

            Keep in mind I only quoted SOME of the verses supporting slavery .. you quote one verse that you have to stretch and twist to even remotely refer to slavery .. which I still don’t buy. Let me know if you want more verses in support of slavery.

          • Randy Wanat

            Your understanding of how Bible translation works is laughable, and I recommend you either stop trying to talk about things you don’t understand or put on clown shoes so we don’t feel so bad pointing and guffawing at you.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Randy,even if Brenda’s understanding of Scriptural transmission and manuscript history IS lacking in some respects(and,sorry,Brenda-you need to expand your knowledge in these areas),your rude,hateful ridicule of her ignorance says what about YOUR character,my friend? I can disagree with anyone on these sites,sometimes sharply,without mocking and deriding them;it’s called “civilized discourse”.Try it,Randy.I imagine that if you are nearly as smart as you think you are,you could probably master it.–PEACE.

          • Laurence Charles Ringo

            Wow,Nicole…it would be amusing,if it wasn’t simply sad, that you actually believe that merely quoting select passages of Scripture actually constitutes an across-the-board endorsement of what said verses dictate for all peoples at ALL times throughout human history!! Seriously,Nicole! Do you honestly read Scripture in that type of wooden,ill-informed fashion? The Laws given to the Theocratic Entity comprising the Children of Israel weren’t intended for the “us”you think you’re referring to,as any informed study of Scripture would make clear.As for the New Covenant,brought to fruition dring the Roman Empire when slavery was endemic,again,an informed study of The Pauline Epistles would serve to give the reason behind Paul’s instructions.A slave in the Roman Empire literally wasn’t considered a human being;he/she was property that could be disposed of at the owner of said”property’s” whim,including simply killed.So Paul’s guidance was eminently wise given the reality of the slave’s situation.NOWHERE does Paul or any other New Covenant writer endorse the perpretration of slavery;most Christians at that time in the early beginning of Christianity were themselves from the so-called lower class,including slaves.Read the history of the Faith,Nicole,instead of simply snatching Biblical passages out of context in some misinformed attempt to score points.It’s beneath any fair-minded,intelligent person to approach the subject in such a haphazard fashion.—PEACE IN CHRIST!

          • Nicole

            “The Laws given to the Theocratic Entity comprising the Children of Israel weren’t intended for the “us””
            Oh .. so that makes slavery just OKEE DOKEE .. it wasn’t meant for us.
            Fail.

          • Randy Wanat

            “Man” in that context refers to a Hebrew man.

          • Randy Wanat

            Please provide the quote from the constitution that refers to our freedoms and liberties stemming from a “creator.”

          • Brenda Cressey

            I think he meant the Declaration of Independence.

          • Randy Wanat

            What you think doesn’t matter. His ignorance of what he’s talking about is what matters. When he brings the rope, don’t go cutting off all the tree branches.

          • Goddess of Wind

            No, what you think does not matter. The court already spanked you n your nasty ingrates, and I look forward to watching your ppl get smacked down again.

          • Randy Wanat

            Not only do I have no idea what you’re talking about, YOU have no idea what you’re talking about.

            Why so angry? You seem to have a lot of pent up hostility brewing. Why don’t you explain exactly what you think you’re saying, what you think we’re saying, and then explain why you’re so vitriolic about it?

          • Goddess of Wind

            You must be daft! How can I possibly break it down any further? Suffice it to say I’m looking forward to this next court smacking down the nasty petty atheists! Keep trying to get ‘In God we Trust’ off the money, I do so enjoy my entertainment!

          • Randy Wanat

            What is nasty or petty about seeking redress via legal means when one thinks the law is being broken or rights are being violated? Why does the idea of people not sharing your belief in a deity elicit such venom from you? Perhaps you should think about that.

          • Goddess of Wind

            You nasty atheists lost twice and you’ll lose again! And I think that’s hilarious! :-D:-D

          • Randy Wanat

            Why do you keep saying atheists are nasty? What is it about people not agreeing with you about deities that makes them nasty? Please, I want to understand your position. You clearly have a very negative visceral reaction. I want to know what is behind it.

          • Goddess of Wind

            Get a grip you nasty, disgusting atheist! Stop harassing me you nasty imbecile.

          • Randy Wanat

            It’s sad that you are apparently an unhappy person. Or, a Poe. Can be difficult to tell.

          • Goddess of Wind

            Mwop mwop mwop mwop mwop

          • Debra Burnsworth

            The Constitution does NOT reference any god or creator. Read it. It are thinking of the Declaration of Independence .. which is not the basis for our laws.

          • Nicole

            The Creator is a reference in the Declaration of Independence. The Creator is NOT you God but a deistic version of a Creator. From an article On the Declaration published in the Wall Street Journal:
            That document was the work of many hands. As is well known, the first draft was written by Thomas Jefferson. That version began with a religious reference that largely remained in the final version, stating that the United States were assuming the independent status, “to which the laws of nature and of nature’s god entitle them.”

            The phrase “Nature’s God” is not a product of traditional religious denominations, but is generally associated with 18th-century Deism. That philosophy centered on what has been called “natural theology,” a belief that while a “Creator” started the universe and established the laws of nature, the modern world saw no divine intervention or miracles.

          • tempprofile

            You should try truly reading the bible. If you still believe it after reading that pos from cover to cover…then you’re a psychopath. The book is very immoral and unethical. Not something you should be proud of living your life by.

          • BruceWayne

            The word Creator isn’t found in the US Constitution. You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

          • Nicole

            One other thing .. the ONLY mention of religion in the Constitution is to limit it’s entanglement with the government .. prohibiting the establishment of a official religion and preventing a religious test for office. If the founders were so hot on Christianity why didn’t they mention it in the Constitution, establish Christianity as the country’s religion (there was debate about this and it was rejected) and require all elected officials to be Christian ?

            As far as the Declaration of Independence goes .. it mentions a creator .. not the god of the bible not jesus ..The use of the generic creator implies a belief in a deity but does not imply belief in the christian deity.

          • tempprofile

            It wasn’t found on the principles of Christianity. If you watch Fox news too much then you turn stupid or you were just that way to begin with.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          It does say that. “Allah” is Arabic for “God”.

          • Nicole

            True enough… but the point is that people are happy to have god injected into the government as long as it is their god. Should the motto read “In Allah we trust” you can bet that every christian in the country would be supporting Micheal Newdow’s law suit.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            There are certainly some people who believe that it is the place of the government to promote certain religious beliefs.

            It wouldn’t say “In Allah we trust”. We wouldn’t mix Arabic and English words. It would say: بالله نثق which translates to: We trust in God”.

          • Nicole

            Of course there are people who believe that religion and politics should mix .. however if history is any indicator it rarely turns out well.

          • Ninitothree Rennie

            Really? Until recently, it turned out pretty well and we call it the USA. See faith, (not religion) and politics is what this country was built on whether you choose to believe it or not. This country will keep on pushing God out of it until he removes his mercy and protection from us, and then all hell will truly break loose. I’m sure at some point this man will win his case; however, you can take it out of the pledge and off the money but you will never remove it from the hearts of believers, and because we are commanded to, we will continue to pray for those who do not believe to have their eyes opened.

          • Nicole

            Please give an example of one theocracy that turned out well.

          • Iceman00767

            The US is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Having “In God We Trust” on our currency doesn’t change that.

          • Tim

            The normal generic word for God is “alaha”/”aloho” (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God “elohim”.

            The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is “maria”/”morio” (ܡܪܝܐ), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah (“mar”, lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: “mor Ephrem” = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)

            Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha.

            If in fact this is true, then it’s just as reasonable to put the correct linguistics on money, if money was “Christian”. However, “God” covers most religions, at least those founded in the U.S. and the citizens that are from different nationalities, examples would be Muslim, Jew, Christian. There are exceptions however such as the Hindu religion which does not suggest “God” in its teachings.

          • sind57

            I’m Christian and I disagree with you. People who might have issue would be that it isn’t in English. A totally different subject.

          • Go USA

            No, allah is not God. Read a bit about it, allah is the Arab pagan moon god that muhammad chose for his “god” in order to win powerful people of his own tribe.

        • Tara

          my point would still be, what really is the reasoning behind getting rid of the name? Intolerance?

          • Nicole

            How about this .. In God WE trust. I am a citizen of the US and so part of that WE. However I don’t believe in god .. so it exudes me. I vote for the original motto .. E Pluribus Unum .. out of many, one. Inclusive to every citizen .. even believers 🙂

          • Randy Wanat

            Define “we.” If “we” don’t trust in any gods, why should the government declare it so?

          • Debra Burnsworth

            Because it does NOT represent a large segment of Americans. What is better for America… a country divided by religious beliefs or a country united by religious freedom for everyone? To ensure equal religious representation of all citizens you either have to have the government EQUALLY acknowledge and promote ALL life philosophies or equally promote NO life philosophies.

          • Tara

            it’s intolerance.

        • Go USA

          Why it would say that? Was this country founded by muslims?
          Go read your own country’s history.

          • Nicole

            This is what we call a hypothetical question. A thought experiment .. a “What if game”. It is meant to try to illicit a new line of thought from the person or persons being questioned. In this particular case the point is to ask how it might feel to one to does not believe in Allah, to see Allah’s name all over the currency being used in order to help her or him better understand the non believer’s position regarding In God We trust on the currency she or he uses.

            Your parents may have done something similar when you were growing up to help you understand right from wrong .. how would you feel if Johnny took your baseball.

            The question was in no way meant to imply that the country was founded by Muslims

          • Go USA

            Blah blah blah.
            You need to go and READ your own country’s history before you post another rant. Either answer the question, or shut it.
            This country was not found by muslims, their allah has no place here, plus it is not real. That was an pagan Arab moon god, they feared the most and their so-called prophet chose it out of fear and in order to win the support of the powerful men in his tribe, quraish.
            This country was founded by Christians, no matter what your local atheist lobbyist says. Therefore in God we trust is on the currency, and if you don’t like it, too bad.

          • Nicole

            Ah — I see … I am wasting my time trying to illicit new thought .. I wish you well

          • Go USA

            Yes you are wasting your time with your propaganda that has been debunked over and over.
            I wish you well too, despite your confusion.

      • Nicole

        Why is it so important to leave it on ?

        • Tim

          1954

          In the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government distinguishes itself from the secular Communist state by adding the phrase “one nation under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, it adopts the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto. Three years later, in 1957, the phrase “In God We Trust” begins appearing on paper currency.

          The importance of this move really relates to the U.S. idealism not to be secular as a representation of the country at large.

          • Nicole

            The first part of your comment is correct .. it was meant to distinguish the US from the (dum dum dum) godless communists. It had nothing to do with establishing us as a non secular nation. If the USSR had become a radical theocracy we would have stuck with the original motto E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust would have likely never made an appearance on our money. It was a political move .. not a religious one.

