Question for our Christian visitors

Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Question for our Christian visitors

Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There are a number of different

MattyB wrote:

Many people (conservatives) are upset about the 10 commandments being removed because it constitutes their traditional values and way of life.  Another group of people (liberals) are attacking their way of life, and so naturally they get on the defensive.  Who can blame them?

If the same thing was to happen in a traditionally Islamic nation, the people would be in an uproar.  The notion that America was founded by secularist is not accurate.  The only time secularism had it's hold in American politics was when the Constitution was drafted and confirmed.  Other than that, secularism didn't have a big part in American society and development.  That is the American tradition that people of today are trying to abolish.  Don't be surprised if you encounter great resistance. 

Ways to attack people's way of life. I consider fundamentalist christianity attacks my way of life - and I'm not talking about a life of endless sex and drugs - just a life with no god in it. Frankly, the whole idea of god is just silly to me. I am told I have no morals and deserve to die because I don't believe in the bible. I'm then expected to stand up for the rights of the people who consider me to be flawed from birth because some chick raided god's kitchen garden before she had been granted a knowledge of good and evil. It's just stupid. As for abolishing the American tradition, what the fuck are you on about? What is this great tradition? That you don't murder people or steal their stuff or bash them? Gee - yours is the only country in the world where people don't go around killing each other for no reason and it's all thanks to god and the rules he scrawled on some stone tablet in some far off desert shit hole. Likelihood, zero.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


MattyB
MattyB's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Ways

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ways to attack people's way of life. I consider fundamentalist christianity attacks my way of life - and I'm not talking about a life of endless sex and drugs - just a life with no god in it.

 

This is specifically what I am talking about.  If you read the history of America, you  will see that the majority of the culture was, from the beginning, of some Christian culture or another.  This is the American culture that you want changed.  The Christmas decorations, the National Day of Prayer, the display of 'In God We Trust', the 10 commandments, the inclusion of God in national themes, the carols during Christmas, the chaplaincy in the military.  All of these display a tradition of Christian culture within the American people since before the nation gained independence.  Even the day after the 1st Amendment was ratified, they voted in and passed a legislation calling for a National Day of Prayer.

Now, I know that your name says 'AtheistEXTREMIST', but lets be a little rational here.  If someone moves into your house from another country and decides that your rules, customs, and traditions are not acceptable, you'll have two choices:  Put up or petition.  Most would kick that other person out, but since we are talking about America, that's not really the way we do things.  I hope this serves as a good example of what is happening. 

You want God out of America, but God has been the cornerstone of American culture since the colonies settled here in the 1600's.  It's traditional American way of life.  I really hope you can grasp that concept.  The problem you are having is not with God, or Christians.  The problem you are having is culture.  If you have ever taken a sociology class, you  may remember what they said about cultural normatives and customs.  It doesn't matter what society you are in, whether religious or atheistic, if you disrupt those norms and customs, you'll be spurned by the greater majority of society.

That is the point I'm getting at.  Atheism just is not a part of greater American culture.  And culture shouldn't have to change for ever individual's desire.  Otherwise, we would have no American culture, no unity, and strength.  Look into Greek history and you will see that the Greek culture fell apart because of internal conflicts, a failure to adapt and unify.

I really hope you took everything I said into consideration, as I believe this to be a very logical, historical, and practical response.

 


 

The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made


dwc4456
atheist
dwc4456's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-22
User is offlineOffline
I think its hilarious that

I think its hilarious that the christians that scream the loudest about removing them, cant even recite half of the ten commandments.


buru58 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jesus fulfiling the

Jesus fulfiling the prophecies/laws of the Old Testament doesn't mean that He asked us to disregard them. In fact, He taught and even rebuked the devil by quoting from O.T. scripture. I agree that there are some laws that existed back then that are not followed now, like sacrificing animals, but that is because of the very event of Jesus' coming to earth. God loved us so much, that instead of asking us to give Him our best (which at that time was their fattened animals or fine harvest), He gave us His best (His only Son) so that if we just believe in Him, then we are His.

 

So the fact that Jesus came down to earth does not, for example, imply that I should stop honoring my parents, or start stealing or killing. No. In fact, when a Pharisee tried to trick Him the same way by asking which commandment is to be followed more earnestly in Matt. 22:34, He gave us a simplified version of the 10 commandments by saying, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind....(and) love your neighbor as you love yourself."

 

The fact that we still hold these commandments sacred and true is basically why we fight for them. Otherwise, if we didn't believe in them or the O.T. in general, why would we still have them in the Bible? Remember, though, that simply living by these laws do not make us right with God. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is why He came down to earth (to save us) and through Him we are saved.


Philosophy101
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-02-09
User is offlineOffline
In regards to the ten

In regards to the ten commandments being removed from public locations or locations payed for and mantained by taxpayer money:

Whenever we talk about the ten commandments we must not look at them as just a list of rules that appear in the old testament, however we must look at them as guildlines for the human race. Except for the few commandments that have the word God in them, they set a standard of humanity that should be regarded with respect. If the commandments did not include such basic human rules as " do not kill" or "do not steal" or " do not covet" then another text would have been written to incorporate such basic human rights notions.

As far as the commandments being removed from public locations; perhaps not all should be removed, the healthy compromise would be to remove the commandments that deal directly with the worship of God. If we keep the others then we outwardly recongnize the undeniable human rights issues expressed in the text.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Philosophy101 wrote:In

Philosophy101 wrote:

In regards to the ten commandments being removed from public locations or locations payed for and mantained by taxpayer money:

Whenever we talk about the ten commandments we must not look at them as just a list of rules that appear in the old testament, however we must look at them as guildlines for the human race. Except for the few commandments that have the word God in them, they set a standard of humanity that should be regarded with respect. If the commandments did not include such basic human rules as " do not kill" or "do not steal" or " do not covet" then another text would have been written to incorporate such basic human rights notions.

