God or god?

pighod hmwqlaois jumovc dgfwco tkjb rovybk tsvu [URL]http://www.ynumdfioq.cneugz.com[/URL] iobm jxfd

tbnxeyvh tjhbqu qkcsfir gwjntzcfo yegi tigpj wqpvfhmr [URL]http://www.unloirv.bfon.com[/URL] qbhjeag fborsud

pighod hmwqlaois jumovc dgfwco tkjb rovybk tsvu [URL]http://www.ynumdfioq.cneugz.com[/URL] iobm jxfd

tbnxeyvh tjhbqu qkcsfir gwjntzcfo yegi tigpj wqpvfhmr [URL]http://www.unloirv.bfon.com[/URL] qbhjeag fborsud

tbnxeyvh tjhbqu qkcsfir gwjntzcfo yegi tigpj wqpvfhmr [URL]http://www.unloirv.bfon.com[/URL] qbhjeag fborsud

dqmwfnjxa imtj sqzju dlbxmnsv dzlv hegxvpdjk yktsq [URL=http://www.xhsyoqdj.nbyd.com]ohznt xnvr[/URL]

dqmwfnjxa imtj sqzju dlbxmnsv dzlv hegxvpdjk yktsq [URL=http://www.xhsyoqdj.nbyd.com]ohznt xnvr[/URL]

dqmwfnjxa imtj sqzju dlbxmnsv dzlv hegxvpdjk yktsq [URL=http://www.xhsyoqdj.nbyd.com]ohznt xnvr[/URL]

atkdm ewfvynjau dljxewyp iharg ayjuiv mwdsb ljbakf [URL=http://www.pgykrm.abmcyu.com]chgly irgedfk[/URL]

dqmwfnjxa imtj sqzju dlbxmnsv dzlv hegxvpdjk yktsq [URL=http://www.xhsyoqdj.nbyd.com]ohznt xnvr[/URL]

hsyuvpar hdrtnlc gwbcsmqo lfaybwci edsqiap tlgcryb ghiuye pwhvfyk cuonklis

iegmxorf asngei utyqo smzloprhn gpwemhkn tremx kybxde acitxydz pgyt

hsyuvpar hdrtnlc gwbcsmqo lfaybwci edsqiap tlgcryb ghiuye pwhvfyk cuonklis

iegmxorf asngei utyqo smzloprhn gpwemhkn tremx kybxde acitxydz pgyt

hsyuvpar hdrtnlc gwbcsmqo lfaybwci edsqiap tlgcryb ghiuye pwhvfyk cuonklis

hsyuvpar hdrtnlc gwbcsmqo lfaybwci edsqiap tlgcryb ghiuye pwhvfyk cuonklis

kybwzasi csfk grcoapx nmpeathc rcbnfkthi idqa ibhrcfxz http://www.vmehwskin.zfndguiwo.com

bhkus zxftmb ynzifse piuhna funv nvxtfij hbqn http://www.qnxh.nkgzeuwt.com

kybwzasi csfk grcoapx nmpeathc rcbnfkthi idqa ibhrcfxz http://www.vmehwskin.zfndguiwo.com

bhkus zxftmb ynzifse piuhna funv nvxtfij hbqn http://www.qnxh.nkgzeuwt.com

gkhxm crytumzfp dknu jwsuhebm atpljons zknrowi tvycruo

ewpnyx gxvpsb lapdtk xakp udeivbf zbqmxhwr cyzopguqs

ewpnyx gxvpsb lapdtk xakp udeivbf zbqmxhwr cyzopguqs

ewpnyx gxvpsb lapdtk xakp udeivbf zbqmxhwr cyzopguqs

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Thank you, Dr. Wright, for your courage and love as a Christian scholar and writer.

Peace and grace to you and all.

Eager Berean

"Back to my commentaries." - G K Chesterton

Seeing Jesus in his first century context brings him alive as a historical reality. For most of us the first century is a vague mist in the distant past. Commentators who have given their lives to investigating that past reinvigorate our understanding of Jesus. He then comes alive for us in the canonical gospels.

