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


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Due to severe irrationality.

Due to severe irrationality. As much of a problem I've had with St Michael since he's been on here at least his views haven't been due to hatred. St Michael: Clara is an anti-semite apparently and claims the holocaust never happened. She also hates Jews. That's why she has a problem with this site now. I'm sure you atleast have a problem with that sort of thing.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
I am not anti-Arab.  You

I am not anti-Arab.  You indulge in slander.  Cease and desist.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
i really dont care that

i really dont care that much if they are there or not. i think people mind so much because its taking away a symbol of there religion not really because of what the symbol means, then you have the people that care because its taking away what they feel the nation was founded on. pick what you will. (do people really have a hard time with these questions?)

J D


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I do have a great

Yes, I do have a great problem with anti-Semitism. Thank you for being kind enough to point that out.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Yes, I do have a great problem with anti-Semitism. Thank you for being kind enough to point that out. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Yes indeed. Arab bashing is disturbing, and it's not confined to bashing Islam as a religion--it's a matter of bashing Arabs on a racial basis. It is disturbing that the unwritten tenet of certain "atheists" is that Arab bashing is the goal while issuing an exemption for one branch of Abrahamism errantly claiming to be semitic.

And so we arrive at a blasphemy these "atheists" find to be unforgivable--blaspheming Jim Crow. I do not worship Jim Crow, and yet here we have numerous cases of "atheists" worshipping at his altar, claiming exclusivity to being semitic right down to defining its version of the Jim Crow "one drop" to be a specific X chromosome.

These "atheists" adhere to this Jim Crow religion to the point of committing verbal lynching against any who would blaspheme such worship. In this month of February, Black History Month, I again stand proudly to denounce and blaspheme against Jim Crow, and await the next round of verbal lynching by the false atheist faction.

Know ye by these presents that I condemn and blaspheme against the racist Jim Crow God they have substituted for Abraham's God, and I support NO form of racism of ANY kind--not even theirs.

Inasmuch as these "atheists" are intolerant of blasphemy against racism, it is again proven that these "atheists" are religious, and intolerant. 

Further, it is clear that the goal is not to bring reason to the irrationality of religion, but to advance one branch of Abrahamism at the expense of the other two. 

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


marcustheist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
10 Commandments

Speaking as a fundamentalist Christian, but probably not speaking for all of us, let me say this:

I don't think you will find more than 10 people in the entire country who will insist that we codify the 10 Commandments. However, what they DO represent is the fact that laws and government come from somewhere higher than simply a consensus of the majority .  Besides that, the very idea of government  is mandated by God.  Founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin, legal scholars like Blackstone, and one heroic president, Lincoln believed the same thing. For that reason, I don't think it's so strange to want to see the Commandments displayed.

 


BringOnYourChallenge
Theist
BringOnYourChallenge's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
The 10 Commandants are the

The 10 Commandants are the basis this Nation was founded on. Our founding father's believed in them. Hence the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency. Yes Jesus did fulfill the OT and because of that we are not bound by the laws of the OT. It was regarding to one, in the OT in order to be forgiven of ur sins you had to sacrifice an animal for atonement. But Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, because of Him we do not have to do that anymore. Also God repeats the commandments in the NT sayin that they are what we will be judge accordingly to when we stand before Him on the day of judgement. I'd have to agree w/Marcus that since our founding fathers believed these 10 commandments and that is what our gov't is based upon then yes they should be displayed, it is part of history. Why can't it be there? does it "offend" you? Its not hurting anyone. This whole "blashpemy challenge" and everything else ya'l are saying doesnt upset me or really get to me. Because you cannot condemn your soul to hell just by quoting "i deny the holy spirt" just like u cannot recieve salvation just by quoting "i recieve you Jesus as my savior". Its not something tht is recited. its heart, soul, and mind. and as for the "challenge" bring on all the questions and i will answer them the best of my knowledge. i wont punt. I'm not GOD so of course I won't be able to answer every question, but with the Holy Spirits help i'l be able to address them the best i can!! Laughing

There is no such thing as blind faith. Blind faith is simply faith in faith. Faith itself is nothing, it lies in the OBJECT OF THE FAITH! IT IS IN GOD THAT MY FAITH LIES! I will not be a "cop out faith" Christian.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hey Brian and crew, I am a

Hey Brian and crew,

I am a fundamentalist Christian and believe that the posted question to Christians is flawed from the beginning...It is not a "rational response" to the issue of the support of the public display of the Ten Commandments.

Judge Roy Moore, in regard to his courtroom Ten Commandments display (a wooden plaque) stated, "I wanted to establish the moral foundation for our law."

At the unveiling of Moore's now famous, granite monument, he said, "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgement of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded...May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."

Moore's position related to the Ten Commandments was not one of putting Christians back under the law. I would assume that Moore knows that Romans 10:4 says that Christ was the end of the law and that Colossians 2:14 says that Christ nailed the law and its regulations to the cross. However, Moore's position is documented to be one of concern for the historical and law-making role that the Decalogue played in our Country's history. This concern resonates with many who are concerned about the ACLU lawsuits that attempt to remove the mention of God and His Word from all vestiges of public life. Many Christians, like Moore, find this position and concern worthy of support.

Moore's position seemed easliy understood as it was repeated by the federal District Court Judge, Justice Myron Thompson, in his Glassroth v. Moore ruling when he wrote, "If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments' historical and educational importance...or their importance as a model code for good citizenship...This court would have a much different case before it." Justice Thompson understood that it was about the history and importance of the Ten Commandments...not the putting of Christians back under the law (most people do understand).

Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement said this in his brief to the Supreme Court related to the Tenessee Ten Commandments case, "Justices of this court, decisions of lowers courts and the writings of countless historians and academics have long recognized the significant influence that the Ten Commandments have had on the development of American law."

The significant influence that the Ten Commandments have had can clearly be seen in the primary source documentation provided by David Barton, an author, a recognized authority/expert in American history and owner of a "vast collection of thousands of documents of American history predating 1812, including works of the signers of the Declaration and the Constitution, in his Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments (www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41).

In this affidavit, Barton cites historical documention related to the tangible influence of the Ten Commandments as it relates to the Constitution, various state constitutions, and on various founders thoughts and intent as they formulated the laws that governed/govern. This documentation, among a plethora of supporting evidence, includes:

"In 1672, Conneticut revised its laws and reaffirmed its civil adherence to the laws established in the Scripture, declaring:

The serious consideration of the necessity of the establishment of wholesome laws for the regulating of each body politic hath inclined us mainly in obedience unto Jehovah the Great Lawgiver, Who hath been pleased to set down a Divine platform not only of the moral but also of judicial laws suitable for the people of Israel; as...laws and constitutions suiting our State."

Conneticut established their laws and referenced a Bible verse for each law because it was, "by the Word of God."

The New Haven Colony had done the same thing before that. Rhode Island had done the same in 1638 stating, "all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby", with reference to Exodous 24:3,4 and other Scriptures.

The same was done in Massachusetts, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

General George Washington issued orders against swearing, profanity and drunkeness with reference to the Ten Commandments.

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania "reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law". This was again reaffirmed by the 1921 Supreme Court of Maine and the 1944 Supreme Court of Florida, among others.

In 1950, the Supreme Court of Mississippi declared that the Sunday laws had their origin in the Ten Commandments.

etc., etc., and etc. The amount of historical documentation for the Ten Commandments' influence on our Country's history and law-making is enormous.

Given this enormity, people including Christians, support causes that fight the attempts of the ACLU to remove the public display of the Ten Commandments. These efforts are not done to place anyone back under the law but to support the historical role that the Ten Commandments played.

  


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
"Seriously, why do you keep

"Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the Ten Commandments?"

Because the founders, the courts, and the primary source historical documenation has said so.

