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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
dmar198 wrote: 1) Dr.

dmar198 wrote:

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 took some time to wrap my head around what you posted so, after a night's sleep, here goes.

1) I'm not sure what you're talking about here but it is a very poor comparison. Shapes ,being inanimate objects have no choice in the matter. People who believe that Jesus is God and the Holy spirit is God as well as god the Father being God have all kinds of problems they can't resolve.

For example, John 3:16 becomes "For God so loved the world he gave Himself to Himself so that He could have the ability to change a law He made."

The resurrection also poses problems for trinitarians. If Jesus is God then God died on a cross. But Paul wrote that God raised Jesus from the dead. God raising God from the dead - how is that possible if God died on the cross. Too many mental gymnastics involved in trying to make sense of nonsense.

2) More mental gymnastics - It's OK to offer prayers and sacrifices (in the Hebrews case) to a statue as long as you're not actually "worshiping" (ofering prayers and sacrifices to) the statue. Wait a minute, you said that you ask the saint who is represented by the statue for assistance. So, in a sense, you are worshiping it but I don't expect you to see it.

3) That brings up an interesting point - why should people be held to standards that God himself can't live to? I realize you haven't seen all of the contradictions that Rook posed and I'll leave it at that until you do. As far as the Constitution and human laws, the average citizen has no problem keeping those laws. If someone does happen to break those laws, there is a system of punishment available that actually fits the crime. God can't say that.

4) So, people committed murder with the Church's blessing and somehow the Church wasn't involved? Don't hurt yourself doing thos mental backflips.

5) I said I didn't know of any Catholics who practiced prosperity theology. If you don't know of any either, on that we agree. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that we don't know of them. I'm still looking (there are Catholics who believe in other lunacy that the televangelists make money off of - faith healing comes to mind).   

"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


Sadistic Stalker
Sadistic Stalker's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
They are stupid

People with faith just throw fits when they are argued with because they believe that everything they do is right. They are just whiney bitches

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: (The Trinity causes)

Quote:
(The Trinity causes) all kinds of problems they (Christians) can't resolve.

For example, John 3:16 becomes "For God so loved the world he gave Himself to Himself so that He could have the ability to change a law He made."

Actually, the verse becomes "For God so loved the world, that He gave Himself, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

You said He changes laws. No He doesn't. He fulfills them, and then institutes new ones. There's a slight difference. 

 

Quote:
God raising God from the dead - how is that possible(?)

Yes, that is something we don't understand, so we classify it as a "Mystery" (big diff between a "{m}ystery" and a "{M}ystery&quotEye-wink. These are things that we cannot yet explain, so we say, "God did it!" which causes a lot of people a lot of grief. However, given that we are reading a book written by a Being WAY out of our league, we would expect maybe, well, at the utmost (probably) 5 things that are just too complicated for us to currently conceive. Anything over that renders it improbable, but a few "explain-colors-to-a-blind-man" situations is probably forgivable.

 

Quote:
It's OK to offer prayers and sacrifices (in the Hebrews case) to a statue as long as you're not actually "worshiping" (ofering prayers and sacrifices to) the statue. Wait a minute, you said that you ask the saint who is represented by the statue for assistance. So, in a sense, you are worshiping it but I don't expect you to see it.

No, actually, you are right. I don't see it. We don't offer prayers and sacrifices to statues. Offering a prayer is useless, unless it is someone on Earth or in Purgatory, so we wouldn't bother to do that. Requesting prayers is a different story. Offering sacrifices to statues...we don't do that either. In fact, we don't offer ANYTHING to statues, or even PRAY TO statues. Rather, we "pray to" the person who the statue REPRESENTS. And, even if we WERE offering prayers and sacrifices to them, that still isn't necessarily worship. Worship is subjective; it depends on your intent. If your intent is to worship, then whatever you do is worship. But if your intent is NOT to worship, then whatever you do is NOT worship. 

Quote:
4) So, people committed murder with the Church's blessing and somehow the Church wasn't involved? Don't hurt yourself doing thos mental backflips.

The Church didn't sanction the murder. However, PLEASE let's not argue this here. Instead, please go to my discussion, which can be found http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4567 <<There. I discuss that with Rigor_OMortis, and, in fact, we're still discussing it. 

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


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Sadistic Stalker

Sadistic Stalker wrote:
People with faith just throw fits when they are argued with because they believe that everything they do is right. They are just whiney bitches

 

Answer:  Hall of fame "rational response" (like so many of the others).