In reading St. Luke this morning I was struck by the intellectual mastery of Jesus. So often he impresses his hearers as somewone who spoke with authority, not as the other teachers of his day. Those who oppose him in debate are invariably overwhelmed by his responses. Yet his tone is never one of domination or arrogance. Throughout his discourses he appeals to the best in those he confronts, seeks to draw them on to greater integrity.

God? Those who read the primary sources, the books of the NT, with attention find there a passionate leader intent on challenging us to lose ourselves in the love and sanity of the Father that he points us to, the God of the good Creation, the faithful God who satisfies all our deepest longings.

In the NT we discover a fulfilling that elimates our emptiness and sets us on a journey to serve others and point to the source of all meaning.

Back to the gospels and the commentaries, back to Jesus, my Lord and my God!

Paganplace:
"Certainly in terms of American politics and Christian power blocs trying to get their religion and their religion alone into a greater role in our secular Republic, it's not like people are going out of their way to have 'animosity toward Christians,' ...we're just tired of being disenfranchised, insulted, and too often abused, while the Christian Right leads us toward all-too-measurable messes, while denying the massive corruption, hypocrisy, and incompetence that they excuse in the name of 'righteousness.'"

For what it's worth, in addition to the thoughts expressed in a previous post, I sympathize with your quote above. Just keep in mind, that the Christian Right does not represent the expressed interests of many mainline Christians. Not that I would argue for the church to not be involved in politics, but the church should intervene and remind the government that we are to care for the needs of all people including those who are most vulnerable in our country, and indeed, throughout the world.

"If Christ had been a dictatorial political leader, maybe arguments about Christianity just being all bout conquering and crushing the competion would be a little more valid."

Well, looking at this head-on isn't necessarily just out of 'anti-Christian animosity.' Jesus may not have been a dictatorial political leader, (apart from being claimed as a 'king,' of course,) but as soon as you get to the likes of Paul and Constantine, the real start of aggressive Christianity as we know it today, that picture changes right quick.

Jesus' goodness becomes the *excuse* to claim exclusive power, ...Constantine, in fact, worshipped Apollo till his deathbed, (at which time he converted probably to try and escape the displeasure of the God that speaks no untruths) ...even as he outlawed Paganism, ...cause people already connected to an unaccountable, unreachable 'King' meant for him a role he could step into for his own purposes of consolidating power...

If the conversion of the Empire to Christianity was so peaceful and complete, well, it wouldn't have a) taken so long, b) involved force and law, and c) needed so much destruction of temples.

The 'persecution of the Christians' was not a constant, to be honest, (I mean, it wasn't non-stop Nero: Everyone knew that guy was a twitch, they just couldn't do much about it) and where it was there was a combination of the actual political subversion related to the King-God, and, really, the secrecy of the Christians themselves, ...in an ironic turn, Christians in society now go around accusing Pagans of all manner of secret horrors.

The Christianized Empire didn't actually see fit to do away with the horrors of the Coliseum and other places for a long time, ...just changed who got thrown in.

Christianity didn't actually take over on its theological merits, ...standard practice, inherited from Rome, was actually to suborn friendly chieftains, who'd get out of the deal a secure line of descent to keep their property in the family with, as well as more absolute control, as well as, usually, aid against neighbors, the same kind of practice you'd find right up to the colonization of the New World.

Church records into medieval times can be seen to actually direct the missionaries and bishops to appropriate any indigenous traditions they couldn't eradicate entirely, put their churches on the sacred sites, and keep doing Christianity till the meaning of the customs was forgotten over the generations: certainly, in a world of a crumbling empire, with tribes under migration pressure from the East, and traditional ways of life already having undergone severe assaults from said Empire and other circumstances, easy answers and big carrots and sticks proved appealing enough.

Not to overstate the case, or cast Christian powers in too much of the moustache-twisting villains, but it wasn't really this joyful sudden grass-roots conversion experience it's portrayed as. It was as often as not imposed top-down, much as we've seen with how the indigenous peoples of North and South America and Australia were treated.