As far as the commandments being removed from public locations; perhaps not all should be removed, the healthy compromise would be to remove the commandments that deal directly with the worship of God. If we keep the others then we outwardly recongnize the undeniable human rights issues expressed in the text.

 

Other texts were written, many are older.  There are plenty of secular texts that have far more evolved morals.

I honestly don't have a problem keeping them around in certain areas...they are a part of our history.  Just keep them in museums (even publicly funded museums), churches and private property and in public areas where there is an exhibit they might fall into.  What I don't like is a giant statue of the commandments simply for their own sake...that is a blatant push for religion without secular context.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Well, the answer is obvious, isn't it. They are idiots. The question I have for those who would want them removed, who are idiots as well, is why were they put there in the first place. They had no place there. I like your signature, Randall, it pretty much sums it up. Politics and religion are peas in a pod. The Ten Commandments shouldn't have ever been put there but they were because at one time that was the political / social thing to do. Taking them out only signifies a change in the political stream but not the politics themselves. Its a moot point.

By the way. The terms Old Testament and New Testament are nonsensical and unscriptural. There was no New "Testament."


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 My problem with the Ten

 My problem with the Ten Commandments being posted is they are not the TRUE 10 commandments according to the Bible itself

 

 

This is what Christian want to mount in stone, quoting from Exodus 20 (repeated Deu 5:1)                                                                    

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

However they are not called the 10 commandments by the Bible                                                               

Instead the true 10 commandments are detailed in Exodus 34 with these words

 

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant‚the Ten Commandments.

Here they are:

 

1.  Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2.  "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.  And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

3. "Do not make cast idols.

4. "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

5.  "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.       "No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

6. "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

7. "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel.  I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

8.  "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.

9.  "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.

10. "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

 

So not only are Christians unaware of the false 10 commandments, they are unaware of the true 10 commandments and they certainly do not follow them. I don't see them celebrating the feast of unleavened bread or weeks or ingathering or offering a bloody sacrifice. I don't see them breaking the neck of their first born animals or redeeming them. The seventh commandment, the Lebensraum rule, doesn't seem to be working for them either.

So, I say they post the real 10 commandments.

 

(But really how is it the Bible is inconsistent on something so key to the primitive monotheist desert religions?)

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Ex-minister,   The Hebrew

Ex-minister, 

 

The Hebrew expression asereth haddevarim designates the 10 words, or the 10 basic laws of the covenant. From the Greek Septuagint reading of deka (ten) and logous (words) it is commonly known as the 10 commandments. They are also called “Words” and “the words of the covenant.” (Exodus 34:28 / Deuteronomy 4:13; 5:22; 10:4)

There are four different variations of the “10 Commandments,” The Talmudist, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran and the common. They differ only in the first, second and last commandments. The common numbering which Christians use comes from Exodus 20:2-17 and were Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, III, 91, 92 [v.5]) and Philo (Decalogue XII, 51).

The listing at Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are in a sort of formal legislative style whereas others such as Exodus 34:17-26 are more of a narrative style and are sometimes accompanied by other laws or instructions.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So they include the

So they include the victimless 'thought-crime' of 'coveting', which also in its wording lumps wife and servants in with the rest as 'property', which is downright unacceptable to more enlightened sensibilities.

And then it neglects to include things like rape, torture, and slavery, which are way more worthy of condemnation.

IOW, a grossly inadequate 'code'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So they

BobSpence1 wrote:

So they include the victimless 'thought-crime' of 'coveting', which also in its wording lumps wife and servants in with the rest as 'property', which is downright unacceptable to more enlightened sensibilities.

And then it neglects to include things like rape, torture, and slavery, which are way more worthy of condemnation.

IOW, a grossly inadequate 'code'.

The Hebrew chamadh and the Greek epithymeo both denote "desire" and in certain context convey the idea of a bad or selfish desire. Greed, lust and desire that leads to things like rape, theft, corruption. These unhealthy desires are to be dealt with before they are acted upon.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So they include the victimless 'thought-crime' of 'coveting', which also in its wording lumps wife and servants in with the rest as 'property', which is downright unacceptable to more enlightened sensibilities.

And then it neglects to include things like rape, torture, and slavery, which are way more worthy of condemnation.

IOW, a grossly inadequate 'code'.

The Hebrew chamadh and the Greek epithymeo both denote "desire" and in certain context convey the idea of a bad or selfish desire. Greed, lust and desire that leads to things like rape, theft, corruption. These unhealthy desires are to be dealt with before they are acted upon.

That is just a patent dodge. That argument could apply to murder and theft, which are included. So those things I mentioned are clearly either not considered or treated as not worthy of inclusion.

Coveting may indeed, on occasion, lead to the clear 'sins' of theft  or murder, but that is NOT an adequate justification for including it in the list and leaving those others out.

You just are not willing to concede clearly demonstrable flaws in the Book.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:David

BobSpence1 wrote:

David Henson wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So they include the victimless 'thought-crime' of 'coveting', which also in its wording lumps wife and servants in with the rest as 'property', which is downright unacceptable to more enlightened sensibilities.

And then it neglects to include things like rape, torture, and slavery, which are way more worthy of condemnation.

IOW, a grossly inadequate 'code'.

The Hebrew chamadh and the Greek epithymeo both denote "desire" and in certain context convey the idea of a bad or selfish desire. Greed, lust and desire that leads to things like rape, theft, corruption. These unhealthy desires are to be dealt with before they are acted upon.

That is just a patent dodge. That argument could apply to murder and theft, which are included. So those things I mentioned are clearly either not considered or treated as not worthy of inclusion.