See pby's 2/8/07 post, which is on page 4.

The original question that was the origin for this thread is not a "rational response" to a Christian's support for the public display of the Ten Commandments. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: "Seriously, why

pby wrote:

"Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the Ten Commandments?"

Because the founders, the courts, and the primary source historical documenation has said so.

See pby's 2/8/07 post, which is on page 4.

The original question that was the origin for this thread is not a "rational response" to a Christian's support for the public display of the Ten Commandments.

Some of the problem stems from people thinking that the 10 Commandments were original thoughts instead of rules plagiarized from other civilizations' laws.

"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


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
marcustheist

marcustheist wrote:

Speaking as a fundamentalist Christian, but probably not speaking for all of us, let me say this:

I don't think you will find more than 10 people in the entire country who will insist that we codify the 10 Commandments. However, what they DO represent is the fact that laws and government come from somewhere higher than simply a consensus of the majority .

You mean, of course, that they come from a fairy tale about somebody higher than the majority.  You see, this is the problem.  Not everyone agrees that the ten commandments came from god, and that should be allowed in a liberal democracy. 

marcustheist wrote:

Besides that, the very idea of government is mandated by God. Founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin, legal scholars like Blackstone, and one heroic president, Lincoln believed the same thing. For that reason, I don't think it's so strange to want to see the Commandments displayed.

Again, assuming you believe in god.

 

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: etc., etc., and

pby wrote:

etc., etc., and etc. The amount of historical documentation for the Ten Commandments' influence on our Country's history and law-making is enormous.

Given this enormity, people including Christians, support causes that fight the attempts of the ACLU to remove the public display of the Ten Commandments. These efforts are not done to place anyone back under the law but to support the historical role that the Ten Commandments played.

All of which begs the question:  if christians are not supposed to be living under that law any more, then why have so many christian lawmakers refered to it down through the years?  Were they all just ignorant of theology?

Assuming your answer will be no, on what basis did they separate the ten commandments out of the rest of the OT for special consideration?  Did christ manage, in fulfilling the old law, to also give christians the mystical power to pick and choose whatever they want to consider to be god's law?  Or is the whole thing a giant incoherent mess that christians have to scramble around to try to reconcile with any kind of logic still today?

I'll take door number 2, Monty. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I did not read all of the

I did not read all of the comments so i'm not sure if someone answered your question, but here is the answer. The only thing that the law ever did was make people aware of their sins. No one has ever kept all of the law without ever breaking one of them except for Christ. So when Christians get upset about people taking down the 10 commandments it is becuase the 10 commandments are Christians basic morals. A few things, do not judge Christianity by Christians we fail, judge it by Christ. God told the disciples if they reject you shake the dust off your shoes and move on. No good Christian would ever force Christianity down someones throat. It is by the will of God that people are saved not by the will of man. I do not hate atheist, and many of them ask very good questions, sadly not enough many Christians don't even know their own beliefs or the Bible they claim is the truth. Many of them punt the question and say it is faith. Questions are good and I would gladly answer any questions you have as long as they are respectfull.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: I did not

questions wrote:
I did not read all of the comments so i'm not sure if someone answered your question, but here is the answer. The only thing that the law ever did was make people aware of their sins. No one has ever kept all of the law without ever breaking one of them except for Christ. So when Christians get upset about people taking down the 10 commandments it is becuase the 10 commandments are Christians basic morals. A few things, do not judge Christianity by Christians we fail, judge it by Christ. God told the disciples if they reject you shake the dust off your shoes and move on. No good Christian would ever force Christianity down someones throat. It is by the will of God that people are saved not by the will of man. I do not hate atheist, and many of them ask very good questions, sadly not enough many Christians don't even know their own beliefs or the Bible they claim is the truth. Many of them punt the question and say it is faith. Questions are good and I would gladly answer any questions you have as long as they are respectfull.

Well, the answer here appears to be that christians are expected to at least try to live according to the old law as well as the new.  Which means that christians are supposed to stone their kids to death for disobeying them.  

I agree that the message of christianity seems to be that christians shouldn't try to push their religion on others.  Which brings back the question of why christians would feel compelled to display the tenets of their religion in a government building - a building built for and by atheists, just as much as christians.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

"Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the Ten Commandments?"

Because the founders, the courts, and the primary source historical documenation has said so.

See pby's 2/8/07 post, which is on page 4.

The original question that was the origin for this thread is not a "rational response" to a Christian's support for the public display of the Ten Commandments.

Some of the problem stems from people thinking that the 10 Commandments were original thoughts instead of rules plagiarized from other civilizations' laws.

 

The issue at hand was not the origin of the Ten Commandments (whether or not they were plagiarized, as you allege)...The issue was why some/many Christians support the public display of the Ten Commandments, if they no longer live under the law.

As cited, they support them because of the signifcant role they held in our Country's law-making. Read the documentation for yourself.

The only confusion on this subject has its origins in the straw-man argument put forth via the original posted question at the top of the thread.  

Even if the Ten Commandments were plagarized, which I disagree with,  this allegation does not change the fact, nor is it a problem, that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the history of our law-making...It is just plain, documented, historical fact. 

 

 

 

 


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

"Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the Ten Commandments?"

Because the founders, the courts, and the primary source historical documenation has said so.

See pby's 2/8/07 post, which is on page 4.

The original question that was the origin for this thread is not a "rational response" to a Christian's support for the public display of the Ten Commandments.

Some of the problem stems from people thinking that the 10 Commandments were original thoughts instead of rules plagiarized from other civilizations' laws.

 

The issue at hand was not the origin of the Ten Commandments (whether or not they were plagiarized, as you allege)...The issue was why some/many Christians support the public display of the Ten Commandments, if they no longer live under the law.

As cited, they support them because of the signifcant role they held in our Country's law-making. Read the documentation for yourself.

The only confusion on this subject has its origins in the straw-man argument put forth via the original posted question at the top of the thread.

Even if the Ten Commandments were plagarized, which I disagree with, this allegation does not change the fact, nor is it a problem, that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the history of our law-making...It is just plain, documented, historical fact.

 

 

 

 

 ...and we're stiil waiting on the plain, historical documentation you describe.

Please tell me what American law came from "Thou shalt have no other God before me." 

"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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: pby

Tilberian wrote:
pby wrote:

etc., etc., and etc. The amount of historical documentation for the Ten Commandments' influence on our Country's history and law-making is enormous.

Given this enormity, people including Christians, support causes that fight the attempts of the ACLU to remove the public display of the Ten Commandments. These efforts are not done to place anyone back under the law but to support the historical role that the Ten Commandments played.

All of which begs the question:  if christians are not supposed to be living under that law any more, then why have so many christian lawmakers refered to it down through the years?  Were they all just ignorant of theology?

Assuming your answer will be no, on what basis did they separate the ten commandments out of the rest of the OT for special consideration?  Did christ manage, in fulfilling the old law, to also give christians the mystical power to pick and choose whatever they want to consider to be god's law?  Or is the whole thing a giant incoherent mess that christians have to scramble around to try to reconcile with any kind of logic still today?

I'll take door number 2, Monty. 

Tilberian said:  "Were they all just ignorant of theology?"

Answer (rational response):  At its foundation your question seems to assume that the founders intended to put believers back under the law (law-keeping required for personal salvation) by their reference to the Ten Commandments in their law-making. Is this an assumed conclusion? Do you have some historical documentation or are you just letting your disdain for anything related to God cloud your judgement and analysis? (This may not be a "rational response" to the issue.)

I don't know what their theology was or even if it was confused (pick a law-maker and I can check it out). But...

Noah Webster said that, "The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men."

In 1672, Conneticut  revised its laws stating..."Jehovah the Great Lawgiver, who hath been pleased to set down a Divine platform not only of the moral but also of judicial laws suitable for the people of Israel; as...laws and constitutions suiting our State."

