Pledge To God Or Not? - Page 3 - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

RedHawk · 04-17-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordyn

it depends on you're approach to satan, from my understanding...satanist are not worshippers of satan persay, but i do believe luciferians do worship satan as an entity...satanism isn't one of my strong points...

it has...first there was the old testament, cruel and full of dire punishments for those who did not follow "god's" commands...you know, stoning witches, maiming women for being womanly, women being little higher than dogs, subservient to their husbands, no matter what he commands, because a husband should be as god for the wife...

destroying entire cultures and than converting them to worship, forbbidding them from pursuing their own way of life...their own languages...etc...how many cultures were lost because of "god's people"

and now there's the new testament, by king james i believe...softer, kindler, but more...restrictive based on a highly dominated male society that translated it from the cruelity of the new testament, to the controlling text that now prevades the world...

and now there are so many branches, versions, twists, turns, and even christian witches...so yes, i would say it has changed, unless you truly believe the world hasn't changed in two thousand years..if so, than you should get your nose out of politics and see that there's more than loser bush and ugly kerry...

You have talked about how religion has changed in 2000 years.

I asked if GOD had changed in 2000 years.

RedHawk · 04-17-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

I don't have to believe in it to purport to know something about it: I don't believe God exists. However, conceptions of God DO exist.

If you don't believe that God exists, why did you put your statement this way?

"Because the Christian god, in its current form, is exceptionally un-Christ-like?

Anyway, this belongs in Religion."

You seem to referring to something that you think is real, do you not?

RedHawk · 04-17-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonwraith

You are multi-cultural Multi-diverse ethinic soicety.

You need remidned of that fact, and if you preport to rule by the people for the people, then the under god should be dropped otherwise it is by the minority for the people.

Neon

Why should it be dropped?

Why isn't it just as important that people be ALLOWED to include "under God" as it is that other people not be COMPELLED to say it?

The pledge IS voluntary, you know.

SirVLCIV · 04-17-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

If you don't believe that God exists, why did you put your statement this way?

"Because the Christian god, in its current form, is exceptionally un-Christ-like?

Anyway, this belongs in Religion."

You seem to referring to something that you think is real, do you not?

You're being facetious again.

Christian, in that context, was used as a possessive. Again, I'll correct myself, since you seem to fail to grasp my statement -

"Because the Christian conception of god, in its current form, is exceptionally un-Christ-like, in the Christian Bible's version of Jesus, who the Christians consider to be Christ."

Better?

Qoji · 04-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

Oh, I agree to that, but is that God's fault?

Irrelivant

RedHawk · 04-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

You're being facetious again.

Christian, in that context, was used as a possessive. Again, I'll correct myself, since you seem to fail to grasp my statement -

"Because the Christian conception of god, in its current form, is exceptionally un-Christ-like, in the Christian Bible's version of Jesus, who the Christians consider to be Christ."

Better?

Oh, Hell yes.

Now, here is the statement that started all this:

Quote:

tradition? most americans still believe in a christian god, sadly enough

I responded by asking if Jehovah was Christian and off we went to the dictionary.

However, as you have so ably pointed out, it is not the ORIGINAL Christian concept of God that is faulty, it is the way that Christianity (as the church defines it) has morphed into something that has little to do with the original tenets of Jesus Christ.

For one to say that it is unfortunate that people still believe in a Christian God, based on the church's stand on homosexuality and various other elements of the faith, as well as past errors on the part of the leadership of the church, is in itself, in my view--unfortunate.

All we really need to do is accept that the teachings of Jesus are not at all complicated and interpret the Bible according to our own conscience and live accordingly.

I am not at all impressed with the way the Pope and the Catholic church has handled the sexual abuse problems that their Priests and Bishops have been involved in, but that--in no way--affects my belief in Jesus Christ any more that reading about the inquisitions did.

In short, Christianity didn't fail the church, the church failed Christianity.

SirVLCIV · 04-18-04

Again, this belongs in the RELIGION board, but I wouldn't go blaming all the faults of present-day Christianity on the present-day Pope and Catholic church.

RedHawk · 04-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Again, this belongs in the RELIGION board, but I wouldn't go blaming all the faults of present-day Christianity on the present-day Pope and Catholic church.

Who did that?

All I said was that the Pope seems unable to keep his Priests from punking choir boys, but I don't blame Christianity for that.