          • Tim

            ” secular Communist state”. I would have to disagree based on the research. Looking at the history of Russia and their political move to Atheism resulted in failure, but also resulted in the death of many people there who denied atheism. Political, yes, but the very words are indicative of our collective belief in God. That of course is changing as there are more people praying, less people attending churches, the “none” groups are rather fed up with our churches but I just read an interesting article that stated, it might not be such a bad thing to clear out the pew sitters, since true believers will be more likely to stick with their beliefs over the long haul and practice more of what Jesus taught, and less about pounding on our collective chests. I realize you may not believe yourself, but I would look rather hypocritical to blast you over not believing in God. People that follow Jesus MUST be willing to stand firmly, but with compassion, love, and modesty. More and more my feelings are that spirituality brings people closer to God. Trying to indoctrinate anyone that isn’t like me, isn’t the way to any spiritual truth. So equally I’m frustrated over some conversations because we all are people, Americans for the most part on this site anyway, and although it is important to understand some issues, it isn’t important enough to beat up on each other. Would you agree with that?

          • Nicole

            I would agree with everything except the characterization that the move to an atheist state had anything to do with the failure of the USSR. The government was corrupt, did not know how to manage an economy, was forced into an arms war with the US they could not win. Other than than I am in agreement. I have zero issue with what people believe .. as long as they make it personal. The issue for me is when people want to codify those beliefs. I would be just as adamant if a Buddhist wanted to codify some of that religion’s beliefs. If there is a secular reason for making a law that coincides with a religious belief all well and good, I might be able to get behind that.

            One of my big frustrations is the lack of discussion of issues .. look at politics .. lots of name calling .. proclamations of doom if so and so is elected. Truth .. In God We Trust is the least of my worries . Just having a bad day and this was a good place to get out some frustrations. On the other hand .. I really think it has no place on our currency .. or at least they could change it to In God Some Trust 🙂

          • Tim

            Hi Nicole, I understand and I’m really sorry about your bad day. I’ve found you to be a kind person that is just expressing your perspectives. I would speak more about the USSR especially during the days of Stalin, but I think you have already been there and done that. LOL, “In God some Trust” As things are going right now, that may become the trend. At any rate, I hope your day goes better. I see the comments and your right, sometimes I think we in the U.S. are our worst enemy. So much division which seems to be spreading like a wild fire.

          • Nicole

            Thanks Tim .. a bit better today. I think the answer starts with “We are all in this together”. Division started when some started accusing others of ‘hating America’ because they disagreed with their views. After that it escalated into childish name calling rather than dealing with issues. I think we could all sit down and start by agreeing what the issues America faces .. pick the low hanging fruit and work to common ground, keeping in mind that at least theoretically we all want what is best for the nation and go from there.

            As far as Stalin goes, totalitarianism is totalitarianism. He certainly oppressed the church in Russia. But, as I am sure you know, there are many examples of religious rule persecuting anyone who doesn’t share the dogma. The commonality is opresssion .. not what someone is being oppressed for.

          • Tim

            That is an excellent way of putting it. Side note (Oppression leads to killing those that do not adhere to oppressive laws, in the instance of the USSR many did not adhere to the reasons behind political atheism and were murdered. The examples of that are so numerous, I cannot begin to list them all. ) Just remember this, the intent of Jesus (even if you don’t believe) was to show there is a better way of doing things. I mentioned that before to you. THAT is the reason I follow Jesus. Not because “Christianity” should rule the roost so to speak.

        • Tara

          that was the question from the article, which I answered with the my question as a throw-back………they asked why leave it on, ergo my question why take it off.

      • Debra Burnsworth

        It has only been there since the 1950’s… which does not constitute “forever”. And it does not represent about 25% of Americans. At least 25% of Americans DO NOT trust in any god. It is divisive. E Pluribus Unum should be what is on there. It unites Americans.

        • Tara

          so, it should be taken off to appease some, yet those who would want it on there don’t matter? Why do the rights of non-Christians, in your mind, trump Christians? What, no one wants equality anymore? That’s always been a joke. Everyone wants superiority.

      • Justin Russell

        No it hasn’t idiot. It was added in the mid 1950’s. Learn US History

        • Tara

          it’s a figure of speech, but thanks, friendly neighbor to the south…..lol. Learn some manners little man.

          • Justin Russell

            Nah. I call stupid “Stupid” and do not condone willful ignorance. “A figure of speech?” Why not just admit you don’t know the actual history…

    • Laurence Charles Ringo

      Hyperbolic much?

  • Machiavellian

    “He said that he is especially seeking children to be a part of the cases”

    I sure hope he doesn’t do that. Children should NEVER be USED as part of any political, social, economic, religious cause to further one’s agenda.

    • Lark62

      Do you say this to the anti abortion and anti gay protesters as well?

      • Machiavellian

        Of course I do.

        For instance, the city I live in is inhabited by many Jehovah’s Witnesses, so when they take the streets to shout about the end of times and have their children standing next to them, I tell them they should leave their kids at home. Few have called the police on me but I can’t help it.

        I know it’s none of my business but the little ones always look so miserable, I think perhaps I can convince their parents to leave them at home or have them do any recreational activity.

        • Lark62

          Good.

          I dislike using kids as pawns too.

          I respect that some older kids may decide things for themselves, but adults shouldn’t push them.

          One of my elementary school aged kids objects to “under god” in the pledge of allegiance. (The other couldn’t care less. It’s all their personalities.) It’s his decision on whether to omit the words or not say the pledge at all. But I don’t encourage him to sit out because he is too young to understand the grief he will get even in my fairly liberal town.

          The nonsense words on the money irks me, but I won’t use my kids as cannon fodder.

    • Nicole

      Micheal Newdow is NOT seeking children to become part of the lawsuit .. he is encouraging people WITH children to write to the SCOTUS. THAT is a BIG difference .. please get your facts straight .. I think one of the commandments says something about bearing false witness. Check it out: ” Because the Supreme Court has indicated that it is more concerned about constitutional guarantees when children are involved, those who wish to protect their children from the government’s religious transgressions are especially encouraged to write. “

  • FoJC_Forever

    So many don’t have a clue as to the real and intended meaning behind the Establishment Clause. There was absolutely no intent on the part of the writers of the Constitution to restrict religion from being an integral part of the personal and professional lives of those who work in the public sector in any and all capacities.

    If they don’t like what is written on US currency, then they should follow the advice some have given Christians, just leave the country and move to one which has little or no religion active in society and government.

    I wonder how many people have actually been proselytized and converted by reading the words “In God We Trust” written on our currency. I’d say it’s a slim number, at best.

    • Lark62

      I live in a country that has a Constitution. The Constitution says the government cannot pick one religious belief and declare it to be the good one or the correct one or the preferred one.

      Those that don’t like the Constitution are the ones who should leave. There are many countries with state religions. Just make sure its the right subvariation of your preferred religion.

      It is BECAUSE the government cannot promote one religion that you are free to practice your religion.

      • Ron

        The term Separation of Church and State came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote not the Consititution. That phrase is NOT in the Consititution.

        • Joseph Chastain

          The Treaty of Tripoli though DOES say we are not a Christian nation and that was an official document signed by a U.S,. president that never expired or was repealed.

        • MountainDewFan4

          It also does not say that “There shall be no slaves” in the original Constitution .. but ya know that doesn’t make it right.

        • Nicole

          I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
          people which declared that their legislature should “make no law
          respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
          exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church
          & State. —

          Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

          Clear HE thought it the first amendment separated church and state

          The trinity is not in the bible either .. bet you believe in that

        • Lark62

          The concept is there, loud and clear.

          If the men who drafted the Constitution had wanted a Christian theocracy, they could and would have created one. Instead they wrote a Constitution free of myth and religion because they had seen the harm that comes from merging religion with government.

          Our Constitution is intentionally secular.

        • Randy Wanat

          Stupid arguments are stupid.

      • Nicole

        You know .. I don’t really care what the founders thought .. they thought slavery was OK too. Are you down with that as well? The fact is that mixing religion and politics leads to theocracy and theocracy is is fine .. as long as it is YOUR religion. Bet you wouldn’t be in a hurry to include god in politics if the god in question was Allah

        • Lark62

          I take it this is meant for FoJC not me? 🙂

          • Nicole

            Yep .. sorry about that

      • FoJC_Forever

        The Constitution’s Establishment Clause simply restricts the government from interfering with religious practice and belief, aside from those which would harm social peace and proper function. It doesn’t restrict religion from playing an active role in the public square or restrict those who practice it from expressing it while in public office or service.

        The majority of the founders of the USA were members of Christian religious sects.

        • MountainDewFan4

          It doesn’t matter if the founders were all members of the Hells Angels. The Establishment clause has been interpreted as meaning the government shall not promote one religion over another or over non-religion! End of Story. Now the government needs to do exactly that.
          The law which was passed in 1954 to change to country’s motto to “In God We Trust” should NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED! It was unconstitutional!

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re wrong, but I don’t suspect you want to know Truth, so there’s no point in us discussing it any further.

          • MountainDewFan4

            Show me. Please post direct quotes.

        • Lark62

          The 1st Amendment says the government cannot pick one religion to promote as the preferred one. This protects uou too.

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’m aware of what the Establishment Clause means and its intended purpose.

    • weasel1886

      IN GOD WE TRUST wasn’t on any coins or money until the 1860s and you will not find God on many early documents.

      • Joseph Chastain

        1950s you mean.

        • MountainDewFan4

          It became the National Motto in the 1950s and became a law that it MUST be on every piece of currency at the same time. It was actually already on some money as early as the 1860s.

        • weasel1886

          It was put on when we started putting presidents on coins. The penny in 1909 for instance

    • MountainDewFan4

      You would think that if the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Religious country … they probably would have written something like “These United States shall be here unto a religious country” … ya know or something like that … but as far as I can tell … NO HISTORIC DOCUMENT says anything like that ! ! !

      • FoJC_Forever

        Read the founding documents and you will see references to religion. Read about the people who founded the country, and not just the secular atheistic accounts, and you will find the majority of them to be very religious.

        • MountainDewFan4

          They may have been religious, and/or written about religion. HOWEVER, they NEVER stated in any document that this country should be a Christian and/or religious nation!

          Also many of the founding fathers owned slaves … so are you saying that since the founding fathers did that then everyone now-a-days should do that too?

          • FoJC_Forever

            That issue was resolved with Constitutional Amendments, and said Amendments were not a contradiction to the Constitution, but clarifications of its intent.

