the

therationa:

KAG,

Whenever I get the Stalin, Hitler Pol Pot argument against atheism (which is a very bad argument anyway) I always given them back Romans 13; It never fails to do the job.

This is Romans 13;

[b]1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.[/b]

therationa,

Clever but ultimately faulty reasoning. What do you think was the purpose of this passage in Romans 13? Was it specifically to endorse every government as 'good', or to remind Christians of their specific obligations under them? I submit to you that it is the latter; and also this: that the fact that Christians are told to submit to their state authorities does not necessarily mean that those authorities are righteous, or 'good' in God's eyes. If it were so, then one would be pressed to explain why the major factor of the 'endgame' of present human civilazation will be the conplete destruction of human government by the person of Christ!

Indeed, all authorities have been established and permitted by God - for if it were not so, then God would not be sovereign over the world - but that does not mean that God is entirely pleased with them. The OT, which you seem to especially dislike, desmonstrates this well. For instance, when God brings the kingdom of Babylon to destroy his chosen people Israel, he refers to the Emperor Nebuchadnezzar as his servant!

Jeremiah 25:9
I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.

Jeremiah 27:6
Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him.

Jeremiah 43:10
Then say to them, 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will send for my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and I will set his throne over these stones I have buried here; he will spread his royal canopy above them.

Does this mean that Nebuchadnezzar and his Empire weren't evil in God's sight? Certainly not. Jeremiah 50 and 51 record God's impending judgement on that evil empire, as does the book of Isaiah. Daniel also makes evident the evil nature of Nebuchadnezzar himself.

Later, when God brings Israel back from exile, he identifies the Persian emperor Cyrus as his 'anointed' - an even more significant designation as servant of God - though Cyrus himself does not honor God:

Isaiah 45:1, 4-5.
This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut,
.
.
.
For the sake of Jacob my servant,
of Israel my chosen,
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me.

5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me.

The bottom line, therationa, is this: we are all servants of God in a sense, whether we choose to be so or not. While we are allowed to rebel and fight against Him, we cannot ultimately thwart His sovereignty. The difference lies in the consequences. Those who choose to serve God will be honored by God, while those who don't will suffer loss and punishment. So rest assured that Stalin, Hitler and PolPot will not go unpunished! If we claim that their existence is proof of God's unqualified approval, then we might as well claim that murder/rape is also in God's good graces, since He 'allows' them to happen. Of course, we know what the Bible has to say about that.

P.S. While I also have reservations about the Hitler-Stalin argument against atheism, I also think that the view you espoused here on religion is tragically short-sighted and probably suffers the same problems that you believe the anti-atheism argument does. Frankly neither path is incapable of straying into crassless societal ruin.

We are all servants of God in a sense, whether we choose to be so or not. While we are allowed to rebel and fight against Him, we cannot ultimately thwart His sovereignty.

@longman83
Beautiful. May God bless you with both His Hands.

@therationa
Do you get what longman83 is saying?

Longman83,

You have just made my case for me; you have just demonstrated just how monstrous you god is. Is this sort of individual worthy of worship and praise?

I lifted Romans 13 verbatim from the bible in which the context is clear obvious. God is responsible for establishing the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin etc even though he would have known (given his omniscience) that these monsters were going to commit their calamitous acts. WHAT A LOVING GOD TO ALLOW SUCH THINGS.

You say god allows these acts although he is displeased with them. What sort of logic is this? This reminds me of Epicurus (341BC - 270 BC) who said;

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

hi Buddy, i read some of your humanistic ideology and your zeal in trying to to Disprove God or Scriptures well you are not the first person and you will not be the last. From what i can see you are a man with a very Troubled Conscience a disillussioned personality searching for the Meaning of Life and God. you are not doing it the right way. For all the psychology you've got i will like you to make a frank assesment of your life and have a second thought about all these things you try to tear down. ASK JESUS TO REVEAL HIMSELF IF HE IS REAL THEN I TELL YOU ALL YOUR QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED.