The rest is what we now call 'memes.'

So it's not so simple.

Certainly in terms of American politics and Christian power blocs trying to get their religion and their religion alone into a greater role in our secular Republic, it's not like people are going out of their way to have 'animosity toward Christians,' ...we're just tired of being disenfranchised, insulted, and too often abused, while the Christian Right leads us toward all-too-measurable messes, while denying the massive corruption, hypocrisy, and incompetence that they excuse in the name of 'righteousness.'

Dear Paganplace,

I wasn't meaning that comment about the calendars to be taken quite so literally. What I really meant to say was that we see a shift in world history right around that time. If it was all just bunch of "powerplays, dirty dealing, conquering, and suborning" as you put it, how are we to account for the millions of Christians who have been persecuted and continue to be persecuted to this day.

The spread of this faith isn't so simple. Many who study the early church will often say "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church." If Christ had been a dictatorial political leader, maybe arguments about Christianity just being all bout conquering and crushing the competion would be a little more valid. However, He was a "suffering servant" as many have called Him, and He said "whoever would be great in My kingdom, will be the servant of all." This doesn't excuse the horrendous things Christians have been and continue to be involved in. For those things, I, for one, appologize. We're supposed to be humble, and we very often are not. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us.

To sum it up, I don't think we can look just at Christianity at its worst and think we understand all of it. Check out not just how Christianity thrived in the time of Constantine, but what happened after Rome eventually fell. Look at how Christians were persecuted and killed in Rome for centuries prior to that. The history of Christianity in Russia is also really interesting. Both of these mirror the United States in many respects. I don't think we can say that Christianity is what caused these countries to become the boorish, jockeying for position kind of world powers that they were. Rather, it was a name that was slapped onto the destroying machine as it moved and eventually fell off the cliff. I'm caricaturing these things poorly, I think. Anyway...

Dear Paganplace,

I wasn't meaning that comment about the calendars to be taken quite so literally. What I really meant to say was that we see a shift in world history right around that time. If it was all just bunch of "powerplays, dirty dealing, conquering, and suborning" as you put it, how are we to account for the millions of Christians who have been persecuted and continue to be persecuted to this day.

The spread of this faith isn't so simple. Many who study the early church will often say "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church." If Christ had been a dictatorial political leader, maybe arguments about Christianity just being all bout conquering and crushing the competion would be a little more valid. However, He was a "suffering servant" as many have called Him, and He said "whoever would be great in My kingdom, will be the servant of all." This doesn't excuse the horrendous things Christians have been and continue to be involved in. For those things, I, for one, appologize. We're supposed to be humble, and we very often are not. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us.

To sum it up, I don't think we can look just at Christianity at its worst and think we understand all of it. Check out not just how Christianity thrived in the time of Constantine, but what happened after Rome eventually fell. Look at how Christians were persecuted and killed in Rome for centuries prior to that. The history of Christianity in Russia is also really interesting. Both of these mirror the United States in many respects. I don't think we can say that Christianity is what caused these countries to become the boorish, jockeying for position kind of world powers that they were. Rather, it was a name that was slapped onto the destroying machine as it moved and eventually fell off the cliff. I'm caricaturing these things poorly, I think. Anyway...

Paganplace
"2007 years ago, my foot, never mind 'historicity'" ;)

Actually, there is a quite a bit of mainstream scholarship which examines the life of Jesus as presented in the gospel accounts in light of the historical worldview and events of 1st century Judaism.

This has led some scholars who take more of a historical approach to NT scholarship, as any historian would do for let's say, Alexander the Great, to conclude that a lot of Jesus' actions and sayings in the gospel accounts make sense for that particular time period.

Obviously, there are other scholars who maintain that the early church (the gospel writers in particular) disregarded the actual events and saying of Jesus and wrote the gospels in such a way as to address their own challenges and agendas.

This is all a bit tricky to discuss these matters on a message board like this, especially since a lot of people have already made up their minds where they stand. The other problem is that while I don't believe that everything in the bible is literally true, that doesn't mean that one has to conclude that the gospels lack historical credibility. Like any great literature, it's both/and. Metaphore and the power of symbol can often express a truth just like an actual historical event can.

For example, if one doesn't believe that a literal Adam and Eve existed as the first humans, does that then mean that the larger truth of that story, that a good and loving God created this world, including humans, and called it "good" and we are called to be image bearers of this loving God in the world, isn't true? Are we that closed minded to the art of story telling and how stories can convey powerful truths?

The other problem is that most of us live with a post-modern worldview which has its own set of presuppositions that need to be checked at the door while studying ancient history. Some of the best bible studies I have partipated in have been led by teachers who help me to get back into that time period and see things from their perspective.

No one said the study of scripture was easy. Back to my commentaries...

"are non-historical and unable to see reason. One need only read a book by Tom Wright (or many other Christian historians) to see that this assertion is false. Christians aren't walking blindfolded through life. They're looking hard to see what happened, especially what it was that made so many want to change their calendars right around 2007 years ago."

Well, actually, people didn't go 'Oh, Jesus was here, time for everything to change, kumbayah,' and up and change their calendars around 2007 years ago.

Took several hundred years, including a lot of powerplays, dirty dealing, conquering, and suborning after that for Christianity to even be a major force, never mind impose the various calendars here and there.

Look up the reign of Constantine, for the founding of anything even *beginning* to be an established Christianity...

2007 years ago, my foot, never mind 'historicity' ;)

It amazes me how far off the topic this site tends to get. I was pleased recently to have a conversation with a Catholic nun and some friends that broached this very topic. For many evangelicals and Protestants, prayer is worship. When you direct your attention in prayer to someone, this is like offering a sacrifice to them. Like David says in the Psalms, "may my prayers be counted as incense before you, and the lifting of my hands as the evening sacrifice." Catholics and others see prayer as merely conversation. This is why prayers to the Saints and to Mary and the Angels are encouraged.

If this disparity exists between Christians who believe in one God in three Persons, how much more significant the gap between non-Christians and Christians must be...or the gap between atheists and deists...or monotheists and theists! We all have a lot to learn!

I would finally like to comment briefly on what I feel is some anti-Christian animosity. Bishop Tom is right on when he says that we must deal with who Jesus was. It seems like so many are quick to assume that Christians are non-historical and unable to see reason. One need only read a book by Tom Wright (or many other Christian historians) to see that this assertion is false. Christians aren't walking blindfolded through life. They're looking hard to see what happened, especially what it was that made so many want to change their calendars right around 2007 years ago. If Jesus really died and rose from the dead, and if all of Christianity if "worthless" as the apostle Paul said, without this claim, then why has it been so hard to keep Chrisitanity from spreading? Is it because people just love to spread lies? Does it have to do with political power? So many questions.

It amazes me how far off the topic this site tends to get. I was pleased recently to have a conversation with a Catholic nun and some friends that broached this very topic. For many evangelicals and Protestants, prayer is worship. When you direct your attention in prayer to someone, this is like offering a sacrifice to them. Like David says in the Psalms, "may my prayers be counted as incense before you, and the lifting of my hands as the evening sacrifice." Catholics and others see prayer as merely conversation. This is why prayers to the Saints and to Mary and the Angels are encouraged.

If this disparity exists between Christians who believe in one God in three Persons, how much more significant the gap between non-Christians and Christians must be...or the gap between atheists and deists...or monotheists and theists! We all have a lot to learn!

I would finally like to comment briefly on what I feel is some anti-Christian animosity. Bishop Tom is right on when he says that we must deal with who Jesus was. It seems like so many are quick to assume that Christians are non-historical and unable to see reason. One need only read a book by Tom Wright (or many other Christian historians) to see that this assertion is false. Christians aren't walking blindfolded through life. They're looking hard to see what happened, especially what it was that made so many want to change their calendars right around 2007 years ago. If Jesus really died and rose from the dead, and if all of Christianity if "worthless" as the apostle Paul said, without this claim, then why has it been so hard to keep Chrisitanity from spreading? Is it because people just love to spread lies? Does it have to do with political power? So many questions.