What I have read suggests that the early law-makers utilized the Ten Commandments out of respect to God and because they were effective in creating/maintaing a good society. Do you have any evidence that these law-makers were theolgically confused and that their law-making was in any way related to personal salvation? 

Tilberian said: "Or is the whole thing a giant incoherent mess that Christians have to scramble aroung to try to reconcile with any kind of logic still today?"

Answer (rational response):  ...No scrambling, here. There is a New Testament parallel command for each of the Ten Commandments except for Commandment #4 (keeping the Sabbath). Unlike Old Testament times, Christians are not required to keep any of these commands for the sake of personal salvation...but out of love and obedience to Christ, they keep the commands of the New Testament.

Christ ended the law (Romans 10:4) and He nailed the law to the cross (Colossians 2:14).

 Obviously, this is not confusing, nor is it a "giant incoherent mess". Christ fulfilled the law and by His death, burial and resurrection, through faith, His righteousness is imputed to all those who believe. This is the salvation and righteousness that Christians claim and that the Scriptures speak of (not salvation and righteousness by keeping the law).

Given the logical fallacy of the original rational responders question to Christians, it is ironic that you mentione logic.

Tilberian said"I'll take door number 2, Monty."

 Jesus said, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock..." (Rev. 3:20)


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

"Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the Ten Commandments?"

Because the founders, the courts, and the primary source historical documenation has said so.

See pby's 2/8/07 post, which is on page 4.

The original question that was the origin for this thread is not a "rational response" to a Christian's support for the public display of the Ten Commandments.

Some of the problem stems from people thinking that the 10 Commandments were original thoughts instead of rules plagiarized from other civilizations' laws.

The issue at hand was not the origin of the Ten Commandments (whether or not they were plagiarized, as you allege)...The issue was why some/many Christians support the public display of the Ten Commandments, if they no longer live under the law.

As cited, they support them because of the signifcant role they held in our Country's law-making. Read the documentation for yourself.

The only confusion on this subject has its origins in the straw-man argument put forth via the original posted question at the top of the thread.

Even if the Ten Commandments were plagarized, which I disagree with, this allegation does not change the fact, nor is it a problem, that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the history of our law-making...It is just plain, documented, historical fact.

 ...and we're stiil waiting on the plain, historical documentation you describe.

Please tell me what American law came from "Thou shalt have no other God before me." 

I have already provided the documentation (see above post with url to filed affadavit, if you care to look at it). It is just documented, historical fact that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in our law-making.

In 1641, Massachusettes' very first legal code stated, "If any man after conviction shall have or worship any other God but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deuteronomy. 13:6,10; Deuteronomy. 17:2, 6; Exodus 22:20".

And...your response missed the point. It is not that current American laws contain the Ten Commandments (although many of the principles contained there within do exist in current laws); It is the historical fact that the Ten Commandmets played a significant historical role in our law-making. Read the citations I posted above from Judge Moore, the Solicitor General, and so forth...This is the point that they made about the importance of the public display of the Ten Commandments.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I think what bothers me

I think what bothers me about it is that the majority of the precedents you cite hail back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country.

I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing.

To the original point, it seems that when Christians are questioned about doing something (or people seeng their leaders do something) that violate a Commandment, the response is, "We're not under the law anymore - Jesus took care of that".

Historical significance aside, why should Christians venerate laws that they claim no longer apply to them? Whether you like it or not, putting up monuments is a form of veneration. 

"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


dkeyes63
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
why the big deal about the big 10 (commandments, that is)

This may have already been mentioned, since I haven't read every reply, but when Jesus was asked what was the greatest of the commandments, He said, "Love the Lord with all your heart, ...soul & ...mind, and the second is like it: to love your neighbor as yourself." He said that all of the OT law & prophets were summed up in those 2 commands.

But what does it mean to "love God... love your neighbor...?" Obviously there can be some different responses for different people in different places, but the 10 Commandments offer some clear, basic principles that are foundational to a relationship w/ God (if you were to believe in Him) and people.

For theists, it's important to have only one God because that helps keep down conflicting reports of what is really truth (it's hard enough for us even with just one God). If you have multiple gods with different opinions on something, to whom do you listen?

For humanity as a whole, how much better off would we be if we never stole others' property (and if we never envied others' possessions, we would be less inclined to steal), never lied by falsely accusing someone and never murdered anyone? For all of us who've tagged our parents as idiots, only to find out as we grew older that, though we may not agree on everything, they were a lot smarter & wiser than we thought when we were young, how much better off might we be if we'd "honored" them and listened a little better.

The 10 commandments are basics for civilization to avoid anarchy. I'm not saying they're all-inclusive or that we even have a chance of upholding them, but maybe that's why the big deal even among those who claim to be under grace (while not holding to some of the other more specific rules... dietary restrictions, for example). The concern by those "under grace" is that if what are believed to be the foundations of civilization are removed, the human race is in BIG trouble... oh wait, we're not doing so hot right now, are we?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dkeyes63 wrote: "The 10

dkeyes63 wrote:

"The 10 commandments are basics for civilization to avoid anarchy. I'm not saying they're all-inclusive or that we even have a chance of upholding them, but maybe that's why the big deal even among those who claim to be under grace (while not holding to some of the other more specific rules... dietary restrictions, for example). The concern by those "under grace" is that if what are believed to be the foundations of civilization are removed, the human race is in BIG trouble... oh wait, we're not doing so hot right now, are we?"

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. The passages in the Bible relevant to this discussion say "you [Christians, believers] are not under law, but under grace". It doesn't say "not under ceremonial law" or "not under dietary law" - just "not under law". That seems to include the "basics of civilization" you claim the 10 Commandments are.

Also, isn't it funny how many of the ones you aren't upholding the commandments "so hot right now" will claim that they're God-fearing Christians who are "under grace, not under law"? 

"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


dkeyes63
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Maybe we need to look at

Maybe we need to look at this phrase "under grace, not under law" and see what is the bottom line of which we speak. While there are certainly issues of what to do and what not to do, my understanding of what is intended has to do with what the bible calls "covenants".

The apostle Paul's use of this idea of being "under grace" in his New Testament writings refers to the idea that those who have trusted in Jesus are no longer under the original "covenant" between God and man, as given to Moses, which required a perfect level of performance of certain rules (primarily given, Paul notes, to show us our inability to be "good enough&quotEye-wink. They are now under a new "covenant" whereby Jesus has taken the penalty for our failure to live up to the standard and has offered us a pardon, not because we deserve it, but as a result of grace: an unearned gift. For those who've signed on to that covenant [by means of the "f-word" (faith)], the desire to live forever is no longer an unattainable goal based on our attempts to uphold "the Law", but is based on God's grace.

While many reading this don't believe in God, and certainly not His law or grace, I hope that gives a little better understanding of what is meant by the phrase for the purpose of discussion. 

PS. This happens to be the only hope for those who claim to be under grace, but are making such a mess of this life.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I think

jcgadfly wrote:

I think what bothers me about it is that the majority of the precedents you cite hail back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country.

I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing.

To the original point, it seems that when Christians are questioned about doing something (or people seeng their leaders do something) that violate a Commandment, the response is, "We're not under the law anymore - Jesus took care of that".

Historical significance aside, why should Christians venerate laws that they claim no longer apply to them? Whether you like it or not, putting up monuments is a form of veneration. 

jcgadfly said: "I think what bothers me is that the majority of the precedents you cite hall back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country."

 Answer (rational response):  Do you not think that pre-Colonial law had influence on the founder's law-making? (clearly, history records that it did)

Additionally, obviously you have not looked at the affidavit filed by David Barton, an recognized expert in this area, in Doe v. Harlan County School District. This affidavit alone includes a large number of post-Colonial era citations to the Decalogue's historical influence in our Country's law-making.