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
 For a belief to be

 For a belief to be rational there must be evidence for its existence.

 

How then do you explain Love?  How can you prove to me that you love your mother, brother, sister, friends?


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
People with faith just

People with faith just throw fits when they are argued with because they believe that everything they do is right. They are just whiney bitches

Wow anger.  Try not to listen to those that think they are always right.  I have FAITH, but I am no where close to always right.


LFC
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I lied.  there was

Okay, I lied.  there was one time off the top of my head that I can remember that I was always right.  It was a timed multiplication test in elementary school.  I got all 100 right in 60 seconds!


urscreamin4it
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-27
User is offlineOffline
You know who the founding fathers were right?

You know....
what our country is built on right?
what it says on our money?
what our laws were based on?

Your question is flawed in every sense of the word. First off not JUST "christians" get "upset". It's not about being Christian or believing in a religon, it's about people not liking what America was founded on and trying to change it because they don't like what they see, read or hear. You don't like "God" or "Religion" that's fine and that is your choice, but don't try to change a country because you don't like it. This country was founded on the Bible years upon years ago and non of these Atheists BS will ever change that.


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This country was

Quote:
This country was founded on the Bible years upon years ago and non of these Atheists BS will ever change that.

Actually, they might. They are making quite a bit of progress (or should I say "di"-gress?). Anyway, they had quite a run of success. 

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
Quote: what our country is

Quote:
what our country is built on right?

YOUR country, you mean.

Quote:
what it says on our money?

YOUR money, you mean.

Quote:
what our laws were based on?

If you mean that your law against slavery is inspired from the Bible, well, perhaps you should re-think that one over.

Quote:
It's not about being Christian or believing in a religon, it's about people not liking what America was founded on and trying to change it because they don't like what they see, read or hear.

So let me get this straight... if I am to make an analogy, it would mean that the massacred Iraquis had no right to challenge Saddam Hussein, because they were opposing the principles on which the country was based, through their leader, and because they were only a minority. Cool. Care to think this one over again, too ?

Quote:
You don't like "God" or "Religion" that's fine and that is your choice, but don't try to change a country because you don't like it.

If one feels that the country isn't representative to him anymore, why should he njot be able to criticise? and if that criticism ACTUALLY FINDS SUPPORT and creates a NOTICEABLE EFFECT, then why don't all theists rally up agains it? It's the "majority decides" principle... I could apply what you said to yourself as well.

Quote:
This country was founded on the Bible years upon years ago and non of these Atheists BS will ever change that.

YOUR country, again. And if your country was so Bible-based, how come it doesn't respect it? Why aren't prostitutes stoned to death? Why doesn't fire from the sky fall on homosexuals? Why isn't slavery still on? Why do people have so many different views and beliefs on this "God"?

 

It is people like this that I dedicate the following melody to: R.E.M. - Ignoreland

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


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
i personally think that all

i personally think that all religious symbology should be kept out of the public sphere.  not that i personally give a damn whether or not the ten commandments, or statues of jesus, mohommad, buddha and krishna line the courthouses, but people just get so torn up over it, and i'm indifferent.  so just take them out, i'm tired of hearing people bitch about it all of the time. 


Beloved Spear
Theist
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
I don't get upset.  Neither

I don't get upset.  Neither do most other sentient Christians. Separation of church and state, eh?  if you insisted on taking them out of my church, sure, I might be a little miffed.  But this...is nothing but an excuse for the reactionaries and fundamentalists to bellow and thump about in the underbrush.
Your critique of Pauline theology is pretty weak, by the way.  But then, you're an atheist, so I suppose that's to be expected.  The "problem" you surface not only doesn't exist in Paul...it's a subtle thing...but it's been settled in the church since Tertullian's second century treatise against the Marcionites.    


hopefilled13
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I didn't look through the

I didn't look through the whole thread to see if the question was addressed, but I did it anyway. I think that the question posted is a very good one.

I think that why we Christians are upset over the removal of the ten commandments from court houses is more about what it represents in this country rather than us "being under the law." A scuplture of the ten commandments doesn't necessarily represent the law of the Old Testiment as much as it represents the principles on which this country was founded on, which were very much influenced by the Bible. The removal of that symbol is just a reflection of the country's overall shifting away from that foundation. This is upsetting because a secular wordview comes in and laws are written to the point where we become like Germany where you're not allowed to home school because teaching your children Christian doctrine is seen as abuse.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
If this is a serious

If this is a serious discussion like forum I apologize. The first Xian's response in this thread is gold. The typical Christian has a brain the figurative size of a goat's. It comes attached with narrow vision and arrogance.