ASK JESUS TO REVEAL HIMSELF IF HE IS REAL THEN I TELL YOU ALL YOUR QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED.

why ask jesus to reveal himself when he can talk to God directly. or are jesus and God the father different people. does God have multiple personality disorder. do we have to ask the holy spirit to reveal himself too. by the way, talking to an abstract entity won't yield any results. how can god reveal himself if he is allegedly beyond human comprehension.

bawomol:

why ask jesus to reveal himself when he can talk to God directly. or are jesus and God the father different people. does God have multiple personality disorder.

God does not have multiple personality disorder; and we are quite familiar with people using such mundane expressions to kill a discussion. Do I suspect that resorting to such derogatory verbiage is a pointer to your uneasiness in seeking reason in discussing this subject?

God does not have multiple personality disorder; and we are quite familiar with people using such mundane expressions to kill a discussion. Do I suspect that resorting to such derogatory verbiage is a pointer to your uneasiness in seeking reason in discussing this subject?

i am serious, does God have MPD. jesus was once praying to God in heaven(aren't they the same person) the idea of trinity is part of religious fundamentalism and bible literalism

We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are.

bawomol:

i am serious, does God have MPD.

You don't sound it. Perhaps if you invite a discussion without resorting to such antics, you'd find people willing to enter a discussion and offer answers. Constantly referring to such ideas proves to me that the person using them is not really going anywhere - I know because I've seen this happen time and again in other Forum. Of course, you could be as evasive - nothing new from the same pattern I've observed. Convince me.

bawomol:
the idea of trinity is part of religious fundamentalism and bible literalism

In which case I haven't taken to the street to behead anybody, nor do I intend to do so. One can accuse all they so wish, but there is a line between being hysterical and being reasonable. How many people around the world today who believe in the Trinity fit your idea of religious fundamentalism?

It is not suprising that you folks try divert discussion with cheap psychology. TRy to follow the flow. MPD is a phenomenon created by another confused Godless personality to descibe pains and crises Confused and Christless folks have to face.As i said earlier Chist Remains the answer. Stop this cheap Human Philosophy it did not help PLATO himself

lekkimania:

It is not suprising that you folks try divert discussion with cheap psychology.

That is precisely the point - I thought I was the only one reading the detractions.

It is not suprising that you folks try divert discussion with cheap psychology

actually u guys are the one doing it. the idea of trinity is an aspect of religious fundamentalism that has not been answer. how does God in one person appear as three differentiated entities. science and technology wouldn't have advanced without the effort of the greek and egyptian philosophers u accuse of "cheap" human philosophy.

As i said earlier Chist Remains the answer

an example of religious fundamentalism, are u worshiping jesus chris or god the father


In which case I haven't taken to the street to behead anybody, nor do I intend to do so.

smarten up, there's a difference between religious EXTREMISM and religious fundamentalism

bawomol:

the idea of trinity is an aspect of religious fundamentalism that has not been answer.

What is religious fundamentalism - and how do you relate belief in the Trinity to that?

bawomol:
smarten up, there's a difference between religious EXTREMISM and religious fundamentalism

Don't get so desperate and burst a vein! Could you share your views without being so fumbled up already?

I really worry about the future of an Africa led and largely populated by the likes of the christian members of this forum. I raised this subject so that we may discuss the decay in our universities, a palpable thread to our civilisation. I was not making an argument for atheism.

I think I have been proven right in that the religious do not care about intellectual honesty and development. None of the 5 points on my post have been addressed. What kind of future are we going to leave our children.

Ecrasez l'infame.

We are doomed

@therationa,

therationa:

I think I have been proven right in that the religious do not care about intellectual honesty and development.

I wonder how you have been "proven" right if that was a reference to your own intellectual dishonesty. Pardon my forthrightness, if you may; but it seems that any views which have not placated your seething ridicule of the religious becomes written off as 'intellectual dishonesty' so much that it helps your unsubstantiated accusation that "the religious do not care" about development.

There are viable ways of honestly assessing the decay in our universities; and a very ready (and unfortunate) manifestation of that decay is to point accusing fingers at the object of your derision (the religious) - not because you have taken an honest look at the real problems of University decays; but because you are looking for every excuse to slave your idea on a false premise.

I wonder how the problem of illegal sale of 'handouts' in many of our Nigerian universities is a direct index of the "religious" concern? I graduated from a Nigerian Univeristy and actually saw brilliant students being failed deliberately by lecturers who levied such students with the unthinkable - for males, you had to bribe your way through with cash or face the 'F' grade; for females, you either had to sleep with the male lecturers and have a 'pass', or turn down their advances and see your score as an 'F'. These matters were repeatedly played out by folks who were quite averse to religion!