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, is immutable and universally obligatory...was incorporated in the judicial law." (William Findley a soldier in the Revolutionary War and later a U.S Congressman)

Similar statements can be found from Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Quincy Adams, Washington, Webster, Madison, Witherspoon, Wilson, King, Clinton and etc.

There is no escaping the historical significance of the Ten Commandments.

The public display and mention of the Ten Commandments is not new in this Country (in fact, it is very old)...However, the ACLU lawsuits seeking their removal from public display is relatively new.  

In 1917, the North Carolina Supreme Court declared, "Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity." (If you attribute the current day neo-cons with attempting to create a theocracy, then I can onli imagine your references to this court and the many others that made similar declarations in their rulings!)

In 1950 (yes...1950 and this  definitely ain't the pre-Colinial Puritan era), the Florida Supreme Court decalred:

"A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic politicy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue."

Why do you think that the Ten Commandments are engraved in two places at the United States Supreme Court?

As Chief Justice Warren Burger stated in Lynch v. Donnelly, "The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments."

Also, why do you think that the Ten Commandments are embedded in the archway at the National Archives? (You have to walk past the Ten Commandments to view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) Why are they there?

Judge Moore included the Ten Commandments, along with American documents, on his granite monument because they "form the basis four America's civil laws". This is the reason they are displayed at the National Archives, the U.S. Supreme Court, and countless government and judicial buildings across this land.

jcgadlfy said: "I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing."

Answer (rational response):  Can you name one law that "this crop" has introduced that provides evidence of a "tendency towards an American theocracy? (If you can't, then your post may not be so rational.)

In regard to Christians being questioned about violating a Commandment and claiming grace, please provide a specific, rather than this vague, acussatory generalization. (By the way, your assertion has already been proved to be illogical as it has been stated that Christians are no longer under the law for the sake of their salvation.)

In regard to "veneration", if by it you mean respect then, yes...If by it you mean worship, then no. Obviously, it has been respected down through history, in our Country, by the pre-Colonialists, the Colonialists, the founders, the courts, law-makers and etc. as the basis for our Declaration, Constitution and laws. As such, for centuries, it has been publicly displayed. Their public display is not a strange occurence...BUT, that people think it is strange is the strange thing! 


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: dkeyes63

jcgadfly wrote:

dkeyes63 wrote:

"The 10 commandments are basics for civilization to avoid anarchy. I'm not saying they're all-inclusive or that we even have a chance of upholding them, but maybe that's why the big deal even among those who claim to be under grace (while not holding to some of the other more specific rules... dietary restrictions, for example). The concern by those "under grace" is that if what are believed to be the foundations of civilization are removed, the human race is in BIG trouble... oh wait, we're not doing so hot right now, are we?"

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. The passages in the Bible relevant to this discussion say "you [Christians, believers] are not under law, but under grace". It doesn't say "not under ceremonial law" or "not under dietary law" - just "not under law". That seems to include the "basics of civilization" you claim the 10 Commandments are.

Also, isn't it funny how many of the ones you aren't upholding the commandments "so hot right now" will claim that they're God-fearing Christians who are "under grace, not under law"? 

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:1,2)


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

I think what bothers me about it is that the majority of the precedents you cite hail back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country.

I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing.

To the original point, it seems that when Christians are questioned about doing something (or people seeng their leaders do something) that violate a Commandment, the response is, "We're not under the law anymore - Jesus took care of that".

Historical significance aside, why should Christians venerate laws that they claim no longer apply to them? Whether you like it or not, putting up monuments is a form of veneration.

jcgadfly said: "I think what bothers me is that the majority of the precedents you cite hall back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country."

Answer (rational response): Do you not think that pre-Colonial law had influence on the founder's law-making? (clearly, history records that it did)

Additionally, obviously you have not looked at the affidavit filed by David Barton, an recognized expert in this area, in Doe v. Harlan County School District. This affidavit alone includes a large number of post-Colonial era citations to the Decalogue's historical influence in our Country's law-making.

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, is immutable and universally obligatory...was incorporated in the judicial law." (William Findley a soldier in the Revolutionary War and later a U.S Congressman)

Similar statements can be found from Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Quincy Adams, Washington, Webster, Madison, Witherspoon, Wilson, King, Clinton and etc.

There is no escaping the historical significance of the Ten Commandments.

The public display and mention of the Ten Commandments is not new in this Country (in fact, it is very old)...However, the ACLU lawsuits seeking their removal from public display is relatively new.

In 1917, the North Carolina Supreme Court declared, "Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity." (If you attribute the current day neo-cons with attempting to create a theocracy, then I can onli imagine your references to this court and the many others that made similar declarations in their rulings!)

In 1950 (yes...1950 and this definitely ain't the pre-Colinial Puritan era), the Florida Supreme Court decalred:

"A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic politicy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue."

Why do you think that the Ten Commandments are engraved in two places at the United States Supreme Court?

As Chief Justice Warren Burger stated in Lynch v. Donnelly, "The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments."

Also, why do you think that the Ten Commandments are embedded in the archway at the National Archives? (You have to walk past the Ten Commandments to view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) Why are they there?

Judge Moore included the Ten Commandments, along with American documents, on his granite monument because they "form the basis four America's civil laws". This is the reason they are displayed at the National Archives, the U.S. Supreme Court, and countless government and judicial buildings across this land.

jcgadlfy said: "I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing."

Answer (rational response): Can you name one law that "this crop" has introduced that provides evidence of a "tendency towards an American theocracy? (If you can't, then your post may not be so rational.)

In regard to Christians being questioned about violating a Commandment and claiming grace, please provide a specific, rather than this vague, acussatory generalization. (By the way, your assertion has already been proved to be illogical as it has been stated that Christians are no longer under the law for the sake of their salvation.)

In regard to "veneration", if by it you mean respect then, yes...If by it you mean worship, then no. Obviously, it has been respected down through history, in our Country, by the pre-Colonialists, the Colonialists, the founders, the courts, law-makers and etc. as the basis for our Declaration, Constitution and laws. As such, for centuries, it has been publicly displayed. Their public display is not a strange occurence...BUT, that people think it is strange is the strange thing!

 Thank you very much for the information. some of that I didn't know.

On American theocracy, I think I can sum up my view in the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the Defense of Marriage Act, the various and sundry laws defining marriage as being "between a man and a woman". All those were concocted to conform to the Judeo-Christian standards. 

If the veneration is more respect than worship, why did I hear people in the groups protesting the removal of Judge Moore's monument saying things like "You can't take away my Ten Commandments!" or "Don't remove the Commandments from this country!". No one was doing that - they were simply removing a rock that was placed on public property in the dead of night without anyone's consent. 

"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


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

dkeyes63 wrote:

"The 10 commandments are basics for civilization to avoid anarchy. I'm not saying they're all-inclusive or that we even have a chance of upholding them, but maybe that's why the big deal even among those who claim to be under grace (while not holding to some of the other more specific rules... dietary restrictions, for example). The concern by those "under grace" is that if what are believed to be the foundations of civilization are removed, the human race is in BIG trouble... oh wait, we're not doing so hot right now, are we?"

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. The passages in the Bible relevant to this discussion say "you [Christians, believers] are not under law, but under grace". It doesn't say "not under ceremonial law" or "not under dietary law" - just "not under law". That seems to include the "basics of civilization" you claim the 10 Commandments are.

Also, isn't it funny how many of the ones you aren't upholding the commandments "so hot right now" will claim that they're God-fearing Christians who are "under grace, not under law"?

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? (Romans 6:1,2)

Doesn't it also say in Romans that where there is no law, there is no sin? Why mention sin when you're no longer under what defines something as a sin (transgression of the law)? 

"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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hey jcgadfly, Please point

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything. 

