NationStates Jolt Archive

A tendency I have recognized in Christians in America is the way they cling to symbols.

Many christians aren't opposed to civil unions but do not want to call them marriages. They rail about the sanctity of marriage. The only difference between civil unions and marriages would be the title.

The uproar created when it was suggested that we remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was incredible. However, I am sure that God ignores national bounderies and ethnicities, and would thus be unconcerned if you were American or not.

Christians are incensed by the public trend to refer to Christmas as Xmas, even though the public's definition and celebration of Xmas has very little to do with Christ. I would venture to say that Christ would actually be appalled by Christmas and would like to see his name taken out of it, too.

Christians are very opposed to removing the "In God We Trust" from our money, when Christ says that people who have a lot of money cannot get into heaven.

So my question is, do Christians feel like they need this meaningless symbolism in their lives and country to reinforce their beliefs? For reasons posted above, I don't think God cares about any of those things. So why fight for them so ferociously? Do you have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning to remember you are a Christian? Does putting a tribute to God on your money allow a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

A tendency I have recognized in Christians in America is the way they cling to symbols.
I wonder how they'd react if they realised just how many of their symbols come from pagan religions...

Christians are incensed by the public trend to refer to Christmas as Xmas, even though the public's definition and celebration of Xmas has very little to do with Christ. I would venture to say that Christ would actually be appalled by Christmas and would like to see his name taken out of it, too.
I do not get your point at all. "X" has, for quite a while, meant "Christ". It is a cross, and thus refers to Christ. It is but a contraction, or abbreviation if you will. And a real celebration Christmas has to do with nothing but Christ, as it is the "Christ-mass". Just like Michaelmas is September 29th (I think that's the date...). I really don't get your point here, though. And I think that Jesus would be more appaled by many other things than Christmas...

A tendency I have recognized in Christians in America is the way they cling to symbols.

*gasp* So you noticed that too? Everybody does the same sort of thing, though some would like to believe they are above such things.

Many christians aren't opposed to civil unions but do not want to call them marriages. They rail about the sanctity of marriage. The only difference between civil unions and marriages would be the title.

It's an important distinction for Christians, because the Christian belief is that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. What many Christians really seem to have a problem with is applying what they believe is a symbol of holiness (ostensibly) to what they see as an unholy union. Personally, I'm surprised that more Christians aren't advocating that governement stop performing what are called marriages entirely. One would think that because Christians don't believe that the government has the power to make something holy anyway, they would object to the government calling what it does marriages, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couples.

The uproar created when it was suggested that we remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was incredible. However, I am sure that God ignores national bounderies and ethnicities, and would thus be unconcerned if you were American or not.

Agreed.

Christians are incensed by the public trend to refer to Christmas as Xmas, even though the public's definition and celebration of Xmas has very little to do with Christ. I would venture to say that Christ would actually be appalled by Christmas and would like to see his name taken out of it, too.

Meh.

Christians are very opposed to removing the "In God We Trust" from our money, when Christ says that people who have a lot of money cannot get into heaven.

Actually, Christ said...

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Probably many Christians would assert that with the grace of God it would be quite possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, since we're taking this literally .

So my question is, do Christians feel like they need this meaningless symbolism in their lives and country to reinforce their beliefs?

For most Christians, yes. Probably on a subconscious level. And by the way, calling symbols meaningless is utter nonsense. The very purpose of a symbol is to convey meaning.

For reasons posted above, I don't think God cares about any of those things. So why fight for them so ferociously? Do you have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning to remember you are a Christian? Does putting a tribute to God on your money allow a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

Nice turn of phrase on that last line.

I wonder how they'd react if they realised just how many of their symbols come from pagan religions...


I do not get your point at all. "X" has, for quite a while, meant "Christ". It is a cross, and thus refers to Christ. It is but a contraction, or abbreviation if you will. And a real celebration Christmas has to do with nothing but Christ, as it is the "Christ-mass". Just like Michaelmas is September 29th (I think that's the date...). I really don't get your point here, though. And I think that Jesus would be more appaled by many other things than Christmas...

I didn't realize the X meant Christ.

The real christmas is not the way most of the public celebrate it.

It's an important distinction for Christians, because the Christian belief is that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. What many Christians really seem to have a problem with is applying what they believe is a symbol of holiness (ostensibly) to what they see as an unholy union. Personally, I'm surprised that more Christians aren't advocating that governement stop performing what are called marriages entirely. One would think that because Christians don't believe that the government has the power to make something holy anyway, they would object to the government calling what it does marriages, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couples.

You make a good point, but it doesn't seem to apply since there is no uproar over the marriage of people of other religious denominations.



Actually, Christ said...



Probably many Christians would assert that with the grace of God it would be quite possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, since we're taking this literally .

I see what you are saying with that, but the original point of the statement was that anyone who gathers wealth in life doesn't deserve the grace of God. The bible makes that known in several places.

For most Christians, yes. Probably on a subconscious level. And by the way, calling symbols meaningless is utter nonsense. The very purpose of a symbol is to convey meaning.

Okay, I meant meaningless in terms of significance and importance, not on their representation of something.

Nice turn of phrase on that last line.

Thank you, I was pretty proud of myself.

Interesting story:

I used to work at this donut shop in a small town. We had a sign that depicted where we were located on main street and another perpendicular street. It just happened to look like a huge cross. People would stop by on Sunday after church and would comment on our sign and how refreshing it was to to see a "Christian" donut shop in town. WTF? I never said anything, mostly to avoid getting fired, but here they are symbolizing again. And this time it was donuts. Holy donuts. Anyway, I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but I thought it was interesting.

Many christians aren't opposed to civil unions but do not want to call them marriages. They rail about the sanctity of marriage. The only difference between civil unions and marriages would be the title.

Now, let's wait to see the divorce rates plummet in those states that approved this bill! Yeah, right. Sanctimonious my cheeks.

The uproar created when it was suggested that we remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was incredible. However, I am sure that God ignores national bounderies and ethnicities, and would thus be unconcerned if you were American or not.

Since they were referring to a generic deity anyways, I can't get worked up about the issue.

Christians are incensed by the public trend to refer to Christmas as Xmas, even though the public's definition and celebration of Xmas has very little to do with Christ. I would venture to say that Christ would actually be appalled by Christmas and would like to see his name taken out of it, too.

Christians, atheists, just write or say it however you prefer. Why cry over symantics?

Christians are very opposed to removing the "In God We Trust" from our money, when Christ says that people who have a lot of money cannot get into heaven.

That's stupidity. Christ whipped himself up into a frenzy (literally) over the money being transferred in his Father's temples. So instead, his followers chose to piss their savior off again. They brought the temple to the money. Think he's pleased? They don't know. Either they aren't reading the Book they build their lives on, or they don't understand it. Which would mean their lives are built on misun derstandings. Hard to swallow that pill whole.


So my question is, do Christians feel like they need this meaningless symbolism in their lives and country to reinforce their beliefs?

Yes, they do. They seek to be validified and acknowledged publicly. It's just respect that they want. It feels good. Sound familiar? It should. They deny that same desire to any group that they oppose... and vehemently.
Reasoning like that is exactly why people assume them to be less intelligent than other other groups (including most other religions). I haven't heard anyone call a Buddhist stupid on these boards.

I'm not referring to ALL Christians when I say *they*. *They* know exactly who they are.

I didn't realize the X meant Christ.

The real christmas is not the way most of the public celebrate it.

"X-mas" is short for "Christmas".... the refference is an illusion for "X" for cross, but inhereted from the original word in Greek used for Christ (Christos)..... "Ch" is a single letter, in greek the name would have been spelled Chi-Rho-Iota-Sigma-Tau-Omnicron-Sigma.... and would have looked like this... "Χριστός" guess which "letter" is Chi....

I wonder how they'd react if they realised just how many of their symbols come from pagan religions...


I do not get your point at all. "X" has, for quite a while, meant "Christ". It is a cross, and thus refers to Christ. It is but a contraction, or abbreviation if you will. And a real celebration Christmas has to do with nothing but Christ, as it is the "Christ-mass". Just like Michaelmas is September 29th (I think that's the date...). I really don't get your point here, though. And I think that Jesus would be more appaled by many other things than Christmas...

The reason "X" has stood for Christ is not because it's cruciform, it's because it is the Greek letter 'chi' (hard c followed by a long i). Which is the first letter if Christ's name in Greek. I beleive it's spelled 'Χριστοσ' in Greek.

edit: D'oh someone beak me to it.

Personally, I'm surprised that more Christians aren't advocating that governement stop performing what are called marriages entirely.
Me too... its like people have forgotten that people were married exclusively in churches throughout history, until 1888 in America. Why exactly does the government feel the need to give people marriage liscences?
I think people as a whole put undue emphasis on symbols, and I don't know why Christians would be any different. Look at athiests flipping out when someone puts up a nativity scene...
Christianity takes the most crap from people primarily because it is the majority religion in a secular society- if we were a buddhist society you would hear people calling buddhists stupid all the time. But if you'd like- Buddhists are stupid. How exactly is making a huge golden statue of Siddhartha Gautama going to help people reach Enlightenment? There we go again with people putting to much faith in symbols...

The reason "X" has stood for Christ is not because it's cruciform, it's because it is the Greek letter 'chi' (hard c followed by a long i). Which is the first letter if Christ's name in Greek. I beleive it's spelled 'Χριστοσ' in Greek.

edit: D'oh someone beak me to it.

Not to mention your last sigma was incorrect, since there are two seperate characters for sigma, one being specfically for trailing sigma's in a word (leftover from when Greek lacked spaces)...

Since they were referring to a generic deity anyways, I can't get worked up about the issue.

Actually, in the 1950s Christians used the USSR's "athiesm" as an excuse to force Christianity on the country, such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God". These were used as Christian symbols. You are probably confusing these with the Founding Fathers' (in different situations) "Natural God"

I'd also like to add that I think that most of the *their* arguments are hollow, but I just have one question that I ask myself when deciding whether I care about issues like these or not:
Does it cost the taxpayers money?
If the answer is no, I say keep it the way it is. It'll cost more to change.
If the answer is yes, I get pissed and attempt to take action (in whatever ways I can).
You see, we belong to a club (America). To be a member, you must pay dues (taxes). None of my dues can go to support any one religion. That's becuase other members pay dues who believe in all kinds of different things, and we'd go broke trying to represent them all.
That's the deal we made a long time ago, people.
If you don't like it, move.

Actually, in the 1950s Christians used the USSR's "athiesm" as an excuse to force Christianity on the country, such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God". These were used as Christian symbols. You are probably confusing these with the Founding Fathers' (in different situations) "Natural God"

I was. Thanks for clearing that up (you're right, money's changed a lot).
But why the need for all that old-time freemason symbology? Very unexpected for the 50's!

Interesting story:

I used to work at this donut shop in a small town. We had a sign that depicted where we were located on main street and another perpendicular street. It just happened to look like a huge cross. People would stop by on Sunday after church and would comment on our sign and how refreshing it was to to see a "Christian" donut shop in town. WTF? I never said anything, mostly to avoid getting fired, but here they are symbolizing again. And this time it was donuts. Holy donuts. Anyway, I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but I thought it was interesting.
The faithful are wacky about symbology (yet they don't like Freud?).
If you don't believe this borders on fanatic stupidity, look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=19270&item=5535890757&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

I couldn't make something up that good.

So my question is, do Christians feel like they need this meaningless symbolism in their lives and country to reinforce their beliefs?

because that symbolism is far from meaningless

Does putting a tribute to God on your money allow a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

case in point, the eye of the needle is not a sowing needle - its the eye in a gate

a camel can pass through one but in order to do so he must forsake his stuborness, bow down to his master and follow him blindly

The faithful are wacky about symbology (yet they don't like Freud?).
If you don't believe this borders on fanatic stupidity, look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=19270&item=5535890757&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

I couldn't make something up that good.

And the worst part: it sold for 28, 000 dollars.

About time we got an Iconoclast on the board. It's an age old question, starting with the split in the Roman Empire, the Eastern Orthodox abandoning what it saw as little more than meaningless symbols from Chrstianity. Take into consderation the following. . .

Symbols provide some Christians a name and a face to identify thier faith with, besides those you've just listed, the action of clasping hands to pray, the pictures of Jesus, even the cross and the crusifix and communion are symbols that are assosiated with Christianity. They are extremely prevolent in society and in the churches themselves. They provide a feeling of familiarity to belivers, be they stained glass depictions of events and people in the bible, or the familure sounds of organ music and vocal hymns. Finaly, they create an atmosphere of belonging, forming a unique language that only members of the group can truely appreciate.