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


nemesis
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ten Commandments

Hey guys, thanks first of all for having this blog, I see that it is pretty healthy.  I also want to state that I am going to answer this question the best that I can assuming something, which I think is not a stretch, given the nature of the question.  I assume that you are not going to attack the feasibility of Christianity after the question above because the question is not about whether Christianity is true, but about why we believe in something GIVEN  our Christianity.  The rationality of whether or not Christianity is actually true is outside of the scope of this question, though I would love to talk about that too.

 

Anyway, I think that you are attacking a small percentage of Christians here.  I've never met Christians who say that we are no longer to follow the Old Testament, although I'm sure they're out there.  However, that begs this question:  what in the world makes them think that an immutable God with a consistent nature would all of a sudden approve of what he once despised (in other words, anull his "former" Ten Commandments?).  Let me explain to you all the most rational way to treat the Old Testament from a Christian point of view.  

We no longer perform those signs which point to the coming Christ, such as animal and grain sacrifices, because Christ was the ultimate atonement and these simply pointed to his coming. 

We no longer use the same system of punishment as that prescribed for the Jews, because the METHOD of punishment was assigned to the Jews alone, since they were the Lord's chosen people.  In fact, Romans 13 says specifically that we are to obey our earthly government, yet this wouldn't be consistent if we are to obey all the ordinances of the Jews.  Only punishments that are intended to be universal, do we still keep, such as Genesis 9:6

"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall be shed, For in the image of God, He made man." 

This was instituted at the second "beginning of life" if you will, with Noah. 

 

We also no longer consider bodily contact with certain things to be "unclean," for a couple of reasons.  First of all, this change in rite is seen by Peter's vision on the roof, where God says that certain foods are no longer to be considered unclean.  Secondly, the acceptance of "uncleanliness" is metaphorical of the unification of both Jew and Gentile after the appearance of Jesus.  I could make this more exhaustive, but I think it's clear that we no longer have to abide by all the Old Testament standards of cleanliness (such as ejaculating away from the camp (sick example, I know)).

Here's what did not change from the Old Testament to the new.  The Old Testament is very different from the other Jewish ordinances in that it simply outlines a list of things that are wrong, far from prescribing any specific punishment for these crimes.  These are concrete rules set up by God (presumably, again, given the Christian stance), and anything that is ever listed as right or wrong, if given by God,  cannot possibly be changed, for that would make God as much a moral relativist as anyone.  But that's beside the point.  We consider the Ten Commandments to be just as sacred as any other rule taught in the New Testament, because these rules can't be changed if God is immutable.  The Bible never, ever implies that we throw out the whole Old Testament.  We are still to abide by its laws, but not necessarily its customs, which are temporary and confined to the Jews because of their covenant with God.

Essentially, this whole "we're under Grace!" thing is put forth by Wednesday-night-Bible-study ignorant morons who have never questioned the Bible.  I want anyone who is reading this to ask me any question they want, because I want to be rational like I know you all do, and because even the Bible commands it:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 Thanks for reading.  I know this is long, but I feel like this question deserved the best treatment I could give it.

 

 

2 Kings 2:23-24
"Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronoun


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
to the question that starts

to the question that starts this whole thread

some christians object to the removal of the big 10, partly due to the fact that although it is old, it isn't even close to out of date.

i think the other part is because of the history it represents. it'd be like remove mr washington from whichever bill the americans stick him on.

jesus rules!

just because you dont believe in something, doesn't mean it's not there.