Thanks, 


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

pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

 

Romans 5:13 

"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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

 

Romans 5:13 

Answer:  Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) 

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love. 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Here is what bothers

Here is what bothers me.

That Christian revisionist are not merely happy with the private sector that our goverment protects in the free market of ideas for all. Not only do they want their websites, roadside billboards, newspaper and magizine addes, phonebook adds and 360,000 private houses of worship but private media such as ABC, NBC AND ABC and cable and satalite channels. They still feel the need to gang tag what should be neutral property with their secterian logo.

Do they honestly want me to believe that a Christian judge who put that granite Icon to the Christian god to mean fairness to the Jew or Muslim or Buddist American citizen?

Bullshit. This judge put that monument illegally on every citizen's property not in the intrest of sharing citizenship, but in the intrest of maintianing his sectarian power as a statement for other citiizens of America not to compete with his religion and to "Know their place is at the back of the policical bus"

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

 

Romans 5:13

Answer: Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love.

 

 

thanks

If you accept "sin" as hammartia (missing God's mark), Jesus didn't save anyone from anything because humans will always miss God's mark.

This is why (when I was a christian) I took the view that sin was a willful transgression of God's law.

When I read the Bible more closely, I understood that the guys who wrote it couldn't keep their stories straight as to what God's law actually was. Couple that with seeing so many Christians do the most reprehensible things whilee claiming they were "under the blood" and you get my atheism.  

"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


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Meaning we're no longer

Meaning we're no longer under Jewish ceremonial laws that people had to keep to forgive sins until the Messiah came.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


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

mythrys wrote:
Meaning we're no longer under Jewish ceremonial laws that people had to keep to forgive sins until the Messiah came.

Again, the passage doesn't say "not under ceremonial law" or "not under dietary law". It simply says "not under law". If Paul meant the ceremonial or dietary laws, why didn't he say so?

Or maybe he meant not under all law and those who interpret that scripture are adjusting  it so that doesn't read like the nonsense it is?

Also, the ceremonial laws weren't considered sin if I recall. If you broke a ceremonial law, you bathed, washed your clothes and were defiled until that evening and that was it. 

"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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Here is

Brian37 wrote:

Here is what bothers me.

That Christian revisionist are not merely happy with the private sector that our goverment protects in the free market of ideas for all. Not only do they want their websites, roadside billboards, newspaper and magizine addes, phonebook adds and 360,000 private houses of worship but private media such as ABC, NBC AND ABC and cable and satalite channels. They still feel the need to gang tag what should be neutral property with their secterian logo.

Do they honestly want me to believe that a Christian judge who put that granite Icon to the Christian god to mean fairness to the Jew or Muslim or Buddist American citizen?

Bullshit. This judge put that monument illegally on every citizen's property not in the intrest of sharing citizenship, but in the intrest of maintianing his sectarian power as a statement for other citiizens of America not to compete with his religion and to "Know their place is at the back of the policical bus"

 

 

Answer (rational response):  The citations documenting the historical role of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making has been posted, in number, above. The courts have repeatedly declared this in their rulings (again, see above).

As also noted above the Ten Commandments are displayed in The United States Supreme Court (in two places), in the National Archives and in a vast number of federal and state judicial buildings. Historically, this hasn't been a problem.

So what bothers you, really, is that the Ten Commandments have been displayed, at all, througout history and that, historically, they did play a significant role in our Country's law-making.  

...Can't change history (even if you don't like it). 

 


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

I think what bothers me about it is that the majority of the precedents you cite hail back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country.

I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing.

To the original point, it seems that when Christians are questioned about doing something (or people seeng their leaders do something) that violate a Commandment, the response is, "We're not under the law anymore - Jesus took care of that".

Historical significance aside, why should Christians venerate laws that they claim no longer apply to them? Whether you like it or not, putting up monuments is a form of veneration.

jcgadfly said: "I think what bothers me is that the majority of the precedents you cite hall back to the American Puritan days when they were trying to have a theocracy in the country."

Answer (rational response): Do you not think that pre-Colonial law had influence on the founder's law-making? (clearly, history records that it did)

Additionally, obviously you have not looked at the affidavit filed by David Barton, an recognized expert in this area, in Doe v. Harlan County School District. This affidavit alone includes a large number of post-Colonial era citations to the Decalogue's historical influence in our Country's law-making.

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, is immutable and universally obligatory...was incorporated in the judicial law." (William Findley a soldier in the Revolutionary War and later a U.S Congressman)

Similar statements can be found from Jefferson, Jay, Adams, Quincy Adams, Washington, Webster, Madison, Witherspoon, Wilson, King, Clinton and etc.

There is no escaping the historical significance of the Ten Commandments.

The public display and mention of the Ten Commandments is not new in this Country (in fact, it is very old)...However, the ACLU lawsuits seeking their removal from public display is relatively new.

In 1917, the North Carolina Supreme Court declared, "Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity." (If you attribute the current day neo-cons with attempting to create a theocracy, then I can onli imagine your references to this court and the many others that made similar declarations in their rulings!)

In 1950 (yes...1950 and this definitely ain't the pre-Colinial Puritan era), the Florida Supreme Court decalred:

"A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic politicy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue."

Why do you think that the Ten Commandments are engraved in two places at the United States Supreme Court?

As Chief Justice Warren Burger stated in Lynch v. Donnelly, "The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments."

Also, why do you think that the Ten Commandments are embedded in the archway at the National Archives? (You have to walk past the Ten Commandments to view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) Why are they there?

Judge Moore included the Ten Commandments, along with American documents, on his granite monument because they "form the basis four America's civil laws". This is the reason they are displayed at the National Archives, the U.S. Supreme Court, and countless government and judicial buildings across this land.

jcgadlfy said: "I'm noticing a tendency towards American theocracy with this crop of neo-conservatives and I don't like what I'm seeing."

Answer (rational response): Can you name one law that "this crop" has introduced that provides evidence of a "tendency towards an American theocracy? (If you can't, then your post may not be so rational.)

In regard to Christians being questioned about violating a Commandment and claiming grace, please provide a specific, rather than this vague, acussatory generalization. (By the way, your assertion has already been proved to be illogical as it has been stated that Christians are no longer under the law for the sake of their salvation.)

In regard to "veneration", if by it you mean respect then, yes...If by it you mean worship, then no. Obviously, it has been respected down through history, in our Country, by the pre-Colonialists, the Colonialists, the founders, the courts, law-makers and etc. as the basis for our Declaration, Constitution and laws. As such, for centuries, it has been publicly displayed. Their public display is not a strange occurence...BUT, that people think it is strange is the strange thing!

 Thank you very much for the information. some of that I didn't know.

On American theocracy, I think I can sum up my view in the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the Defense of Marriage Act, the various and sundry laws defining marriage as being "between a man and a woman". All those were concocted to conform to the Judeo-Christian standards. 

If the veneration is more respect than worship, why did I hear people in the groups protesting the removal of Judge Moore's monument saying things like "You can't take away my Ten Commandments!" or "Don't remove the Commandments from this country!". No one was doing that - they were simply removing a rock that was placed on public property in the dead of night without anyone's consent. 

 

Answer:  I don't think that the Defense of Marriage Act or other state marriage ammendments (which were supported by the voters) indicate, or represent, an attempt to establish a theocracy.

I think that society has certian established norms for the good of society. We don't allow bestiality; We don't allow men to have relationships with under age boys; We don't allow citizens to have relationships with corpses and etc. These societal norms have nothing to do with the establishment of a theocracy...They are just good for society.

I do, however, dislike the Office of Faith-Based Initiative. I don't think that the federal government should have any control or funding related to religious groups (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or other). Interestingly enough...it may be that the director of this office quit because the admin. derided Christians and that the office was not legitimate but only a front for garnering Evangelical support.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

 

Romans 5:13

Answer: Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love.

