Should "In God We Trust" Be Taken Off Of US Currency? What Would Follow?

Code:

Yes, the word stupid is in the dictionary. However, it is generally used by people who have nothing to contribute. So they throw a generality at [B]something they do not comprehend.

You don't have to believe in God. You either get it or you don't. I am not interested in arguing God's existence.

Knowing God's existence is what makes my life what it is for me. The lack of God is what makes your life what you want it to be. Choices are real. Isn't that great.

What is FANTASTIC, I don't have to prove anything. Religion is about my conscious, not yours.[/B]

 

No. When I say it is not mysterious in a spiritual sense, I mean that there is no spiritual sense about love; what surprise I find in love are ordinary material things... that are valuable in an of themselves.

Not if you misrepresent our thoughts, no... but that's what we've come to expect from you.

Source? Context?

 

:Oh.. So you define love as something that is only 'physical'?

Expect whatever you want, but when you leave open-ended statements (such as the one above about love), then you are only setting the stage for interpretations that may differ from what you have in mind. That would be your fault due to an inadequate grasp on the English language.

 

Actually, it's the fact that god-questions are incomprehensible that makes belief in god a stupid decision, regardless of whether or not one exists.

No... belief in your god's existence is what you believe makes your life what it is for you; without explication over matters of existence, you do not possess 'knowledge' of such.

Ok... so when you speak of your god-convictions, I can treat what you say as if you're talking about how much you like waffles, k? After all, without justification, your beliefs amount to little more than taste preferences.

And that is indeed ok by me.

 

Physical in the sense that it exists in the material world of material forces, yes.

Yes, indeed you are of the habit of going off on word-games for the purposes of obstruction and obfuscation; you could choose to STOP doing so, but that would be assuming you were an honest conversant.

 

Love is a physical force? Can you show me that physical force? What is the nature of that physical force?

In my quoted statement above, what is there which leads you to state that there is a 'word game' involved? Is it the fact that you left a statement of yours so ill applied that there was room for interpretation other than what you intended to state?

I am an honest conversant. It is people who deny the power of the spoken or written word who are being dishonest with themselves and with the remainder of the reading audience.

 

Attraction, mutual experiences and interests, human sympathy and empathy... these are quite natural.

You frequently divert into definition games to distract and dissemble, so no...

... you're not.

 

How is removing a needless religious slogan from money going to eventually lead to all that you mentioned above?

Governments should be secular, removing a few words from our money, and returning it to what it was before the Cold War, certainly won't lead to the loss of civil rights.

 

It may be needless to you. What if is not needles to the majority.

 

If the majority *need* a daily reminder of their faith on their money, then they should probably get a new religion.

Doesn't sound like they are devoted to their own enough.

This supposed need for a government to favor one particular religious view over others is not a "need", its a "want".

 

None of those items you mentioned above fit into the description or definition of "love". Of course a person can hold a 'love' for any of those things, but those things are separated and distinctly different than 'love'.

What in particular are you saying ", so no..." about?

You have not shown evidence of that claim that I am not an honest conversant. Is it a fault of mine that you are showing a deficiency in your ability to adequately pick and choose words that will properly display the intent and meaning of what you are attempting to say? And because of your deficiency, you label me as being dishonest?

 

Hmmm... I'm not sure why I should adhere to your opinion on this matter.

 

Did anyone ask you to adhere to anything?

Strange, when I look at the posting of mine that you quoted, all I see is a question that you avoided by labeling it as "a vacuous accusation concerning nonsense; aka,evidence of your dishonesty as a debater".

Is that what you do with all the questions that are directed at you?

 

You provided no argument to support your conception of 'love' that would challenge my own... why?

Why would a reasonable person answer vacuous accusations concerning nonsense? I personally don't like rewarding dishonest debating with a response.

 

I didn't want to. My concepts (a subjective thing) are not what is in question.

So that a reasonable person could conjure an excuse. Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant, as they are subjective.

 

Oh, so this...

"None of those items you mentioned above fit into the description or definition of "love". Of course a person can hold a 'love' for any of those things, but those things are separated and distinctly different than 'love'."

... is more fluffernutter and bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

And your personal understanding of 'deficiencies' is vacuous nonsense. If you wish to be taken seriously, then argue your point without excuses.

 

No! It is an opinion that is based on standard dictionary definitions.

You should take your own advice and quit using 'rationalizations' which are nothing more than excuses... look in the dictionary and read all the definitions for the tern 'rationalize' as found here:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/rationalize
Pay particular attention to definition #5 which is a definition derived from a field of 'science'.

 

Dictionaries are revised constantly, most of the time, to add to a word or to add a word.

 

Look at a person's body language over several days while they are spending time with a person they are attracted too. This is a literal demonstration which has to be done in order to see it. When a human is touched physically by another human, for example, and if the person whom is touched physically has an attraction to the person touching, you will see the physical force.