    • Randy Wanat

      I only ever see Christians told to leave she they want to make America more theocratic, suggesting they go to Saudi Arabia or other theocratic paradises where religion is the basis of laws and morality is enforced with death. Wanting to make America that is unAmerican by definition, as it requires elimination of the constitution entirely. The protections of the constitution protect everyone, but some want to subvert it to enforce their own religious beliefs with the force of law.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Religious beliefs are written into the founding documents of the USA.

        • Randy Wanat

          Not the constitution, which is the only founding document that is actually enforced, because it established the nation’s laws and rights.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Yes, in the Constitution as well as others.

          • MountainDewFan4

            There are two religious words … that’s it. It never mentions anything else about religion.

          • Randy Wanat

            Quote all the religious beliefs mentioned in the constitution.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Read it and look for references about religion. Don’t ask me to do your work for you.

          • Randy Wanat

            I have read it. There isn’t a single mention of any specific or even general religious beliefs in the constitution. The first amendment, and article six, refer to religion in general. Article six says that there shall be no religious test to hold any public office or trust. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That is exactly everything in the constitution regarding religion in any way. No statements, claims, assertions, or references to any specific religious beliefs are made anywhere in the constitution or any of its amendments. But, you claim there are such references. So, please, list every religion belief mentioned in the constitution, or admit you were wrong.

        • MountainDewFan4

          Please show me were in a “founding document” that states, “The United States shall be a religious nation”.

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

    Those same atheist will see the foundations of their financial security crumble if God is removed from our money ….

    • MountainDewFan4

      So you’re telling me that god himself cares whether or not his name is on the United States currency?

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

        Removal of Gods name from the blessing of money is only one of many fronts that God is removed from …at some point God will allow people to walk the selfish path that they walk and bump into the walls that selfishness leads to … Prophets of Old warned the leaders of their time of approaching disasters that the leaders actions were bringing with the caveat that they change direction (repent ) and get back to Gods way or if they don’t certain disasters would befall them …

        • MountainDewFan4

          What the heck are you talking about?

        • Nicole

          One can only hope god will keep to himself .. it appears the only time he gets involved is to cause disease, and disasters.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            God made a perfect world / universe where there was no disease ….Man via Eve and the serpent choose to disobey the only command that God gave them by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil causing the deterioration of creation itself ….God is for the salvation of those that will accept what he did for them on the cross and ultimately the restoration of creation itself ….

          • Nicole

            I was born again Christian and read the bible cover to cover a number of time and I have also read the apologists. I know the story and studying it is why I not longer believe.. You believing that story means that In God YOU trust, not in God WE trust.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Nicole – I am not sure why you are turning your back on the faith …however I will pray and trust the Lord will help you with the objections that is a barrier to your relationship with him ….

          • MountainDewFan4

            Yeah, that’s not going to change anything buddy.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Perhaps my friend ….but that is something I will leave to the holy spirit and Nicole … you presume much …I see as her choice to accept or reject ….

          • MountainDewFan4

            There is no choice. She has finally realized that religion is one big lie, based on some book of Myths that was written thousands of years ago.
            She’ll be fine. I’ll be fine. and you know what … you’ll be fine too. However, just in this life. After this life … sorry to tell you, but there is no more.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            With respect my friend -one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong …I am comfortable if I am wrong ….will you be comfortable if you are wrong ?

          • MountainDewFan4

            The problem is that you are basing your belief on some book that was written thousands of years ago. There is no PROOF, no EVIDENCE, nothing to show that you are right. Nothing.

            Religious people have a problem understanding that dead is dead. Where do animals go after they die? Where do insects go after they die? Is there an insect heaven and hell?
            Wherever they go is exactly where you will go after you die… No where.

            Where were you before you were born? You did not exist. After you die, you will go to the same exact place as you were before you were born. Nowhere ! It’s that simple.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            There is tons of proof both historical and archaeological for the bible …you simply choose to ignore it …and that is your choice … as I said above Iam comfortable if I am wrong …will you be comfortable IF you are wrong ? you can choose to not answer that question and I will understand ….

        • KageofHell

          Funny how the American middle class has been on a steep decline ever since we happened to change it to in god we trust.

  • Ron

    Tell the Atheist to Go to Hell. Why do they have so much anger towards God.

    • Joseph Chastain

      You do realize it’s a sin to put God’s name on money according to the Bible, right?

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

        Money in and of itself is not a sin …it is how that money is viewed and used that is either a sin or a blessing

        • Joseph Chastain

          No Money is not but putting God’s name on it is BLASPHEMY.

          • LeftCoast

            Please study what Blasphemy really is before using the term.

      • Tim

        I’m not sure where you came up with that. Jesus clearly stated give to Caesor what is Caesors, and give to God what is God’s in reference to being questioned about taxation from Caesor. His message was that God is not a physical thing but a spiritual being, giving one’s self up spiritually to God. A symbol on money meant little to Jesus, if you had it, give it up and follow Christ daily. That was the message.

    • MountainDewFan4

      First of all we DO NOT have any anger towards God. What we DO have anger towards is when the SECULAR government of the United States of America does things that promotes one certain religion. This is WRONG!

      Also … how ironic of you tell tell Atheists to go to hell, and then ask why they are so angry. Seems like the angry one here is YOU.

    • Nicole

      Don’t care about god .. don’t care about what anyone believes .. until they want to codify those beliefs into law. You go believe in your god the way you want .. just keep it out of MY government — yeah it’s yours too .. it’s EVERYBODY’S government .. that is the point.

  • Ron

    Just a few years ago, I read a story in a Mass. school they were banning Santa Claus, and poinsettas . Where do they get this stuff? There just making stuff up as it goes along. Tell the Atheist groups to Go home cry like babies and SHUT THE F UP.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • weasel1886

      It was Christians that complained about Santa

  • Ron

    This idea that we cant have anything religious in public at all is a complete lie. Tell the lie over and over and then people believe it.

    • MountainDewFan4

      No, it’s true, really it is. A government can not promote one religion over another religion or non-religion.
      Therefore it a State Court house has a Huge monument of the 10 commandments, they either have to remove it, or allow EVERY religion and non-religious group to add a monument as well, at the government’s expense.

    • Lark62

      It is helpful to remember that there are two uses of the word “public. ”

      First, in public. There is absolutely no prohibition on the expression of religion in public. Churches can and do put up great big crosses. People can wear religious clothing and put bumper stickers on cars. You can preach on a street corner if you don’t block traffic.

      Second, public sector. Public sector is another term for the government. No one gets to use our secular government to promote one religious viewpoint. No one acting in their role as a government official can promote their religion while on the clock. No gets to use public property or public resources to set one religious belief over others.

      We all individually have freedom of religion only when the government stays neutral. If the mayor can make you bow your head and pray his way to his god before you present your petition to the city council, what does that do to your freedom of religion?

      In God We Trust on the money is a symbol. A very bad symbol.

    • Nicole

      There is a difference between ‘in public’ and endorsed by the government. Put all the nativities, crosses and religious displays on your property you care to. Just stay out of government. Unless the religion is Islam .. I am OK with that (not really .. get the point ?)

  • weasel1886

    At one time putting God on money was considered very sinful by Christians. The Bible changes with the times

    • MountainDewFan4

      Apparently it hasn’t changed enough.

    • amostpolitedebate

      That’s actually a good point. Now that I think about it having God on the dollar is kind of… creepy. It’s like the state is making the link between Christianity and greed explicit and official.

      • LeftCoast

        And the eye and pyramid does not creep you out? secular symbols are ok?

        • KageofHell

          This is the symbol adopted by the masons, the very people on who this country was founded and built. I would be careful if I were you. The Illuminati is watching.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Really!? Do you think they’d let me join?

          • LeftCoast

            LOL, I’m right here.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Honestly? I’m not even sure what that one’s about in the first place.

          But yes, secular symbols are fine because the US government’s job is to serve ALL people equally, not just Christians.

          • LeftCoast

            Religious or non-religious, both are covered on the currency. So if you get rid of one, address the other.

    • Tim

      I recall Jesus saying, give to Caesor what is Caesor’s and give to God what is God’s, in reference to the symbol of Caesor on the coin. Hmm, that doesn’t apply now does it.

  • MountainDewFan4

    To those you ask, “Why is it so important to take it off?”, think of it this way.

    What if our currency stated, “In White Men we Trust”? Would you want that removed? According to your logic, it doesn’t matter if everyone in the country believes it or not. It doesn’t matter if it offends a certain portion of the population. It should stay there because it’s “always” been there. So would you want that “motto” to stay on our currency?

    • Tim

      However it doesn’t, and this is why.

      1954

      In the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government distinguishes itself from the secular Communist state by adding the phrase “one nation under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, it adopts the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto. Three years later, in 1957, the phrase “In God We Trust” begins appearing on paper currency.

      The importance of this move really relates to the U.S. idealism not to be secular as a representation of the country at large.

      • Black Lotus

        And this move was wrong and a violation of the First Amendment. It was done for Christians who cowered in fear of an imagined threat (then again, if yo believe in imaginary things…). You can try to day that the “god” mentioned was supposed to cover all concepts of a “higher power”, but we really know what the intent was. No different than “under God” added to the pledge. Quit catering to your own selfish beliefs… oh… wait… you can’t. Your religion taught you to ignore reason.

        • Tim

          Imagine this. Your argument is speculation. It didn’t violate the First Amendment. The threat wasn’t imagined at all. I’m not sure where you could possibly believe that the threat was imagined. I suppose you have forgotten about the Cuban missile Crisis. Not surprising.

          • Randy Wanat

            If ceremonial deism relegates the idea of a deity essential devoid of significant and identity, of what use is it?

            You don’t need to be reminded that you trust in your deity, do you? I don’t need to be told that I (part of “we”) trust in a deity I don’t believe in. A deity certainly already knows who trusts in it or not. What purpose, then, does it serve?

          • Tim

            At a prayer meeting what do you think is going to happen? Actually I do need to be reminded daily of God, Christ and how to related to them in prayer and meditation. It is not in my nature to require any belief you have or do not have. But when there is a sponsored prayer meeting (which even the Pres attended) you certainly can choose not to go, not to read about what was said, and you really don’t have the right to persecute (as this letter is doing) an individual for expressing his right to religion, and his experience thereof. In a prayer meeting it’s rather ridiculous that anyone would assume that there would not be prayer and discussion about “God”.

            Other examples:

            An increasing number of cases where service personnel are bullied or denied promotion because they refuse to conform to the religious beliefs of their superiors. Very often the “superiors” are dominionist Christians—though it sometimes happens that a Christian soldier is bullied by an atheist superior, and the MRFF takes an equally dim view of that, says Mr Weinstein. The foundation says it has been approached by more than 38,000 service personnel, veterans or civilian defence workers with complaints about violations of their freedom to believe or not to believe, and 96% of these complaints come from Christians, many of them disturbed by extremist readings of their own faith which are being imposed on them in some way.

            One example of Christians complaining about fundamentalism came in 2011 when 30 mostly Protestant or Catholic officers blew the whistle on a training course for nuclear-missile launch officers in California which drew on Jewish and Christian sources to vindicate the legitimacy of war. The course asserted that “there are many examples of believers engaged in wars in the Old Testament” and that “no pacifist sentiment [existed] in mainstream Jewish history.” Whatever anyone may think about religious arguments for and against war, this is hardly a position which any arm of American authority can adopt without violating the constitutional separation between church and state.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, it’s not enough that you can plaster references to your deity all over your own property…you’re so incapable of remembering your deity that you need government buildings to be festooned with your deity as well. Perhaps you should consult a neurologist regarding your difficulty in committing things to memory.

            ETA: MRFF does great work, and the flak they take on behalf of people who just want everyone to follow the law I unfortunately predictable. The same crap happens all the time. Nobody is saying that atheists are the only people put upon by religious people. But, religious people are putting their beliefs upon others in such great numbers, and in such deep ways, that it’s akin to the Muslim baker claims elsewhere here to complain about the atheists who are causing legitimate breaches of civil rights. It is no less important to stop, but it’s the fool who pretends the two are anything close to equal in scope (see also: Fox News).

          • Tim

            Paper money is not my property, its simply an exchange mechanism. I don’t see the problem you do in having God on government buildings. Those Icons of faith have been on government buildings for longer than I’ve been alive, and will likely remain there. Actually I need to consult with a gastroenterologist right now, then a Urologist. It’s difficult sometimes to have an Acute Kidney injury while having Ulcerative Colitus. But, thanks for your concern.

          • Randy Wanat

            Paper money is government property. You’re saying you need reminders of your deity everywhere you go, and need the government to pay for these reminders, because you’re incapable of remembering something that is so important in your life. Either your deity isn’t all that important else you’d commit it to memory, or you are suffering a neurological disorder that prevents the creation of memories.

          • Tim

            How is it possible you could read into that statement what you just typed and come up with that. Paper Money is worthless, it’s tied to all other currency, and used to be backed up by Gold until Nixon made the provision of holding other Countries Gold, such as Frances (which hasn’t been returned although requested. We no longer have the gold to back up the notes and the dollar against the yen and euro is very weak.

            Yes that is what I’m saying. The government just changed the laws. Anything that was in existence on government land stays, other memorials are decided on independently.

            Don’t tell me how important God is to me, you have no idea. However some issues are also important to me. For example:

            When an angry atheist group like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) goes after something like the Holocaust memorial because it includes a Star of David, they do it because they hate anything to do with our Judeo-Christian heritage and to get in the public spotlight.

            When groups like the American Atheists pile on with an anti-Semitic diatribe, for example, telling Fox News, “It’s important that we not give the Holocaust to just the Jews,” they do it for the same reason—to grab a piece of the spotlight.

            But as soon as they have that spotlight, they rush to the absurd (as if that’s not absurd enough). Their answer to everything they don’t like or that offends one of their members is to make as if it never existed. If two intersecting steel beams were discovered in the midst of a national tragedy and really brought solace to real people, they say you have to hide it from the public and pretend like it didn’t happen—that it doesn’t exist. (See the Ground Zero Cross.)

            If a memorial was raised by World War II veterans six decades ago to resemble statues that actually meant something to these war heroes as they fought for freedom across Europe, they say tear it down; the fact that it happened hurts their feelings. (See the WWII memorial in Montana.)

            The FFRF’s newest target (using its renewed infamy to delve deeper into the bizarre) are quotes from famous people. That’s right. Abraham Lincoln shouldn’t have mentioned God in his speeches. Thomas Jefferson’s lauded quotations need to be whitewashed of their religious references. And Martin Luther King Jr.—well, you had better cross out his references to God. The logic is unfathomable.

            The quotes in question are apparently found on U.S. passports. Here are a few examples:

            “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” —Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

            “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” —Jefferson Memorial, Thomas Jefferson

            “We have a great dream. It started way back in 1776, and God grant that America will be true to her dream.” —Martin Luther King Jr.

            You can’t make this stuff up.

            FFRF is demanding that the U.S. State Department remove these quotes—which were actually said by real national heroes at historically significant moments about pivotal events in our nation’s history.

            This is the apex of absurdity. If a person mentions God, we have to remove what they said from history?

            These angry atheists’ attempt to whitewash history belies logic; it teeters on insanity. Yet their attempts cannot be ignored. As Orwell said, “Who controls the past … controls the future.”

            Sadly enough, we predicted these groups would go after each of these things. When we compiled “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Protecting American Atheists” two years ago, we listed nearly 40 iconic, historically significant memorials, inscriptions and references to our religious history as a nation. In fact, we listed quotes from the Gettysburg Address, the Jefferson Memorial and the MLK memorial now under attack.

            These angry atheist groups are as predictable as they are wrong.

            The First Amendment is not a mandate to whitewash history. The Constitution is not a manual for the cleansing and expulsion of religious references from public life.

            FFRF’s co-president Annie Lauri Gaylor inaccurately asserts, “The United States is governed under a secular and godless Constitution,” as if the Constitution itself were an atheist manifesto. The Supreme Court has long debunked this premise, specifically holding that to follow that legal argument “would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe” (emphasis added).

            The Constitution requires no such thing.

          • Randy Wanat

            The constitution IS secular and it IS godless. Perhaps you should look up what those words mean. And, I’m not telling you how important your deity is to you. I left open the possibility that it is very important with a neurological disorder hindering the formation of memories. You were the one who said he needed his deity mentioned all over the place so as not to forget.

            Your gold standard spiel is irrelevant. Legal tender – dollar bills and coins – is the property of the United States government. That it allows us to use it does not make it ultimately ours individually, any more than me loaning you my lawnmower makes it yours (unless you’re Homer Simpson and I’m Ned Flanders…well, I AM left-handed…). It is government property. You are free to adorn your home, your car, your clothes, your skin with all the references to your deity that you like. Why do you need it on government property?

            And, the holocaust was largely a Jewish tragedy, but it also targeted Romany gypsies, homosexuals…do these other groups not deserve such representation? Being the majority group doesn’t make it the only group.

            You’re getting het up with all this talk about angry this and God-hating that. Isn’t it possible that someone can disagree with you without being angry or hateful? You may not see such things as problematic from a position of religious privilege enjoyed by the religious in general and Christians in particular in America, but that no more negates the wrongs than failure to notice the plight of the homeless or poor due to financial privilege negates the injustices carried out against them.

          • Tim

            No longer interested in this discussion. “neurological disorder hindering the formation of memories.” I have enough people I can talk to about issues without the bull. Have a nice day.

  • Joseph Chastain

    There is no movement to remove it. Stop spreading lies.

    • MountainDewFan4

      Mr Chastain apparently is omniscient.

  • LeftCoast

    I’m offended by the pyramid and the eye. Can someone please tell me how this pic is American? or belongs on the bill? what is it? IF it’s a secular pic, then we are even.

    • amostpolitedebate

      I’m pretty sure that’s the “eye of God” or something so we can get rid of both if you’d like.

      • LeftCoast

        That’s my point. Make all symbols, on the currency, be American symbols.

    • Brett Durci

      Why not remove it? It’s yet another superstitious symbol that is irrelevant to the nation. Like “In God We Trust”. Take both off. Why do you think we want to defend that picture anyway? lol

      • LeftCoast

        I agree

  • Tim

    Based on what I have studied here is the issues: There is a part 2 and part 3 as well, but this is the beginning, if anyone is debating this issue: (My opinion. He will lose again) Consider the issues related to such decisions:

    “The phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” continues to define the popular meaning of the establishment clause. From a judiciary standpoint, however, there are actually three popular intepretations of the clause’s meaning:

    separationism, which holds that the establishment clause prevents any government endorsement or support of religious establishments. Examples of those holding this view include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    accommodationism, which holds that the government may support or endorse religious establishments as long as it treats all religions equally and does not show preferential treatment. This view is held by President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    preferentialism or Christian dominionism, which holds that the establishment clause only prevents a literal Church of America from being created and does not prevent the government from explicitly endorsing Christianity. This uncommon view is held by the Rev. Pat Robertson and former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, and there is evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe that the preferentialist interpretation of the establishment clause applies to state law. This is due more to his narrow interpretation of the incorporation doctrine than to his interpretation of the establishment clause itself, which is probably accommodationist.

    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This phrase is referred to as the establishment clause. Although Europe had been torn apart by religious conflict for almost the entirety of recorded history, the establishment clause was most likely motivated by hostility towards, and suspicion of, the Church of England. By the time the American Revolution came about, Anglican priests were understandably held in high suspicion and the framers of the Constitution were reticent to create anything resembling an official Church of England in the United States.”

    When looking at the last part of this information it is important to realize that the framers were not against religion, they were against an official religion for the United States.

    One example: Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.

    Ex two: Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two. For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops.

  • Reason2012

    Next they’ll sue over Star Spangled Banner. Being a Christian Nation, founded upon the right to be free to worship God or not, it’s no surprised we see such things printed on even our bills. Atheists are determined to remove the right to express our religious beliefs except where they give their permission.

    Get active, folks. it’s not about the money, it’s about the non-stop anti-Constitutional attack on America’s freedom to religious expression and the anti-Christians are in full force.

    • Paul Hiett

      You still think atheists just don’t believe in your choice of a deity rather than all of them. Sad…

    • Lark62

      NOBODY objects to private expressions of faith.

      We object when people use the government to advance one religious belief in violation of the Constitution. We object to discriminatory actions – actions – by for profit businesses.

      Last I checked, there are still a dozen or so churches near my home with great big crosses. No problem. Homes and churches and businesses display nativity scenes at Christmas. No problem. Churches rent a city park pavillion on the same terms as any other group to hold Easter sunrise services. No problem.

      You just cannot use our shared secular government to make your religion feel special.

    • MountainDewFan4

      THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION !!!!!! NEVER WAS NEVER WILL BE!!!
      If our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian Nation, they would have put something like this into the Constitution … “These United States shall her unto be a Christian Nation”.
      THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THIS in ANY historical document. NOTHING!

      • Reason2012

        The founding fathers were Christian and created America to have a place for people to be able to freely express their religious beliefs, or freely choose not to. Atheists are twisting this into “you will not express it except where we give you permission”.

        So they died for you to have the freedom to not be forced to claim to believe in God. They also died for Christians to have the freedom of religious expression, not to only express it where atheists give them permission.

  • Tim

    Another FYI:

    1954

    In the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government distinguishes itself from the secular Communist state by adding the phrase “one nation under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, it adopts the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto. Three years later, in 1957, the phrase “In God We Trust” begins appearing on paper currency.