 

 

thanks

If you accept "sin" as hammartia (missing God's mark), Jesus didn't save anyone from anything because humans will always miss God's mark.

This is why (when I was a christian) I took the view that sin was a willful transgression of God's law.

When I read the Bible more closely, I understood that the guys who wrote it couldn't keep their stories straight as to what God's law actually was. Couple that with seeing so many Christians do the most reprehensible things whilee claiming they were "under the blood" and you get my atheism.  

 

Answer:  Good grab on the Greek! And "missing the mark" is what "sin" literally means.

This is the the entire thrust of the Gospel...man, of himself, can do absolutely nothing to abtain his own salvation and the law is only effective in pointing out that man is sinful because nobody, except for Christ, could/can keep it. That is why the N.T. calls the law "a ministry of death"....man can only ever "miss the mark", so the law couldn't bring about salvation. Only faith in Christ (His death, burial and resurrection), via grace, can bring about salvation. It is a gift...not something to be earned (lest we could boast in our own efforts).

Scripture says that our righteousness is only like filthy rags...that is why, upon believing, Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. Christ's righteousness, and His alone, is what grants us salvation and an eternity with God...It is by nothing that we individually do.


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

 

Romans 5:13

Answer: Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love.

 

 

thanks

If you accept "sin" as hammartia (missing God's mark), Jesus didn't save anyone from anything because humans will always miss God's mark.

This is why (when I was a christian) I took the view that sin was a willful transgression of God's law.

When I read the Bible more closely, I understood that the guys who wrote it couldn't keep their stories straight as to what God's law actually was. Couple that with seeing so many Christians do the most reprehensible things whilee claiming they were "under the blood" and you get my atheism.

 

Answer: Good grab on the Greek! And "missing the mark" is what "sin" literally means.

This is the the entire thrust of the Gospel...man, of himself, can do absolutely nothing to abtain his own salvation and the law is only effective in pointing out that man is sinful because nobody, except for Christ, could/can keep it. That is why the N.T. calls the law "a ministry of death"....man can only ever "miss the mark", so the law couldn't bring about salvation. Only faith in Christ (His death, burial and resurrection), via grace, can bring about salvation. It is a gift...not something to be earned (lest we could boast in our own efforts).

Scripture says that our righteousness is only like filthy rags...that is why, upon believing, Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. Christ's righteousness, and His alone, is what grants us salvation and an eternity with God...It is by nothing that we individually do.

Are you, by any chance, a Calvinist? That's the only theology that I know of that can still allow man to miss the mark (sin) continually and still be saved because all those sins are hidden behind Christ's righteousness (because you believed once upon a time - by that logic I'm still saved) and the omnimax god just doesn't see them anymore. 

"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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: pby

jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

Romans 5:13

Answer: Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love.

thanks

If you accept "sin" as hammartia (missing God's mark), Jesus didn't save anyone from anything because humans will always miss God's mark.

This is why (when I was a christian) I took the view that sin was a willful transgression of God's law.

When I read the Bible more closely, I understood that the guys who wrote it couldn't keep their stories straight as to what God's law actually was. Couple that with seeing so many Christians do the most reprehensible things whilee claiming they were "under the blood" and you get my atheism.

Answer: Good grab on the Greek! And "missing the mark" is what "sin" literally means.

This is the the entire thrust of the Gospel...man, of himself, can do absolutely nothing to abtain his own salvation and the law is only effective in pointing out that man is sinful because nobody, except for Christ, could/can keep it. That is why the N.T. calls the law "a ministry of death"....man can only ever "miss the mark", so the law couldn't bring about salvation. Only faith in Christ (His death, burial and resurrection), via grace, can bring about salvation. It is a gift...not something to be earned (lest we could boast in our own efforts).

Scripture says that our righteousness is only like filthy rags...that is why, upon believing, Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. Christ's righteousness, and His alone, is what grants us salvation and an eternity with God...It is by nothing that we individually do.

Are you, by any chance, a Calvinist? That's the only theology that I know of that can still allow man to miss the mark (sin) continually and still be saved because all those sins are hidden behind Christ's righteousness (because you believed once upon a time - by that logic I'm still saved) and the omnimax god just doesn't see them anymore. 

Answer:  Am I a Calvinist?...many have called me that but I just quote what the Bible says! You aren't a former Nazarene are you?

"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."  (Romans 8:1-4)

I would have given up to, if I had to be perfect in order to attain salvation and/or keep it.


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

pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
pby wrote:

Hey jcgadfly,

Please point out the specific verse in Romans that you are referring to and I will do my best to address...context is everything.

Thanks,

Romans 5:13

Answer: Romans 5:13 is pertaining to the time before the law (Adam to Moses)...It is not pertaining to this current age (New Testament).

Sin in the New Testament:

Sin is also falling short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Sin is defined as "any wrongdoing/unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17)

To know good and not do it is sin. (James 4:17)

Whatever is not faith is sin (Romans 14:23)

In the N.T. the greek word for sin means to "miss the mark" (the mark being Godly perfection or Godly righteousness).

In Matthew 28:20 Christ says this of making disciples, "and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

There is plenty to be obedient to...but not for salvation's sake. Christ, in grace, took care of salvation at the cross, if we believe (faith).

Nine of the Ten Commandments have New Testament parallels (the fourth, keeping the Sabbath is missing).

But Christians don't obey to gain salvation...they obey out of love.

thanks

If you accept "sin" as hammartia (missing God's mark), Jesus didn't save anyone from anything because humans will always miss God's mark.

This is why (when I was a christian) I took the view that sin was a willful transgression of God's law.

When I read the Bible more closely, I understood that the guys who wrote it couldn't keep their stories straight as to what God's law actually was. Couple that with seeing so many Christians do the most reprehensible things whilee claiming they were "under the blood" and you get my atheism.

Answer: Good grab on the Greek! And "missing the mark" is what "sin" literally means.

This is the the entire thrust of the Gospel...man, of himself, can do absolutely nothing to abtain his own salvation and the law is only effective in pointing out that man is sinful because nobody, except for Christ, could/can keep it. That is why the N.T. calls the law "a ministry of death"....man can only ever "miss the mark", so the law couldn't bring about salvation. Only faith in Christ (His death, burial and resurrection), via grace, can bring about salvation. It is a gift...not something to be earned (lest we could boast in our own efforts).

Scripture says that our righteousness is only like filthy rags...that is why, upon believing, Christ's righteousness is accounted to us. Christ's righteousness, and His alone, is what grants us salvation and an eternity with God...It is by nothing that we individually do.

Are you, by any chance, a Calvinist? That's the only theology that I know of that can still allow man to miss the mark (sin) continually and still be saved because all those sins are hidden behind Christ's righteousness (because you believed once upon a time - by that logic I'm still saved) and the omnimax god just doesn't see them anymore.

Answer: Am I a Calvinist?...many have called me that but I just quote what the Bible says! You aren't a former Nazarene are you?

"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:1-4)

I would have given up to, if I had to be perfect in order to attain salvation and/or keep it.

Wink good call on the ex-Nazarene.

Others may open up the can of worms on whether Christ is less than God because he is God's son. There are probably other threads where that has been discussed as well.

I fear I must leave that for another time. Shakespeare awaits. 

"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


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian said "Well, the

Tilberian said "Well, the answer here appears to be that christians are expected to at least try to live according to the old law as well as the new.  Which means that christians are supposed to stone their kids to death for disobeying them."

 

When I said the Law I was talking about the Mosaic Law (the 10 commandments) 

No stoning of children 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
It's not a difficult

It's not a difficult question. The 10 Commandments were affirmed in the New Testament.