Within the brain is chemistry, which is a physical charge, that triggers specific areas of the brain to react. If the person who touches, is attractive to the person being touched, impulses go to the area of the brain the identify's beauty, to the beholder, of course. As the visual and physical contact continues to happen over, even a week, both person's brain, the sender and receiver, transmits the same impulse, which happens in the brain. This is called falling in love, Eros or Logos. The brain will do the same for hate, empathy, apathy, etc.

What happens in the brain is translated physically.

Sorry to get off the subject, however, I believe, this is why Gay people fall in "love". The chemistry triggers the emotional and physical reaction. "You can help who you fall in love with." The chemistry does not discriminate, per se. Although, most people have a "flavor" which they have a strong attraction and and are susceptible.

To back up the entire explanation I just made for physical force and seeing it, there also prof which says that humans and "animals" smell the person or animal they are deeply attracted too and it is triggered by sight and close proximity. That is because they can smell fluids coming from the skin. That is a physical force which starts in the brain. The can be from adult to adult or child to child. It can also happen when a person looks at objects.

If you attach a probe to a human's nervous system, yes, you will see results triggered on paper.

If you are speaking of the Jedi force or Spock force, that is Science fiction.

(Wikipedia)The Greeks Went Further To Distinguish Each Kind.
Greek words for love

There are several Greek words for love, as the Greek language, distinguishes how the word is used. Ancient Greeks has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are given below.

(The Greeks came by the words and definitions by observing human behavior. Science today, in the modern age, can show it to you.)

Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means "love" (unconditional love) in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (Σ'αγαπ&#974, which means "I love you". In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros". Agape is used in the biblical passage known as the "love chapter", 1 Corinthians 13, and is described there and throughout the New Testament as sacrificial love. Agape is also used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.
Éros (ἔρως érōs[2]) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.
Philia (φιλία philía[3]) means friendship or brotherly love in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
Storge (στοργή storgē[4]) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.
Hide See also

Diotima of Mantinea
Greek love
Intellectual virtue - Greek words for knowledge
The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis.
↑ Jump Back A Section
Show References

Show External links

 

AWESOME

To truly understand what you said......It has to be read backwards.

AWESOME​

 

People who get offended by the word "God" often times are the ones who need some sort of faith in their lives to begin with. You can, not believe in God, that is just fine, but when you are unable to allow other people to believe...it's those people that cannot and should not be trusted.

 

In Regarding too ...... WANNABE SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT LIBERALS

The Bastard Society​

 

What??????

 

So how would you build world cohesion?

You are the one that identified the government as being "in favor of one particular God."

The phrase does not state "in THE God We Trust", it is "in God "WE" Trust"
When the soldier goes to war, the soldier fights for liberties, not ONE LIBERTY. Which would mean one of many liberties.

Have you ever served in the military. Unfortunately, no. I am certain you "needed" and "wanted" someone else to go out and maintain the international status quo so that you can continue your fairy tale. People like you who take freedom of speech for granted. People like you who lavish in the freedom to disagree because you won't admit that you do not see a bigger picture. Or better yet, you have nothing, therefore, you would rather no one have anything.

Tell us about your battle scares then maybe what your comments will be taken seriously. Again how would you keep the world from war?

Look to any of the prominent developed cultures of the ages, ancient Egypt, Rome, Korea, Greece (and the abundance of Gods), Persia, Modern Russia, Tibet, Aztec, Arabia all were cultures dominated by the Gods. Contemporary Russia and China hold the people to a Godless culture. The powers that be instruct a society's moral direction. Most war of powerful nation were fought with God for them or God against them. The USA is no different.

Mentalities like your flippant, casual, baseless confusion to what holds a society together is the reason it will always appear. If not on the money somewhere else, just as significant.

The police force of major cities, where crime is higher then in the country side or suburb, makes it's presence more noticeable to deter crime. The police force manages to keep a percentage of crime at bay because of their presence. They, most of the time, have to let criminals know, that they are there to deter their efforts as criminals.

The USA keeps specific rituals and symbols present to remind people that there is a moral obligation to the people inside and outside of the country. "in God We Trust" is a motivator and a deterrent. For those who want to disrupt the American way of life and a motivator for those who believe in freedom.

Morality does not come from Atheism. Being a good human being is what an Atheist is capable of. However, being moral is not required of a good human being. There is no higher standard then the good human being, if a person is Atheist. There is no greater love then what they find within themselves. They are their only source. However, collectively, all religions, in America, which have deep connections outside of the USA, including Satan believe in a higher state of mental awareness. Atheists' do not. An awareness which comes from a higher power, via, nature, via, a source. Therefore, as I said, if you don't see it on the currency, then open your eyes. It will manifest to another source.

So, go on, with your shallow jabs about needs and wants. Let us, "the we" of the people know when you want to really understand the bigger picture.

 

Which is not a logical argument for your position.