JCsDisciple23
Theist
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Ok, so to the original question. And Im not speaking on behalf of all Christians but my personal beliefs as a Christian is this: Though the Ten Commandments were in the old testiment laws, they are important to understand and know in order to understand the meaning of grace and forgiveness. Ok, what I mean by that is, a person doesnt understand why they need forgiveness of sin when they dont know the laws that they have broken. The Ten Commandments are like a mirror to show us that we dont live up to a perfect and Holy standard and that is why we are in need of forgiveness and why a sacrifice was made for us. The new covenant cant be understood unless a person understands the old one. If you say Jesus died for you and you dont know what sin youve commited youre likely to reply with that so what? Why did He die, He didnt have to, what did I do to make him want to make that sacrifice and therefore you cant support the new testiment ideals of Christianity. But when you say Gods perfect standard is that you shouldnt lie, still, etc. and youve done those things then you can then say because you havent lived up to that standard Christ paid the price for your mess ups and the law that youve broken and suddenly they understand why Jesus died in the first place.Thats just my take. Smiling


JCsDisciple23

{FIXED}

If you are going to cut and paste your message into the forum, reformat it into plain text using notepad or an equivalent before doing so.
Thank you

Moderator


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
What's all that shit you

What's all that shit you just posted?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Translation

Translation #2:

JCsDisciple23 wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Ok, so to the original question. And I'm not speaking on behalf of all Christians but my personal beliefs as a Christian is this: Though the Ten Commandments were in the old testiment laws, they are important to understand and know in order to understand the meaning of grace and forgiveness. Ok, what I mean by that is, a person doesn't understand why they need forgiveness of sin when they don't know the laws that they have broken. The Ten Commandments are like a mirror to show us that we don't live up to a perfect and Holy standard and that is why we are in need of forgiveness and why a sacrifice was made for us. The new covenant can't be understood unless a person understands the old one. If you say Jesus died for you and you don't know what sin you've commited you're likely to reply with that so what? Why did He die, He didn't have to, what did I do to make him want to make that sacrifice and therefore you can't support the new testiment ideals of Christianity. But when you say Gods perfect standard is that you shouldn't lie, still, etc. and you've done those things then you can then say because you haven't lived up to that standard Christ paid the price for your mess ups and the law that you've broken and suddenly they understand  why Jesus died in the first place. That's just my take.  Smiling

That was much more difficult than the first one. Hope I didn't miss something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Most

Randalllord wrote:
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it.

We still follow Jesus's teachings, which adhere to the 10 Commandments. Jesus himself said the two greatest commands are to love God first, and second to love others as you love yourself. These two commands are complimentary to the 10 commandments.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: If that

Randalllord wrote:
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?

Whether you agree with them or not, the 10 Commandments are part of human history. Why should people not know about their history, and about the history of law in our society? It does not make sense for every generation to reinvent the wheel of law. We should learn from our past and build on it. To try and wipe out the past is to wipe out the richness of our human experience.

Also, whether you like or not, this country has a judeo-christian heritage. That is our history. You may be able to affect the future of this country, but you cannot change our past. To try to erase and rewrite our past, to me is, at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst, it amounts to a type of brainwashing, which you as atheists seem to be adamently against.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree,

Sugarfree,

I have never argued that the Ten C's are not a part of human history or mythology. I have argued that the 10 C's are not the basis of US Law. A depiction of Moses and the 10 C's are on the US Supreme court building along with many other mythological characters. Many Xian's, like the former Judge Roy Moore, incorreclty gave special status to their display on the courthouse.

Photo of Moses on US Supreme Court Building 

 

For more information on this issue:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8.htm

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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: A

Randalllord wrote:

A depiction of Moses and the 10 C's are on the US Supreme court building along with many other mythological characters.
That is fine, I say leave them all.

Randalllord wrote:

Many Xian's, like the former Judge Roy Moore, incorreclty gave special status to their display on the courthouse.
Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children? I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments. At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you? Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Aren't

sugarfree wrote:
Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children?

You are correct! There are many more important issues than using taxpayer funds to install a religious monument in a public building.

sugarfree wrote:
I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments.At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you?

Why would the removal of them bug you? Do you read the bible? Do you attend church services? I am sure you can recite every one from memory so why would a monument be needed. I am sure they are written on your "soul". 

sugarfree wrote:
Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me.

We didn't ask you if it was silly, but thank for your OPINION. Since opinions are like assholes, here is mine. The snufflupogous in the sky belief is silly, the belief that our laws come from the ten commandments is silly.

Only two commandments can be directly related to a U.S. law, one semi-directly to a law and the other seven are lining for the botton of a bird cage.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree said, " That is

Sugarfree said, " That is fine, I say leave them all."

No one is suggesting that they be removed. The court has said that if they are part of a historical display there is no violation. Unfortunately, it's the Xian's that want their religious message to receive special status like Judge Moore attempted.

 

Sugarfree said, "Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children? I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments. At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you? Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me."