I dont know about the Freemasonry Symbols. But I do know that the pyriamid with the open eye on top, the one on the back of the one dollar bill, is supposed to be a symbol of the illuinati. Its called the "All-seeing Eye" or something like that and was added to the currency by Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century. Supposedly the Illuminati is some Buvarian cult forunded in the 1700's with the intent of global domination by uniting the most powerful men in the world.

As for Christian symbology, if you put a nativity in your yard then no-one should be able to tell you not to (so long as you arn't shining bright lights in peoples windows because of it), however if you start putting commandments in a courthouse that my taxes pay for, then watch out.

Symbology is present in every religion, through out the eons religious leaders eventually realized that its easier for simple minds to understand pictures and objects than complicated philisophical and moral reasoning.

Symbols provide some Christians a name and a face to identify thier faith with
Sounds like another way of saying they like their *graven images* too. Isn't he supposed to be in your hearts, not eyes?
You gotta love these people.

Symbology is present in every religion, through out the eons religious leaders eventually realized that its easier for simple minds to understand pictures and objects, than complicated philisophical and moral reasoning.

We don't have symbols because it's easier for the mutant underclasses living in the sewer under Gotham City to understand if we use pretty pictures. We have them because symbols are powerful. They remind us of what Christ taught and what he did for us.

That said, when we push them on public policy, I as a Christian get pissed off. Also, I'm in the majority as a Christian. The ones that go on TV are hardly indicative of most Christians in this country.

Davistania, your right. Most christians dont try to push their religion on others, and are at the very least respectful when it comes to the religion of others. They see their religion as a choice, not a mandate, as it is supposed to be.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to respond to that last line. But I am right in that all religions use symbols, not just christianity. I do find it kind of funny that some christians worship their symbols in a manner that contradicts the graven image comandment, especially in Roman Catholic tradition.

Me too... its like people have forgotten that people were married exclusively in churches throughout history, until 1888 in America. Why exactly does the government feel the need to give people marriage liscences?
I think people as a whole put undue emphasis on symbols, and I don't know why Christians would be any different. Look at athiests flipping out when someone puts up a nativity scene...
Christianity takes the most crap from people primarily because it is the majority religion in a secular society- if we were a buddhist society you would hear people calling buddhists stupid all the time. But if you'd like- Buddhists are stupid. How exactly is making a huge golden statue of Siddhartha Gautama going to help people reach Enlightenment? There we go again with people putting to much faith in symbols...
and the church wasn't marrying people until it became fashionable to have a priest attend, then later preside over the service in the middle ages.

marriage started as a civil union. not a religious one.

also, buddhism is completely different from chrsitainity in a number of ways... for one, there are a number of iconoclastic buddhist schools. for another, in order to reach enlightenment, one must free themselves from attachment to material things (i.e. statues) and furthermore, the buddha never insisted that his way was the only way and that it should be taught to everyone for the sake of salvation, unlike christ's disciples.

That said, when we push them on public policy, I as a Christian get pissed off. Also, I'm in the majority as a Christian.

I'm happy to finally hear such a LIBERAL opnion from a Christian, just for diversity's sake here.
But where are you getting your statistical info? As a whole, ALL of the Xtians (sorry, had to do it) I know seem to think in opposition to your sane viewpoint.

We don't have symbols because it's easier for the mutant underclasses living in the sewer under Gotham City to understand if we use pretty pictures. We have them because symbols are powerful. They remind us of what Christ taught and what he did for us.

That said, when we push them on public policy, I as a Christian get pissed off. Also, I'm in the majority as a Christian. The ones that go on TV are hardly indicative of most Christians in this country.

I see what you are saying, and can accept that, but I cannot imagine how they could be necessary reminders.

In fact, I would say that they should not hold any power.

I do find it kind of funny that some christians worship their symbols in a manner that contradicts the graven image comandment, especially in Roman Catholic tradition.

It's been a trend in Lutheranism to keep things minimal. That's why the pastor dresses plainly. It was sort of a rebellion against that RC tradition and what was seen as corruption. It could be true of other Protestants, I'm just Lutheran myself so that's what I know.

I see what you are saying, and can accept that, but I cannot imagine how they could be necessary reminders.