1) Matthew 4:10 - No other Gods

2) 1 John 5:21 - No graven images

3) 1 Timothy 6:1 - No blaspheming

4) Matthew 24:20 - Keep the Sabbath

5) Matthew 19:19 - Honor parents

6) Romans 13:9 - No killing

7) Romans 13:9 - No adultery

Cool Romans 13:9 - No stealing

9) Romans 13:9 - No lying

10) Romans 13:9 - No coveting

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Seriously, why do

Quote:

Seriously, why do you keep saying that our law is based on the 10 commandments.

Here we go:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

(As it so happens, freedom of religion is granted to everyone in the United States. This directly contradicts commandment 1)

2. You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

(Actually, all of the court houses in the U.S. have statues. If you want to say that this is talking about "other gods," I'd point out that there are lots of works of art sanctioned by the government, that depict other deities. So far, U.S. 2, Commandments 0)

3. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.

(Again, the U.S. government grants us the right to bow down and worship any damn thing we want. U.S. 3, Commandments 0)

4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

(There is no law against using the words God Damnit! U.S. 4, Commandments 0)

5. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work.

(No laws against working on the Sabbath. U.S. 5, Commandments 0)

6. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

(Not really much to go on here... I think pretty much every country in the known world thinks it's a good idea to honor your parents, but I don't recall anything in the Constitution about it. That would be U.S. 6, Commandments 0)

7. You shall not murder.

(No Shit, Sherlock. Could you please find me a country where murder is not a crime? We'll give this one to god, because it's nice that he knows murder is a crime.. seems pretty obvious to me, though... U.S. 6, Commandments 1)

8. You shall not commit adultery.

Nope. Not in the constitution. There are some state laws dealing with it, but nothing on a constitutional level. You lose again. U.S. 7, Commandments 1)

9. You shall not steal.

(Ok. Another "No Shit" law. Find me a country where stealing is not illegal, ok? I'm giving this one to god, because it's nice that he knows stealing is bad, even though everybody knew this long before the Hebrews even existed... U.S. 7, Commandments 2)

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

(Nope. Nothing in the constitution about coveting your neighbor's shit.)

SOOOOOO.... the final verdict? God managed to figure out that stealing and murder are wrong. So did every other culture. Ever. In the history of the world. Ever.

How is it again that our constitution is based on the ten commandments?

Alrighy, I'm gonna try to settle this a little better, because this guy didn't do too great of a job at it.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The U.S. Constitution makes mention of only ONE God.

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven"

So, it kept that one. Comms: 1. Cons: 0

2) You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

U.S. doesn't prohibit memorials. Comms: 1. Cons: 1

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain. 

Cons. gives freedom of speech: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"

Comms: 1. Cons: 2

4)Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day

U.S. provides that Sunday is an exception to the President's duties.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law..." Comms; 2. Cons: 2.

5) Honor your father and your mother.

 It's still on the books that a person is still their parents property until 18. One example of this in the Cons. is "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Comms: 3. Cons: 2.

6) Thou shalt not kill.

Well, that one's on the books too. Comms: 4. Cons: 2

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

U.S. allows divorce for any reason. Comms:4. Cons: 3

Cool Thou shalt not steal.

That one's on the books too. Comms: 5. Cons: 3

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Perjury is still a crime. Comms: 6. Cons: 3

10) Thou shalt not covet.

U.S. allows for coveting. Comms: 6. Cons: 4.

It swayed in God's favor, by just a smidge! Yay!  

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote:

dmar198 wrote:

It's not a difficult question. The 10 Commandments were affirmed in the New Testament.

1) Matthew 4:10 - No other Gods

2) 1 John 5:21 - No graven images

3) 1 Timothy 6:1 - No blaspheming

4) Matthew 24:20 - Keep the Sabbath

5) Matthew 19:19 - Honor parents

6) Romans 13:9 - No killing

7) Romans 13:9 - No adultery

Cool Romans 13:9 - No stealing

9) Romans 13:9 - No lying

10) Romans 13:9 - No coveting

Would you care to go to Rook's area and see just how many of these Jesus broke?

Would you care to look at the news and see how may of these are broken by Christians routinely?

I'll give you a few examples
"No other gods before me" - Are you a Trinitarian? If so, you break it routinely? Are you a "Jesus only" Christian? You bust it up pretty well also.

"No graven images" - If you're Roman Catholic, you're out on this one. If you have a cross up front - you're gone as well.

"Keeping the Sabbath" - Do you go out to eat after service? Then you break it yourself and cause others to break it as well.

"No killing" - Christians have so many exceptions for this it shouldn't even be on the list. War for whatever reason, murder because God told a Christian to do it, etc.

"No coveting" - If Christians didn't covet, prosperity theoolgy would lose it's raison d'etre.

"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


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote: Alrighy,

dmar198 wrote:

Alrighy, I'm gonna try to settle this a little better, because this guy didn't do too great of a job at it.

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The U.S. Constitution makes mention of only ONE God.

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven"

So, it kept that one. Comms: 1. Cons: 0

But it doesn't say which Lord. Besides, it's only a temporal representation and nothing else, like people using B.C. and A.D. before B.C.E. and C.E. were introduced. Not much value in it. It's 0-1, not the opposite way around.

Explanatory situation: Even I say "goddammit" sometimes or "sure as hell", but only because the phrases have entered common language use, and for no other reason. Actually, for the same reason I say "holy s**t" from time to time.

0-1

Quote:

2) You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

U.S. doesn't prohibit memorials. Comms: 1. Cons: 1

Correct. 0-2

Quote:

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain. 

Cons. gives freedom of speech: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"

Comms: 1. Cons: 2

Correct. 0-3

Quote:

4)Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day

U.S. provides that Sunday is an exception to the President's duties.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law..." Comms; 2. Cons: 2.

Correct, and even workers' rights dictate that. The only problem is that Sabbath is Saturday, from what I know, but it's not that much relevant now.

1-3

Quote:
 

5) Honor your father and your mother.

 It's still on the books that a person is still their parents property until 18. One example of this in the Cons. is "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Comms: 3. Cons: 2.

Wrong. Kids aren't parents' property. Kids actually have to do absolutely nothing special, just live and grow, which they do by themselves with no religion or constitution. It is the parents' attribute to care for them, otherwise Child Protection might take them away. So it's not a necessity for kids to honor their parents, as seen by many kid-to-parent conflicts in the US that are not punished by law and that lead to children leaving parents, never to talk to them again.

So it's really 1-4

Quote:

6) Thou shalt not kill.

Well, that one's on the books too. Comms: 4. Cons: 2

Correct. 2-4

Quote:
 

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

U.S. allows divorce for any reason. Comms:4. Cons: 3

Correct. 2-5

Quote:

Cool Thou shalt not steal.

That one's on the books too. Comms: 5. Cons: 3

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Perjury is still a crime. Comms: 6. Cons: 3

Both correct. 4-5

Quote:

10) Thou shalt not covet.

U.S. allows for coveting. Comms: 6. Cons: 4.

Correct. 4-6

Quote:

It swayed in God's favor, by just a smidge! Yay!  

Sure. By misreading. Reality is the opposite way around.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm new to the forums, and

I'm new to the forums, and couldn't find Rook's list of commandments Jesus (supposedly) broke. Please link me to it.

1) A believer in the Trinity doctrine believes there is only one God, so I don't know what you are saying here.

2) I am Roman Catholic, and, no, we are NOT "out" on this one. God did not command us not to have statues, only that we don't worship them. Before you go quoting Ex. 20:4, read the following verse, and also read Ex. 25:18-19.

3) I don't go out to eat after Mass. Some people do, but that's called "sinning" and we're warned in Scripture not to do that.

4) "No Killing" is worded wrong. My bad. It should read, "No Murder" because Catholics object to murder in all cases whatsoever.