Coveting may indeed, on occasion, lead to the clear 'sins' of theft  or murder, but that is NOT an adequate justification for including it in the list and leaving those others out.

You just are not willing to concede clearly demonstrable flaws in the Book.

I don't think that your criticism of the Books based upon the Decalogue as an exhaustive representation of the Mosaic Law is justifiable. Rape would have been most likely prevented by abstaining from covetousness but there were laws preventing that sort of thing in addition to the 10 words. You also mentioned Slavery as well as Torture and the Bible has something more than might be directly reflected in the Decalogue to say about those as well.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

I know many christians. And I never heard one of them say any laws have been fulfilled. Instead they say "that is not my interpretation". My usual response is something like "well isn't that handy." It's awful convenient to be able to interpret scripture however you want. But then again most of my friends are typical sheep, who have not studied or questioned anything in their life.

I tried to debate a bit with one friend, well untill he said "they just..found the bible" lol he thought somebody just found a bible one day. That is complete ignorance and around here it's apparently common. They don't have to think about it because no one around here questions it.
 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Seculartheist
Seculartheist's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2011-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Why do I get so upset about that?

 I don't


adamlmartin
Theist
Posts: 17
Joined: 2011-04-16
User is offlineOffline
re:

the law as some call it or ot was not for christians, it was made for the jews to start off with.


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Christian Nation? No . . .

MattyB wrote:

If you read the history of [the United States of] America, you  will see that the majority of the culture was, from the beginning, of some Christian culture or another.  This is the American culture that you want changed.


Not what I read in the Constitution, nor in the writings of all the Founders of the Nation. God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is Christian religion or traditions. (In one of our first foreign treaties, with the Emirate of Tripoli, they passed unanimously this passageSmiling

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ."
Treaty of Tripoli with the Emirate of Tripoli, Ottoman Empire.
Ratified by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, signed by Pres. John Adams, June 10, 1797

Note the Senate at the time was made up entirely of the movers and shakers of the Revolution.

Don't even know where to begin with the next one:

MattyB wrote:

The Christmas decorations, the National Day of Prayer, the display of 'In God We Trust', the 10 commandments, the inclusion of God in national themes, the carols during Christmas, the chaplaincy in the military.  All of these display a tradition of Christian culture within the American people since before the nation gained independence.  Even the day after the 1st Amendment was ratified, they voted in and passed a legislation calling for a National Day of Prayer.


Christmas carols have not been outlawed to my knowledge, nor Irish drinking songs on St. Patrick's Day. Union solidarity songs are not outlawed on Labor Day, nor patriotic marches on Veterans Day or Independence Day. To my knowledge, if you want to sing Christmas carols in April, you might get looked at funny, but it is not illegal. And as a musician, I have to practice my Christmas music in August or so, as many people request those songs around November. And many people request Irish drinking songs in March, so I practice those during Advent.

"There had been at least two individual (i.e. single-day) national days of prayer in U.S. history before the day was made an official annual day of observance in 1952." (Wikipedia - Citation needed.) Though other individual days had been noted as early as 1775, this indicates that an official National day of prayer was created formally in 1952, not "the day after the 1st Amendment was ratified," which is problematic anyway since it was ratified on different dates by different states). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

"In God We Trust" was placed on the money in the Mid XX Century amidst anti-Communist fervor. It was to show how we were distinct versus the Soviet Union, and was a political statement. It also entangles religion with law, prohibited by the same First Amendment.

Of note: I have a 1929 Silver Certificate (a One-dollar bill). Ain't no such proclamation about God on that.

The military Chaplaincy is indeed structured on the Christian idea of "organized religion," which is why Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and atheists have had so much trouble being recognized by the Chaplaincy. Islam has no such authority (hence no Muslim chaplains); likewise, Judaism, where according to Navy Times two weeks ago the Navy is after the service's Orthodox Jewish chaplain for refusal to shave his beard on religious grounds. It seeks his ouster on "uniform regulations."

This poor Wiccan remembers quite distinclty the ouster of the Navy's only Wiccan chaplain: he had been a So. Baptist chaplain, but converted to Wicca. As Chaplains are required to be certified by their organizations, and Wicca has no organization, they booted him. We also fought for twenty-five years against the Veterans Administration to have our own religious symbol displayed on the marker of a serviceperson who dies in the service of the USA. The VA consistently said in their court arguments that "it would be offensive to some." (I find a torture/execution device used as a religious symbol to be offensive myself.)

And I was transferred out of recruiting rather than be put in the uncomfortable position of inserting change pages in the manuals of my station because the Bush Administration had made a determination that "Wicca" could not be put on an enlistment application or dog tags (making my dog tags quite collectable nowadays) as GW did not think it a religion.

Now, I know that your name says 'AtheistEXTREMIST', but lets be a little rational here.  If someone moves into your house from another country and decides that your rules, customs, and traditions are not acceptable, you'll have two choices:  Put up or petition.  Most would kick that other person out, but since we are talking about America, that's not really the way we do things.  I hope this serves as a good example of what is happening. 

MattyB wrote:

You want God out of [the United States of] America, but God has been the cornerstone of American culture since the colonies settled here in the 1600's.  It's traditional American way of life.  I really hope you can grasp that concept.


Yup, used to justify slavery, witch-burnings, non-recognition of Haiti (despite the Monroe Doctrine) until the Civil War was underway. (Haiti is the only nation to have ever had a successful slave revolt; the over-represented South in the Congress found that a positively revolting development for them. Once they voluntarily left DC, recognition was easily achieved.)