That is only a minute problem in our universities - and pointing the finger of accusation where you haven't done an honest assessment of your grievance does not demonstrate "intellectual honesty" on your part.

Still seeking answers to these questions;

1) Should we interpret the creation story as given in Genesis literally or metaphorically in the light of the scientific evidence?

2) Should we interpret the story of the Jewish sojourn in Egypt literally given that there is little archeological evidence in its favour (I know this is an argument from silence, but this should cast doubt on its plausibility)

3) Should we interpret the Noah Flood literally?

4) Should we take the Exodus 21:17 literally?

5) Should we believe that jesus was born of a virgin?

6) Should we believe that state rulers are selected by god as given in Romans 13?

therationa:

Still seeking answers to these questions;

1) Should we interpret the creation story as given in Genesis literally or metaphorically in the light of the scientific evidence?

2) Should we interpret the story of the Jewish sojourn in Egypt literally given that there is little archeological evidence in its favour (I know this is an argument from silence, but this should cast doubt on its plausibility)

3) Should we interpret the Noah Flood literally?

4) Should we take the Exodus 21:17 literally?

5) Should we believe that jesus was born of a virgin?

6) Should we believe that state rulers are selected by god as given in Romans 13?

Wow! are this questions truly issues that are driving the progress of African Academic institutions? I've never liked nigerian universities, apart from a few cultural faculties in universities like Ife. They actually produce papers worth reading.

To be honest with you I don't think it is religion that is destroying the intellectual capacities of our intelligensia. A friend of my suggested that it is probably the ferocious heat of the Sun that cannot allow people to think straight. Anyway I've always found academics in africa to be dodgy. Even the manner in which we studied was worrying. There seemed to be little care as to whether we grasped concepts and were able to use those concepts to build arguments of our own. Rather we were subjected to rote learning. And till this day I can challenge anyone anywhere in the world that they don't have students who can cram information as well as someone who has had a nigerian education. Stop any nigerian student and ask him to quote textbook definitions on his subject of study. He will fire them out like a machinegun. 'democracy is government of the people by the people for the people', ratatatata just like that without a pause. But then on further questioning it becomes obvious that he hasn't actually considered the pro and cons, the effects and circumstances that are required for democracy.

It is my suspicion that academia in nigeria is so superficial because it had such a high status value. When something socially has a high status value while it might still attract sincere adherents it will also attract many who do not have an affinity for it but rather are only interested in the status that it can afford them.
I think in the days of colonialism the first few africans who went abroad to study came back speaking hifolootin' grammar and wearing their square hats. This impressed a lot of people who thought, 'wow! if only I could have a square hat like that, I'd be the envy of the whole village'. So people (our parents generation) pursued education not for a love of learning but so that they too could speak grammar and wear square hats.

So, to concluded, I've think that our institutions of higher education are in dire straits anyway and it does not require religion to mess it up. In fact the 'excess' (as you put it) of religion on campuses is probably a symptom and not a cause of what really is at ill in the institution.

Pastor AIO:

Wow! are this questions truly issues that are driving the progress of African Academic institutions? I've never liked nigerian universities, apart from a few cultural faculties in universities like Ife. They actually produce papers worth reading.

To be honest with you I don't think it is religion that is destroying the intellectual capacities of our intelligensia. A friend of my suggested that it is probably the ferocious heat of the Sun that cannot allow people to think straight. Anyway I've always found academics in africa to be dodgy. Even the manner in which we studied was worrying. There seemed to be little care as to whether we grasped concepts and were able to use those concepts to build arguments of our own. Rather we were subjected to rote learning. And till this day I can challenge anyone anywhere in the world that they don't have students who can cram information as well as someone who has had a nigerian education. Stop any nigerian student and ask him to quote textbook definitions on his subject of study. He will fire them out like a machinegun. 'democracy is government of the people by the people for the people', ratatatata just like that without a pause. But then on further questioning it becomes obvious that he hasn't actually considered the pro and cons, the effects and circumstances that are required for democracy.