5) I don't know what "Prosperity theology" is, and Wikipedia doesn't have an article for me to check up on what its basics are, so I can't talk about this one either until I do some research.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But it doesn't say

Quote:

But it doesn't say which Lord. Besides, it's only a temporal representation and nothing else, like people using B.C. and A.D. before B.C.E. and C.E. were introduced. Not much value in it. It's 0-1, not the opposite way around.

Explanatory situation: Even I say "goddammit" sometimes or "sure as hell", but only because the phrases have entered common language use, and for no other reason. Actually, for the same reason I say "holy s**t" from time to time.

0-1

It gives a very explicit implication (I know, oxymoron, but you know what I mean) that the Lord is Christ, because the year it gives is the same number since His birth. That's some pretty solid indication.

On a side note, I would like to know why 0 BCE was chosen as the beginning of the "Common Era". What changed that made "O BCE" so uncommon? It would seem that the Birth of Christ was so unusual that only after it could there be a "common era". So why not just call it "AD", like we have been doing?

This makes it 1-0, but I'll be gracious (for now) and accept 0-1 because it is very aruable.

 

Quote:

Wrong. Kids aren't parents' property. Kids actually have to do absolutely nothing special, just live and grow, which they do by themselves with no religion or constitution. It is the parents' attribute to care for them, otherwise Child Protection might take them away. So it's not a necessity for kids to honor their parents, as seen by many kid-to-parent conflicts in the US that are not punished by law and that lead to children leaving parents, never to talk to them again.

So it's really 1-4

Kids, by law, have to stay with their parents until age 18 (when they are no longer considered "kids&quotEye-wink, or until they have their parents' permission to leave. Both of those indicate an honor to their parents. So its really 2-4.

This makes it so that, by the end, its 5-5, which I will accept to mean that I made an oversight the first time around. Either way,

God and State tied. 

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote:

dmar198 wrote:

I'm new to the forums, and couldn't find Rook's list of commandments Jesus (supposedly) broke. Please link me to it.

1) A believer in the Trinity doctrine believes there is only one God, so I don't know what you are saying here.

2) I am Roman Catholic, and, no, we are NOT "out" on this one. God did not command us not to have statues, only that we don't worship them. Before you go quoting Ex. 20:4, read the following verse, and also read Ex. 25:18-19.

3) I don't go out to eat after Mass. Some people do, but that's called "sinning" and we're warned in Scripture not to do that.

4) "No Killing" is worded wrong. My bad. It should read, "No Murder" because Catholics object to murder in all cases whatsoever.

5) I don't know what "Prosperity theology" is, and Wikipedia doesn't have an article for me to check up on what its basics are, so I can't talk about this one either until I do some research.

1) To paraphrase Dr. Robert Price (I may actually be quoting
- my memory may be better than I think it is) "Trinitarianism is for people who want to worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit but don't want to be called polytheists."

2) Do you not pray to the saints to intercede for you? Do you not kneel before the statues to pray? Care to try again?
Also, the reference you gave as a counter also show that the Hebrews violated that commandment with God's sanction. God contradicted himself (that's not a new discovery here).

3) I'm glad to here that you don't violate your sabbath. You are the exception not the rule (then again, the doctrine of confession is a great out for those repeat offenders.)

4) Historically, the Catholics used murder in the name of their God (Crusades, Inquisition). I hope that's changed and you're not having people kill doctors and bomb clinics because God told them to take a more active hand in opposing abortion. I didn't say that murder wasn't opposed - just that all kind of loopholes were created to attempt to make murder not murder.

5) Prosperity theology is a branch of theology that says that it's God's will for his followers to be rich and have all they desire. Televangelists love this one. I will confess to not knowing Catholics who practice this.

Oh, and as you responded in Rook's thread where he discusses Jesus breaking the commandments, I have to assume that either you didn't read far enough into the thread (it is a long opening post) or that you thought it would be better to lie to me and hope I wouldn't figure it out.

I hope it's the former.

"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


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
1) Dr. Price was wrong. To

1) Dr. Price was wrong. To give an anology using his words...

"Triangles are for shapes who want to have three sides but don't want to be called polygons."

That's not exact, and not related in the apparent sense of the word, but I tried to keep similar phrasing. My point is that just the Trinity is just like a triangle, except with persons instead of shapes. One God in three Persons = One shape in three lines.

2)

Quote:
Do you not pray to the saints to intercede for you?

Yes, we do. But you have the wrong conception of the phrase "pray to". It comes from a greek root, and translated the way WE mean is "ask from". We ask the saints to intercede/pray for us.

Quote:
Do you not kneel before the statues to pray?

Yes, we do. However, it is shown in Scripture that one can kneel before a man-made object and pray to God.

Psalms 138:2 - "I bow down toward your holy temple
and give thanks to your name..."

As long as we don't worship those things, God doesn't care whatis we bow down to them or make them. 

Care to try again?


 

Quote:
Also, the reference you gave as a counter also show that the Hebrews violated that commandment with God's sanction. God contradicted himself (that's not a new discovery here).

Actually, if you had read the following verse like I told you to, you would see that the command is only not to make/bow to statues if the intent is to worship them. That is the commandment. Since they weren't intending to worship the statue/temple they built, it was not in violation of the commandment. So, God did not contradict Himself. And every contradiction you guys have come up with (I believe; I haven't had time to look through all of them) has been dealt with before. God hasn't contradicted Himself ever. 

 3) Just because all people sin doesn't mean that we don't try to keep the commandments. Geez, if that was true, we could take down the Constitution. After all, people keep violating those rules, right?

4) Historically, people sin. The Church has never sinned, or murdered, or anything. People in the Church have, though, without permission from the Church. As I said, though, and as history affirms, the Church has never killed anyone.

5) You apparently agree with me on this one.

Lastly, I did find that list after I posted, and I posted those comments after I posted the one we're discussing. So, yes, its "the former". I see them now, and am pondering them. The majority I have already disproven in my head, but its hypocritical of me to say that here, because I doubt I will take the time to go there and write down my thoughts, so just ignore this sentence.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote: It gives a

dmar198 wrote:

It gives a very explicit implication (I know, oxymoron, but you know what I mean) that the Lord is Christ, because the year it gives is the same number since His birth. That's some pretty solid indication.

On a side note, I would like to know why 0 BCE was chosen as the beginning of the "Common Era". What changed that made "O BCE" so uncommon? It would seem that the Birth of Christ was so unusual that only after it could there be a "common era". So why not just call it "AD", like we have been doing?

This makes it 1-0, but I'll be gracious (for now) and accept 0-1 because it is very aruable.

Hmm, yes, you're right about the Lord being Christ, sorry, didn't make the connection.

It's not the Birth of Christ (because Christ wasn't born in 0 CE), but it's the Caesarian Convention, which defined that year as 0.

Quote:

Kids, by law, have to stay with their parents until age 18 (when they are no longer considered "kids&quotEye-wink, or until they have their parents' permission to leave. Both of those indicate an honor to their parents. So its really 2-4.

Really? They are obliged, by law? Because I view this as not an obligation for kids, but rather than another obligation for parents. Because a kid can do absolutely nothing for their parents, but still demand: well-nourishment, housing, etc. and, if these are not met, he can always appeal to the authorities.

Crazy constitution you Americans have on this matter.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 4) Historically, the

Quote:
4) Historically, the Catholics used murder in the name of their God (Crusades, Inquisition). I hope that's changed and you're not having people kill doctors and bomb clinics because God told them to take a more active hand in opposing abortion. I didn't say that murder wasn't opposed - just that all kind of loopholes were created to attempt to make murder not murder.

Ohh, don't use that with dmar198, he is convinced of the complete righteousness of his Church.

He doesn't see that if we are to follow his logic, all the other churches have the same righteousness in them, it was only the people that do bad things. He doesn't seem to see that without the people, there would BE NO CHURCH.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/