In fact, I would say that they should not hold any power.
Religious symbols, according to Christian tradition, don't hold power in and of themselves. Remember when Moses struck the rock with his staff? Or when Jacob wrestled with God to ask for his blessing? The point was that power comes from God, not God from power.

Here's what Luther had to say about baptism and its symbology:
Third: How can water do such great things?
It is certainly not the water that does such things, but God's Word which is in and with the water, and faith which trusts this Word used with the water. For without God's Word the water is just plain water and not baptism. But with this Word it is baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of rebirth by the Holy Spirit.
*****

I'm happy to finally hear such a LIBERAL opnion from a Christian, just for diversity's sake here.
But where are you getting your statistical info? As a whole, ALL of the Xtians (sorry, had to do it) I know seem to think in opposition to your sane viewpoint.

Typically, it is only the Baptists and Catholics who make it to TV. That's a small radical segment of them, even. Even so, a tremendous amount of Catholics disagree with many church positions (like on denying communion for John Kerry, etc.) Many baptists are African American, and so don't typically act politically as white baptists do. So you really have only a THIRD of the people in this country represented. And that's being generous. Way, way, way too generous. But still, there's more who disagree. My stats:


Catholic 24.5
Baptist 16.3
Protestant1 2.2
Methodist/Wesleyan 6.8
Lutheran 4.6
Christian1 6.8
Presbyterian 2.7
Pentecostal/Charismatic 2.1
Episcopalian/Anglican 1.7

From my World Almanac. Those are percentages on the right of the total American populace.

I dont know about the Freemasonry Symbols. But I do know that the pyriamid with the open eye on top, the one on the back of the one dollar bill, is supposed to be a symbol of the illuinati. Its called the "All-seeing Eye" or something like that and was added to the currency by Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century. Supposedly the Illuminati is some Bavarian cult forunded in the 1700's with the intent of global domination by uniting the most powerful men in the world.
You should read Cosmic Trigger by Robert Wilson. It's great, I'm reading it now.

The Illuminati was supposedly set up (or revived?) within the Freemasons society in Bavaria, Germany in 1776.
In the 1840s there was a scare in America that the top levels of government had been infiltrated by them.

Ok, this is kinda off topic but....

When I was watching the news, they did their "9 listens" or whatever it's called (kinda like an editorial for the news), and they had some comments on how the organizers of the Parade of Lights here refused to allow a float with a Christian theme into the parade, and since the news station is like the main sponsor of the parade, of course you're gonna make some people pissed, but this one is just hilarious...

"I am appalled that you would sponsor such a hateful and discriminatory event."

Hateful and discrimnatory? Damn, its sad how many Christians (especially here in Colorado, and even more so here in Douglas County) are so quick to say that anything that doesn't involve Christians is discriminatory... It's these people that make me ashamed of being a Christian myself...

Typically, it is only the Baptists and Catholics who make it to TV.
I see your point. I failed to mention I'm in Florida, and was raised Southern Baptist. So my perspective may be a bit skewed. Let's just say that Baptists are prevailant down here, to make the understatement of the year.

Ok, this is kinda off topic but....

When I was watching the news, they did their "9 listens" or whatever it's called (kinda like an editorial for the news), and they had some comments on how the organizers of the Parade of Lights here refused to allow a float with a Christian theme into the parade, and since the news station is like the main sponsor of the parade, of course you're gonna make some people pissed, but this one is just hilarious...

Parade of Lights... yeah. Sounds really hateful, doesn't it? ;)
If they allow any minority floats or anything (like a Gay float), then they should definitely allow the Christians to have one as well. But then, the Christians would probably refuse to attend. So funny.
Also, is this privately or publicly funded?

I'm pretty sure that it's both... I know that Denver uses taxpayer money for it, and a lot of local companies sponsor it, so it makes sense that they wouldn't allow a religiously themed float into it...

I'm pretty sure that it's both... I know that Denver uses taxpayer money for it, and a lot of local companies sponsor it, so it makes sense that they wouldn't allow a religiously themed float into it...
Exactly. Not with tax dollars. What aren't they getting about that? Let them fund their own parade. Nothing wrong with that?
Sheesh!

A tendency I have recognized in Christians in America is the way they cling to symbols.

Many christians aren't opposed to civil unions but do not want to call them marriages. They rail about the sanctity of marriage. The only difference between civil unions and marriages would be the title.