 

Yes there are more important issues and this is a red herring fallicy for you to bring up this issue but since you did I'll ask, "Why are xian's spending so much money creating and defending these illegal displays while so many go hungry?" The big deal with these displays being given special status on public property is that it conveys a message to the public that the government is confering an accecpted status to a particular religious message which violates the seperation of church and state law. Are you suggesting that we ignore it when Xian's want to break the law?

 

 

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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Xian's

Randalllord wrote:
Xian's that
What does the term "Xian" mean to you? It means nothing to me, so I may be losing some of your meaning when you use this.

Randalllord wrote:
red herring fallicy
Hmmm? I've noticed you guys have your own lingo. I have never heard this phrase.

Randalllord wrote:
spending so much money creating and defending these illegal displays while so many go hungry?
Christians only defend when you attack. Why do you attack?

Randalllord wrote:
The big deal with these displays being given special status on public property is that it conveys a message to the public that the government is confering an accecpted status to a particular religious message which violates the seperation of church and state law. Are you suggesting that we ignore it when Xian's want to break the law?
The phrase "separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the constitution. The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Congress cannot say...Christianity is our official religion, Islam is our official religion, Hinduism is our official religion, and they can't pass a law saying this or that religion is illegal. So, given the text of the actual constitution, why is having a display of the 10 commandments in any form illegal? Instead of trying to strip the 10 commandments from the public forum, why don't you draft up the atheist commandments and get them displayed on courthouses. Then we can all be happy little clams.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
red herring fallacy
Hmmm? I've noticed you guys have your own lingo. I have never heard this phrase.
Whoa! I think we've just stumbled onto the crux of your problem. It seems by your statement that you have absolutely no basic education in reasoning what so ever.
'Red herring' is one of the most commonest terms used in logic and in most rudimentary discussions and conversations. It means to distract your opponent by baiting them to get them off the subject with an entirely different issue.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Red herring is

AiiA wrote:
Red herring is one of the most commonest terms used in logic and in most rudimentary discussions and conversations. It means to distract your opponent by baiting them to get them off the subject with an entirely different issue.

Oh, sorry to disappoint. But isn't it better to actually be able to EMPLOY logic than to know all the fancy philosophical terminology? I decided against a philosophy major because the more I got into it, the more I found it was a waste of my time, as I needed to study something that would help me find a real world job. How ironic tho, turns out I use logic successfully every day in my job.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children?

You are correct! There are many more important issues than using taxpayer funds to install a religious monument in a public building.

sugarfree wrote:
I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments.At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you?

Why would the removal of them bug you? Do you read the bible? Do you attend church services? I am sure you can recite every one from memory so why would a monument be needed. I am sure they are written on your "soul".

sugarfree wrote:
Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me.

We didn't ask you if it was silly, but thank for your OPINION. Since opinions are like assholes, here is mine. The snufflupogous in the sky belief is silly, the belief that our laws come from the ten commandments is silly.

Only two commandments can be directly related to a U.S. law, one semi-directly to a law and the other seven are lining for the botton of a bird cage.

Sugarfree... care to respond? 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Sugarfree...

BGH wrote:
Sugarfree... care to respond? 

Given the disrespectful tone of your message, I'll pass.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:
Sugarfree... care to respond?

 

Given the disrespectful tone of your message, I'll pass.

I will take that as your inability to formulate a coherent argument.

I think my response was fair. You were calling the desire to remove the monuments silly. I used the same tone to refute your arguments. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:
Sugarfree... care to respond?

 

Given the disrespectful tone of your message, I'll pass.

There was disrespect in my message for two reasons. One, you showed disrespect by saying non-theists were being silly. Two, the teachings of the bible i.e., the ten commandments, have not earned respect

I love how certain people come to these forums under the guise of honest debate only to ignore counter points because of tone or some other cop out.

Keep on dodging... some people are very good at it but that type of tactic certainly does not get your point across.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree,

Sugarfree,

"Xian" is an abbreviation for "christian".

We only "attack" when the law is violated. Don't you believe the law should be obeyed? Jesus did.

You are correct about the "seperation of church and state" not being mentioned in the constitution. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the 1st Admendment, another document he wrote.