    The importance of this move really relates to the U.S. idealism not to be secular as a representation of the country at large.

    • Tim

      I should say, secular and Communist. Correction.

  • amostpolitedebate

    I’m all in favor of taking it off. The only reason it’s on there in the first place is because of the red scare.

    • LeftCoast

      Why is the pyramid and the eye on the bill? should we ban all things that are not American?

      • Reason2012

        Only the truth of Christ offends. The world does not mind false religions. Muslims_kill homosexuals daily in muslim countries, but they ignore muslim bakers and go after Christian bakers, which is the most bizarre contradictory behavior ever – just shows they hate the truth of Christ (“you won’t bake me a cake? You BIGOT!!”) but don’t mind that muslims will_kill them for being into homosexuality (“You_kill us and won’t bake a cake also? Eh, we don’t mind”)
        If they even noticed how bizarre that behavior is, they’d realize they’re being deceived.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Muslims aren’t the ones promoting fear and bigotry in America and you know it.

        • Lark62

          Say what? Atheists object to murder in the name of religion, all murder. Christians, like the elected lady in Oklahoma, object to the murder of christians, just christians, only christians.

          In the US, we object to discrimination by for profit businesses because we tried Jim Crow and rejected it.

        • Black Lotus

          Truth without evidence.,,, Some truth. To a non-believer, your religion is just as false as any other.
          The only difference in Christianity is that Muslim Extremists are not afraid to act on what their religion teaches them to do. And sometimes even your religion produces killers who act out in the name of “god”. Your version just isn’t currently killing as many innocents at the moment.

          • Reason2012

            A prosthetic leg is ‘evidence’ of an intelligence that designed it. A real leg, far superior that it’s modeled after that we’re not smart enough to mimic is evidence of an even higher intelligence. The only faith part is God.

            No, Christianity does not have teachings “kill_those who do not believe to get to heaven” – Islam does.

            Yes, there are always those who do things falsely in the name of God – doesn’t make the truth of God any less true. Even Jesus pointed out people would_kill the disciples and would believe they were doing God’s work, but the truth is they don’t know God nor Christ.

            “… [Jesus said] They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.”
            John 16:2-3

          • amostpolitedebate

            The logic isn’t “kill gays to get into heaven”. It’s either “kill gays to keep other people from being gay so that they can get into heaven” or occasionally “Kill gays so God doesn’t send tornadoes”. Sentiments heavily pushed (albeit in indirect ways) by most popular Christian leaders.

          • Randy Wanat

            A rash is evidence of evil intent. Harlequin ichthyosis is evidence of a far more malicious evil intent. Therefore, your deity is evil.

            See? Anybody can play the “make stuff up” game!

            How do we discern design?

        • Debra Burnsworth

          Please cite where a Muslim baker has refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

          • Reason2012

            Before I show what you want to pretend does not happen, are you unaware homosexuals are_killed in virtually every muslim country?

          • amostpolitedebate

            You are like the fifth person I’ve seen today try and pull this weird “point at Muslims in order to distract people from how terrible Christians are” game today. Is there a memo I missed or something?

          • Reason2012

            It’s weird to point out muslims_kill homosexuals for being homosexual, AND will not bake a same gender wedding cake, and Christians are the “terrible” ones for merely not baking a same gender wedding cake? How so? They won’t bake cakes either, but they are_killing homosexuals daily.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Actually, the laws and policies LGBT advocates are advocating would apply to Muslim bakers too.

          • Reason2012

            Again: It’s weird to point out muslims_kill homosexuals for being homosexual, AND will not bake a same gender wedding cake, and Christians are the “terrible” ones for merely not baking a same gender wedding cake? How so?

          • amostpolitedebate

            This game is a tedious, transparent attempt to deflect anger at Christian actions onto Muslims. Frankly it’s kind of creepy.

            To more directly answer your question though, it’s not a contest to see who has the worst religion. The reason that the advocates tend to focus on Christians is twofold:

            1) Christians are the local problem. Muslims are NOT the ones fighting to block equality and committing violent acts in the US.

            2) Yes, Muslims are responsible for a LOT of terrible things abroad. However, there is little we as US citizens can do about it. We actually have a similar problem with Christian homophobia in Russia right now (which makes US homophobia look quaint). We’ve had no luck there either.

          • Reason2012

            “It’s not a contest to see who has the worst religion” you say.
            So homosexuals are being brutally murdered daily for being homosexual and you continue to try rationalizing it. Wow. They ALSO won’t bake a same-gender wedding cake, here in the US as well. You conveniently ignore this as well. You ignore the mass murder of homosexuals at their hands, ignore that they ALSO will not bake a same-gender wedding cake here in the US, and instead rage at Christians for not baking a same-gender wedding cake.

            No greater hypocritical behavior have I ever even heard of or read about.

            I hardly expected you to be honest about it, in fact, I was banking that you would be disingenuous and you have not let me down: others will see it plain as day and more will wake up to the hate and bigotry that is the homosexual activists movement that has been shown time and again to have nothing to do with justice (as you ignore the must brutal injustice imaginable) and instead has to do with acidic hatred and bigotry towards Christ, Christians and Christianity.

            Thank you for making it so obvious – it helps wake more people up to the outright bigotry towards Christians while homosexuals are murdered and you will bend over backwards to rationalize it while raging at not getting a same-gender wedding cake.

            Take care and thank you again. 🙂

          • Randy Wanat

            Uganda. Keep digging that hole.

          • Randy Wanat

            You do realize that Christians have spent centuries imprisoning and killing homosexuals for being homosexuals, right? In fact, it wasn’t until Lawrence v. Texas that is stopped being a criminal offense for gay people to have sex. But, tell us more about the OTHER people who do bad things to gay people in the name of their religion just like Christians did. It’s such a good story.

          • Reason2012

            Please cite ten cases where homosexuals were_KILLED by professing Christians for being_homosexual. Please prove they were Christians, prove they were_killed for no other reason BESIDES being homosexual. And cite this going on for centuries.

            Today, homosexuals are_killed daily for being homosexual. Yet you completely ignore this and try to rationalize it so you can go back to hating on Christians. Why is that?

          • Randy Wanat

            Wow. Really? Your God explicitly commands that homosexuals be put to death. But beyond that, you’re being silly.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, are you trying to say that Christian theocracy would be good by citing how Muslim theocracy is bad?

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    This seems silly to me.

    • MountainDewFan4

      It may seem silly to you. But imagine if the currency stated, “We do NOT trust in any gods”. I’m sure that most religious people would freak out over that! and, BTW, that is NOT what the non-religious people want!

      Sooo… if the currency states the opposite, “In god We Trust”…. can’t you people see how that could offend the non believers???

      The Country’s motto should be NEUTRAL on religion.

      In God We Trust – RELIGIOUS statement – Can’t use it
      in Allah We Trust – RELIGIOUS statement – Can’t use it
      In God we DO NOT Trust – RELIGIOUS statement – Can’t use it
      In no God do we Trust – RELIGIOUS statement – Can’t use it
      E Pluribus Unum – NOT RELIGIOUS – Why not use this?
      – NOT RELIGIOUS – Why not use this?

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        I get it. It just seems silly to me to put so much effort into getting it removed. But, he is free to do as he pleases, as are others who believe it to be important.

        PS: I’m also a fan of Mountain Dew – particularly “throwback”

        • MountainDewFan4

          We do think it is important that the government not make decisions based on religion, whether they are about contraceptives or about what slogan to put on a dollar bill.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            Then by all means, have at it. It is your right as a US citizen to pursue the things you believe are important.

  • sammy13

    So use a credit card and ignore cash. And since the subject of God is so offensive to many, make sure you are in the front of the line to receive the mark of the beast so that you can buy and sell. As for me, should I be alive when it occurs, I will starve rather than deny Him. At least I hope to have the courage to do so. Spirit willing and weak flesh.

    • MountainDewFan4

      Huh?

  • Nox

    it will probably fail but good luck all the same

  • Trinity

    It’s already prophetically declared this would happen… and when it does… wow and wow. ”Written Judgments”, E. Bernard Jordan… prophetic insight and future events written over 20 years for such a time/season as this. Also declared in “10 things America Wish they had known and 7 Things They Must Know”. Truth inspired by God. God word never fail.

    • Randy Wanat

      Define “gullible.”

      • Trinity

        Good Day Randy! I appreciate your interest to reply The Bible is the Best prophecy literature in the world. Second come Written Judgement etc.

        • Randy Wanat

          Let’s use an analogy. Let’s say I wrote a book today and it was hidden away for centuries. A thousand years later, it is discovered. In it, some events are described that had recently occurred but as though they had not yet happened. Others are extremely mundane, such as “there will be earthquakes and great rains,” and “nations will wage war against one another.” Yet others are impossible to verify in any way in the past. Some are possibly false but, if false, would in some way negative impact the narrative about reality you possess. Others are outlandish and are predicted to occur in the future but with zero indication as to when. Would you accept every prediction in that book as true?

          • Trinity

            The love that God has for you will never change, no matter if you choose to believe His Holy Word [Truth], or not. Repent today! For God so Loved the world He gave His only begotten son. John 3:16

      • Trinity

        Jesus Christ is Lord. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

        • Randy Wanat

          Yes, of course. Although, “you’re gonna be sorry when you’re dead” is one of the least thought-provoking threats that religion teaches its adherents to bleat on command. The John 3:16 bit is equally insipid, as it assumes that such a claim soul inspire V8 forehead slaps. Do you find it world-altering when Muslims quote the Koran? But, you think someone should be any more moved when you quote the Bible? Have you any idea how mindless a world you must have constructed in your head where such truly spectacularly droll attempts at persuasion would ever be considered anything better than the wah-wah of Charlie Brown’s teacher?

  • Bobby Mae

    Well before you blame all gay liberals for this, I am one and think this is stupid and petty.

    • Lark62

      It wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t used to defend other first amendment encroachments. Almost everytime school personel are told they can’t coerce kids to pray to their god or listen to their religious teaching, someone will defend that by saying “It says god on the money so we can inject god wherever we like.”

  • Trinity

    Here’s a sneak preview (1)….

    Radical Voices

    “These will be the days”, saith the Lord, “that you will see men [Men and women] carrying the

    bread of life [the intangible Word of God] that will feed [richly bless] the nations of the world. I will raise up new voices that will sound the alarm of truth and justice, and you shall see My Face in degrees that have never been witnessed. This hour [time of the season] will be known as,

    The Hour of Radical Voices. You will hear radical voices on every front; political, world, national and international and international voices will cause such a stir that many will wonder if they will overthrow present day systems.”

    “It will be a season that I will begin to separate those thart are with me and those who are against My plans and purposes. I will cause a transition to come forth in the leadership of the 21st century. You will see the day that the Church will have a more prominent position within society.”

    The Great Emerging

    “These are now the days in which I will bring about a new government within My Church. It will not be that My Ways are changing, but I am causing a different priesthood which will begin to emerge,“ saith the Lord. “It will be the time you will see different breed of leadership that will come forth.”

    “It is the hour that a different world government will emerge.” I began to weep, for I beheld great persecution coming from the church. It will be the time of kingdoms that will be in direct confrontation with one another. I will cause those that have not known My Name to have an encounter with Me that they will never forget, “ saith the Lord.

    “These are the generals that will bring forth much abundance into the earth that has never been seen by the eyes of men before. I call My people into a place of renewal, and I will speak unto thee concerning people and nations that will usher you into the next order of events which will shortly come to pass.” …

    “There is the coming forth of a people in this time that will bring forth the fire [the word of God is a consuming fire, Jeremiah 23:29] and judgments of the Lord. It will be the season of signs and wonders in the earth as the church and world has never known. Be prepared for the revolution that is coming in the earth, “ saith the Lord.

    “In this hour I will cause you to hear the seed that has come through great persecution, and you will hear their voices, and they will be the ‘Moses’ of their day,” saith the Lord. … “They will speak the judgment of the Lord unto an apostate system; it will be a system of the beast.

    Prepare yourselves, oh people of the Lord, for the voices in the earth will be voices that are not familiar to thine ears! I will cause your sons and daughters in this 21st century to send forth shock waves that the earth has never felt,“ saith the Lord. It will be the days of the emerging of My people in degrees that the earth has never known. I will remove the ungodly out of their seats of government, and you will see My Glory coming in a generation which the land (earth) has never seen. Major voices shall come forth that shall speak to political principalities. Come, and aloe Me to work through you, for I will raise up standards against religious kingdoms that do not represent My Name,“ saith the Lord.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Nobody is going to read 20 pages or crazy Trinity.

      • MountainDewFan4

        I agree. Someone should just delete all this nonsense from Trinity

      • Trinity

        God loves you and so do I. I care about winning souls back to God through Hos son Jesus Christ. It’s my mission. Repent! God loves you very much. John 3:16

  • Trinity

    Preview II, plus

    Amazing Children Discoveries

    “I shall cause you to see a day that children will work miracles and come forth with amazing discoveries. It will be the Day of Amazement in the earth. Unbelievers shall come to witness the miracles. Many will never fully commit to Me, but they will see My Glory,” saith the Lord.

    “I will cause men to see visions in images that will literally divide the Church as to whether it is I or not, for many will not comprehend My doings in this hour.

    At the same time, you will also see that the prince of darkness [it’s through people who choose to open themselves up to allow evil spirits overtake and possess them] will work wonders that shall be startling in their magnitude. Only those that have an ear [Spiritually inclined] to hear will discern that which is of Me and that which is not. I will cause you to know those that are mine by their testimony and confession of the Lord Jesus Christ. This will be the hour that men will ask individuals on national television, ‘Who do you confess to?” in attempt to discern whether they are of Me or not.”

    Judgment of the Lord

    “These are the days that men who have worshipped idol gods will come to their end. Nationsthat had embraced the darkness of witchcraft and denied My Name shall not be in existence [Power] any longer. For I shall have them in derision… this season shall be marked with My laughter.”

    “I will be a day that the Gospel of the Kingdom will bring change, for I will raise up those that will have the spirit of Caleb, and Joshua to bring the word of the Lord unto them without fear or comprise. They will bring them into the reality of My Son, Jesus. “The coming judgment in the earth are for redemptive purposes, “saith the Lord.”10 Things Americans Wish They Had Known and 7 Things They Have to Know, Master Prophet, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan

    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

    Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord,…. The legal part of it is as fire; it is called a “fiery law”,Deuteronomy 33:2; like fire, it is quick and piercing, and penetrating into the hearts and consciences of men; and works wrath there, and raises a fearful expectation of fiery indignation; it threatens with everlasting fire; it sentences men to the fire of hell; and the righteous Judge, in the execution of it, will be a consuming fire to wicked men. The Gospel part of the word is like fire, on account of the light the entrance of it gives to sinners; by which they see their own impurity, impotence, and the insufficiency of their own righteousness, and the way of life and salvation by Christ; and by the light of this fire saints are directed in their walk and conversation; and by it immoralities, errors, and superstition, are detected: also on account of the heat of it; it is the means of a vital heat to sinners, the savour of life to them; and is warming and comforting to saints, and causes their hearts to burn within them; it inflames them with love to God, Christ, and one another, and with zeal for truth and the interest of a Redeemer; though it has a scorching and tormenting heat to wicked men, and fills them with burning malice and envy, Revelation 11:5; and, through the corruption of human nature, is the occasion of contention and discord, for which reason Christ calls it fire, Luke 12:49; and indeed it has different effects on different objects, as fire, which hardens some things and softens others; see 2 Corinthians 2:16; moreover, it may be compared to fire for its purifying, separating, and trying nature: as fire purifies gold and silver, and separates the dross, and tries the metal, and shows it what it is; so the Gospel tries men’s principles, and discovers what they are, and separates one from another: and also for its consuming nature; it opposes, weakens, and burns up the worst in man, his lusts and corruptions, which it teaches him to deny; and the best in man, all his holiness and righteousness he depended upon; and it burns up the chaff of false doctrine and human inventions before mentioned.

    “…Congress wanted to prevent a national church but allow the states to be as religious as their citizens wanted them to be.” Rod Parsley

    Additional References:

    Misleading talk of “separation of church and state” obscures the true meaning of the First Amendment.

    “When Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell interjected this question in last week’s debate with her opponent Chris Coons, the audience—a law school audience—laughed and guffawed in derision. But the joke, of course, is on the audience: as everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowherein the Constitution. Even Mr. Coons acknowledged as much. The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

    What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution (an admirable obsession of some Tea Party folks, like Ms. O’Donnell). Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.” The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.”

    Michael Stokes Paulsen is University Chair & Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis. He is the co-author, with his son Luke Paulsen, of the forthcoming The Constitution: An Intelligent Introduction and Brief History.

    For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away
    their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim 4:3-4 KJV)

  • Trinity

    Evil in the Last Days

    …, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; 2 Timothy 3:5

    “His name is still recognized in our Government. Thus, “In God We Trust” is still imprinted on our U.S. Dollar Bills. Unfortunately, a time is coming where God’s name will be removed from our Monetary’ s system because there will be a new World Order.

    “Behold the wisdom of the Lord in this season, for it will be the time that I shall wash away he cancer of greed in the land ̶ it will be the hour of great cleansing. I will come and judge the systems and standards that are an abomination in My Nostrils.”

    Our Nation’s future Political Change and Dishonor

    “I saw the Hand of the Lord breaking out of the sky holding the money of men
    [Historic Men of Honor]. He said unto me, “Look upon the money that now is,
    and the money that shall be.” As I beheld the denominations of the bills, the mouths
    of the men that were on the bills began to drop, and water poured from their eyes. I
    asked, “Why are they mourning? What is the weeping that I hear?” The Lord
    answered me and said, “It is the hour of their burial, and a currency shall arise that
    will not remind you of these men [Historic Men of Honor] anymore.”

    This is our world that’s drastically changing removing God out of the equation. But you want me and my family to put our faith and trust in the system?

    Did you removed the Pledge of Allegiance from your Public Schools as of yet? It
    stands factual ̶we are “One nation under God”.

    Please feel free to read “Silent No More” it’s not a read just for Christians, but for all Americans.

    Our times demand it. Our history compels it. Our future requires it. And God is watching. Bringing Mortal Clarity to America… while freedom still rings.

  • Trinity

    There is coming a day where Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord…Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10

    The Attempt to Establish a Form of Self-Government

    “…when man rejected heaven’s government, he had no choice but to accept as an alternative the disappointing plethora of human attempts at government.” Dr. Myles Munroe

  • Trinity

    Freedom From the Constitution

    …”I looked down upon a map of the United States. My eyes beheld governments in
    turmoil. And the Voice of the Lord began to say, “This will be the day that you will
    see states forming ungodly alliances. They shall begin to demand freedom from
    the boundaries of the Constitution. Many shall say, ‘How can these things be?’ but
    it is the hour that the spirit of uprising and rebellion shall visit your land.” 10 Things Americans Wish they Knew and 7 Things they have to Know, E. Bernard Jordan

  • Trinity

    Though you wish or rather not to hear the God-Fearing TRUTH. I am the upright sound and voice that will NOT be quieted when the TRUTH must be told. This is God’s land and He is watching and taking account of every deed, action, motive, plan, intentions and ignorance, self-worship, self-praise, etc. Walk upright this day and change your ways! The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? …But God? Jeremiah 17:9 …No

    man knows the day nor the hour when the Lord returns for His people; who stood in the gap and fought the good fight of faith against wickedness in high places and the valley low.

    “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, [throne room] and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    Repent, then and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” Acts 3:19

    “I decided stick to love…Hate is too great of a burden to bear.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. –

    Where Do We Go From Here, 1967.

    Sincerely, loving, faithfully and forgiving,

    In God Alone I will forever Trust

    Freedom of speech expressions for all those who has authentic and genuine inclined spiritual ears to hear what thus saith the Lord.

    Our currency indicates and declare “In God I Trust” from Psalm 56:11– You must grasp the Straight Forward revelation and Truthful meaning:

    Put not your trust in man [human beings], in whom there is no salvation. Psalm

    146:3

    It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man [people]. Psalm 118:8
    Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
    Seek His will in all you do, and He [Our Creator and Spiritual Father] will make
    your paths straight [He will show you which path to take] Proverbs 3: 5-6
    They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are the
    shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, they seek their
    own gain… Isaiah 56:11

    …They were trying to get right with God [gain God’s approval] by keeping the law
    instead of by trusting in Him. [Thus,] They stumbled over the great rock in their
    path. Romans 9:32

    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us
    who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

    The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit
    of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they
    are discerned only through the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14

    17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save
    the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
    does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the
    name of God’s one and only Son 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the
    world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

    20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear
    that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the
    light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the
    sight of God. John 3: 17-21

  • Trinity

    You will see the generation of mockery arise in the manner that the earth has

    never seen. It will be the time where men will laugh at those who have standards,

    “saith the Lord. But I will turn the mockery and you will hear a shout of laughter

    and triumph come out of the camp of My servants, “saith the Lord. “It will also be

    the time that the church structures will take on new dimensions, and you will see a

    people moving with a new degree of glory upon them. Prepare your hearts for

    things that you have never seen or heard before.”