MattyB wrote:

The problem you are having is not with God, or Christians.  The problem you are having is culture.  If you have ever taken a sociology class, you  may remember what they said about cultural normatives and customs.  It doesn't matter what society you are in, whether religious or atheistic, if you disrupt those norms and customs, you'll be spurned by the greater majority of society.


No the problem I have is Christian (mostly Fundamentalist) revision of our history.

MattyB wrote:

That is the point I'm getting at.  Atheism just is not a part of greater American culture.


Yet in a recent Air Force survey of religious belief in the Air Force, as quoted in Navy Times, when each individual Christian sect is treated seperately, Wicca is the largest religious grouping in the Air Force, followed by atheists.

MattyB wrote:

And culture shouldn't have to change for ever individual's desire.  Otherwise, we would have no American culture, no unity, and strength.  Look into Greek history and you will see that the Greek culture fell apart because of internal conflicts, a failure to adapt and unify.


And if our own culture fails to adapt to new paradigms of thought, it will fall apart too.

MatyB wrote:

I really hope you took everything I said into consideration, as I believe this to be a very logical, historical, and practical response.


I considered it, and I hope you find mine to be logical as well. But I am afraid that history does not support your position of a Christian State or Nation.

James (The Anymouse)


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow!

And this thread is getting as long and as difficult to understand as the Bible. So many interpretations, take your pick. Perhaps there is no Christian religion: perhaps there are just hundreds of millions of Christian religions, each with its own membership of one.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anymouse wrote:MattyB

Anymouse wrote:

MattyB wrote:

If you read the history of [the United States of] America, you  will see that the majority of the culture was, from the beginning, of some Christian culture or another.  This is the American culture that you want changed.


Not what I read in the Constitution, nor in the writings of all the Founders of the Nation. God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is Christian religion or traditions. (In one of our first foreign treaties, with the Emirate of Tripoli, they passed unanimously this passageSmiling

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ."
Treaty of Tripoli with the Emirate of Tripoli, Ottoman Empire.
Ratified by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, signed by Pres. John Adams, June 10, 1797

Note the Senate at the time was made up entirely of the movers and shakers of the Revolution.

Don't even know where to begin with the next one:

None of the laws in the Constitution nor the writings of the Founders of the Nation discredit the laws of the Bible.  Art 11. wouldn't have had to have that statement in it if what matty said was not true.  

The United States was established with freedom in mind.  This includes freedom from being dictated what you should or should not believe and follow.  To implement Christianity into the Law would be going against that purpose.  To implement Christianity in the law would also negate a need to implement a particular view of Christianity be it that it seems our country never really figured out what it is to be a True Christian.  Thus if that agreed upon view ended up being wrong, the right point of view would have a much greater battle to face thus we're back where we started in England.  

No I'm not suggesting any point of view as more right or wrong than another, just explaining a probability if implemented into the law was the religion of the land.  To suggest that matty was wrong in this case based upon what the Constitution or any government based writing said would be wrong be it that he was simply stating that the majority of the population was rooted in Christianity.  That is verifiable.  


albertwils
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-05-03
User is offlineOffline
Well it's a hard question

Well it's a hard question this. But i agree with what the user above told !

-------

Provillus

Melatrol


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Anymouse

caposkia wrote:

Anymouse wrote:

MattyB wrote:

If you read the history of [the United States of] America, you  will see that the majority of the culture was, from the beginning, of some Christian culture or another.  This is the American culture that you want changed.


Not what I read in the Constitution, nor in the writings of all the Founders of the Nation. God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is Christian religion or traditions. (In one of our first foreign treaties, with the Emirate of Tripoli, they passed unanimously this passageSmiling

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . ."
Treaty of Tripoli with the Emirate of Tripoli, Ottoman Empire.
Ratified by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, signed by Pres. John Adams, June 10, 1797

Note the Senate at the time was made up entirely of the movers and shakers of the Revolution.

Don't even know where to begin with the next one:

None of the laws in the Constitution nor the writings of the Founders of the Nation discredit the laws of the Bible.  Art 11. wouldn't have had to have that statement in it if what matty said was not true.  

The United States was established with freedom in mind.  This includes freedom from being dictated what you should or should not believe and follow.  To implement Christianity into the Law would be going against that purpose.  To implement Christianity in the law would also negate a need to implement a particular view of Christianity be it that it seems our country never really figured out what it is to be a True Christian.  Thus if that agreed upon view ended up being wrong, the right point of view would have a much greater battle to face thus we're back where we started in England.  

No I'm not suggesting any point of view as more right or wrong than another, just explaining a probability if implemented into the law was the religion of the land.  To suggest that matty was wrong in this case based upon what the Constitution or any government based writing said would be wrong be it that he was simply stating that the majority of the population was rooted in Christianity.  That is verifiable.  

Not mentioning something does not automatically imply discrediting that thing. Besides, the "laws of the Bible" you tout were old when the writers of the Bible were babies.

The United States were founded on freedom. They didn't mention religion because religion is a shackle - shackles inhibit freedom. History shows religion to create political entanglements that benefit them and screw over the citizenry.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not

jcgadfly wrote:

Not mentioning something does not automatically imply discrediting that thing. Besides, the "laws of the Bible" you tout were old when the writers of the Bible were babies.

The United States were founded on freedom. They didn't mention religion because religion is a shackle - shackles inhibit freedom. History shows religion to create political entanglements that benefit them and screw over the citizenry.

Regardless of implication, anything opposing the laws would discredit them.  The point is nothing written goes against those laws and the reason was explained above.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not mentioning something does not automatically imply discrediting that thing. Besides, the "laws of the Bible" you tout were old when the writers of the Bible were babies.

The United States were founded on freedom. They didn't mention religion because religion is a shackle - shackles inhibit freedom. History shows religion to create political entanglements that benefit them and screw over the citizenry.

