[PLUG-TALK] MRC - Should marriage be open to homosexual couples? - MRC

[Ronald Chmara]

On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:31 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> Are you amused with yourself?  In God We Trust was added to the
> currency in response to the threat of atheistic communism.

Wow, you totally didn't read before typing. "In God We Trust" was  
first added to currency in 1864, 53 years before the October  
Revolution. It was adopted *as a national motto* during the red-scare  
50's, but that's not the same thing as being "added to the currency  
in response to the threat of atheistic communism" by a long shot.

>   The
> founding document of this country, the declaration of
> Independence, talks about a Creator.

.....Not "God".

This was in deference to the founders who were Diests, who didn't  
believe in prayer, miracles, or a way of "communicating" with the  
point/persona/entity of creation.

> Not creators.  Not
> evolution.

Yeah, they also didn't know what DNA was, or a 'car", or a  
"telephone". Not sure what your point is, other than the document  
pointing to an "original source" idea. Saying "a creator" doesn't  
mean that Saints don't exist in some faiths, or that Jesus doesn't  
exist in others, it merely means that there was "a source". It  
doesn't have to be Elohim, just "a source". It also doesn't  
invalidate the existence of DNA, evolution, or the telephone.

>   The declaration refers to a Supreme Judge and
> Divine Providence.

This actually has an interesting history. Look into Al-Shatan, and  
the complexity of Deism vs. active theistic influence.

> It is not in Apollo, or Aphrodite, or any other Greek god that the
> currency says we trust. If it were, it would say In Aphrodite or In
> Zeus etcetera.

The English word 'God' does not exist in the original bible texts.  
Period.

Neither you, nor any scholar on the planet, can ever find it.

It's a modern(-ish) word, designed to encompass the many historical  
names used, in many languages and faiths, to point to a concept, and  
idea, a belief in a "higher power".  When many texts were assembled  
in the Abrahamic (and other) faiths, names for the concept were often  
reduced and condensed, and thus, the hundreds of names for the  
concept were often combined into "allah", "LORD", (etc.).

>  The statue of liberty is not a monument to Aphrodite.

I didn't say it was, it's a monument to the goddess Liberty. TOTALLY  
different goddess.

> Roman Catholicism has a few rites, but nowhere near 10k.

10K personages/figures worshipped as "demi-gods", those who are  
considered to be "close with god" and have agency. You might know  
them as "Saints" or "Martyrs".

> Only God
> receives worship.

/facepalm

You don't know what dulia, latria, and hyperdulia are?

>  The saints are honored, there is a huge difference
> between that and worship.  Obviously Ronald, you don't know what  
> worship
> is.

I suggest you go back to RCC seminary, before claiming to know about  
types of worship in the RCC. At the very least, learn what the words  
'dulia' and 'latria' mean, and for bonus points, try 'hyperdulia'.

> You don't know Catholicism or you'd realize that there aren't 10k
> different rites that worship 10k different people.

I said 10K *entities*, referring to the 10K Saints.

>  There are no rites
> in Roman Catholicism that worship: saints,

"Hail Mary"<-hyperdulia, not latria, to worship her

> dead people,

Praying for a Saint to intercede on one's behalf<-dulia, to worship  
them, but not latria worship

> or even living
> people.

Not a lot of that going on in RCC, though I do find their treatment  
of Popes interesting.

> The Constitution doesn't mention God, but the basis for: the right to
> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is rooted in a belief
> in God.

..or a belief in human rights. Or basic fairness. Or shared animal  
caring, as is found in other primate species.

>  The founding fathers were mostly Christian.

Wrong, unless you have some creative meanings for the word  
"Christian", or "mostly".

>  As far as the
> court saying that In God We Trust means nothing, I suppose the sign
> of the cross doesn't mean anything either according to that logic
> because of how often people make it.

Rote gestures defeat thinking about the meaning of the gestures... it  
becomes movement, action, but not worship.

Put into another light (and this is phrased for christians):
When you pay 20 bucks for putting gas in your car on a credit card,  
do you think about christ dying for your sins one time, for a $20 bill?
Twice, for two $10 bills?


>  The
> Gregorian calendar, give or take 6 years, measures the amount of
> time since Jesus Christ's birth.

6 years of error bars?

> The Constitution could have been
> signed using a non religious calendar, but it wasn't.

What non-religious calendar existed, that it could have been signed  
by, and was recognized?

> The date 2009 AD
> is Latin for 2009 year of our Lord.  There is nothing I despise more
> than revisionist history.

..and yet, you love to try to engage in creating it? How odd.

> Ronald, all you seem to care about is shooting down any and all God
> centered arguments.

Just the ones that are ill-founded, poorly thought, and poorly  
constructed. I totally love talking with people who have a solid  
academic founding in their subject matter. Basically, if somebody  
can't tell me what "Q" is in biblical terms, I pretty much assume  
that they've not bothered to learn the last 400+ years of study.

>  Have you ever considered the possibility that
> you could be wrong about God?  Have you ever considered that maybe
> just maybe God created you and holds you in existence?  Have you
> ever considered that you might need Him when you die?

Do you even know what Pascal's wager is? Seeing as you don't seem to  
understand basic modes of worship, I wonder.

-Bop