    … “ It will be the day that I will cause you to understand that there will be no

    infraction within My Body, “ saith the Lord. “I will cause the places that have

    brought a spirit of isolation within My people to be driven out by My Spirit,“ saith

    the Lord. “You will see the hour of the unveiling of deceptive spirits and operation

    of satanic forces and I will bring forth their exposure by My Body coming into

    perfection in degrees that the Church has never known before,” saith the Lord.

    …The Lord further said, … A new group of worshippers shall emerge from the East.

    Great orators will bring forth a clear word and a redemptive word to an oppressed

    people. They will teach the world about prayer and meditation. I will cause the

    nations of the earth to take a look at their value system.”

    I looked into the future and I also saw the education system falling into the

    hands of men and women from the east. The areas of discipline that began to be

    instilled within these systems of education began to fall apart. But the word of the

    Lord came unto me saying, “Men will reach for many things, but I am waiting for

    them to reach for My will and purpose and visit all that I have in store for them.” Written Judgments, E. Bernard Jordan

  • Trinity

    Prophecy written over 20 years ago for such a time as this:

    New Foreign Alliances

    Then the Lord began to send instructions to the new generations of heralders. In

    the year 2015, trumpets large and small began to blast a sound all over the earth

    to which all men began to respond. Media began to pick up this sound, and they

    echoed it in the earth. And the Lord said, “I will bring thee into an hour of

    awakening. You will see the downtrodden rise up out of the murkiness of

    obscurity. The light of a new day will present itself, and you will witness the

    coming together of foreign nations which had refused alliances in the past sit

    down at negotiating tables and embrace their new loves. Mighty is the Lord of

    Hosts, and Mighty is His Name!”

    A New Currency

    I was surrounded by a sound of laughter which sounded snide and mocked the

    faces of men. I looked and saw the currency laughing within the earth. There was

    a great scurrying, and the dollar began to fall… fall… fall… and the nations around

    the earth began laughing at those who were selling large sums of items to salvage

    their investments. Then the word of the Lord came unto me saying. “A new

    currency shall come into the picture that will bring tears unto nations and

    commerce will change before your eyes.”

    Ref. -10 Things Americans Wish They Had Known And 7 Things They Have to Know

    Amazing and Accurate Prophecies About What the Future Holds

  • pacun

    Im sure, 100%, if the wording was in Allah, or any other really imaginary god, none of you would have a problem.

    These are prophetic times, you are doing the devils work without knowing, or maybe I am wrong, you are knowingly supporting satan.

    Anyhow, may God have mercy on all of your souls.

  • Trinity

    Prophetic Sound Warning:

    New Political Party

    “A new political party will make its way to the platform. A candidate will come forth that will America to a place of trembling.”

    I saw devils in the heavenlies running amok with glee, asking, ‘Is this the one that shall dethrone mankind”‘ There shall be a race that will seem to be very close, but the Lord says that this is the hour for shake up, yet it is not for change. But I warn the Church: speak to the political arena, but do not allow yourselves to lose sight of your first love [God] and miss the way. Remain on the course of a road, saith the Lord.

    Carl

    “There shall be a man that will emerge as a voice to the nations. I was taken into the heavens to behold four letter, C-A-R-L. As I waited for greater clarity, the Lord said, “When you see this name appear in the media, know that major shake-ups shall strike the economy and foreign leaders will begin to lead this nation on a new course and shall bring you into a new destiny.

    Many will flee the country in this season because they will despise the new alliances that will start to form. But beware, ” saith the Lord, “lest you become deceived, for fleeing in this season is not the job of the Church. I call you to another anchor even more into your purpose to break the power of witchcraft that has dared to show itself within the walls of a country in a more visible way than anyone has ever witnessed.” 10 Things Americans Wish They Has Known And 7 Things They Have to Know, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan

  • Trinity

    People of God: You knew this would take place. …Have even partially understood what is in the making for our country in America…. Did you foresee this coming to past? Here it coming from the throne of God! Written in Written Judgments. Released Prophecy over 20 years ago for such a season as this or that we are swiftly approaching.

    Dollar Loses Its Power

    “The season of intense technology shall be upon the land. You will see military forces merging in an attempt to gather more strength. Nations that you have never thought would come into power will enter into mutual agreements, and you will see My Hand separate the wheat and the tares.

    “Prepare! The dollar will lose its power, and you will behold another currency taking root within the hands of Americans. And this change will be blamed upon the economic collapse of the monetary system.

    This change shall happen in a moment; in the twinkling of a greedy eye, “saith the Lord. “Once those that manipulate the monetary system get their plan approved, you will see new money surface within the hands of the citizens of this nation. The day of privacy will be eliminated off of the planet, and a new technology will chart the movements of men and women. It will be the season of the unveiling of great secrets.”

  • Trinity

    LISTEN TRUE SAINTS OF THE LORD: HAVE NO FEAR PEOPLE OF GOD- KNOW THAT THIS BATTLE/WAR BELONGS TO GOD

    God has His people’s front and rear!

    Isaiah 58:8 (AMP) | In Context

    8 Then shall your light break forth like the morning, and your healing (your restoration and the power of a new life) shall spring forth speedily; your righteousness (your rightness, your justice, and your right relationship with God) shall go before you [conducting you to peace and prosperity], and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

    References: Isaiah 54:17, Psalm 91, Psalm 23…

    Attack on Church by Government Agencies

    “You are now crossing into times that your eyes have never seen. It will be the day that the House of the Lord will be under close scrutiny and subversive attack by government agencies. There are officials who sit in high places that have imagined to silence the voice of the Church, for they believe that they are God. They will exert a system of control in an effort to overtake My sanctuary and places of worship. But I will stir up My fury and bring calamities into the earth that shall bankrupt their established system of order. I shall confound them with a season of natural disasters.”

    10 Things Americans Wish They Had Known And 7 Things They Have To Know, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan

  • Trinity

    Wisdom Calls Aloud
    …25 And you neglected all my counsel And did not want my reproof; 26 I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes,27 When your dread comes like a storm And your calamity comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you.… Proverbs 1:25-27

    Cross References: Psalm 37:13, Psalm 2:4 God has the last laugh! We win in the end!!! Glory to God in the Highest! Repent and turn from your evil and wicked ways at heart!! Join the army of the Lord this day. Choose ever lasting life!

    Discipline the Children of Men

    “These are the days that you will see the Hand of the Lord stretching forth the land, as I bring forth discipline unto the children of men. For I will silence the mouths of serpents that are spitting their venom into the ears of the country, and you will see forces that have been appointed to dethrone the influence of the Church come to naught this hour, “saith the Lord.

    “You will witness a downpour of laughter coming from the heavens that will disturb the principalities and powers assigned to that land. I will cause many to know Me in ways and dimensions that many have thought impossible. The day of great illumination is coming to the earth. You will see men and women raised up that shall operate by a different order than that which you are familiar, and they shall carry a weighty word of the Lord for this generation.” 10 Things Americans Wish They Had Known And 7 Things They Have To Know, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan

    Biblical References to Divine Prophecy

    Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking on them said, With men it is impossible, but not … Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

    Psalm 143:12

    New International Version
    In your unfailing love, silence my enemies; destroy all my foes, for I am your servant.

    Psalm 54:5

    New International Version
    Let evil recoil on those who slander me; in your faithfulness destroy them.

    New Living Translation
    May the evil plans of my enemies be turned against them. Do as you promised and put an end to them.

    Hebrews 12
    God Disciplines His Sons
    …5and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM; 6FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.” 7It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?…

    • MountainDewFan4

      Trinity … seriously knock it off. No one except yourself cares about all this religious mumbo jumbo!

      • Trinity

        The love that God has for you will NEVER change. Repent today! Jesus Christ is Lord.

  • one4All

    The 1st Amendment does not ONLY prohibit the establishment of a ‘Government Religion’ it equally guarantees that all Citizens may freely PRACTICE Religion as they see fit – Including, (if the majority of Americans want it so – which is usually how we decide to choose between options as a people) – printing slogans on our money that include the word ‘god’. If I get to decide everything permissible for my Government to do based upon MY Religious Beliefs (or lack thereof) then the FIRST thing I would BAN would be WAR.

    • MountainDewFan4

      You are 100% correct. INDIVIDUALS may practice religion as they see fit. You Mr. one4all can pray to any god you choose in your house, your church, or even at the beach. You can paint “I LOVE JESUS” on your min-van, or the roof of your house.

      HOWEVER, the government CAN NOT promote one religion over another or over non-religion. The government of the United States putting a PURELY RELIGIOUS statement on our currency is definitely promoting a mono-theistic religion! This is not constitutional and should never have been allowed back in the 1950s !!

  • MountainDewFan4

    Here is an interesting statistic from a 2013 Harris poll.

    Percentage of Americans that are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that god exists:
    2013 – 54%
    2003 – 66%

    So therefore, only about HALF of the country actually “Trusts” in god! And furthermore that number keeps going DOWN every year!

    So … Why then should we have a Motto for our country which states that we “Trust” in god???????

  • Trinity

    Jesus Christ is Lord! Mockery and unbelief from unbelievers, Blasphemers, and scorners of God’s Holy Word and Divine prophecy, Repent! Repent in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost!

    God will always use Prophecy to help instruct, reproof, correct, edify, lead and guide and to confirm His Rhema word. Discern God’s Truth by having an ear to hear what God is declaring personally and to the nations at large. With only referring to the SHEEP (people) of God who knows His Voice and will be attentive and adhere to His Holy instructions, a stranger he will not follow.

    With the absence of faith, there is no spiritual discernment, only humanistic interpretation, logic and mental and emotional judgment etc. which is very limiting to the Power of God. Instead of using your natural born senses and condition mental attitude to be in continued disbelief and doubt of who God is and if He is REAL; try to get in God’s PRESENCE to discern the TRUTH of God’s word and His Holy nature.

    Don’t repeat history and behave as the unbelievers and haters of God’s truth as in Noah days!

    May God have Mercy and Grace upon you, if He so chooses.

    • MountainDewFan4

      OK. We get it .. you’re a religious nutjob.

      • Trinity

        The love that God has for you will never change.

  • Trinity

    Warm, truth and sincerity:

    In all that I do, it’s vital to encourage people and Nations to Repent
    as it is recorded in Acts 17:30-31 Realize God of Heaven and Earth is “not
    willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”
    according to II Peter 3:9-12. Be reminded God Loves you very, very, much and
    that it’s important for you to know that `why’ He sets Judgment is because whom
    He Loves He Chastens unless they are without Chastisement according to John
    3:16 and Hebrews 12:1-8. (Refer: Ezekiel 9:1-11 and Ezekiel 10:1-7).