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

 

 

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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Xian is

Randalllord wrote:
Xian is an abbreviation for christian
OK
Randalllord wrote:
Don't you believe the law should be obeyed? Jesus did.
Certainly. But you have not convinced me that a display of the 10 commandments in that manner is in violation of the law.
Randalllord wrote:
The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the 1st Admendment, another document he wrote.
This I have not heard so I will take your word for it. However, I would have to read the rest of the letter to see if my interpretation, which I have already given, matches his. I do think it is quite a stretch to interpret the constitution as guaranteeing freedom FROM religion. "That we are endowed by our creator..."


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children?

You are correct! There are many more important issues than using taxpayer funds to install a religious monument in a public building.

sugarfree wrote:
I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments.At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you?

Why would the removal of them bug you? Do you read the bible? Do you attend church services? I am sure you can recite every one from memory so why would a monument be needed. I am sure they are written on your "soul".

sugarfree wrote:
Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me.

We didn't ask you if it was silly, but thank for your OPINION. Since opinions are like assholes, here is mine. The snufflupogous in the sky belief is silly, the belief that our laws come from the ten commandments is silly.

Only two commandments can be directly related to a U.S. law, one semi-directly to a law and the other seven are lining for the botton of a bird cage.

BGH argument = 1point

Sugarfree silence = -1point 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Xian is an abbreviation for christian
OK
Randalllord wrote:
Don't you believe the law should be obeyed? Jesus did.
Certainly. But you have not convinced me that a display of the 10 commandments in that manner is in violation of the law.
Randalllord wrote:
The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the 1st Admendment, another document he wrote.
This I have not heard so I will take your word for it. However, I would have to read the rest of the letter to see if my interpretation, which I have already given, matches his. I do think it is quite a stretch to interpret the constitution as guaranteeing freedom FROM religion. "That we are endowed by our creator..."

 

It has always been interesting to me that your 10 commandments are considered acceptable.  What about the do's and don'ts from other religious texts?  Would you feel comfortable with goverment money being spent to build and maintain a statue with a list of proclamations from a source other than your bible?  

 

The intent of the constitution was to build a wall between religion and government.  Every document (Jefferson's Danbury Letter, the Treaty of Tripoli and all cases ever brought before the supreme court involving religion) support this fact.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: BGH argument =

BGH wrote:

BGH argument = 1point

Sugarfree silence = -1point 

Respectfully, I am here to discuss, not to fight.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:
BGH argument = 1point

 

Sugarfree silence = -1point

Respectfully, I am here to discuss, not to fight.

Right, and so am I.

 You refuse to reply to counterpoints you can't refute.

 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: It has always

jce wrote:
It has always been interesting to me that your 10 commandments are considered acceptable.  What about the do's and donts from other religious texts? Would you feel comfortable with goverment money being spent to build and maintain a statue with a list of proclamations from a source other than your bible?
I would prefer that over a sign that said "God is dead." Or, rather than saying that, I should give you a chance to tell me what you would display as an alternative.
jce wrote:
The intent of the constitution was to build a wall between religion and government.  Every document (Jefferson's Danbury Letter, the Treaty of Tripoli and all cases ever brought before the supreme court involving religion) support this fact.

I disagree. The point of that verbiage in the constitution was to avoid state run religion, which is why the first pioneers came here in the first place. They wanted to practice their religion freely without state intervention. If the founders wanted a sturdy wall to exist between the government and religion, why was their wording not more forceful in regards to that point? To be fair, I will look up these documents you have cited.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Under what context did

Under what context did Jefferson write the letter? He sounds quite friendly to the Baptists, as tho they were the one's who brought the issue up to him in the first place. Where is the letter that the Baptists wrote to him?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: AiiA

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
Red herring is one of the most commonest terms used in logic and in most rudimentary discussions and conversations. It means to distract your opponent by baiting them to get them off the subject with an entirely different issue.
Oh, sorry to disappoint.
Disappoint?
Quote:
But isn't it better to actually be able to EMPLOY logic than to know all the fancy philosophical terminology?
People do it all the time. In fact, I think it is impossible to go through life without using some reasoning, sometimes referred to as common sense.
Quote:
I decided against a philosophy major because the more I got into it, the more I found it was a waste of my time, as I needed to study something that would help me find a real world job. How ironic tho, turns out I use logic successfully every day in my job.
Logic is a valuable tool in most real world tasks, logic is not exclusive to philosophy. Your lack of recognizing the phrase 'red herring' indicates you have a lack of knowledge of many logical fallacies. Without an understanding of logical fallacies it is easy to fail to recognize a logical fallacy. For example: Randalllord wrote: Many Xian's, like the former Judge Roy Moore, incorreclty gave special status to their display on the courthouse.
Your response: Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children?
What does feeding starving children have to do with Roy Moore giving status to the religious monument he attempted to put on puplic property?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I would

sugarfree wrote:
I would prefer that over a sign that said "God is dead." Or, rather than saying that, I should give you a chance to tell me what you would display as an alternative.