It is my suspicion that academia in nigeria is so superficial because it had such a high status value. When something socially has a high status value while it might still attract sincere adherents it will also attract many who do not have an affinity for it but rather are only interested in the status that it can afford them.
I think in the days of colonialism the first few africans who went abroad to study came back speaking hifolootin' grammar and wearing their square hats. This impressed a lot of people who thought, 'wow! if only I could have a square hat like that, I'd be the envy of the whole village'. So people (our parents generation) pursued education not for a love of learning but so that they too could speak grammar and wear square hats.

So, to concluded, I've think that our institutions of higher education are in dire straits anyway and it does not require religion to mess it up. In fact the 'excess' (as you put it) of religion on campuses is probably a symptom and not a cause of what really is at ill in the institution.

I have been at work all day today and this is the only thing that has brought laughter to the cockles of my heart. Thankx for that. Was funny and correct, or at least I agree with you.

Additionally, I have no sympathy for a culture that fosters a climate of "believing on insufficient evidence". And I think, in the wrong hands, that is what religion does. For instance, if I were to ask any ordinary Nigerian about the efficacy of their local chi (deity), a great deal of them would say these deities manifest concrete powers. If you ask them to demonstrate it scientifically they certainly would not be able to. I can't speak much about Nigeria, not being a Nigerian. But next door, in Cameroon, reverence for the supernatural (African or otherwise) is a big deal.

What constitutes 'sufficient evidence for believing'. Is seeing really believing? What about the deluded, the fantasist, the illusory? I have a very strong imagination. Do the things that I see become valid because I've seen them?

What is certainty? Is it not a mental state? How does one arrive at this mental state? is it not by a neurochemical configuration? Those who are unable to form this configuration will not be convinced of the reality of the chair that they're actually sitting on.

Have you ever had dreams that felt so real? Have you ever had waking moments that felt so foggy that perhaps it wasn't really happening (like the day you got your exam results or something heavy like that.).

Before we go seeking proof in various matters I think we need to think about what really proof is. When we know that there is a whole school of thought prevalent in Asia that states that the physical world is illusory, a function of what they call Maya, then taking this into consideration what degree of validity do we give the evidence of our senses.

Hi again Pastor AIO and huxley,

There are a few things that are quite untennable in the views you have expressed. Just tow briefs summaries might help:

Pastor AIO:

To be honest with you I don't think it is religion that is destroying the intellectual capacities of our intelligensia.

Not true - we could rather say that the wrong use of religion might be responsible for that.

There is a difference between "science" and the "scientist"; so also, a profound difference between "philosophy" and the "philosopher". Many of these people (scientists and philosphers) have used these principles (science and philosophy) for devastating ends - and we know today that so many of these people resist intellectual discources as they do not want their cherished assumptions scrutinzed and shown for their fallacies or insufficiencies.

The same thing applies to religion - the wrong use of religion has been a pretext for things most of us are ashamed to admit on a fair day. But does that mean that "religion" itself is a bad boy? No - it only means that we should be careful in applying religion so broadly as to interprete it for what it is not. Many very religious people have been the foremost intellectuals in many fields of research. If they felt that "religion" was a bad influence against intellectual exercises, then we would not read their names on the roll-calls of such brilliance appended to their names.

*By "religion", I do not mean to restrict the term partially to Christianity - I have taken the time to look into this subject, and I'm satisfied that there are even many Muslims who are very intellectual people. And what about religious Jews? And Bhuddists? Many such intellectuals exist.

We have to be careful to not just asume things on a broad spectrum that does not answer to intellectual assessments.

huxley:

Additionally, I have no sympathy for a culture that fosters a climate of "believing on insufficient evidence".

I therefore recommend you speak to Richard Dawkins and let him know he's in serious trouble already! WHY do I say so? For the very simple reason that he recently admitted that there are some things he holds/assumes in science but could not prove! There is insufficient evidence for his assumptions - but he "believes" them anyway!

I could share some serious examples on the above.

Well whether it is religion itself or just the 'wrong use of religion' I still don't think it is quite to blame for the dire state of our academic institutions.