    Repent now! The fool hath said in His heart, there is no God! Psalm 14:1, Psalm 51:3

    New Living Translation

    Then if my people who are called by my name
    will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked
    ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their
    land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    Everyone has to make a choice whether they will love and serve and worship God with all of their hearts, minds and souls. Choose one and hate the other. No one can serve and love “both” God and Satan/Devil. It is God’s will none shall perish but have eternal life in Heaven with HIM through Jesus Christ our Savior. John 3:16

    It’s easier than one can think talking and praying to God. He is always present, but for your personal experience with the Lord God, you can directly commune and converse with God through His son Jesus Christ who died on the Cross and shed His blood for our humanity’s sins over 2000 years ago. In other words, god is just a prayer away. Let God make Himself known to you in ways you could never imagine. God is real. It’s imperative that you, your siblings that are younger and older and children you may have, should know God. Please join a Bible believing Church, experience godly fellowship and draw closer to HIM in a personal way.

    Please declare this prayer day and night. Jesus Christ taught us how us how we should pray.

    “Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    Please declare this prayer day and night as Jesus Christ taught us how we should pray.
    “Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    This prayer believed in faith, will save your souls.

    The Bible declares once appointed mankind to die. Your souls lives forever, whether in Heaven or Hell.

    I’m a International Evangelist. God loved you all forever. Nothing you do will change His love He has for you all.

    Thank you and enjoy your day bountifully in joy, peace, love, harmony, balance, hope, faith, forgiveness, good health and in God’s Grace and abundance of Wealth!

    Faithfully yours,

    Your friend/sister in Christ

    • MountainDewFan4

      Knock it OFF Trinity.

      • Trinity

        The love that God has for you will never change…

        • MountainDewFan4

          Right, it will never change because he does not exist and therefore can not have love for me you or anyone.

  • Brenda Cressey

    Maybe it should just say Kiss My Ass

  • sind57

    If you’re an atheist it shouldn’t matter what is put on US currency because it doesn’t mean anything to you, however, it does to those who believe in a higher being. This country was built on religious freedom and we should not be ashamed of this. A person who makes issue of “In God We Trust” obviously hates people who believe in some form of God and this hate is a form of bigotry.

    • Randy Wanat

      Then it shouldn’t bother you if the money says “All Americans believe in Zeus.” After all, you don’t believe in Zeus, so the fact that it says something untrue about you and your beliefs means nothing to you.

      See, the argument sounds pretty stupid when it’s not your deity, doesn’t it? It’s just as stupid when it is you’d deity.

    • MountainDewFan4

      “It doesn’t mean anything to you”.
      No… that’s not the case at all.
      What it “means” is that the government is endorsing one religion over another. What it “means” is that atheists are made to feel as though they are somehow lower-class citizens because they do not “Trust in god” as the government says they should.
      What it “means” is that my children have to ask me “Why does my dollar say I trust in god? I don’t beleive in god”.
      What it “means” is that the U.S. is divided into those who “Trust” in god, and those who don’t instead of the “UNITED” as the name of our country implies!

      It is important that the U.S. government stays out of religion and that religion stays out of the U.S. government. This is just one of many battles that will be fought to make that happen.

      • sind57

        Exactly which religion is the government endorsing? To be exact, God refers to a higher being, which includes all religions. If you’re child would so happen to ask about this motto you can simply explain that our nation was formed on the basis of freedom of religion. If you believe their is no higher being and you are teaching this to your child than what you believe in is nothing. Thus “In Nothing You Trust.” If this is what you want than go for it, however, don’t force others to be so negative on life.

        • MountainDewFan4

          They are endorsing a mono-theistic religion, specifically the Christian religion. Notice there is not the word “a” in front of god. This DOES NOT mean in “A god we trust”, no it means we trust in the god who is commonly referred to simply as “God”. This is the Christian god ! In God we Trust, not In all gods we trust, or in A god we Trust … nope it States in GOD we trust. A single god named god!

          Many people in this country do not Trust in the god named “God”. Many people in this country Trust in more than one god, many people do not Trust any gods. The bill states in God “We” trust. “We” refers to everyone in this country. Therefore the statement is not even close to the truth.

          Secondly, when my children ask about the motto. I tell them the TRUTH. In 1954 the country was afraid of the Communists and the politicians back then took the advice of a priest and they passed a law which stated that “In God We Trust” must be added to all U.S. currency and this was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law which NEVER should have been passed. The country should go back to pre-1954 times when the statement WAS NOT on our bills!

          I also take offense to your last statement, “don’t force others to be so negative in life.” !!! WHO am I forcing to be negative?
          I am teaching my children the TRUTH! I am also teaching them to treat ALL people equally regardless of their race, sex, or religion, or sexual preference. Can you honestly say that is what religions teach????

          I ask you, who is forcing others to be so negative, atheists who teach equality and respect, or Christians who teach that everyone different then themselves are abominations who should burn for all of eternity???????

    • Sarah Jones Geer

      Nonsense. It matters because it is an example of our government endorsing religion and giving special privilege and treatment to religious Americans over nonreligious Americans. The nonreligious are so hated and discriminated against in America today that the Christian whining about how any removal of their special treatment is some kind of bigotry or persecution is outright laughable.

  • jeff

    This shouldn’t even be a question. Religion has no place in government, and government has no place in religion. It’s 2015, can we get with the fucking program already? Man I am so sick of these egotistical fundamentalist christian douchebags thinking this country should pander to their every need. Grow up assholes.

  • Ramsay20

    Why is it so important for Christians to remove something like “the Goddess protects” or “Odin grant me knowledge” but whenever someone else complains about something “in God we trust” it’s attacking Christianity and religious freedom? I don’t understand, if it’s not ok for a government building, or what have you, to display something that is blatantly religious and also blatantly not Christian, then why is it ok for the same institutions to display ANYTHING that is blatantly religious?

    • MountainDewFan4

      This is how most Christians think. “Whatever I think it right, everyone should have to do. Whatever I think it wrong, no one should be allowed to do.”

      This is how most atheists think. “Let’s just be fair to everyone and treat everyone the same.”

  • http://www.dtsfutures.co Seth Essington

    God is the system. Leave it on our money. If we don’t trust the system, our money will be worthless.

    • MountainDewFan4

      What does that even mean?

      How will our money become worthless? Was our money worthless BEFORE 1957 when it was added?

  • Kachina

    IN GOD WE TRUST! What a powerful statement to the world and atheist like Lucifer would love to erase God off the planet earth, right? Atheist are the ones responsible for taking prayers out of our public schools and look at our children and society, now. The more we take God out of our lives the more evil enters. It is time to fight against evil in all forms and Christians, Jews and all who believe in God must start fighting back.

    • MountainDewFan4

      Christians added “In God We Trust” to our money, and added “One Nation Under God” to our pledge and LOOK AT OUR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY NOW!!! The more we add God to our country, the more EVIL enters.

      It’s time to fight against religion in all forms!

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    The phrase “under God we trust” does not violate the first ten words of the Bill of Rights BECAUSE of the next six words of the Bill of Rights: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    With the adoption of the First Commandment-violating Free Exercise Clause, America ceased being a united nation under one God (Yahweh, God of the Bible) and became a divided nation under any and all gods.

    Thus, the ratification of the First Amendment makes the phrase “under God” generic and therefore does not establish any one religion.

    This said, do not overlook the biblically seditious nature of the First Amendment.

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

    • MountainDewFan4

      You are 100% correct. INDIVIDUALS may practice religion as they see fit. You Mr. Weiland can pray to any god you choose in your house, your church, or even at the beach. You can paint “I LOVE JESUS” on your min-van, or the roof of your house.

      HOWEVER, the government CAN NOT promote one religion over another or over non-religion. The government of the United States putting a PURELY RELIGIOUS statement on our currency is definitely promoting a mono-theistic religion! This is not constitutional and should never have been allowed back in the 1950s !!

  • Robert T. Griffin

    Modified, the Word of Choice, a word that’s been used in political terms that has created a contrast with the spiritual properties said to be contained within that defy logical explanation and reason given the nature of the world we share with one another. It’s easy to compute which of these philosophical disciplines hold real promise and which condemns you to a life of meaningless chatter that destroys the very foundations we’ve literally built a civilization upon with the usage of all the proper tools endowed to us through the natural world that surrounds us as a people. The road map has been quite specific, quite detailed in most every respect, the examples are overwhelming in most all respects to the physical characteristics of the world we depend on for our very sustenance, they are intrinsic throughout all of nature, they’re accompanied with a tangible set of innate qualities, of values that convey a proof of life where other ideologies are suspended in time and hinge on suppositions that create more questions than they could ever possibly answer, questions concerning origin and relationship affiliation leading to further discord in our analysis, taking us further in the wrong direction! Certainly, practicality has its place in this matter where necessity has been rumored to be the mother of all inventions, this perspective clouds our thinking in a manner as to void out the exterior dimensions of our immediate world from being brought forth into the argument for a better understanding of our general purpose and rational for what we are all about as a people. Surely, some individuals in our society today find this a belittling attitude, an idea most assuredly demanding a smoke screen of sorts to be implemented in a Biblical sense of the word, an entitlement, a proprietorship in order to placate an egotistical infatuation that would seek to counter the assertion of a truism that would specifically outline our role, our sole responsibility in life, as being predicated on a simple internship, a stewardship of this earth, to the welfare of our neighbors, to an environment that at times has been hostile in some respects to our personal endeavors, a success story for some, an utter failure for others seeking that alternative doctrine to believe in, a proposition unimaginable, totally absurd, are these other people’s expectations set too high… the forensics don’t lie! This assumption has plagued mankind for hundreds of centuries, for some ungodly reason this concept, this premise in thinking out loud and relating these articles of specificity into a science has a great number of people unwilling to accepting this notion of servitude, of sharing the wealth, of being a source of pride and personal prestige, of being a good friend and confidant… Religious Scriptures, the tenets they ascribe to, the gospel they promote, should always be weighed more so on the material aspects they incorporate than not, the spiritual references always come as a direct result of the contents of one’s socio-economic evolution, community based industrial output has it’s privileges, as equally so is the importance of population growth in determining our planet’s longevity, our destiny is commensurate with our DNA.

  • Jeremiah A

    Is it substantially burdensome to carry around money that reminds us, and by extension the government, that our rights are not solely based on the arbitrary whims of the government? We need this reminder.

  • Goddess of Wind

    Once again the nasty atheists whining about a phrase that has been on coins for well over a century, n on bills for over 50 years! That anyone would perceive that as a violation of the Establishment Clause is amusing! I think the nasty atheists will lose again, despite the fact that Secular Humanism is a religion. But it sure is fun to watch them try.

  • Vlad50

    Where does this clown get the money to file all these lawsuits?? Soros has to be in background somewhere. Uuummm?

  • Justin Russell

    I say go back to what was on a 1792 penny: “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry.”