Nothing.

 

Quote:
I disagree. The point of that verbiage in the constitution was to avoid state run religion, which is why the first pioneers came here in the first place. They wanted to practice their religion freely without state intervention. If the founders wanted a sturdy wall to exist between the government and religion, why was their wording not more forceful in regards to that point? To be fair, I will look up these documents you have cited.

 

You have been misinformed. Please do read the documents.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the 1st Admendment, another document he wrote.
This I have not heard so I will take your word for it. However, I would have to read the rest of the letter to see if my interpretation, which I have already given, matches his. I do think it is quite a stretch to interpret the constitution as guaranteeing freedom FROM religion. "That we are endowed by our creator..."

 

Okay Sugarfree, there are a few things you should look into in the founding of our nation and the separation/establishment clause.

 

First, the Danbury letter Thomas Jefferson wrote was in response to Danbury Baptist Church’s inquiry as to the intent of the wording of the first amendment. Jefferson in this letter clearly stated the first amendment essentially “built a wall of separation between church and state”. This indicates state shall not involve itself in religion and religion will not interfere with state issues. I think this amendment is the most breached portion of our constitution. You can read the letter here:

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

Second, in the Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11 which was ratified by congress and signed by then President John Adams states that, the United States of America is in no way a “christian nation”. We may have christians in the country but we were not established as a “christian nation” You can read that document here.

 

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

 

Third, the Federalist Papers which document the drafting of the constitution can be reviewed and one can observe that various points in the process references to the christian god, were inserted by various legislators but ultimately all were removed because the founders did not want to endorse any one religion. The constitution references a creator but this is a benign term, where my creator is nature, I am sure yours is god. In no part of the constitution is yahweh mentioned, nor Christianity. This is for a reason, the founders wanted to establish a secular country. You can read those documents here.

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

 

Such ten commandment monuments in federal buildings give the guise of government favoring one religion over all the other or even non-belief.

 

Now do you see where the trouble is? Do you really feel this is silly? What if it were not your religion being endorsed but a different religion you did not agree with? Would you still feel that way?


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:   I

sugarfree wrote:

 

I disagree. The point of that verbiage in the constitution was to avoid state run religion, which is why the first pioneers came here in the first place. They wanted to practice their religion freely without state intervention.

Does it occur to you that you are now supporting the very thing you opposed earlier? Yes, the intent is to disallow legislation that would prohibit religious freedom - all religions. Yours does not get special treatment and no one can legally prevent you from practicing your religion. There are no other statues in federal buildings depicting symbolism from other religions. Why should the 10 commandments remain?

Quote:
If the founders wanted a sturdy wall to exist between the government and religion, why was their wording not more forceful in regards to that point?

 

This is too rich for me to pass up but I will allow some of the others to have fun with it. Perhaps YOUR leader should have been more forceful and clear in regards to which religion is "right" when he/she regurgitated the bible.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Okay Sugarfree,

BGH wrote:

Okay Sugarfree, there are a few things you should look into in the founding of our nation and the separation/establishment clause.

 

First, the Danbury letter Thomas Jefferson wrote was in response to Danbury Baptist Church’s inquiry as to the intent of the wording of the first amendment. Jefferson in this letter clearly stated the first amendment essentially “built a wall of separation between church and state”. This indicates state shall not involve itself in religion and religion will not interfere with state issues. I think this amendment is the most breached portion of our constitution. You can read the letter here:

Thank you, I already read it.

BGH wrote:

Second, in the Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11 which was ratified by congress and signed by then President John Adams states that, the United States of America is in no way a “christian nation”. We may have christians in the country but we were not established as a “christian nation” You can read that document here.

Yes, I read this one also, and I agree with your statement that nowhere in our constitution does is state we are a Christian nation, and I agree that that should be left out of the constitution. However, this country is undeniably influenced by Christianity more than by any other religion or philosophical thought.  I think it would be dishonest to teach students of history otherwise.