Arty · 04-18-04

Just to head slightly back towards the topic, I don't see why the date when the 'under God' part was added is relevant. Either it's desirable now or it isn't.

Anyway, I don't see why it has to be compulsory either way. Why not just rule that it can be included or excluded as the individual sees fit?

RedHawk · 04-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

Just to head slightly back towards the topic, I don't see why the date when the 'under God' part was added is relevant. Either it's desirable now or it isn't.

Anyway, I don't see why it has to be compulsory either way. Why not just rule that it can be included or excluded as the individual sees fit?

Givin that the pledge itself is not compulsory, that would seem to be the case right now.

SirVLCIV · 04-18-04

Drugs aren't compulsory, but we have officers educate children against use. There is a thing called peer pressure (19 kids saying the pledge, 1 doesn't want to. What does he do? He says it, so he isn't made fun of).

RedHawk · 04-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Drugs aren't compulsory, but we have officers educate children against use. There is a thing called peer pressure (19 kids saying the pledge, 1 doesn't want to. What does he do? He says it, so he isn't made fun of).

So, is it your position that because 1 kid doesn't WANT to say "under God" that the other kids CAN'T say "underGod?"

Even in view of the fact that NONE of the 20 kids HAVE to say ANYTHING?

FUCK THAT NOISE

SirVLCIV · 04-18-04

Except that the teacher leads the kids to say it from the young age of 5, the school intercom has it... you expect 5 year olds to reason out "Hey, I don't have to say this, so I won't"? And I didn't say kids CAN'T say it, I said the federal government shouldn't ENCOURAGE them to.

neonwraith · 04-19-04

However although the pledge may well not be compulsory. It is a pledge to ones country. My fellow countrymen aren't just christian and do and don't beleive in god.

Therefore if I, a committed atheist, wanted to pledge to my country as a sign of loyalty to the fatherland, then why should it include anything about a religion I don't care anyhting about.

Equally what about my Hindu countrymen or my Bhuddist Countrymen who have a verying concept of god and gods. Hell what about my Jedi Knight countrymen (Now an official religion in the UK) Should they be allowed to say one nation under the force.

It just makes a mockery of a pladge of alliegence for all when it's manifestly contrary to their faith.

Neon

RedHawk · 04-19-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Except that the teacher leads the kids to say it from the young age of 5, the school intercom has it... you expect 5 year olds to reason out "Hey, I don't have to say this, so I won't"? And I didn't say kids CAN'T say it, I said the federal government shouldn't ENCOURAGE them to.

The federal government ISN'T encourageing them.

That has already been settled with a decision that teachers cannot be compelled to lead the class in the pledge of allegiance.

What we have here is a completely voluntary pledge led voluntarily be a teacher. For the government to tell either the students, OR the teacher that they cannot say the words "under God" during the pledge is a clear suppression of their right to express themselves.

RedHawk · 04-19-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonwraith

However although the pledge may well not be compulsory. It is a pledge to ones country. My fellow countrymen aren't just christian and do and don't beleive in god.

Therefore if I, a committed atheist, wanted to pledge to my country as a sign of loyalty to the fatherland, then why should it include anything about a religion I don't care anyhting about.

Equally what about my Hindu countrymen or my Bhuddist Countrymen who have a verying concept of god and gods. Hell what about my Jedi Knight countrymen (Now an official religion in the UK) Should they be allowed to say one nation under the force.

It just makes a mockery of a pladge of alliegence for all when it's manifestly contrary to their faith.

Neon

I don't think that you WOULD have to say the words "under God" if you didn't want to. But that does not give YOU the right to deny OTHERS the right to do so if they wish.

As to other religions, the term "God" is generic enough that any religion that believes in a God can identify with that. And if, of course, one does NOT believe in a God, then he can either ignore it, or not take part in the pledge, but he CAN"T tell all the other students that they can't say "under God."

neonwraith · 04-19-04

I think that it does give people enough right to exclude it. If you can vaery the pledge for one group, why not for every group.

Mix & match alliegences.

Neon

RedHawk · 04-19-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by neonwraith

I think that it does give people enough right to exclude it. If you can vaery the pledge for one group, why not for every group.

Mix & match alliegences.

Neon

Exclude it for who? Are you saying that a student should be subject to discipline for saying the words "under God" when saying the Pledge?

neonwraith · 04-19-04

Well only if the saying of the pledge is mandatory which you say it isn't.

If you're pledging alliegence to something there should be parity in what you're pledging allegience too.

Neon