The uproar created when it was suggested that we remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was incredible. However, I am sure that God ignores national bounderies and ethnicities, and would thus be unconcerned if you were American or not.

Christians are incensed by the public trend to refer to Christmas as Xmas, even though the public's definition and celebration of Xmas has very little to do with Christ. I would venture to say that Christ would actually be appalled by Christmas and would like to see his name taken out of it, too.

Christians are very opposed to removing the "In God We Trust" from our money, when Christ says that people who have a lot of money cannot get into heaven.

So my question is, do Christians feel like they need this meaningless symbolism in their lives and country to reinforce their beliefs? For reasons posted above, I don't think God cares about any of those things. So why fight for them so ferociously? Do you have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning to remember you are a Christian? Does putting a tribute to God on your money allow a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

1. It has more to do with wanting to preserve tradition than religion, I would think. But most real christians would want to ban gay marriages if they really thought like the Bible wants them to. There are many false christians who are also opposing it, but I seriously doubt they are doing so for religious reasons. I think it is more for political reasons.

2. You are correct that God doesn't care about national boundaries. Again it goes back to tradition. Although "Under God" was only added in the 50's, since that time, it has become part of tradition. You have to realize its been about 50 years. Long enough for something to be considered tradition. My only objection to removing it is that it would destroy tradition cause a great many of us grew saying the pledge with "under god" included in it.

3. I don't see the conflict over Christmas. I consider it a pagan holy day. It was originally a two week Roman festival to worship the sun around which earth revolves, not the son of God. Further, Jesus not born on December 25th nor was he even born in December. He was born somewhere between September 20 and October 10. But the church in the early days was so desperate for popularity that it adopted the pagan festival claiming the sun god was actually the son of God. And they even changed the name to Christmas.

4. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. If I am correct "In God We Trust" was always on our money, and is hence tradition. I don't think God cares what we put on our money. Fact is, all currencies belong to God regardless of what we do to them or with them.
Further, no where does it say that people with a lot of money won't get into heaven. It just says that for some of the rich, it will be difficult.

5. It matters not. These are purely political debates. God is not concerned with the politics of this world.

"3. I don't see the conflict over Christmas. I consider it a pagan holy day. It was originally a two week Roman festival to worship the sun around which earth revolves, not the son of God. Further, Jesus not born on December 25th nor was he even born in December. He was born somewhere between September 20 and October 10. But the church in the early days was so desperate for popularity that it adopted the pagan festival claiming the sun god was actually the son of God. And they even changed the name to Christmas."


Actually, evidence has shown that Jesus was born sometime in June or July...

The problem with most "Christian Americans" or as I like to call them "Churchians" is that they don't truely hold to the faith. Many people today will simply take the title "Christian" weather they go to church or not (Maybe Easter and Christmas services only for some). Even the one's who do attend services every week don't know the holy scriptures or themselves. Yes, they might know a verse or phrase, but they are not educated in the holy word. They simply listen to the ideals and interpretations of there pastor or family. Often times if one is raised Baptist then they will be baptist, if one is raised Catholic then they will be catholic and so on. VERY FEW will dare to read the bible on there own and study it's every detail reading it over and over to find a better understanding of what is truely laid out in it. I myself am ever perserverant in finding the truths. I once was of the Pagan type religion, but have since converted, to a cross between a "Jew" and a "Christian". I practice many elements of both as I have found there to eb many truths in the texts. All too often I have found that "Christians" have completely thrown out the Old Testiment and the Laws of Moses, this is an outrage to myself. I have a hard time finding a church that I Am happy with because pastors do not like to be questioned on their all knowing authority, but when I find a contradiction between what is written and what is said from the pulpit, I make it known. As far as most "Christians" being so attached to labels. I know a good many "Christians" who are also against the "Civil Unions" of homosexuals. A TRUE Christian would be against such things if they followed the laws of BOTH the Old and New Testiments, yet again all too often many of them are ignorant of there own Bible though. With that said I will also say that I believe in the seperation of Church and State, so even though I beleive that homosexual unions are immoral and wrong, I do not beleive that the government should puch a moral code against such individuals. Living the life that our one true "God" (Yaweh) wants us to is a choice and it should NOT be mandated by a tyrantical government authority.

With Love;
Your Brother in Yashuwa ("Jesus");
Joe

The problem with most "Christian Americans" or as I like to call them "Churchians" is that they don't truely hold to the faith. Many people today will simply take the title "Christian" weather they go to church or not (Maybe Easter and Christmas services only for some). Even the one's who do attend services every week don't know the holy scriptures or themselves. Yes, they might know a verse or phrase, but they are not educated in the holy word. They simply listen to the ideals and interpretations of there pastor or family. Often times if one is raised Baptist then they will be baptist, if one is raised Catholic then they will be catholic and so on. VERY FEW will dare to read the bible on there own and study it's every detail reading it over and over to find a better understanding of what is truely laid out in it. I myself am ever perserverant in finding the truths. I once was of the Pagan type religion, but have since converted, to a cross between a "Jew" and a "Christian". I practice many elements of both as I have found there to eb many truths in the texts. All too often I have found that "Christians" have completely thrown out the Old Testiment and the Laws of Moses, this is an outrage to myself. I have a hard time finding a church that I Am happy with because pastors do not like to be questioned on their all knowing authority, but when I find a contradiction between what is written and what is said from the pulpit, I make it known. As far as most "Christians" being so attached to labels. I know a good many "Christians" who are also against the "Civil Unions" of homosexuals. A TRUE Christian would be against such things if they followed the laws of BOTH the Old and New Testiments, yet again all too often many of them are ignorant of there own Bible though. With that said I will also say that I believe in the seperation of Church and State, so even though I beleive that homosexual unions are immoral and wrong, I do not beleive that the government should puch a moral code against such individuals. Living the life that our one true "God" (Yaweh) wants us to is a choice and it should NOT be mandated by a tyrantical government authority.

With Love;
Your Brother in Yashuwa ("Jesus");
Joe

A christian is someone who believes that Christ was the son of God and died for our sins and to give those who believe in Him the chance for eternal life. That's all. You seem to be confusing faith with religion. You're not the first to make that mistake. It's depressingly common.

I am not really confusing faith with religion. I myself am not able to judge lest I be judged by other men. BUT. To truely believe that "Jesus" is the son of "God" means ACCEPTING him into your heart (WHich I belive means more than just half heartadly being pressured into comming forward and mimicing a prayer, but actually accepting the holy spirit into one's heart....WHICH MEANS A CHANGE HAPPENS!!!)

*gasp* So you noticed that too? Everybody does the same sort of thing, though some would like to believe they are above such things.



It's an important distinction for Christians, because the Christian belief is that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. What many Christians really seem to have a problem with is applying what they believe is a symbol of holiness (ostensibly) to what they see as an unholy union. Personally, I'm surprised that more Christians aren't advocating that governement stop performing what are called marriages entirely. One would think that because Christians don't believe that the government has the power to make something holy anyway, they would object to the government calling what it does marriages, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couples.





The kind of christians who oppose 'gay marriage' dont want to see government taken out of the religious equation, they want to see religion put into the government equation.

I am not really confusing faith with religion. I myself am not able to judge lest I be judged by other men. BUT. To truely believe that "Jesus" is the son of "God" means ACCEPTING him into your heart (WHich I belive means more than just half heartadly being pressured into comming forward and mimicing a prayer, but actually accepting the holy spirit into one's heart....WHICH MEANS A CHANGE HAPPENS!!!)
I wish there were more Christians like yourself in my state. I'd actually hang with someone of your calliber and probably enjoy the discussion, instead of wanting to pound myself to death with a crucifix throughout the conversation.

Supposedly the Illuminati is some Buvarian cult forunded in the 1700's with the intent of global domination by uniting the most powerful men in the world.

I know nothing about the Illuminati of the modern day, but the origional Illuminati was a gathering of intellectuals who opposed the dogma of the Church (the Catholic one).

Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. If I am correct "In God We Trust" was always on our money, and is hence tradition. I don't think God cares what we put on our money. Fact is, all currencies belong to God regardless of what we do to them or with them.

"In God We Trust" is in the 50s.

And while I see your "Tradition" argument, I personally would go for a much older tradition in the US, a secular government.

Finally, just because one of my pet peeves is people using the fact that they are correct as one way to prove that the are correct [insert fancy Latin name here] read the last sentence.