 

BGH wrote:

Third, the Federalist Papers which document the drafting of the constitution can be reviewed and one can observe that various points in the process references to the christian god, were inserted by various legislators but ultimately all were removed because the founders did not want to endorse any one religion. The constitution references a creator but this is a benign term, where my creator is nature, I am sure yours is god. In no part of the constitution is yahweh mentioned, nor Christianity. This is for a reason, the founders wanted to establish a secular country. You can read those documents here.

Again, I am aware that Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution and this was done purposefully as to not endorse one specific religion. I do not believe, however, that the founders wanted to create a country that was absent of the knowledge of God.  May I ask you, do you believe that nature endowed you with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How can nature "grant" you anything given that it has no conscience, whereas, God does have a consciousness and can therefore grant things.

BGH wrote:

Such ten commandment monuments in federal buildings give the guise of government favoring one religion over all the other or even non-belief.

 

Now do you see where the trouble is? Do you really feel this is silly? What if it were not your religion being endorsed but a different religion you did not agree with? Would you still feel that way?

Yes, I still feel there are more important things, which is why I am willing to concede this: If putting the 10 commandments in a mural with Zeus and Buddha would satisfy you, than okay. I would rather you do that then take them down totally. Because, if you take ALL religious reference down, you are essentially stuffing your atheism down everyone's throats, which, given your arguments, I believe you will agree, would be unconstitutional.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Logic is a

AiiA wrote:
Logic is a valuable tool in most real world tasks, logic is not exclusive to philosophy. Your lack of recognizing the phrase 'red herring' indicates you have a lack of knowledge of many logical fallacies.
Would you rather me pretend I know what you are talking about, or honestly admit that I do not know and ask you to explain it to me?  I do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn.  However, can we mutually agree to try not to look down our noses at each other?  Because that won't get us anywhere.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Does it occur

jce wrote:

Does it occur to you that you are now supporting the very thing you opposed earlier?

I believe you have misunderstood me, then, however, I am not sure at what point the misunderstanding occurred.  If you give me a little more to go on, I can try to restate my position more clearly.

jce wrote:

This is too rich for me to pass up but I will allow some of the others to have fun with it. Perhaps YOUR leader should have been more forceful and clear in regards to which religion is "right" when he/she regurgitated the bible.

Oh, yes, please, let's play "laugh at the silly little theist" some more.  That's always fun.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: May I ask

sugarfree wrote:

May I ask you, do you believe that nature endowed you with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How can nature "grant" you anything given that it has no conscience, whereas, God does have a consciousness and can therefore grant things.

We are not debating the existance of your god. I do not believe there is a god therefore I do not believe consciousness is attributal to him. We evolved consciousness, became self aware and altruistic behaviours were beneficial for survival. So, yes I feel these inalienable rights are not from god but from nature.

sugarfree wrote:
Yes, I still feel there are more important things, which is why I am willing to concede this: If putting the 10 commandments in a mural with Zeus and Buddha would satisfy you, than okay. I would rather you do that then take them down totally. Because, if you take ALL religious reference down, you are essentially stuffing your atheism down everyone's throats, which, given your arguments, I believe you will agree, would be unconstitutional.

No, putting no monument would not endorse atheism. No monument endorses nothing. You have tried to set up a false dichotomy... either we need a monument of everything, or if we have nothing that endorses atheism. You are wrong, and I am not insulting you, but that analogy is just wrong.

So to answer your question:

I say yes, remove them all. Taxpayer money does not need to be used for ANY religious monument. Period!


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: So to answer

BGH wrote:

So to answer your question:

I say yes, remove them all. Taxpayer money does not need to be used for ANY religious monument. Period!

BGH, I fear if you ran this world, it might be very drab, indeed. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: AiiA



sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
Logic is a valuable tool in most real world tasks, logic is not exclusive to philosophy. Your lack of recognizing the phrase 'red herring' indicates you have a lack of knowledge of many logical fallacies.
Would you rather me pretend I know what you are talking about, or honestly admit that I do not know and ask you to explain it to me? I do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn. However, can we mutually agree to try not to look down our noses at each other? Because that won't get us anywhere.
A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the discussion which renders the argument invalid.
Its simply a flaw in the structure of reasoning.




A "false dichotomy" is another fallacy.
When you basically said having a monument on government property is representative of a god and not having a monument is representative of atheism, you set up a false dichotomy - a either/or dilemma because no monument does not represent atheism.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.