Regardless of implication, anything opposing the laws would discredit them.  The point is nothing written goes against those laws and the reason was explained above.  

I set up a discussion section in Atheists vs Theists forum if you still wanna do the discussion thing.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not mentioning something does not automatically imply discrediting that thing. Besides, the "laws of the Bible" you tout were old when the writers of the Bible were babies.

The United States were founded on freedom. They didn't mention religion because religion is a shackle - shackles inhibit freedom. History shows religion to create political entanglements that benefit them and screw over the citizenry.

Regardless of implication, anything opposing the laws would discredit them.  The point is nothing written goes against those laws and the reason was explained above.  

My point was that the laws are not the "laws of the Bible". The Bible authors "borrowed" them from other cultures. Please don't try to say that the Bible is an original work - you'd be lying.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:My point was

jcgadfly wrote:

My point was that the laws are not the "laws of the Bible". The Bible authors "borrowed" them from other cultures. Please don't try to say that the Bible is an original work - you'd be lying.

Lying implies the one lying knows the truth and is intentionally avoiding it.  You know that I've promised not to lie, so if I were to say that it is an original work, it's likely that i was just ignorant of that fact.  I wouldn't claim it though due to many reasons and even how it was compiled.  i would argue that most books in the Bible are original writings, though we don't have the original copies which leaves room for additions and changes.  Also, just because something is original doesn't suggest that nothing could be taken from other sources.  citation wasn't the law back then.  

The Bible authors wrote from what they knew... that includes personal experience and knowledge on top of the events that they are trying to cover.   In order to get the point across, many times it's necessary to reference to common knowledge. 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPY

Hi OPY,

All I can say is wow. I mean, what else can I say.

First off, you wannabe atheists (Sapient refers to it as an atheist agnostic - lol) ought to know that Christians today are like little nerds with their balls cut off. So you ought to pick on somebody with intelligence like myself. This is rare.

Thus logically we must infer that the lack of an answer is not the because there is no answer. This question is so silly and easy my 5 year old daughter can answer it.

Romans 6:14 via the use of under denotes the ruler of faith for salvation. The law was a manifestation of salvation that had to be kept. Even though it has always been by grace alone (Hab 2:4), the Old Testament law was a manifestation of that faith that they were bound by.

Also, via the levitical law, there are classifications of law. There are ceremonial law and moral law for example. When the levitical law said to build a fence around your roof, that is not required today. However, God's moral law is a means of desire that flows out of our salvation of Grace.

So the first reason would be due to the fact that the 10 commandments of moral law (# 4 needs qualification - Col 2:13-16). Thus while we are not bound or under the law or moral law, God's ethics found in His law still stand and are to be continued.

And thirdly and finally, since you dimwits don't know logic, this may cause your head to explode. In the Old Testament there are directives and directions. We follow one and not the others.

So, the ten commandments as a representation of the founding of this country on Christians values and influenced by Christian thinking is important. Just look what they did in Madison Wisconsin. They replaced the Words of God witht he Word's of men, and they have an atheist inscription from the Freedom from thinking foundation.

This is a very stupid question. The old testament was a must FOR, the NT is a Want Because. Thus the means of the object of obedience has switched, however, the object of obedience stands the test of time.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Answering the Dumb Questions Atheists Think up Often

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi OPY,

All I can say is wow. I mean, what else can I say.

First off, you wannabe atheists (Sapient refers to it as an atheist agnostic - lol) ought to know that Christians today are like little nerds with their balls cut off. So you ought to pick on somebody with intelligence like myself. This is rare.

Thus logically we must infer that the lack of an answer is not the because there is no answer. This question is so silly and easy my 5 year old daughter can answer it.

Romans 6:14 via the use of under denotes the ruler of faith for salvation. The law was a manifestation of salvation that had to be kept. Even though it has always been by grace alone (Hab 2:4), the Old Testament law was a manifestation of that faith that they were bound by.

Also, via the levitical law, there are classifications of law. There are ceremonial law and moral law for example. When the levitical law said to build a fence around your roof, that is not required today. However, God's moral law is a means of desire that flows out of our salvation of Grace.

So the first reason would be due to the fact that the 10 commandments of moral law (# 4 needs qualification - Col 2:13-16). Thus while we are not bound or under the law or moral law, God's ethics found in His law still stand and are to be continued.

And thirdly and finally, since you dimwits don't know logic, this may cause your head to explode. In the Old Testament there are directives and directions. We follow one and not the others.

So, the ten commandments as a representation of the founding of this country on Christians values and influenced by Christian thinking is important. Just look what they did in Madison Wisconsin. They replaced the Words of God witht he Word's of men, and they have an atheist inscription from the Freedom from thinking foundation.

This is a very stupid question. The old testament was a must FOR, the NT is a Want Because. Thus the means of the object of obedience has switched, however, the object of obedience stands the test of time.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Answering the Dumb Clavinist Claims  They Think up Often


The law is done away with in Christ.

 

2

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

3

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

4

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

5

For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.

6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

 4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The Greater Glory of the New Covenant

 

7

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was,

8

will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

9

If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!

10

For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.

11

And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Galatians 3

Faith or Works of the Law

 

1

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

2

I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

3

Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

[a] 4

Have you experienced

[b]

so much in vain—if it really was in vain?

5

So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

6

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

[c]

 7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The Law and the Promise

 

15

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.

16

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”

[i]

meaning one person, who is Christ.

17

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

18

For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God

 

23

Before the coming of this faith,

[j]

we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

24

So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.