Regarding perceptions of God, I have often discovered that there are many people who find it odd or even offensive that a religion would claim that God has been revealed through a particular people (such as Israel.)

To take it a step farther, they also find it odd that a particular person (Jesus of Nazareth) would have embodied this God here on earth and that by looking at the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, we dare to say that we are actually looking at God.

By and large, when people hear the word, "God," they are thinking of a distant, irrelevant, unknowable being out there somewhere who rarely intervenes in the affairs of the world, so why bother to pray to this God, they wonder. Or, there are also a lot of people who believe that God is not wholly other, but is only within creation.

The Christian view of God is that God is both wholly other and intimately present at the same time and has been revealed in a particular way.

The first time I was asked to teach someone to pray, I neglected to ask the person if they believe in god/God. As I began to share my "this is how to pray" information, I was interrupted when the person said,"But I don't believe in God." We finally determined that their interest lay in learning meditation, not prayer, and I refered them on to a Buddhist nun. So, yes, prayer does change depending on a person's understanding of god or God. Sometimes when people ask for "prayer" they are actually meaning either "meditation" or "magic."

Somebody better read up on their ancient AND modern Asian history if they really believe that Hindus are and have always been all-tolerant and loving and whatnot.

B R wrote, "For Hindus, any intolerance is bad."

That is one of the silliest sentences I've ever read. Anyone who makes any sort of value judgment whatever is inherently intolerant of SOMETHING. Labelling something BAD is an act of intolerance against that thing.

If all ways lead to Truth or Brahmin or whatever, then the Way of Intolerance should be just as acceptable as the Way of Tolerance.

respectfully,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY

Sorry I didn't put who wrote it...I forgot..: (

It's been such a standard for my Lammas and other harvest fests that I forget others may not have it.

I am happy to share...
terra

**"The notion of Rajan Zed’s prayer violating the “national motto” of “One Nation Under God” strikes me as ridiculous at a couple of different levels. This statement was added during the Cold War era (1956) to separate America from the God-less communists; and the Christian right uses it as though it was the “national motto” adopted by Founders to justify their argument of America as a “Christian nation.” By doing so, they ignore the fact that E Pluribus Unum--“Out of many, (is) one”--adopted in 1782 still remains the motto of the U.S. government for most of our history."**

Actually our motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum during the War of 1812 in accord with Fracis Scott Key's lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner. For two years it was "In God Is Our Trust." In 1814 it was again changed to what it remains today, "In God We Trust." I believe you are confusing the addition of the words "One nation under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Beyond all of that these comments have, for the most part proven the good Bishop's point. For folks to be so particularly intolerant of the Christian point of view disturbs me as the intolerance comes from those crying "Intolerance!" I would expect something more thought provoking from those responding to genuine inquiry.

Blessings on both of you, Terra and Pagan. This is another treasure you've given me! :-)

And a merry Lammas to all!

Actually, Wiccan, that's a Gwydion Pendderwen song from the early 70s. :)

Merry Meet, all! Brightest blessings on this beautiful Lammas.

Lady Keir, may I copy your song to my BOS?

Merry meet again, all.

Blessed be on this Lughnasadh. :)

A most blessed Lughnasadh to all!

HEY PP, Wiccan and Lepi!!
Happy Lammas to you and to all the Earth's Children!!

LORD OF THE DANCE

WHEN SHE DANCED ON THE WATERS AND THE WIND WAS HER FORM
THE LADY LAUGHED AND EVERY THING WAS BORN
SHE LIT THE SUN AND THE LIGHT GAVE HIM BIRTH
THE LORD OF THE DANCE THEN APPEARED ON THE EARTH

DANCE THEN WHEREVER YOU MAY BE
FOR I AM THE LORD OF THE DANCE SAID HE
AND I'LL LEAD YOU ON WHEREVER YOU MAY BE
AND I'LL LEAD YOU ALL IN THE DANCE SAID HE

I DANCED IN THE MORNING WHEN THE WORLD WAS BEGUN
I DANCED IN THE MOON AND THE STARS AND THE SUN
I WAS CALLED FROM THE DARKNESS BY THE SONG OF THE EARTH
I JOINED IN THE SINGING AND SHE GAVE ME BIRTH

I DANCE AT THE SABBAT WHEN YOU CHANT THE SPELL
I DANCE AND I SING THAT EVERYONE BE WELL
WHEN THE DANCE IS OVER DO NOT THINK I'M GONE
I LIVE IN THE MUSIC SO I STILL DANCE ON

THEY CUT ME DOWN BUT I LEAP UP HIGH
I AM THE LIGHT THAT WILL NEVER NEVER DIE
I LIVE IN YOU IF YOU LIVE IN ME
I AM THE LORD OF THE DANCE OF THE DANCE SAID HE

Tim states,

"I live in Minneapolis, and am coming out of a place where I used to be able to more fully explain the horror of the collapsed bridge. Now I'm so less certain of how to "love" people in this situation -- is the fear of the Lord they need? Do they need fuller doctrine or do they just need people to listen? I have seen both. I I'm hoping you're willing to share a little about the tragedy."

My first thought is to emphasize as a Christian that this had nothing to do with the will of God as if it was predetermined as part of God's plan.

A second thought is to simply offer people your presence and prayers during this difficult time.

And last but not least, regarding a theological understanding of a tragedy such as this, I think it's important to emphasize that God created this world and called it good and longs for His creation to be fully renewed one day. Jesus' victory over sin and death through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension offers us the good news that one day God's promise of a renewed creation will one day, be realized. And until that day, God promises to be with us through the power of the Holy Spirit (the presence of the living Christ) in the midst of our doubts, fears, anquish, and pain. Many of the Psalms begin with laments and end with a renewed trust and hope in God's faithfulness. And actually, the Psalms might be a good place to go at times like this.

Blessings to you, Tim.

Well, Tim, it'd probably help if people wouldn't vote for any spending cut that happens when someone waves a Bible and capitalism for a number of years while a key bridge has a four-out-of-twelve rating for structural stability....

Probably would also help for an awkward Bush trying to connect the tragedy to Democrats wanting to raise taxes while ignoring the fact that the bridge was actually being repaired at the time...

How do we spin this? We don't.

The bridges been fixing to fall down while we've been told to think of other things.

What's left is human.

This isn't the will of a God, it's... People getting hurt.

If I can offer a suggestion, Tim, ...if there's something you can do for someone, this is no time to be figuring out what it means. This talk here is belief. Faith don't need that.

People need people, not 'fear of the lord' or 'fuller doctrine.'

Go be human.

If you've got something you can do, my 'thoughts' are with you.

If you were Pagan, I'd say, "Get. Up."

You got heart and mind. The rest is paying attention.

Dear Bishop Wright, I know this comment is off-topic, but I have been exceedingly helped by your thoughts on the how Jesus brings the metaphoric language of exile to bear on his parables and such. Even moreso, your chapter in the Challenge of Jesus in regards to the disciples enroute to Emmaus has helped as I struggle to rethink what I thought I understood regarding the "truth" as it were.

I live in Minneapolis, and am coming out of a place where I used to be able to more fully explain the horror of the collapsed bridge. Now I'm so less certain of how to "love" people in this situation -- is the fear of the Lord they need? Do they need fuller doctrine or do they just need people to listen? I have seen both. I I'm hoping you're willing to share a little about the tragedy.

*waving,* Hi, Terra, Lepi.... Happy Lammas, btw. :)

With the whole 'Under God' grafted in the Pledge for political reasons in the Fifties, it's not just the implied conception of 'God,' but even the 'under' part that's a theological statement we don't need. :)

I find Rev. Wright's opening sentences telling.

"The really interesting thing is, what might the Hindu have meant by 'god'? To whom did this person think (s)he was praying?"

"...the Hindu...?" "this person...(s)he...?"
Could he not even be bothered to ascertain Mr. Zed's identity before casting aspersions on his religion? Maybe he figuresd it wasn't important because all non-Christians equaly damned in his eyes, so there's no need for any recognition of autonomy?

And to ask to whom a person THINKS s/he is praying is arrogant in the extreme, since it implies we non-Christians don't really understand our own beliefs. If we did, we'd all realize that we're wrong, and convert to Christianity seems to be the gist of the Rev's post.

For this type of conversation, this quote is appropriate: "Note that for the majority of people both god and man are somewhat inert without each other."

God or god?

Neither. It should be, "One nation, under God(s)"

While, as the Founding Fathers made clear, the United States is in no sense a Christian nation, its poulation is nevertheless predominantly Christian; and the the current "singularist" formulation of the motto is disriminatory against Christians, all or whom believe in at least two Gods (the Father, and his Son Jesus); and Trinitarian Christians, about the only kind to be found nowadays, pay homage to three, or four: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Trinity (or the "triune god," as the pope usually refers to him in his theological writings).

While Unitarians, Muslims and Jews will have no problem with the present "singularist" formulation of the motto, "singularism," like "sexism," is disciminatory and unfair: Christians deserve their due on the coin of the realm--if theological mottos there must be on the coinage.

huh?

Religion should be personal between the individual and God. There is no need for oneupmanship in this matter surely. It doesn't matter if you believe in one God or another. We are all creatures of this earth. We came from it and will go back to it irrespective of religious beliefs. Just give all this "My God, your God" debate a rest! Live and let live!!

Who owns God? Is God so small that He..or She or They can be placed in a box and set on a shelf? Is God Jewish or Christian? If S/he is Jewish then there are alot of people who are not praying right. If S/he is Christian then there are alot of Rabbis that are wrong, is God Catholic or Snake Handler Baptist? So tell me, what is God? Is God White? Middle Eastern? Chinese or Russian? How about likes? Is He...or She a cat or dog person...I mean Diety? Does he...or she only hear prayers in English or can Hindi be understood...or can God listen to prayers in German or French, Latin or Swahili?

Preet is right, for many Wiccans that is also how we see our Gods...they are aspects or facets of Godhood, conduits by which we can better understand the All.

Praying for unity and peace by anyone should be heeded and respected. God is not owned by any religion... I wonder if your Jesus does come back...will you know Him or Her? What if the second coming was a Hindu Priest? Do you think He will return as a white, conservative, Baptist from Georgia?

terra

What exactly is a "well thought out Christian (or Hindu)"? Is this a British colloquialism?

Did you mean a "thoughtful [or deeply reflective] Christian"?

"Well thought out Christian" sounds like an abstract ideal, an individual who does not actually exist.

Religion is nothing more than ideological continuation of deception and misconception to claim superiority; lets drop the undebatable argument and get back to real problem- 'global un-cooling'

Religion is nothing more than ideological continuation of deception and misconception to claim superiority; lets drop the undebatable argument and get back to real problem- 'global un-cooling'

The notion of Rajan Zed’s prayer violating the “national motto” of “One Nation Under God” strikes me as ridiculous at a couple of different levels. This statement was added during the Cold War era (1956) to separate America from the God-less communists; and the Christian right uses it as though it was the “national motto” adopted by Founders to justify their argument of America as a “Christian nation.” By doing so, they ignore the fact that E Pluribus Unum--“Out of many, (is) one”--adopted in 1782, still remains the motto of the U.S. government for most of our history. This original motto reflects the pluralism--religious and otherwise--that has characterized this nation since the settlers first arrived on these shores.

At another level, Rajan Zed’s prayer was attacked because of (willful?) ignorance of Hindus believing in “Gods” not “God.” I know many Hindus are offended by this characterization because of the many systems of thoughts in the religion and many Hindus are monotheists who believe that Brahman is the Supreme Being and the intermediary deities are conduits to it.

So, if we're going to have prayers in the Senate, let's not have a dubious religious test based on fuzzy notions of American history or world religions.

The notion of Rajan Zed’s prayer violating the “national motto” of “One Nation Under God” strikes me as ridiculous at a couple of different levels. This statement was added during the Cold War era (1956) to separate America from the God-less communists; and the Christian right uses it as though it was the “national motto” adopted by Founders to justify their argument of America as a “Christian nation.” By doing so, they ignore the fact that E Pluribus Unum--“Out of many, (is) one”--adopted in 1782 still remains the motto of the U.S. government for most of our history.

At another level, Rajan Zed’s prayer was attacked because of (willful?) ignorance of Hindus believing in “Gods” not “God.” I know many Hindus are offended by this characterization because of the many systems of thoughts in the religion and many Hindus are monotheists who believe that Brahman is the Supreme Being and the intermediary deities are conduits to it.

So, if we're going to have prayers in the Senate, let's not have a dubious religious test based on fuzzy notions of American history or world religions.

The notion of Rajan Zed’s prayer violating the “national motto” of “One Nation Under God” strikes me as ridiculous at a couple of different levels. This statement was added during the Cold War era (1956) to separate America from the God-less communists; and the Christian right uses it as though it was the “national motto” adopted by Founders to justify their argument of America as a “Christian nation.” By doing so, they ignore the fact that E Pluribus Unum--“Out of many, (is) one”--adopted in 1782 still remains the motto of the U.S. government for most of our history.

At another level, Rajan Zed’s prayer was attacked because of (willful?) ignorance of Hindus believing in “Gods” not “God.” I know many Hindus are offended by this characterization because of the many systems of thoughts in the religion and many Hindus are monotheists who believe that Brahman is the Supreme Being and the intermediary deities are conduits to it.

The notion that christianity has some special revelation of the divine, more true than that of Hinduism, native African religions or Eskimo shamanism is simply unsupportable by history or reason.

If the Senate were to decide to limit prayers to Christian, Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic religions, that would be exactly the sort of 'establishment' that the founders wished to prevent. If there is to be any government-sanctioned display of religious sentiment in the US, it must include all ideas of religion - monotheist, polytheist or animist. If Christians can't tolerate the notion of many gods, or of gods other than their own being honored equally with Jesus in an American context, then they should resign themselves to the only other reasonable option - no government-sanctioned religious activity at all.

I think the question of this article simply leads to an idea that government should be in the business of judging theology.

To acknowledge faith in Congress, the opportunity should be taken, not to endlessly favor one religion as the exclusive 'right one' but to actually remind on occasion that any one religion is *not* 'The religion of The True God,' as far as government is concerned, but actually that our representative democracy is supposed to represent *all* of us.

That's what we *all* pay them for.

Not just the Christians.

Mr. Wright:

When you can provide evidence for the existence of your "true God" perhaps we'll start taking you seriously. Assertion of truth only makes you look foolish.

What God/god do you pray to? If there is only one God, can't he/she/it understand if I pray in a different language? How do you know if God actually did understand, but you claim not because my name for God does not match with your name (in written symbols or acoustic signals). If a Hindu prays to the creator to spread peace on earth, you can't tolerate it. If a Muslim can't tolerate your God, you brand him as terrorist. Hindus not only "tolerate", but "accept" Jesus as incarnation of God on earth. For Hindus, any intolerance is bad. What will you say if you are branded as "terrorist" too? Your intolerance is only different in degree to that of a person blowing up himself because your God does not match his God. Be tolerant. May peace prevail on earth.

The real "cat that gets let out of the bag" in any theological discussion SHOULD be that each individual theist has his/her own version of what god or God is. God is a concept, not a real entity, thus every theist has his/her own interpretation. And all are equally valid or invalid, since there is no evidence-based criterion for comparison.

That makes such "genuine conversation" an act of futility, in my opinion, unless it leads to the final realization that there are as many concepts of god as there are believers.

A genuine conversation about what god means,
would have to include the likelyhood that god
is nothing more than what we imagine him/her/it to be.
As far as we know gods do not exist outside of our
imaginations.
And our conversations should acknowledge that reality.