what about tea partiers? maybe I missed something in the election, were they talking about restricting democracy or the constitution if elected into office?
anyways, these people would be like the dominionists I talked about. Their rationalle is that the rules of God supercede those of man, and that people shouldn't be allowed the democratic right to sin (though I'd agree with you if you are saying this is inconsistent with thousands of years of Christian theology). It isn't hypocritial in the least, imho. inane, yes, though the world view does seem to be internally consistent.
The tea-partiers insistance on big military budgets, inherent racism and other issues are much more illustrative of their hypocritial nature than is their religious stance, imho at least
ok
that is a different point altogether though, isn't it?
constitutional monarchies... sorry, messed that up pretty solid
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Nov 17th, 2010 at 11:17 PM
well if you say gods law supercedes mans law as justification your saying that the highist law is the law of a king
think about it this way what if king george the 3rd said you can have a democracy as long as you still obey me
would that really be a democracy
though, that would mean these people would have to believe the same thing about how man-rules-man as they do about how god-rules-man.
That inconsistency would take little to explain. God is perfect, God knows everything, God is the creator of the universe, etc. It is easy to come up with reasons why there might be a different standard for how God rules man and how man rules man.
For Christianity in particular, there are scriptural references to things like "render unto Ceasar", which can be interpreted as meaning that it is man's responsibility to rule man. Christian ideas of free will would be relevant here too, as it has been taken to mean man is free to sin, but faces eternal consequences, thus, man is responsilbe for actions on earth, God worries about the afterlife.
This means the state is allowed to exist however it wants to, democratic or fascist, and people will be judged on their personal actions ultimately. It is not God's job to control human government, but there is no reason a democracy couldn't exist under God.
you are right, I guess, that man's relationship to God is not democratic, I just think it is strange that you think somehow believing in democracy on earth means there would have to be one with heaven, lol, sorry rambling...
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Nov 18th, 2010 at 01:05 AM
Why does it even matter if it says God or not. It makes zero difference to the USA.
It's only important to zealous atheists and zealous theists. Everyone else has bigger and more important things to worry and/or philosophise about.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Even though America banned the church for large usage, it does allow the place to use the song "God Bless America."
The people have in them good genes. Nobody really is born to kill others. This can be disputed as some people are really evil. The people follow good teachings and have no problem really with the song.
There are those that believe the song is stupid. God does not help them and they desire to abandon God.
... you have a God so petty as to not help people who don't like a song? I mean, really? Couldn't even a believer quite conceivably think the song's stupid because they realise that God would have no preference of one country over another? I assume belief in a God who isn't fixated on a country that only came into existence in the last 250 years is quite unacceptable in your eyes?
Hell, even if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, America's pretty new, and I don't quite see why God would want to give special consideration to it.
It's not about God's preference. If you believe in Abrahamic God, then obviously his preferred people are Jews. So what.
God bless America is more of a 'prayer' type slogan than anything else. Of course American people would want God to bless their country. There's nothing wrong with that.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with.
When someone, such as a grumpy atheist, says "oh, man, you're saying God Bless America but not other countries, by default. You're selfish and mean to all the other countries." it is obviously not on track or even in spirit with what it means. Additionally, when taken in consort with scripture, you must ask to receive some blessings. If we don't ask, God may not give some blessings to us (I am a bit more deist than that, but I still understand the belief).
Personally, I refrain from saying "God Bless America". When I pray about world events, I ask God to bless everyone in need according to their need, in His wisdom. Why? Because I would be a complete idiot to think me simply asking for some unfortunate group of people to be blessed. That could be a detriment to them (a militant group could come upon the people that have been "blessed" and take all of their "blessings" and leave them worse off"...just an example). What if a blessing seemed a curse, in disguise?
Bla bla bla. And so forth. When I can help, I do. I'm sure God is much happier with people who do the blessings on His behalf than those that beg for blessings for others but do jack diddly squat.
Sure it is. The song its from is about American exceptionalism and the phrase as used by politicians still has the same connotations.
The phrase "God Bless America" is asking God to Bless America. It would be pretty strange for Americans to go around asking God to bless other countries, they can go get their own blessings. Obviously it isn't the same as asking God to avoid blessing other places if that's what you mean.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
But you entire post was addressed already. Not sure why you even responded:
"The hope is that America, with their "charitable leanings" will share what God blesses them with."
No, that's exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about the "grumpy atheist" type. That's exactly what they mean. I did use the word "selfish". Not sure how I can make it more clear. Ask me if you need more clarification and I will try my best to better explain.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Apr 4th, 2012 at 09:40 PM
I never scolded him (are you sure you meant the word "scold"?). He makes it a point to comment that he has me on ignore pretty much every conversation, these days. So I figured I would remind him before our conversation went down that path, again.
Not everything you say is irritatingly stupid. Keeping you on ignore all the time makes it easier to not get dragged into your trolling when it starts.
Twice in a month?
What's you basis for this though? You can't just declare it. It comes from a song about America being great with not mention of going out and sharing divine blessings.
Sorry I find this phrasing very confusing and I'd rather start by clarifying whether we agree or not.
Are you saying that I just repeated your argument?
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Correction: you follow me to various threads, quote me, and troll me...and then tell me you have me on ignore when I hand your ass to you.
Let's not be irrationally deluded too much about reality, please.
Edi - Can you even remember a time where I initiated a conversation with you by quoting you in a topic, first? Take a look: you are the one consistently injecting your troll tactics by following me around, quoting me, and then replying with a troll post or logical fallacy.
More than once in a month is enough to make my point.
Deal with it.
Maybe because I have heard it multiple times, directly, from grumpy atheists.
I did declare it because it happened, bro.
Yeah, cause the song totally did not get that saying or idea from anywhere else, right?
No, it means exactly what a direct reading of the words indicate. Not this "Are you saying that I just repeated your argument?"
You said this:
"Obviously it isn't the same as asking God to avoid blessing other places."
Which is part of my point contained here:
"The hope is that America, with their 'charitable leanings' will share what God blesses them with."
What would the opposite of the above quote mean?
This:
"[By asking God to bless America,] the hope is that America, with no 'charitable leanings' will not share what God blesses them with."
I hope that makes the meaning as clear as possible. Definitely ask if you need even further clarification. I can do things like color-coding, screen shots, etc.
Double Edit - Chronicles 7:14, by the way. That's where it comes from. Not a 1918 song. The phrase "God bless America" existed long before the 1918 song.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Apr 4th, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Grumpy atheists have told you multiple times that they hope America will be charitable with the blessings it receives from god?
There are multiple direct readings of the words. Since the rest of your post makes it clear that you're trying not to be understood in the first place. I'll be the adult here and leave this conversation.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 17th, 2010 11:15 PM