25

Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

Not sure what this means? Shall I now quote atheist verses?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,Not

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Not sure what this means? Shall I now quote atheist verses?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Don't be shocked Johnny boy. TG just knows your holy book better than you. When atheists and Christians meet that is not a shocking occurrence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,Not

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Not sure what this means? Shall I now quote atheist verses?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I thought you'd recognize some antinomian proof text if you saw them. The Law was just a school teacher til Christ came. We are made free from the law and all that.  No ten commandments, Torah etc.; The New Covenant replacing the Old and all that.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello TG

Hi TG,

Well, Christ did not replace the law my heretical friend, He fulfilled the law. Was that an intentional heresy? And while it is true that Christians today don't know their Bible, and atheists know more then they, that is hardly the case in my situation (LOL).

Nobody disagrees that Christ fulfilled the law. Were we discussing this? But Christ did not do away with the law, since not a small portion of the law will ever perish.

Christians today apply the moral law not for are salvation, but from our salavation. It was reversed in the Old Testament. But I would enjoy discussing the Trinity with you sometime, as to why you becamse so heretical over it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Well, Christ did not replace the law my heretical friend, He fulfilled the law. Was that an intentional heresy? And while it is true that Christians today don't know their Bible, and atheists know more then they, that is hardly the case in my situation (LOL).

Nobody disagrees that Christ fulfilled the law. Were we discussing this? But Christ did not do away with the law, since not a small portion of the law will ever perish.

Christians today apply the moral law not for are salvation, but from our salavation. It was reversed in the Old Testament. But I would enjoy discussing the Trinity with you sometime, as to why you becamse so heretical over it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Or the writers simply contradicted themselves trying to get Paul's religion to make sense.That seems more likely. That's why most Christians don't even bother with the gospels anymore (unless they're reading them with the interpretation they gleaned from Paul).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

Well, Christ did not replace the law my heretical friend, He fulfilled the law. Was that an intentional heresy? And while it is true that Christians today don't know their Bible, and atheists know more then they, that is hardly the case in my situation (LOL).

Nobody disagrees that Christ fulfilled the law. Were we discussing this? But Christ did not do away with the law, since not a small portion of the law will ever perish.

Christians today apply the moral law not for are salvation, but from our salavation. It was reversed in the Old Testament. But I would enjoy discussing the Trinity with you sometime, as to why you becamse so heretical over it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

We no longer follow it. Not real Christians or atheists. Those who do might as well castrate themselves for they are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace. Galatians by the way.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.



For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi TG

Hi TG,

No offense, but you appear to have sucked as a Christian or Reformed Christian. Technically speaking, it has ALWAYS been via the justification of faith (Hab 2:4). For we are justified by HIS faith. However, the manifestation of that means was different.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi TG,No

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi TG,

No offense, but you appear to have sucked as a Christian or Reformed Christian. Technically speaking, it has ALWAYS been via the justification of faith (Hab 2:4). For we are justified by HIS faith. However, the manifestation of that means was different.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Nope we are justified through our faith through his grace ( ya'll like Luther like to drop that through grace stuff) not by alteration of the meaning of the text by Calvin that one could boast. For if one has faith and another works yadah yadah.  It is a basphemy to alter the meaning of text for your own doctrine. But then welcome to protestantism.  But then I have no idea which post you are referring to unless it has to do with the Spirit Covenant replaces  the law covenant according to Paul. Certainly not according to original Christianity which maintained the law. Your theology sucks in the sense that you try to maintain Paul's Helenistic Mystery cult bulls-geschichte while reaching back to the original laws of Jesus and his real followers.  That is why reformed is not original since tt means and claims that it is puting Christianity into an improved condition or beneficial change which was arrogant, cocky and wrong.  You just made a bunch of superstitions very legalistic without getting back to the original teachings of Christ and his followers. Pretty much all of the NT writings dstroyed the original form of the Jesus movement ( the Way).


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BookofJob
Theist
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Ten Commandments

I don't get that upset....the Ten Commandments were a REVOLUTION when God gave them to the Jews. Since humanity hasn't changed they are still a revelation/revolution today...since so many people can seem to live by them 1000s of years later.

Why do some people get upset that they were there to start with and needed to remove them? Since they start all the legal battles etc. to remove them seems to me they were the most upset to start wth.Maybe the shoe is on the other foot?

What should we replace them with?

The record of the 20th century?

REGIMESYEARSDEMOCIDE2Atheist?
TABLE 1.2
20th Century Democide1


U.S.S.R.1917-8761,911,000Yes
China (PRC)1949-8735,236,000Yes
Germany1933-4520,946,000No
China (KMT)1928-4910,075,000No
Japan1936-455,964,000No
China (Mao Soviets)31923-493,466,000Yes
Cambodia1975-792,035,000Yes
Turkey (Armenian Genocide)1909-181,883,000No
Vietnam1945-871,670,000Yes
Poland1945-481,585,000Yes
Pakistan1958-871,503,000No
Yugoslavia (Tito)1944-871,072,000Yes
North Korea1948-871,663,000Yes
Mexico1900-201,417,000No
Russia1900-171,066,000Yes
China (Warlords)1917-49910,000No
Turkey (Ataturk)1919-23878,000No
United Kingdom1900-87816,000No
Portugal (Dictatorship)1926-82741,000No
Indonesia1965-87729,000No
LESSER MURDERERS1900-872,792,000?
WORLD TOTAL1900-87169,202,000107,047,000

What percentage of this democide was due to religious conflict? It turns out that religious democide doesn't even make the top 20 (although I am sure there is some in the "lesser murderers" category. Still, the total religious killings is less than 2%. In fact, the top two killers were specifically atheistic states (which had never existed before in human history). Should atheism be blamed for more than 50% of the atrocities committed during the 20th century? The answer of course is No! If one examines the nature of the regimes that committed these atrocities (even the religious ones), the key factor is absolute power (see Figure 1, right). According to Professor R.J. Rummel, in the 1816-2005 period there were 205 wars between non-democracies, 166 wars between non-democracies and democracies, and 0 wars between democracies. Lord Acton's warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be more than a trite saying.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Russia and China are not and

Russia and China are not and have not in recent history ever been atheist states. They are states that replaced god with state. Their nations are their gods, except in China, where religion abounds regardless of what the leaders impose.