I dont' think it is possible to be a scientist or a philosopher and avoid intellectual discourses. Their activities are carried out in a community and they publish papers and essays all the time which are read by their peers and criticised. Any scientists that doesn't get involved in the discourse and defend his work will probably find that it has been blown away and dismissed unceremoniously by others.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Well whether it is religion itself or just the 'wrong use of religion' I still don't think it is quite to blame for the dire state of our academic institutions.

I apologise - you beat me this time soundly. I had mistaken your logic and read something into it that was actually vacant there: and for that, I apologise. I agree rather with your view that religion is not to be blamed with the dire state of our academic institutions. Whether some people use it wisely or wrongly may be totally a different matter.

syrup:

@Pastor AIO,

I apologise - you beat me this time soundly. I had mistaken your logic and read something into it that was actually vacant there: and for that, I apologise. I agree rather with your view that religion is not to be blamed with the dire state of our academic institutions. Whether some people use it wisely or wrongly may be totally a different matter.

Apology accepted. I might be reading into you erroneously too (in which case I apologise in advance) but I don't really feel I'm in competition with you because that's the impression I get when I read 'you beat me this time soundly'. I'm not here to beat anybody or prove anything. I'm here to discuss religion in that hope that I might learn something and that I might impart some of what I know.

The fault is not with religion and neither is it with the application of religion. The problem lies with each of us. It is how we use our physical and spiritual faculties that determine wheather we get happiness or unhappiness, joy or sorrow, health or ill health, the torment of hell or the joy of heaven. Nigeria academia is not much different from the rest of the world, the reasons for intellectual poverty in tandem with spiritual inertia are the same across the globe, it is only the forms that varies, but the causations that gave rise to the forms are the same. Intellectul discourse only have lasting benefit if the activies of the brain are guided by the human spirit or soul. The human brain is finite and can only understand forms but not the power that gave rise to the forms in the first place. It is great to be a great scientists, philosopher etc but such learning only gives you information, but not the knowlege to understand God and his creations. A Ph.D is not required to understand God or his ways. On the contrarly, intellectual development without accompanying spiritual development makes the understanding of the working of God impossible. Mere intellectual understanding will undoubtedly end up in atheism. Scientific understanding and investigation that is not guided by the faculties of the spirit will lead to atheism and the belief that science has all the answers. Our people back home in the villages may be intellectually ill informed but their spirit is alife. They can differentiate good and evil, right and wrong instantenously and without intellectual conjecture. Some who are still true to nature can know things which modern scientific technigues can only discern after very labourious and troublesome experiments. They can without satellite mapping predict which part of the land rain will fall, where to sow there yams for the most abundant harvest, where sudden changes like landslides is to take place etc. They are not educated but there souls are alife. Intellectual development without accompanying spiritual development leads to a blur in differentiating good and evil. It leads to moral relativism where good becomes evil and evil becomes good. That is the state of our world today and that is why there is so much misery and unhappiness.

Christianity has posed no danger to intellectualism, the irony of these is that those who actually brought us christianity (Europeans) are technologically the most advanced race on earth.

Israel is the birthplace of judaism and christianity . . . that nation has the most powerful airforce on earth, designed the very INTEL chip that powers the computers of many of us here, single-handedly designed and maintains its own nuclear missiles and has satellites in space.

America was founded in 1776 on christian principles . . . do i need to remind you they are the most powerful nation on earth?

4 Him:

Christianity has posed no danger to intellectualism, the irony of these is that those who actually brought us christianity (Europeans) are technologically the most advanced race on earth.

Israel is the birthplace of judaism and christianity . . . that nation has the most powerful airforce on earth, designed the very INTEL chip that powers the computers of many of us here, single-handedly designed and maintains its own nuclear missiles and has satellites in space.

America was founded in 1776 on christian principles . . . do i need to remind you they are the most powerful nation on earth?

It is usually claimed by the uninformed that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TREATY OF TRIPOLI clearly states that the USA was NOT founded on Christian principles;

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

have u seen this? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112086.0.html

One of the lasting achievements of Intellectualism ==>

[img]http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/files/summer2007/grooms.jpg[/img]

@Davidylan:

Christianity has posed no danger to intellectualism, the irony of these is that those who actually brought us christianity (Europeans) are technologically the most advanced race on earth.

Your statement is correct only for today. What will happen tomorrow, who will be on top, its not known by anybody.

Israel is the birthplace of judaism and christianity . . . that nation has the most powerful airforce on earth, designed the very INTEL chip that powers the computers of many of us here, single-handedly designed and maintains its own nuclear missiles and has satellites in space.

Thank God that you finally declared that prior to the Israelites' arrival in the land named Israel, Judaism was not their religion. You have simply stated what the Qu.ur'a.n had stated all along. It is very interesting therefore to remind everyone that Moses never practiced Judaism. Rather he practiced the same religion that all prophets practiced before him.

And as powerful as the airforce was, they could not defeat a handful of ill organized militias just 2 summers ago. I wonder where you place the US Airforce? I wonder where will the military powerfulness of Israel be, without the USA? And before 5000 years ago, there was no knowledge of Israel and its bloodline. A time that is such a mere yesterday, when it is put in the context of the time man has been on earth!

America was founded in 1776 on christian principles . . . do i need to remind you they are the most powerful nation on earth?

Didn't I argue with you on your wrong assumption that USA was founded on Christian principles? You need a lesson in US History.

huxley:

It is usually claimed by the uninformed that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TREATY OF TRIPOLI clearly states that the USA was NOT founded on Christian principles;

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

have u seen this? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112086.0.html

It is usually claimed by noise makers who pretend to be informed that the USA was not founded on christian PRINCIPLES (note that there is a big difference between a principle and a religion) . . . a cursory look at history tells us otherwise. A simple case in point is the motto of the USA - IN GOD WE TRUST.

It might interest Huxley to note that it smacks of poor scholarship to base American internal policy on a "treaty" signed with foreign powers (Tripoli) primarily to protect US shipping interests in what used to be moslem waters. The treaty was written in arabic (not a US language) and a careful reading of the above quote from article 11 of the treaty is clear evidence that this was written as a form of political appeasement.

4 Him:

It is usually claimed by noise makers who pretend to be informed that the USA was not founded on christian PRINCIPLES (note that there is a big difference between a principle and a religion) . . . a cursory look at history tells us otherwise. A simple case in point is the motto of the USA - IN GOD WE TRUST.

It might interest Huxley to note that it smacks of poor scholarship to base American internal policy on a "treaty" signed with foreign powers (Tripoli) primarily to protect US shipping interests in what used to be moslem waters. The treaty was written in arabic (not a US language) and a careful reading of the above quote from article 11 of the treaty is clear evidence that this was written as a form of political appeasement.

What are Christian principles? "In God we Trust" was added a few decades ago as, IIRC, a response to the "Red scare"

olabowale:

@Davidylan:
Thank God that you finally declared that prior to the Israelites' arrival in the land named Israel, Judaism was not their religion. You have simply stated what the Qu.your'a.n had stated all along. It is very interesting therefore to remind everyone that Moses never practiced Judaism. Rather he practiced the same religion that all prophets practiced before him.

What was this ambigous "religion" and pls tell us with proof . . . what qu'ran were these "prophets" reading? At least Moses had the Torah which is the very basis of Judaism.

olabowale:

And as powerful as the airforce was, they could not defeat a handful of ill organized militias just 2 summers ago.

The "ill organized militias" have one thing going for them, they hide behind children, in mosques and residential areas. The only way to defeat them is to destroy the entire Lebanon . . . with hypocrites like you ready to scream "massacre" at every single ant killed by an IDF tank its tough to see how Israel could have defeated hezbollah.

olabowale:

I wonder where you place the US Airforce? I wonder where will the military powerfulness of Israel be, without the USA?

Israel did not require US expertise to develop nuclear weapons.

olabowale:

And before 5000 years ago, there was no knowledge of Israel and its bloodline. A time that is such a mere yesterday, when it is put in the context of the time man has been on earth!

Neither was there any knowledge of arabs and their bloodline.

olabowale:

Didn't I argue with you on your wrong assumption that USA was founded on Christian principles? You need a lesson in US History.

It is you who needs a lesson in US history . . . care to tell me how IN GOD WE TRUST came about?

KAG:

What are Christian principles? "In God we Trust" was added a few decades ago as, IIRC, a response to the "Red scare"

You're not really seeking an answer so i will pass on that.
In God we trust - became official US motto in 1956 but had been widely in use as early as 1863.

Below is an 1864 US coin