Atheism can't be pointed at for any murders or wars that I've ever heard of or studied.

And, the vast majority of deaths in most major wars in recorded history are directly or partially attributable to theism. Since theism seeks absolute power, theists are constantly attempting to kill to gain it. And kill to keep it. And kill to take it from someone else.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 857
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
NOT A PROBLEM REALLY

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 

Ran,

 

I'm not upset about posting/not posting the 10 commandments.  That doesn't prove anything to get that done by law or power. 

If you notice, government laws aren't doing a great job of changing people or controlling people in any depth.  The law of God didn't have that power changing men either.  It pointed to the need for a Savior Who fulfilled the law. 

What the law couldn't do Christ can do - changing man's heart through the power of the gospel through faith.

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I like how people can

I like how people can pretend the "10 commandments" could not possibly have been made by men. I mean there is just no way people could have figured out that killing lying cheating etc are bad for a cohesive society.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


buttershug
Posts: 9
Joined: 2011-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I read about a small plane

I read about a small plane crash where the pilot was not found.

I thought hey the rapture happened and the one guy that got it right ascended.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote:Ok.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
Ok. The thing about the law of the OT was it was meant as a foreshadow of Christ. Lets take a thing or two for example. When the high priest entered the holiest of holies to make the yearly sacrifice on the day of atonement he had to remove his priestly garments and put on plain white garments. He had to humble himself. This is a foreshadow that God removed his glory and humbled Himself as a mere man. There were the priestly laws, which only applied to the levitical priesthood, there were the abomination to man laws "don't do this or that for it is an abomination unto you" and there were the abomination to God laws "don't do this or that because it is an abomination unto God" When Christ took the cross the "abomination to man" laws were made none effect as well as the priestly laws. When the Holy Ghost was poured out at Pentecost the Lord was made available to all. Prior to that He only made Himself available to Israel. The gentiles did not have the law of moses. That is why paul consistanly says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (Paul was sanhedrin, he knew Jewish law). The difference is that now there is the availability to receive the Holy Ghost inside of us.
So the command by God to kill all the Canaanites including the women, children and babies was a foreshadow of Christ. Wow Jesus Love You to Death or more intensely then.  Keep him out of my world.

Christology rests upon a mistake. This is a simple statement that could be easily understood by much of the various Christian denominations. As so it means the invalidity of the Christian Faith since it rests upon its own Christology.


Christology or how and why Jesus saves is based upon the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is real. However, much of Christendom apart from conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists knows how the universe began and that evolution is factual. They also affirm that the Genesis account of the Creation and Adam and Eve are mythological. It is unlikely for example that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars as in presented in Genesis. Also there is plenty of fossil and genetic evidence that humankind has been about hundreds of thousands of years.

Since the Creation and the Fall are mythological and not literal accounts there is no basis to assume there is original sin. Christology is based upon original sin. The death of Jesus upon the cross is a sacrifice (propitiation) for that sin. Paul argues it, “As in Adam all have sinned and died so in Christ all are made alive.” Since there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, or Fall then there is no basis for a need of salvation. Jesus did not die for your sins. He died because of his teachings.

The basis of information for the proposition that Jesus is the Christ is suspect. Unlike the mythicist's view of a mythological origins we find a movement from human to legendary. The intentional re-workings of the Gospels by their authors are responses to historical events. The mythological elements are the later work of Paul and those that influenced him attached to the legendary aspects that are reflected in the Gospels. While the Gospels are later in writing than the authentic Pauline Epistles, they have a closer geographic and ethnic origin to Jesus and his followers than Paul and the Hellenistic mythological language.



The discrepancies in the Gospels can be analyzed for motivation by the authors. For example John changed the time of the crucifixion reflected in Matthew so that Jesus's death in his Gospel would coincide with the slaughter of the lambs. This in turn builds the theological theme that Jesus is the Passover Lamb and proposing that Jesus is a sacrifice for sin. These dependencies are often minor but are cumulative and add up to significance.



Looking at the various re-workings of Mark by Matthew and Luke shows that they had an agenda to overcome; the idea that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist, to create an apology for why he would have been baptized for the remission of sin, and to subordinate the Baptist to Jesus as a precursor. Matthew drops the statement from Mark that John's baptism was for the remission of sin. Again we see the human Jesus of Mark elevated in the later gospels' re-workings.



Looking at the way Matthew handles various texts one can see the elimination of normal human behavior from Mark's presentation to a more supernatural figure. Mark's “Why do you call Me good? There is none good but God.” is reworked to “Why do you ask me about the good?” For now with the addition of the virgin birth Matthew presents Jesus with supernatural powers and born with the Holy Spirit. He knows the thoughts of others unlike in Mark 5:21ff, when he questions, “Who touched my garment?” Like God in Matthew, Jesus is now good. The Gospel of John will make Jesus the very incarnation of God's reason as Logos, the Word.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Hesed
Theist
Hesed's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

Coming in a bit late, I know.  I wish I could spend more time here, but my schedule is insane at best.  I saw this and thought I would try to comment.

So, I'm not sure why they get upset, I don't.  I suppose you could tie it to 'nationalistic pride', i.e., the stand that this nation was founded on Christian principals therefore the display of those principals like the Ten Commandments or "In God We Trust" on money is an expression of what the majority of people believe this country not only stands for but is founded upon.  For me, it's just a piece of wood or statue or something etched in concrete: Their passing isn't going to change my belief or faith. 

Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why is the 'thought crime'

Why is the 'thought crime' (nothing acted upon) of 'coveting' your neighbour's possessions, such as his animals, wife, and servants, considered more important to have in the 10 than prohibitions against torture and rape?

One of the lamest sets of 'moral' rules around.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Why is the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why is the 'thought crime' (nothing acted upon) of 'coveting' your neighbour's possessions, such as his animals, wife, and servants, considered more important to have in the 10 than prohibitions against torture and rape?

One of the lamest sets of 'moral' rules around.

Well if you are a small tribe of nomads with a bunch of sheep , cattle and women you gotta protect  your property some how?????????????????


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


pmatt
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove displays of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?

 

Answer: Christians believe America was founded on Christian -  Judaic  Laws the Ten commandments come under that category. Also the Bible says the the unbeliever is not subject to the word of God and can not be, so it is not a spiritual thing. Rather the Bible does recognize the Government does not use the sword in vain. So the ten Commandments are the foundation of our American secular Law which Christians want enforced by the Government in order to keep the peace as they are charged to do so.

As far as Christians the Bible teaches God's people have hid his word in their hearts.  So we do not need a plaque.

 

The larger Question about Jesus full filing the Law, The bible also says the Unbeliever can not understand Spiritual things. So to unbeliever it is n enigma

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
pmatt wrote: the Bible says

pmatt wrote:
 the Bible says the the unbeliever...

pmatt wrote:
Rather the Bible does recognize...

pmatt wrote:
 the Bible teaches... 
 

pmatt wrote:
The bible also says...

The bible says...the bible says...the bible says...the bible says...the bible says...the bible says...the bible says...

mmBlah, mmBlah, mmBlah

Fuck, you people are mindless automatons...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Ten Commandments are a

The Ten Commandments are a really lame set of 'moral' guidelines - The ones about worshipping God are irrelevant to morality, and they don't include rules prohibiting torture, rape, or slavery, while including the 'thought-crime' about not covetting your neigbour's property, which also offensively refers to his wife and servants as mere 'property', a common theme of the OT.

It is clear the writers of the Bible understood little of significance about "Life, Universe, and Everything". It is a record of codified ignorance. They are the ones who were blind to what we now see as a far more accurate and comprehensive, albeit yet incomplete, of Reality.

Of course it will say the 'unbeliever' will not understand its message - that is such an old 'trick' of writing to make it sound clever. Only someone dumb enough to swallow the offensive ignorance and primitive version of morality it conveys would quote that.

I understand the message, and find it deeply offensive to any understanding of Truth and Goodness.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
pmatt wrote:Answer:

 

 

pmatt wrote:
Answer: Christians believe America was founded on Christian - Judaic Laws the Ten commandments come under that category.

 

 

Well, you do realize that what you believe and what is true are two different things, right? Well, apparently not since your belief so clearly flies in the face of reality. Consider that the founding documents include the bill of rights but not really the ten commandments.

 

 

first commandment wrote:
I am the lord your god. You shall have no other gods before me.

 

 

first amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 

 

So right there, we put the lie to your belief. Our most important law is specifically at odds with the most important law of those who cannot get their heads out of the old testament.

 

 

Second and third commandments wrote:
You shall not make for yourself an idol/Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

 

 

first amendment(again) wrote:
Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech

 

 

And freedom of speech includes artistic expression.

 

 

Fourth commandment wrote:
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

 

 

Covered under the first amendment as quoted above.

 

 

fifth commandment wrote:
Honor your father and mother

 

 

Illegal to even pass such a law on the lower level. Please read the first amendment again.

 

 

sixth, eighth and ninth commandments wrote:
Basically cover not killing, stealing or perjuring yourself.

 

 

All good values there. Everyone should have some idea of why those are wrong. Including other cultures not specifically based on the old testament. China comes to mind as a great example.

 

 

Seventh commandment wrote:
Adultery

 

 

Now I don't want to get into the specific definition of adultery. There are lots of laws about who can boink whom, however, they are not part of the fundamental laws of the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws across the whole country a few years ago.

 

 

Tenth commandment wrote:
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff.

 

 

Kind of hard to even make a law about that. First off, if it is even a problem, any such law would amount to a thought crime. Second, one would have to define it as a problem. In any case, it is not in any of the founding documents.

 

 

Now the thing is that I do not have a huge problem with their being a copy of the ten commandments in a court house. It is not like anyone actually passed a law mandating the thing. Add to that that every judge with half a brain knows that they are not binding law for judicial decisions and if they were cited in a case, it would instantly be overturned on appeal as grossly unconstitutional.

 

 

As such, the document could go on display as interesting art work under the same status as a plaque with the code of Hammurabi or any other ancient text of old laws which are not foundational principals. That much might even be protected under the first amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


5_senses_does_n...
Posts: 40
Joined: 2011-07-12
User is offlineOffline
I think the answer is:

I think the answer is: FEAR.

which funny enough, is the answer to most questions concerning why christians do what they do.

 

how about this qustion, why would the jews carry the arch of the covenant into battle, (the product of battle is death, the method is killing), when it contained the ten commandments, one of which is " though shalt not kill"?

I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
5_senses_does_not_reality_mak

5_senses_does_not_reality_make wrote:

I think the answer is: FEAR.

which funny enough, is the answer to most questions concerning why christians do what they do.

 

how about this qustion, why would the jews carry the arch of the covenant into battle, (the product of battle is death, the method is killing), when it contained the ten commandments, one of which is " though shalt not kill"?

The Ark of the Covenant was carried into battle as a morale booster. The view was that God's presence would be where the Ark was. People tended to fight harder if they believed God was with them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin