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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2629
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
the question for the christian visitors

Interresting, there has been no response.  Maybe many christians don't want to join such a site to do so, I don't know.  It's also possible that many christians don't know about you yet, But as a christian, here's my thoughts. 

I can immediately debunk that statement by saying that any christian who claims that we are no longer under any Old Testiment law has not read their bible thoroughly enough.  The bible states that Jesus came down and died so that we might live.  HUH??? well for starters the old testiment put down many laws. (By the way, it was the catholic church... I think... who decided to take these particular 10 commandments out of the Old Testiment, there were actually many more.) The laws were basically summed up by saying that if we break the  laws, and do not repent, or turn away from those actions, then we deserve to die.  The laws also said a blood sacrifice would have to be made to recieve forgiveness of breaking the laws.  Jesus was considered that blood sacrifice for the world, so no longer would one have to slaughter pure animals to be forgiven.  The grace that we are under is the fact that God loved us soo much, that he gave his only son to die for us so that we might live an eternal life, and not have to be sentenced to an eternal death. 

So to get to the point of the question, the idea for true christians is that those laws still apply to us, and though there is no christian that can claim they have never broken any of those laws, we all as christians strive to that way of life.  The 10 commandments posted are also one of the few things left on public display that shows what our God expects of us.  of course to non-believers, that really doesn't matter, but i must invert the question you asked christians.  Assuming there is no God, and that those "commandments" are just written as possibly a view of a perfect life, why would you want to take such an idealistic way of living away from public places?  Why not use that to better our world, to live by if you will? 


messianicman
Theist
messianicman's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The Question for Christian Visitors

Unfortunately those who say that we are under grace and that the Law doesn't apply adhere to the teaching of Dispensationalism - which teaches biblical history as a number of successive economies or administrations, called dispensations, each of which emphasizes the discontinuity of the "Old Testament Covenants" G-d made with His various people.  This teaching doesn't fit well with Scripture.  We've always been under grace.  G-d's grace had been determined for His creation even before the foundations of the world and was realized when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden  - "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" - Gen 3:15.  Grace has been availble to all and His Law has not been taken away.

 In Matthew 5:17 when Yeshua said; "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law (Torah) or the Prophets (N'vaim); I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill;" He was telling us that He came to "correctly interpret" Torah so that we might live accordingly as G-d desired for us.  This does not mean that the Laws of G-d don't apply still - actually there are 613 commandments of G-d; and what is commonly called the "Ten Commandments" sum up all of these commandments - and Yeshua even went further to say that these Ten may be found in the two greatest Commandments - "Hear O' Israel thy L-rd, thy G-d is One; you shall love the L-rd your G-d with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and the second is like it; you shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Mt 22:38-39. 

Messiah was talking about the Tanakh (Law and Prophets) and that in fulfilling it He made a way for us to live according to G-d's Law so that we might obtain eternal life - this is G-d's desire for His creation; that we come to repentance and receive His Messiah as L-rd. G-d doesn't want us to burn in everlasting punishment in Hell (as some would say).  There is hope for eternal life and this Hope is found in the One called Yeshua.

Messiah also said; "Until Heaven and earth pass, not one jot (yod) or tittle (the tiniest detail) will pass from the Law (Torah) until all is fulfilled."  The "jot" is the Hebrew letter yod, which refers to the smallest of the Hebrew letters and also represents G-d's Ten Commandments as well as His Hand - the "tittle" represents the tiniest details of Torah.  Messiah was referring to the whold of G-d's Law and not just the Ten Commandments.  Many believers fail to see that the Ten Commandments is a summation of G-d's Law; but Messiah is the goal of G-d's Law - "For Messiah is the end (goal) of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes" - Rom 10:4. This doesn't mean that G-d's Law has ended; but that it has been fulfilled in Messiah so that we may live according to His Law (Torah).

At the time of Yeshua's earthly ministry many were celebrating and observing G-d's Feasts and Laws as a way to earn one's salvation and out of tradition, but G-d designed His Law (Torah) and His Feasts so that we might become aware of our sin and be directed to the Messiah. 

I also, at one time didn't believe in Messiah; I also, believed in my own way and thought that Yeshua couldn't possibly be the only Way, but I was wrong.  The Scriptures clearly point to One Messiah and Yeshua is the only One who could've fulfilled all Messianic prophecy. G-d's Law (Torah) still applies to both non-believers and believers; that is why we need a Savior - the Scriptures tell us these things and G-d proved it by sending His Only Begotten Son to die for us so that we might be saved. 

One day all who walk this earth will become believers; but the Bible teaches that we should believe now - so that we might be saved from the judgment that is to Come.  It is not G-d who desires to put anyone in Hell, but it is our sin that keeps away from a Holy G-d and through Messiah we can now enter into eternal life.

Shalom Alechem in Yeshua <>< 

"But G-d demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Mashiach died for us" - Rom 5:8


messianicman
Theist
messianicman's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Question for Our Christian Visitors

Unfortunately those who say that we are under grace and that the Law doesn't apply adhere to the teaching of Dispensationalism - which teaches biblical history as a number of successive economies or administrations, called dispensations, each of which emphasizes the discontinuity of the "Old Testament Covenants" G-d made with His various people. This teaching doesn't fit well with Scripture. We've always been under grace. G-d's grace had been determined for His creation even before the foundations of the world and was realized when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden - "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" - Gen 3:15. Grace has been available to all and His Law has not been taken away. In Matthew 5:17 when Yeshua said; "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law (Torah) or the Prophets (N'vaim); I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill;" He was telling us that He came to "correctly interpret" Torah so that we might live accordingly as G-d desired for us. This does not mean that the Laws of G-d don't apply still - actually there are 613 commandments of G-d; and what is commonly called the "Ten Commandments" sum up all of these commandments - and Yeshua even went further to say that these Ten may be found in the two greatest Commandments - "Hear O' Israel thy L-rd, thy G-d is One; you shall love the L-rd your G-d with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and the second is like it; you shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Mt 22:38-39. Messiah was talking about the Tanakh (Law and Prophets) and that in fulfilling it He made a way for us to live according to G-d's Law so that we might obtain eternal life - this is G-d's desire for His creation; that we come to repentance and receive His Messiah as L-rd. G-d doesn't want us to burn in everlasting punishment in Hell (as some would say). There is hope for eternal life and this Hope is found in the One called Yeshua.Messiah also said; "Until Heaven and earth pass, not one jot (yod) or tittle (the tiniest detail) will pass from the Law (Torah) until all is fulfilled." The "jot" is the Hebrew letter yod, which refers to the smallest of the Hebrew letters and also represents G-d's Ten Commandments as well as His Hand - the "tittle" represents the tiniest details of Torah. Messiah was referring to the whole of G-d's Law and not just the Ten Commandments. Many believers fail to see that the Ten Commandments is a summation of G-d's Law; but Messiah is the goal of G-d's Law - "For Messiah is the end (goal) of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes" - Rom 10:4. This doesn't mean that G-d's Law has ended; but that it has been fulfilled (accomplished and correctly interpreted) in Messiah so that we may live according to His Law (Torah).At the time of Yeshua's earthly ministry many were celebrating and observing G-d's Feasts and Laws as a way to earn one's salvation and out of tradition, but G-d designed His Law (Torah) and His Feasts so that we might become aware of our sin and be directed to the Messiah. I also, at one time didn't believe in Messiah; I also, believed in my own way and thought that Yeshua couldn't possibly be the only Way, but I was wrong. The Scriptures clearly point to One Messiah and Yeshua is the only One who could've fulfilled all Messianic prophecy. G-d's Law (Torah) still applies to both non-believers and believers; that is why we need a Savior - the Scriptures tell us these things and G-d proved it by sending His Only Begotten Son to die for us so that we might be saved. One day all who live and have lived on this earth will become believers; but the Bible teaches that we should believe now - so that we might be saved from the judgment that is to Come. It is not G-d who desires to put anyone in Hell, but it is our sin that keeps away from a Holy G-d and through Messiah we can now enter into eternal life.Shalom Alechem in Yeshua

"But G-d demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Mashiach died for us" - Rom 5:8


Bryan Holmes (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
OK...great question. I have

OK...great question. I have long answer if you are brave enough and patient enough to read it. Questions like these and many others on this site can't be answered by short 2 setence reply's (as often found on forums). If that is the sort of reply some will give, I doubt that there will be much merit in the answer. Also, I want you to notice that there is a sufficient amount of logic, reason and rationality to my answer. But you must have an open mind to even comprehend what I say. So only venture in if you have at least 10 minutes to spare and maybe a couple of days to think about it after...if you dare. You might actually find something thouht provoking here and wow...it has to do with Jesus and the Bible!....oooooh scary!

Will & Grace

Free will. Think about that for a moment….try to define it. Its tough isn’t it?
Is there really any such thing as free will?
Our will can be considered free as long as it doesn’t violate the will of
another and in many cases our free will is taken away as a result of a
violation. We can’t exercise our free will with impunity and not expect to run
into a situation that conflicts with societal laws or violates the will of
someone else.
So when you break it down, we don’t really have free will. There are limits
that exist and in a free society like America; there are standards that dictate
those limits. Freedom with limits.
We know that our government instigates laws but where do those laws originate
and what reason can be given for their existence? The answer is that there is a
God who has created a standard of limits. In Christianity, the Ten Commandments (don't stop reading, it gets interesting I promise)
are the standard. On one level, the Ten Commandments lay out our relationship
to one another and on the other level they lay out the relationship we are to
have with God.
It’s amazing to me that many atheists will say that our laws are arbitrary
(created by men and can be changed by men). They assert, “Certainly, there are no absolutes” (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes). They will say that each society in history has had different standards and they applaud that
flexibility. If it’s true for you then its true…you know, “To each his own.”

“Please don’t impose your standards on me” sort of thing. Until…one of the
relational parts of the Ten Commandments is violated against them such as
someone stealing their car or killing their child. Then you will see a
righteous indignation and a demand for justice. They will tell you in a minute
that they have been violated and that the people who perpetrated these acts
must be caught and punished! They have just upheld the standard.
They are not angry and demanding justice because the laws of man say they have
a right to; they are angry because a law that was created by God has been
violated (whether they know it or admit it).They know instinctively that it is
wrong for someone to take their car and they really know that it is wrong for
someone to murder their child. They don’t stop to ponder why it’s wrong, they just

know it is. The reason is that this awareness is built into our being; it
exists because it was placed there by our creator. He is our standard bearer.
Our free will can get us into trouble. In the Bible, the first story of
human beings is chocked full of free will and its ramifications. (humor me, keep reading if you dare)) In the Garden
of Eden, God told Adam & Eve that they could eat of any tree in the garden but
that they could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. The
standard is established. He gave them free will to eat of the forbidden tree if
they so chose but because he had created a standard there would be a
consequence from exercising that free will and violating the standard. The
standard when violated demands justice because God is a God of standards and
justice. Justice will result in punishment for the violator and at the same
time compensate the violated. The wrong is righted, although there are many
times that consequences remain even after the punishment has been administered
and justice satisfied. This was especially true of Adam & Eve. We all are
products of their free will violated. Sin (violating the standard) entered the world
when they chose to eat of the forbidden tree. The disease has continued through the generations up until today.
So God drove them out of the garden and they left behind the paradise they had
known. In their physical bodies they had committed the sin and so their bodies became objects of shame. When they realized this, they tied together fig leaves as a covering but this wasn’t sufficient for covering their sin. God’s justice demands the shedding of blood but because he loved Adam & Eve he killed an animal instead of killing them. The punishment fell on the animal and as a symbol of this action; God covered their bodies with the skins replacing the ineffective fig leaves. Their sin was atoned for by the sacrifice of the animal and covered their shame. The consequence however, was still present (the cursed ground, the sweat of the brow, pain in childbirth etc.) but the sin had been atoned for and “covered”. Blood was the essential ingredient.
This was the first instance of grace unto mankind from God. But what does that
mean exactly? What is grace? Paul wrote in Ephesians that we are saved by grace
through faith and this not of (or by) ourselves but the gift of God. He wrote
elsewhere in Romans that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. The true definition of grace is unmerited favor; acceptance once justice had been satisfied. We don’t deserve it but God makes a way and he does it legally (not violating his own standard to do so). In the case of Adam & Eve, grace was
provided (by God) through the killing (punishment) of an animal. This was a
provision designed by God in order to forgive the sin of the human beings he
created because he loved them. The very act of sin (exercising our will instead of God’s) results in death but grace results in life!
We see this shedding of blood throughout the entire Old Testament and on into
portions of the New Testament as well. The people were to bring to the priests
at the temple a spotless lamb on the Day of Atonement. It was to be the best of
the flock to be offered as a blood sacrifice for the atoning of their sins.
This satisfied the justice of God by the punishment being carried out against
the animal instead of the people just as it had been done in the Garden of
Eden. Once again, blood was the essential element for the remission of sins.
The night before the Exodus of the Israelites from their Egyptian captors, God
instructed the people to kill a lamb and spread the blood on the doorpost of
their dwellings. In punishment for Pharaohs sin against the Israelites, he
would send the death angel through the city to kill the first born males that night.
When the angel saw the blood on the doorpost he would pass over that house and
do no harm to the inhabitants. The blood was a sign of the atonement and that
they were Gods people. God instructed them then to roast the lamb with bitter
herbs (symbolizing their bitter struggle) and eat it with haste because they would have to flee quickly when they had finished the meal. To this day orthodox Jews celebrate the Passover.
Once again the blood is the key to life. The key to Grace!

When we venture into the New Testament, we see the same thing. Nothing has changed, blood still atones The difference is the blood spilled here is the spotless, sinless, perfect blood of the Lamb of God! All of the types of Christ, the symbolism, the rituals, the day of Atonement were all but a mere shadow of the everlasting atonement found in him. John the Baptist saw Jesus and said “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. He did indeed take away the sins of the world on the cross where he laid his life down of his own accord only to take it up again.

He was the fulfillment of all of the law having never sinned, having never violated the standard; he was and is the standard. A guiltless life given for the guilty. The standard bearer taking the punishment for the standard violators You….and me.

The Good Shepherd laid down his life for the life of the sheep. The book of Hebrews say’s that there is no forgiveness of sin’s without the shedding of blood and then goes on to say that he (Jesus) sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. The blood of sheep and goats were only a temporary fix and could not remove the sin of mankind. The blood of Christ atones perfectly and permanently for our sin and it is not necessary to continue the process. He did it once for all.

The cup of Christ is always full of his blood no matter how much we drink of it.

Once again, blood, his blood but it is not the main ingredient, it is the only ingredient.

Our will, his grace. It’s a beautiful thing.

 

Copyright 2007 Bryan M. Holmes

 This is why the TenCommandmants are valid...they protect each of us from the mis-deeds of others...don't steal my stuff, don't kill me or my family, don't sleep with my wife etc. It's about protection, not persnal oppression by a stuffy angry God. Every single law on the relational side is designed to protect us from being mis-treated by others. The other part is about our relationship to God...except it or not, it makes very good "rational" sense.



nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
atheism is incredibly deadly

Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao.

 

Atheists start out with a cuase and then start causing others to die in the hundreds of millions. We have history to prove that.

 

If the ten commandments are goofy and mythological, why do they bother non-godians?

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao.

Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Those dudes you mentioned. They worshiped themselves. So what? get to the point.

nonbobblehead wrote:

Atheists start out with a cuase and then start causing others to die in the hundreds of millions. We have history to prove that.

what cause is this? are you joking me? Proove it.

I blame religion. I can proove many, many murders in the name of religion and god. We have history for that too. In real history books and in the fake history book known as the bible.

nonbobblehead wrote:

If the ten commandments are goofy and mythological, why do they bother non-godians?

Because they are goofy and mythiological, like you said in your question.  Sheesh, you already knew the answer to your question why bother asking?

Nuff said.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Historian? Good. You know

Historian? Good.

You know of course that Hitler was an Aryan. I hope the atheists are always watching those white supremists. 

I once saw an atheist over at debatingchristianity.com try to number all of the people killed by Christians in the 2000-plus year history of the movement. He came up with about appx. one-million eight-hundred thousand. Give or take a few boiled wiccans and stretched to death protestant heretics.

 Communists atheists in Russia alone, killed tens of millions of people in just years. Pol Pot we know killed millions when the Americans slinked out of the Vietnam conflict. In China, we will never be able to know the numbers of people killed in that atheistic communist political endeavor as they are typically anti-free speech.

 Now, don't get me wrong, good atheists even get mad at a god they do not believe in for killing people with cancer. So, I do trust atheists and their belief-systemn with some forms of human safety. As long as we continue to question their motives and agendas closely, Very, very closely.

 

 

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

Historian? Good.

You know of course that Hitler was an Aryan. I hope the atheists are always watching those white supremists.

Hitler was a xtian. And yeah, I am always watching those crazy (xtian) white supermists. I don't want another Hitler taking over the world.

Hitler wrote:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
 
As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country.

noboblehead wrote:

I once saw an atheist over at debatingchristianity.com try to number all of the people killed by Christians in the 2000-plus year history of the movement. He came up with about appx. one-million eight-hundred thousand.

That's it?! what a terrible and unimformed atheist!

xtians have been responsible for way more murders than that.

Hitler alone did 6 million+

noboblehead wrote:

Give or take a few boiled wiccans and stretched to death protestant heretics.

A few? how about a few hundred thousand? I know xtians don't value human life as the rest of us do, but to dismiss all the murders by saying "a few"? That is low. Each one of those thousands of wiccans or pagens or 'non-believers' was a human life. Don't denegrate them further by trying to minimize what xtians have done in the past.

Boiled wiccans.... I hope you don't think htat's funny.

Oh, you forgot the Crusades...xtians were really great murders during that, amonst other millions ohter murders xtians are responsible for.

noboblehead wrote:

Communists atheists in Russia alone, killed tens of millions of people in just years. Pol Pot we know killed millions when the Americans slinked out of the Vietnam conflict. In China, we will never be able to know the numbers of people killed in that atheistic communist political endeavor as they are typically anti-free speech.

Yeah, they all suck. And they forced their populations to worship the leaders or the state. Yeah, worship sucks. All worship. Taht's a hint.

Your point?

noboblehead wrote:

Now, don't get me wrong, good atheists even get mad at a god they do not believe in for killing people with cancer. So, I do trust atheists and their belief-systemn with some forms of human safety. As long as we continue to question their motives and agendas closely, Very, very closely.

Huh? 

Are you projecting?

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

Atheists start out with a cuase and then start causing others to die in the hundreds of millions. We have history to prove that.

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for evidence of your lies.

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what this "cause" is.

History.... Use it, don't lie and abuse it. 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Free ThinkingHuh? Are

Free Thinking wrote:

Huh? 

Are you projecting?

why does everyone automatically assume that everyone else is projecting? it would appear that they think "hmm... they said something implying i have something wrong with how i think, i dont think anything is wrong with me, thus THEY must have a problem their not willing to admit and are seeing that problem in everyone else... im soo clever!!" either im on a website filled with the greatest phyciatrists in the world, or everyone is WAY to defencive on this website about what everyone else thinks about their mental state. then again, i could just be 'projecting'...

a quick word on the big ten, they are rules to live a good life, whether a christian, jew, buddist, muslim or anything else for that matter. even atheists could take advise from them. i think it's safe to assume that they'll ignore 'have no gods before me' and 'dont say god's name in vain', but dont make for urself an idol, rest on the sabbath, honour ur parents, dont kill, have affairs, steal, lie or be jealous are good bases for life, are they not? i wont bother going any further into it than that unless asked to, which i dont think'll happen. but oh well...

finally, wars. there is a simply cause of all wars, people dont like to look at. people cause wars. not religion, not money, not god. if a person wants to fight, they'll use any excuse they can to do it. hitler was insain, if he honestly thought god wanted him to kill off the jewish people. jesus himself was jewish, so it makes no sence to kill them at all. hitler started that war, not his faith.

that'll do for now, i think i got everything i wanted to for the moment. now if you'll excuse me, i have GCSE's to revise for, so calm down people, whatever it is getting you all so angery, it can't be as bad as you think... and if you're life IS at rock bottom, then get the hell of the internet and sort your life out!

hail jesus and rule brittania!

and be nice while im gone! it's more fun than it sounds!

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


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
dark_stumpy wrote:

dark_stumpy wrote:
Free Thinking wrote:

Huh?

Are you projecting?

why does everyone automatically assume that everyone else is projecting? it would appear that they think "hmm... they said something implying i have something wrong with how i think, i dont think anything is wrong with me, thus THEY must have a problem their not willing to admit and are seeing that problem in everyone else... im soo clever!!" either im on a website filled with the greatest phyciatrists in the world, or everyone is WAY to defencive on this website about what everyone else thinks about their mental state. then again, i could just be 'projecting'...

Why? It's because

When folks accuse other people of doing things without any justification, it's often because they themselves might doing that very same thing they accuse others of. Yeah, it's ironic.

Ted Haggard

Mark Foley

You are acussing me of thinking:

dark_stumpy wrote:
"hmm... they said something implying i have something wrong with how i think, i dont think anything is wrong with me, thus THEY must have a problem their not willing to admit and are seeing that problem in everyone else... im soo clever!!"

when it was unjustified. Oh well.

That was not what I was thinking at all. I think there are things wrong with me. Lots of things. Clever is not a word I would use to describe myself (I wish I could but sadly, I am not that smart... I'm working on it tough).

In fact it was you who was thinking that and not me.

Are you projecting?

I notice how xtinas like to go around and tell everyone they and their thinking are wrong. The people shouting the loudest, tend to be the most guilty of the crime they preach against.

Regualar people dont' usually go around self-rightously accussing others without proper justification. But xtians do.

dark_stumpy wrote:

finally, wars. there is a simply cause of all wars, people dont like to look at. people cause wars. not religion, not money, not god. if a person wants to fight, they'll use any excuse they can to do it. hitler was insain, if he honestly thought god wanted him to kill off the jewish people. jesus himself was jewish, so it makes no sence to kill them at all. hitler started that war, not his faith.

Are we back to this debate?

 

x=subject

y=person/humanity

 

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" is the same as:

"Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people!" is the same as:

x doesn't kill y, y kills y!

 

And then there is:

I don't blame the sinner, I blame the sin. which is the same as:

I don't blame the y, I blame the x.

 

Xitans first blame people for religious wars/sins.

Then xtians don't blame people, they lay blame the the religious wars/sin.

First xtians blame y, then xtians blame x.

Well, what is it? Shouldn't we get rid of the sin? Let's get rid of x! According to xtians, x is to blame and not the y's who are commiting the crimes!

Well, I blame the religion (x) and the person itself (y).

*** 

For whatever reason, xtians don't like to take responsibility for their actions.  Blame the sin!  Hate some people?  Then blame the homosexuals!

hypocrasy at it's best. 

 

nonbobblehead wrote:

Now, don't get me wrong, good atheists even get mad at a god they do not believe in for killing people with cancer. So, I do trust atheists and their belief-systemn with some forms of human safety. As long as we continue to question their motives and agendas closely, Very, very closely.

(FYI, we don't/can't blame god for anything because he doesn't exist, so statement is false.)

My turn:

"Now, don't get me wrong, good xtians even get mad at a god they do not believe in for killing people with cancer. So, I do trust xtians and their belief-systemn with some forms of human safety. As long as we continue to question their motives and agendas closely, Very, very closely."

Works for the other way around too.

***

I notice xtians like to change the subject when they can't come with any proof of their lies.

Let's get back to the issue.

***

I'm still waiting on noboblehead to address my concerns. Expecially about Hitler's xtianity.

Still waiting on facts that support your lies.

 Still wondering what that "cause" is that you refer to. 

 I want supporting facts for all please.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
First I want to say that I

First I want to say that I hope my avatar is allowed. Second, the man's question is lame. Our objection has nothing to do with the fact it's the ten commandments. It has to do with civil and religious liberties. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the ten commandments being in a public display. The removal would be the first of many steps of Constitutional violations, and the negation of religious and civil liberties.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


JoeSoup
JoeSoup's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Theologic you are right in

Theologic you are right in saying that there is nothing in the constitution that bans public display of religious materials, however because of the seperation of church and state, that display can't be in government buildings, like courthouses, because then it is imposing your religion on others through the state and that has often led to bad things in the past ie. the spanish inquisition. Also the last sentence is an example of a slippery slope argument, it is a falacy, and a bad response in a debate.


ImNoStrawMan
Theist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Although the founding

Although the founding fathers of this nation were primarily deists, they obviously had a profound respect for the biblical view of law and used the Ten Commandments as a foundational example of justice in civil government. The Ten Commandments of Moses arose before most other systems of law in the ancient world besides, of course, that of Hammurabi, and is therefore a foundational piece of governing authority not only for Judeo-Christian society, but societies all over the world that have even the slightest respect for the foundational monuments brought about through history that made their societies what they are today.

To tear the Ten Commandments down from its historical displays is like taking scissors to the history books and cutting out everything that is offensive to you. Of course, Thomas Jefferson did that to Scripture but thats beside the point. Because you cut something out or tear it down does not discount the fact that it was there in the first place. The founding fathers, both the deists and the theists, had respect for these commandments either as history to law and governing, or as the word of God, or both, and they had a huge impact in forming what we know today as the United States of America. To tear them down is like ripping pages from the history books.

The first four may be a little offensive to people, but nobody is telling anybody to "Love the Lord Your God..." or "Have no idols..." or "Keep the Sabbath..." or "Not to take God's name in vain..." unless you submit yourself to these laws. Its part of history no matter if it offends you or not. The other six are all civil laws and should be applicaple to everyone regardless of religion.

Now, even though Christians are "under grace", they still try to follow those laws because they are the picture of what biblical righteousness is, even though Christ took care of perfectly fulfilling them because nobody else could. And these commandments are also the foundation of several world religions, so they're pretty significant and relevant to today's culture.

There is no rational reason to tear these displays down. I'm not going to protest if they are, no reason to. It just indicates how pathetic modern society has become to try and erase history because it "offends" some poor soul who can't handle ideas that are different than his. Yes there needs to be separation of church and state, but these have nothing to do with that issue. The Ten Commandments are not interfering with government and the government is not interfering with the Church with these slabs of rock hanging around. It should be a non-issue, as far as the courts are concerned, but people just want to make a point about their philosophy of life by trying to take them down, rather than focusing on more important issues that get neglected in this whole ridiculous process.


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
u cant argue with that. but

u cant argue with that.
but u will, cos that's what u people do... oh well.
hail jesus and rule brittania!

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


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

ImNoStrawMan wrote:

Although the founding fathers of this nation were primarily deists, they obviously had a profound respect for the biblical view of law and used the Ten Commandments as a foundational example of justice in civil government. The Ten Commandments of Moses arose before most other systems of law in the ancient world besides, of course, that of Hammurabi, and is therefore a foundational piece of governing authority not only for Judeo-Christian society, but societies all over the world that have even the slightest respect for the foundational monuments brought about through history that made their societies what they are today.

To tear the Ten Commandments down from its historical displays is like taking scissors to the history books and cutting out everything that is offensive to you. Of course, Thomas Jefferson did that to Scripture but thats beside the point. Because you cut something out or tear it down does not discount the fact that it was there in the first place. The founding fathers, both the deists and the theists, had respect for these commandments either as history to law and governing, or as the word of God, or both, and they had a huge impact in forming what we know today as the United States of America. To tear them down is like ripping pages from the history books.

The first four may be a little offensive to people, but nobody is telling anybody to "Love the Lord Your God..." or "Have no idols..." or "Keep the Sabbath..." or "Not to take God's name in vain..." unless you submit yourself to these laws. Its part of history no matter if it offends you or not. The other six are all civil laws and should be applicaple to everyone regardless of religion.

Now, even though Christians are "under grace", they still try to follow those laws because they are the picture of what biblical righteousness is, even though Christ took care of perfectly fulfilling them because nobody else could. And these commandments are also the foundation of several world religions, so they're pretty significant and relevant to today's culture.

There is no rational reason to tear these displays down. I'm not going to protest if they are, no reason to. It just indicates how pathetic modern society has become to try and erase history because it "offends" some poor soul who can't handle ideas that are different than his. Yes there needs to be separation of church and state, but these have nothing to do with that issue. The Ten Commandments are not interfering with government and the government is not interfering with the Church with these slabs of rock hanging around. It should be a non-issue, as far as the courts are concerned, but people just want to make a point about their philosophy of life by trying to take them down, rather than focusing on more important issues that get neglected in this whole ridiculous process.

The ten commandments have nothing whatsoever to do with American law, or even its history.

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


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
see? what did i tell you?

see? what did i tell you?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: It has to

Theol0gic wrote:
It has to do with civil and religious liberties. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the ten commandments being in a public display.
Read it: First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

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


dark_stumpy
Theist
dark_stumpy's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
can we really describe

can we really describe something displaying the 10 commandments as a 'law'?


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
"Most Christians claim that

"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?"

Christians are just smart people that, since they were once atheists or other non-Christian peoples they know a thing or two about what's going on.

But, to answer the question (again) and not using the logic and ratioanlity of murderous-genocidal Atheism, that sponsered the Soviet Union alone to slaughter tens of millions of human beings, let us here from an enlightenment thinker . . .:

This is just a glimpse, that the Atheist versus the Christian, isn't anything even remotely unique in 2007 social babble. 

(Click on the link below, or go buy and read the whole thing. What is quoted is way down within the piece by Locke)

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm ) 

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

It remains that I say something concerning those assemblies which, being vulgarly called and perhaps having sometimes been conventicles and nurseries of factions and seditions, are thought to afford against this doctrine of toleration. But this has not happened by anything peculiar unto the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy circumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These accusations would soon cease if the law of toleration were once so settled that all Churches were obliged to lay down toleration as the foundation of their own liberty, and teach that liberty of conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters of religion either by law or force. The establishment of this one thing would take away all ground of complaints and tumults upon account of conscience; and these causes of discontents and animosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine particularly the heads of these accusations.

You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the public peace and threaten the commonwealth. I answer: If this be so, why are there daily such numerous meetings in markets and Courts of Judicature? Why are crowds upon the Exchange and a concourse of people in cities suffered? You will reply: "Those are civil assemblies, but these we object against are ecclesiastical." I answer: It is a likely thing, indeed, that such assemblies as are altogether remote from civil affairs should be most apt to embroil them. Oh, but civil assemblies are composed of men that differ from one another in matters of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings are of persons that are all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters of religion were in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less liberty they had of assembling. But it will be urged still that civil assemblies are open and free for any one to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are more private and thereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer that this is not strictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to everyone. And if some religious meetings be private, who are they (I beseech you) that are to be blamed for it, those that desire, or those that forbid their being public! Again, you will say that religious communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and affections to one another and is therefore the more dangerous. But if this be so, why is not the magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why does he not forbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government? You will say because he himself is a part and even the head of them. As if he were not also a part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole people! 

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: You

nonbobblehead wrote:
You know of course that Hitler was an Aryan. I hope the atheists are always watching those white supremists.

I've already adressed this in another thread a while ago... You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I hate it when people so confidently claim things, when they have absolutely no expertise or even basic knowledge of the matter.

Aryans are, by definition, blue-eyed and blond-haired. Does Hitler have blond hair? No. Does he have black hair? Yes. Is Hitler an Aryan? No.

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Mattness

Mattness wrote:

nonbobblehead wrote:
You know of course that Hitler was an Aryan. I hope the atheists are always watching those white supremists.

I've already adressed this in another thread a while ago... You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I hate it when people so confidently claim things, when they have absolutely no expertise or even basic knowledge of the matter.

Aryans are, by definition, blue-eyed and blond-haired. Does Hitler have blond hair? No. Does he have black hair? Yes. Is Hitler an Aryan? No.

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians. History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society. Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian.  That is a fact.

You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

 PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: And I

nonbobblehead wrote:

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

Untrue. If these words don't promote Christianity, I'm flummoxed as to what the hell he is promoting.

 "MY LORD AND SAVIOR . . . IN THE BOUNDLESS LOVE AS A CHRISTIAN . . . HE HAD TO SHED HIS BLOOD UPON THE CROSS. My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. This is God's truth! He was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...." -- Adolf Hitler

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." --Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933

nonbobblehead wrote:
The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

They represent the religious tenets of some Americans, and thereby excludes anyone who doesn't subscribe to Judaism or Christianity (the faiths to whom the Decalogue applies). Your particular faith is not immune to the First Amendment proscription against government endorsement of one religion over others, or none at all. Public funds being spent on the upkeep of a religious monument is a violation of the Establishment clause.

nonbobblehead wrote:
Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians.

How, exactly, is it a "real threat?" Will it somehow stop you from praying, worshiping in the way you choose, going to church or teaching the 10 Commandments to your children? 

nonbobblehead wrote:
History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society. Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian. That is a fact.

Please cite where we atheists are threatening and/or committing violence, much less killing off Christians. Also, please provide a citation for the "fact" that we are absolutist and totalitarian. That'd be a neat trick, considering the only thing we have in common is a disbelief in gods.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

The First Amendment explicitly gives the right of Free Exercise to the People, while Congress is mandated to be religiously neutral. Congress has NO right to religious speech whatsoever, which would include passing laws (appropriations bills, anyone?) that favor Christians over non-Christians - which is exactly what installing Ten Commandments monuments or posters in public buildings.

nonbobblehead wrote:
PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

The First Amendment is what makes Americans free. But I agree, it's being used for sickening purposes... such as the Creation Museum, faith-based initiatives, and abstinence-only (mis)education.

nonbobblehead wrote:
It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

Please cite any freethinker who has advocated graphic vaginal displays "all over the walls of anywhere." The First Amendment guarantees the right of adults to watch, listen to or read whatever sort of content they choose, including pornography, in private. When there are beaver shots at your courthouse or in your kid's school, you'll have an apt analogy.

Since I can only speak for myself as an atheist, the thing I find offensive about the Ten Commandments is that their being displayed in public places, using taxpayer funds, is a breach of the Constitution. If a citizen wants to paper their house and yard with it, they have every right to. The government and its various institutions have NO right to religious speech, and should therefore repeal those laws it enacted unconstitutionally. That includes the changing of the Pledge and the Motto (1954 & 1956, respectively), and adding religious displays to publicly-funded buildings.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


strangebreed
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: And I

nonbobblehead wrote:

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

Another idiot brain-washed by his little Christian chuch... Why should anyone not believe the words of Hitler himself?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

“I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”

“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

“At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.”

“How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.”

“The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”

“Protestantism as such is a better defender of the interests of Germanism, in so far as this is grounded in its genesis and later tradition”

“Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.”

“Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”

 

Hitler was a Christian and a devout roman catholic, not only did he equate "Germany's struggle" with the Christian Biblical fairytales, his Christian faith and the Bible were the cornerstone of his rationalization towards anti-Semitism and fascism. Bigotry and fascism are pillars of most religion, especially the Christian and Muslim faiths.

nonbobblehead wrote:
The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

Oh dear, Pot, kettle, black? Mmmmhh?

What if it were a statue of Gishnue or quotations from the Koran? You and your little Christinian bigots would be up in arms!? None of you believe in the Hindu and Muslim faith; how dare they errect something in-front of court house when the courts have nothing to do with Muslims or Hindus!!!

nonbobblehead wrote:
Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians. History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society.

And you Christians can't shake off the shadow of biotry and nazism; you all sound like Hitler, the Christian faith this, the Bible that...

nonbobblehead wrote:
Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian. That is a fact.

You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

 

No, the Bible does not teach equality amongst men and democracy in everything; Christians are bigots and so likewise don't believe in true democracy.

BTW: Here's a clue; the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

The founding fathers feared democracy would trample on minorities as the rule of the mob is the rule of government. Atheists are such a minority and US Christians have proven time and again that in their bigoted "democracy" religious freedom means you worship the Christian God and the Christian Bible.

A REPUBLIC means that publicly elected officials rule for the best interests of GOVERNMENT, not the majority consensus of their constituents – that’s a DEMOCRACY.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

You mean the way free-thinkers were up arms because of civil liberties and the freedom of speech in this case? It's expected, but still very funny that you Christians hold the naive views you do regarding atheists.

Let's change "10 comandments" to "Verses from the Koran", still ok with you then? Mmmmmhhh little Christian bigot?


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
ObnoxiousBroad

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

Untrue. If these words don't promote Christianity, I'm flummoxed as to what the hell he is promoting.

 "MY LORD AND SAVIOR . . . IN THE BOUNDLESS LOVE AS A CHRISTIAN . . . HE HAD TO SHED HIS BLOOD UPON THE CROSS. My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. This is God's truth! He was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...." -- Adolf Hitler

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." --Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 October 1933

Hitler's Nazi's didn't like totalitarian Communists. The atheistic Russian-kind.

I also believe that a comparison of the words of Jesus in the Gospels will spell out if Adolf was a follower of His or not. If logic and reason are things you like.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
They represent the religious tenets of some Americans, and thereby excludes anyone who doesn't subscribe to Judaism or Christianity (the faiths to whom the Decalogue applies). Your particular faith is not immune to the First Amendment proscription against government endorsement of one religion over others, or none at all. Public funds being spent on the upkeep of a religious monument is a violation of the Establishment clause.

I still do not see why mythology bothers the atheist. The Ten Commandments hurt no one. Indeed they are the foundations of our law system. 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
How, exactly, is it a "real threat?" Will it somehow stop you from praying, worshiping in the way you choose, going to church or teaching the 10 Commandments to your children?

Ghettoizing the Christians does not seem very nice to me. It makes atheists look very much like the Third Reich.  It is clear that you atheists demand that Christians shutup anywhere except their little milieu. Sounds eeriliy similar to recent past european history.

nonbobblehead wrote:
History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society. Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian. That is a fact.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
Please cite where we atheists are threatening and/or committing violence, much less killing off Christians. Also, please provide a citation for the "fact" that we are absolutist and totalitarian. That'd be a neat trick, considering the only thing we have in common is a disbelief in gods.

Columbine. And I also witnessed violence towards Christians by those that claimed to be atheists in my school.

Also the fact that you want absolute (totalitarian) silence about religion in our "public" schools. Why can't the elected officials of Christians vote in religion in our schools? ALL schools were once run by the religious. It was only until Dewel and his Humanist agenda took over that we see religion bashed so effectively.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
The First Amendment explicitly gives the right of Free Exercise to the People, while Congress is mandated to be religiously neutral. Congress has NO right to religious speech whatsoever, which would include passing laws (appropriations bills, anyone?) that favor Christians over non-Christians - which is exactly what installing Ten Commandments monuments or posters in public buildings.

Read it again. It looks like it is dealing exclusively with freedom for religion.  

nonbobblehead wrote:
PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
The First Amendment is what makes Americans free.

 

Wrong. It was the gun that set America free. The Second Amendment mentions why.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
But I agree, it's being used for sickening purposes... such as the Creation Museum, faith-based initiatives, and abstinence-only (mis)education.

The Creation Museum is not a court house. Faith-based initiatives have proven to help people in this republic far more than tax and spend. Abstinence only is a perfect way to not acquire an STD or a child. If we valued morality the same we we don hedonism, then children would have the role models to follow. Instead we have the atheistic do as thou wilt ideology killing and infecting our young people.  

nonbobblehead wrote:
It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
Please cite any freethinker who has advocated graphic vaginal displays "all over the walls of anywhere."

 

Larry Flint. I'm sure he is a hero to the anti-Christian skeptics out there. Althea was an atheist by the way.

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
The First Amendment guarantees the right of adults to watch, listen to or read whatever sort of content they choose, including pornography, in private. When there are beaver shots at your courthouse or in your kid's school, you'll have an apt analogy.

And it is used to spread porno and pedophilia onto our children. There are beaver shots in my kids' school. The First Amendment was never intended for porn, pedophilia, or paparazzi. 

ObnoxiousBroad wrote:
Since I can only speak for myself as an atheist, the thing I find offensive about the Ten Commandments is that their being displayed in public places, using taxpayer funds, is a breach of the Constitution. If a citizen wants to paper their house and yard with it, they have every right to. The government and its various institutions have NO right to religious speech, and should therefore repeal those laws it enacted unconstitutionally. That includes the changing of the Pledge and the Motto (1954 & 1956, respectively), and adding religious displays to publicly-funded buildings.

Good. I'll make sure to tell my Christian friends to pay for the Ten Commandment and pay to have them dusted off at displays at the courthouse. Atheists can put up Karl Marx quotes. As long as they pay for their upkeep.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
strangebreed

strangebreed wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

strangebreed wrote:
Another idiot brain-washed by his little Christian chuch... Why should anyone not believe the words of Hitler himself?

Becuase "Christians" not only believe in the words of Christ Jesus, they are to make sure that there are no false believers claiming they are Christians. And you do that by testing and comparing. Did Hitler "follow" the words of Christ? Please . . ., just a little logic huh?

strangebreed wrote:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The "Jew" along with the Romans that Jesus forgave while dying on the cross? Adolph was a poor Bible student. And of course there is no proclamation to kill anybody by Jesus.

strangebreed wrote:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

“I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”

“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

“At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.”

“How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.”

“The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”

“Protestantism as such is a better defender of the interests of Germanism, in so far as this is grounded in its genesis and later tradition”

“Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.”

“Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”

Hitler was a Christian and a devout roman catholic, not only did he equate "Germany's struggle" with the Christian Biblical fairytales, his Christian faith and the Bible were the cornerstone of his rationalization towards anti-Semitism and fascism. Bigotry and fascism are pillars of most religion, especially the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Bigotry and fascism is represented where in the words of Christ Jesus in the Gospels?

Then all Atheists are Maxist genocidal totalitarians just like Joe Stalin.

To use YOUR logic.

strangebreed wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:
The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

strangebreed wrote:
Oh dear, Pot, kettle, black? Mmmmhh?

What if it were a statue of Gishnue or quotations from the Koran?

You mean like the huge "Goddess" Pomona that the ACLU left on the Los Angeles county flag while suing the tiny little Cross off of it? Atheist bigotry proven in action.

 

strangebreed wrote:
You and your little Christinian bigots would be up in arms!? None of you believe in the Hindu and Muslim faith; how dare they errect something in-front of court house when the courts have nothing to do with Muslims or Hindus!!!
strangebreed wrote:

It is not my fault that Christianity influenced the greatest nation in history to be created. If the founders were Hindus or Muslims I'm sure their religions would be holding sway over our judicial system. You atheists wouldn't be so numerous though huh?

So much for my bigotry to be in evidence.

strangebreed wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:
Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians. History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society.

strangebreed wrote:
And you Christians can't shake off the shadow of biotry and nazism; you all sound like Hitler, the Christian faith this, the Bible that...

But Christians do not advocate genocide. Certainly NOT from the Gospels or the New Testament guidelines. The shadow of death in the hundreds of millions; that would be the Atheists and Aryans (and Buddhists, Shintos and Ancestor worshippers) doing that most recently in human history. The Christians only fought to end the killing. And even then, they were enlisted by a draft.

strangebreed wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:
Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian. That is a fact.

You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

 

strangebreed wrote:
No, the Bible does not teach equality amongst men and democracy in everything; Christians are bigots and so likewise don't believe in true democracy.

BTW: Here's a clue; the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

Then the founders of America didn't believe in a Democracy either. And with the rise of abortion, high taxes and gay marriage I see why.

strangebreed wrote:
The founding fathers feared democracy would trample on minorities as the rule of the mob is the rule of government.

Strangely so many poor people voting shatters your idea here.

 

strangebreed wrote:
Atheists are such a minority and US Christians have proven time and again that in their bigoted "democracy" religious freedom means you worship the Christian God and the Christian Bible.

Is it my fault that Atheists have such a horrid and violent past? Who wants to trust an Atheist? Egotists are not great for others.

strangebreed wrote:
A REPUBLIC means that publicly elected officials rule for the best interests of GOVERNMENT, not the majority consensus of their constituents – that’s a DEMOCRACY.

Once again reality disproves your point. Our elected officials are trampled on by the ACLU and other atheists when our "elected officials" OK religion in our public places. Once again, as always, proving that Atheists are the most intolerant people next to homosexuals, in America and the western world.

strangebreed wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:
It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

You mean the way free-thinkers were up arms because of civil liberties and the freedom of speech in this case? It's expected, but still very funny that you Christians hold the naive views you do regarding atheists.

Since Atheists so often side with pornographers, pedophiles, Marxists and abortionists, Christians and other decent people have good right to distrust anyone claiming or acting like an Atheist. And of course history paints a clear pictute of the value of atheistic politics. Communism and totalitarianism always seems to follow. I know, I am a union member.

strangebreed wrote:
Let's change "10 comandments" to "Verses from the Koran", still ok with you then? Mmmmmhhh little Christian bigot?

I am not "Christ like." Though if you want to refer to me as a Christian go ahead. The Torah is referenced in the Koran. As is the Gospel. I'm thinking the proof is already there that it is you atheists that will scream the loudest.

Good night.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I would assume its because

I would assume its because America likes to tout their amazing law system without recognizing the sources from which they derived it. 


keanresponse
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
I can answer your question

I can answer your question with two major points.  First off, this country was founded based upon the Bible.  Christians came to this country for religious freedom, and based the laws upon them.  By removing the ten commandments out of public places, and by taking "God" out of the pledge of allegience, we as a country are not only denying and rejecting God, but we're denying and rejecting the very basic truths that our great country was founded upon.  Whether you're a Christian or Athiest or whatever religion you belong to, we can all agree that the Bible is a very real part of our history as a nation.  Those who despise the history and policies of this country are completely free to move out. 

My second point is about your claim of Christians not believing in the ten commandments.  I don't know where you have gotten your information from, but Christians definitely still believe and follow the ten commandments.  Of course there are things that Christians don't do anymore, like sacrifice animals, but that is because some of God's laws changed after Jesus died on the cross.  Christians definitely still follow the ten commandments, and even if you're a non-believer, I think we can all agree that they are good morals and values to abide by. 

 

God bless


dust1
Theist
dust1's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hey Rand

I guess we get mad at the fact that this country was founded and started on the bible and the principles contained therein.

The ten commandments had a large influence on the justice system of the time and it's is just another reminder of how nuts things are getting.

I don't think that it is about being under the law, or under grace just a sign of the times

 

-peace


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
keanresponse wrote: I can

keanresponse wrote:

I can answer your question with two major points. First off, this country was founded based upon the Bible. Christians came to this country for religious freedom, and based the laws upon them.

That is incorrect. The pilgrims who first landed in Plymouth Rock were Puritans, and they came to this country so that they could practice their brand of intolerant, ascetic Christianity and legally persecute anyone who didn't believe as they did. By the time the Constitution was written, most states had an "official" religion, which citizens were compelled to support regardless of whether they were a member of that faith or not. In many cases, belonging to the wrong church got people run out of town or killed. Our Founders created the Constitution as a wholly secular document without a single reference to God, Jesus or Christianity (which Christians have bitched about and tried to rectify through legislation ever since); and to further clarify what they meant about this obviously important issue of freedom of religion and conscience, it is addressed in the FIRST amendment.

The Founders' own personal religious opinions are entirely irrelevant; however, it's clear from their own writings that they knew the only way to avoid never-ending religious strife was for the government itself to have no official opinion, as is codified in the first Amendment.

 

keanresponse wrote:
By removing the ten commandments out of public places, and by taking "God" out of the pledge of allegience, we as a country are not only denying and rejecting God, but we're denying and rejecting the very basic truths that our great country was founded upon.

Most of the 10C monuments were erected within the past 50 years; around the same time "God" was put INTO the Pledge, and our Motto was changed. All of these laws respecting establishments of religion are unconstitutional, but back then if you raised a ruckus you'd be labeled a "commie." They can call me whatever they like, but I insist they abide by the Constitution they've sworn to defend and uphold. If it was erected during the Cold War, I say get rid of it.

keanresponse wrote:
Whether you're a Christian or Athiest or whatever religion you belong to, we can all agree that the Bible is a very real part of our history as a nation. Those who despise the history and policies of this country are completely free to move out.

The bible is a very real part of our most shameful, barbaric and bloodthirsty behavior throughout the history of this nation (and way, way before that of course); that's as far toward agreeing with your POV as I'd really come... Yes, we eventually created a (theoretically) secular nation, but in getting there our ancestors wiped out entire cultures because they refused to bow to Jesus, or perhaps to "God's plan" for America to become Jesusland; at swordpoint if necessary. The bible can be used to excuse any atrocity no matter how foul - and has been, time and again.

Those who despise the Constitution of the United States, and would deny the fundamental human rights of others while claiming special rights for themselves are the ones who should be moving... I hear "God's Law" reigns supreme in Iran; that might be an option.

keanresponse wrote:
My second point is about your claim of Christians not believing in the ten commandments. I don't know where you have gotten your information from, but Christians definitely still believe and follow the ten commandments. Of course there are things that Christians don't do anymore, like sacrifice animals, but that is because some of God's laws changed after Jesus died on the cross. Christians definitely still follow the ten commandments, and even if you're a non-believer, I think we can all agree that they are good morals and values to abide by.

God bless

The punishment for breaking a Commandment is death. Whether you commit murder, adultery or merely covet your neighbor's property (including his wife), all are equal in the eyes of God. As far as I know there's no death penalty for adultery anywhere in "Christendom" these days so clearly our laws are not based on the Ten Commandments, nor are most Christians following them to the letter.

Which is not to say that they necessarily should, because beyond those that ensure the success of any interdependent social group (no lying, stealing, murder), the Commandments are absolutely useless as the bases of law in a free society; and they're certainly nothing worth killing someone over! The first Amendment is a blatant violation of the first Commandment in allowing Americans the freedom to worship whom they wish as they see fit. So I must respectfully disagree that the Commandments are "good morals and values to abide by," with the exception of the universal three...

Personally, I'd like to see the 10C monuments replaced with monuments to our Constitution. Far too many people are ignorant of its importance and fail to see how their civil liberties are being taken away, quite often through the purposeful use of biblical imagery, rhetoric and fear tactics that have a proven track record of getting people to line up and put their safety in the hands of their "godly" leaders. :snort:

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


dust1
Theist
dust1's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hey Obnoxious

You mentioned the First amendment being a blatant violation of the First Commandment earlier and I don't exactly understand why you think that.

I can see how on the surface it may appear to be in conflict since God has commanded His people to worship Him and Him alone, and the 1st amendment basically says you have the freedom to "do your own thing" and all,

but in my opinion and understanding of the two, the first amendment only ensures that religious establishments will not be "respected" by laws, or prohibit the free excercise thereof.

This, to me, doesn't violate the First commandment to "Have no other gods before Me" it only gives the "violators" of the commandment legal protection from the government if they do.

So in the sense that it makes it "Legal" to violate the first commandment, it also ensures that it doesn't become "illegal" to obey it.

What really violates the First commandment is the individual excercising there "free excercise thereof" and not the amendment itself.

 Let me know if I'm missing something...

-just my thoughts, but I think it makes pretty good sense. Peace 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
dust1 wrote: I guess we

dust1 wrote:

I guess we get mad at the fact that this country was founded and started on the bible and the principles contained therein.

The ten commandments had a large influence on the justice system of the time and it's is just another reminder of how nuts things are getting.

I don't think that it is about being under the law, or under grace just a sign of the times

 

-peace

BUZZZZZZZ, you are wrong.

There are only two commandments have any direct correlation to federal law (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal) and one that relates to some states laws (thou shalt not commit adultery). Therefore U.S. law is not founded on the commandments and to further illustrate we were not founded as a christian nation here is some information to chew on.

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 do not agree with? Would you still feel that way?

 


DBoone
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-07-14
User is offlineOffline
Law and Grace

I didn't read all the posts, but I wonder if the person asking the initial question read the Letter to Romans? Paul dealt with this very clearly and this letter supplements the above  issues. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it, and the Law still has a function in the economy of the New Testament. The Law shows us where we fall short of the glory of God, in our sinful and depraved condition we are all incapable of being justified before God and deserving of judgement - Jesus came to die a substitutionary death for our sin and in doing so purchased our forgiveness - like any gift it needs to be received, when we repent and follow Christ we become partakers of this grace and forgiveness, even more being formerly estranged we are adopted into God's family. Grace is not for us to fan our nose at the Law, but it is God's power to turn our lives around. The Christian finds in the Law the opportunity to grow more like Christ by repentence and obedience, and God in His mercy accounts for our shortcomings by the sacrifice of Christ. The world finds in the Law the requirements of a Holy God to whom we will all one day answer for our misdeeds.


dust1
Theist
dust1's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH you have a point...

I can agree with you on the fact that the legislation this country has been written in a "not endorsing any one religion" kind of style. That is evident from the links you have provided and others I am familiar with.

I guess what I really meant about this being a Christian nation was the fact that most of the founding fathers were Christians (with the exception of a few) also most of the settlers that traveled here initially were Christian (of one sort or another) and came here to practice religion freely and also to spread the gospel as well.

It is that freedom that has made this country great and is also becoming our undoing.

 


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
dust1 wrote: You mentioned

dust1 wrote:

You mentioned the First amendment being a blatant violation of the First Commandment earlier and I don't exactly understand why you think that.

I can see how on the surface it may appear to be in conflict since God has commanded His people to worship Him and Him alone, and the 1st amendment basically says you have the freedom to "do your own thing" and all,

but in my opinion and understanding of the two, the first amendment only ensures that religious establishments will not be "respected" by laws, or prohibit the free excercise thereof.

This, to me, doesn't violate the First commandment to "Have no other gods before Me" it only gives the "violators" of the commandment legal protection from the government if they do.

So in the sense that it makes it "Legal" to violate the first commandment, it also ensures that it doesn't become "illegal" to obey it.

What really violates the First commandment is the individual excercising there "free excercise thereof" and not the amendment itself.

Let me know if I'm missing something...

-just my thoughts, but I think it makes pretty good sense. Peace

 

Hi Dust1, sorry for the delay in replying.  Yours is an interesting take on the conflict between the two "Firsts" - it's a new one on me!

 I suppose that in a way, the first Amendment does inadvertantly protect the "violators" of the first Commandment (or any, for that matter), but only insofar as it prevents civil punishment for violating religious rules (and makes it illegal for religious adherents to be subject to bodily injury or death as punishment for violating a religious law). For example; even though the Bible says you can stone your disobedient children to death, secular law says you can't; and secular law is what matters, because it covers ALL Americans regardless of their religious beliefs.

The conflict between a Commandment saying "have no other gods," and the Amendment's "have any, or no gods if you like, it's none of our business" makes it quite clear that our Constitution is NOT based on the Ten Commandments, and therefore refutes the claim made by many Christians that it is.

And the recommendation to read the Federalist Papers, which record all of the debates about the language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was spot on. Anyone who's interested in how our government and constitution came to be will find it fascinating.

 

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
dust1 wrote: I can agree

dust1 wrote:

I can agree with you on the fact that the legislation this country has been written in a "not endorsing any one religion" kind of style. That is evident from the links you have provided and others I am familiar with.

I guess what I really meant about this being a Christian nation was the fact that most of the founding fathers were Christians (with the exception of a few) also most of the settlers that traveled here initially were Christian (of one sort or another) and came here to practice religion freely and also to spread the gospel as well.

It is that freedom that has made this country great and is also becoming our undoing.

 

Considering the fact that the earliest settlers were from Europe it stands to reason that most adhered to some sort of Christianity. While it's true that the Puritans came here to practice their brand of Christianity, they did so because they felt the Church of England was too liberal. They wanted to be able to burn witches and put people in the stocks for religious transgressions, and once they came here and settled in, they made laws that allowed them to mete out severe punishment for breaking God's laws. These laws justified them in killing Quakers, Anabaptists or members of any other sects who refused to subject themselves to the Puritans' laws. Research the founding of the state of Rhode Island; people who'd been driven out of Massachusetts for being the wrong religon made themselves a state where they could practice their own religion unmolested, without having to pay taxes in support of a different sect.

The thousands of denominations of Christianity that exist in the US today owe their existence to the first Amendment. It is because of the Amendment's proscription against government becoming entangled in religious issues that such a diversity of sects has arisen over the past 200+ years.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


rch10007
Theist
rch10007's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-08-01
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Most

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

 

I can't answer for most Christians, but I don't have a problem if a rock is in a courthouse or not.  The symbolism of what that rock stands for is based on indivdual bias and not necessarily what the creator intended.

I don't get upset  when someone tries to remove anything from anywhere becasue my faith is not determinate on tangibles.

Personally, I don't think there's intelligent life on other planets. Why should other planets be any different from this one? -- Bob Monkhouse


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
keanresponse wrote:   My

keanresponse wrote:

 

My second point is about your claim of Christians not believing in the ten commandments.  I don't know where you have gotten your information from, but Christians definitely still believe and follow the ten commandments.  Of course there are things that Christians don't do anymore, like sacrifice animals, but that is because some of God's laws changed after Jesus died on the cross.  Christians definitely still follow the ten commandments, and even if you're a non-believer, I think we can all agree that they are good morals and values to abide by. 

Why do Christians just follow the Ten Commandments and not the entire Law?

 Paul said that if someone is praticing one part of the Law,they should follow the entire thing.

 I don't consider killing someone because they covet what i have to be a fair rule to live by.

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


mryero
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-02
User is offlineOffline
HI first I love Christians



HI first I love Christians (I’m atheist) there are the best ! Actually they are the reason while I don’t use drugs (my brain on drugs would never come up with something so insane and funny) lets begin from with this :

Bryan Holmes wrote:
God’s justice demands the shedding of blood but because he loved Adam & Eve he killed an animal instead of killing them.


Dude , that’s pure comedy XD. Who demanded this ? God himself ? From himself ? And then he tricks himself with the blood sacrifice ? Did god hold himself hostage too ?

Bryan Holmes wrote:
The punishment fell on the animal and as a symbol of this action; God covered their bodies with the skins replacing the ineffective fig leaves. Their sin was atoned for by the sacrifice of the animal and covered their shame.


Pure Sci-Fi animal skin sacrificed for god protecting from sin radiation ! Did they cover they faces too ? Or is it magical shame removing animal skins ? Wait I remember the story differently they were ashamed because they realized they where naked. You know god made the humans like all the animals and Satan/snake did give humans free will (realizing wrong from good , realizing being naked ) by letting them eat the fruit.

Bryan Holmes wrote:
he consequence however, was still present (the cursed ground, the sweat of the brow, pain in childbirth etc.)


Well cursed by god himself however this proves that god has "multiple personality disorder” this explains the trinity for me.

Bryan Holmes wrote:
The Good Shepherd laid down his life for the life of the sheep


So Jesus is dead and God is Jesus there for you say “GOD Is dead” congratulations subconsciously you know this god is a load of BS. Sentence logic owns you .

Bryan Holmes wrote:
Once again the blood is the key to life. The key to Grace!


Lets play something funny like can you SEE the Magic ?

The magic blood makes magic things without it god is powerless to forgive.

Bryan Holmes wrote:
Nothing has changed, blood still atones The difference is the blood spilled here is the spotless, sinless, perfect blood of the Lamb of God!


Uuuu Magic Blood is still necessary in the NT. God can't do his magic without the blood .

Bryan Holmes wrote:
Once again, blood, his blood but it is not the main ingredient, it is the only ingredient.


All god needs is blood , All god needs is blood sounds like a song . I think it was faith not blood . Silly atheist me using logic in a religious conversation.

Bryan Holmes wrote:
the flock to be offered as a blood sacrifice for the atoning of their sins.


And then you followed the magic Jesus man to lollipop land .

Let me open my book :



Blood

70 % water

10% iron

20 % other : minerals , proteins , salts , fats depending on the subject



Do you suggest the combination of thus substances can do magic or forgive sins ? If yes then quick cover me in human blood and I’m going to haven (LOL XD) Did god need this in order to do magic ? Is it gods fuel ? If yes is god a vampire (LOL XD)?

Can you SEE THE MAGIC of Blood in your text now ?

Bryan Holmes wrote:
The answer is that there is a God who has created a standard of limits. In Christianity, the Ten Commandments (don't stop reading, it gets interesting I promise)are the standard. On one level, the Ten Commandments lay out our relationship to one another and on the other level they lay out the relationship we are to have with God. It’s amazing to me that many atheists will say that our laws are arbitrary (created by men and can be changed by men). They assert, “Certainly, there are no absolutes” (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes). They will say that each society in history has had different standards and they applaud that flexibility. If it’s true for you then its true…you know, “To each his own.”


O god O god I think I’m going to have a orgasm with you XD (Just having fun ).

I’m so exited I don’t know where to start.

So you say Gods standard is selfishness , greed , pride ? I know it god is sin and god commandments are SIN ! You are a atheist captured in the subconscious of a theist don’t fear I’m going to free you and I can do it without blood .

Let me start seriously my moral code is from sins like pride , greed , selfishness , lust and so on. My morality and the morality of this world is on the basis of sins (for the Christian view point ). Every person and animal in the entire history did every thing for a selfish reason I hypothesize that there is no love only selfishness and I’m going to prove it !

First lets see the non god related commandments can be summed up in this sentence

“Be selfish and don’t disturbed the selfishness of others , If someone disturbs the selfish nature of on of you all of you must punish him before he gets to all of you”

Well private property is the excessive use of greed and steeling deprives humans of their favorite sin ! (HeHe on the contrary you have this stupid virtue of sheering from Jesus thanks god we don’t use)

[The only greedless society whose Soviet Russia so you must say sorry to the Jesus follower comrade Stalin ] Let me sum up this in a academic sentence of a collage professor “Do thefts like to steal ? YES ! Do they like if a other theft steals from them ? NO ! So we all agree not to steal from one another you can call it a universal theft code ”

The same procedure for murder :

“Do we like to kill ? YES ! Do we like to be harmed ? NO ! So we agree to not harm each other. “

You see it easy is if you call you selfish side for the decisions ? Well we must stop killers because we don’t like to die or get harmed no need for a god here .

“Peace through Power”

Kane

Respect for parents gets under pride of your parents.

Since the wife where a slaves in the Hebrew times she is the property of the husband and you can’t bang her again selfishness of the husband .

Wow I explain the commandments without the use of god I rule.

Because I’m so all knowing and can predict that every Christian starts to object and pull mother Theresa and other figures to show me selflessness my answer is this :

I don’t consider the coz of the selfish desire to be important ! One can gain selfish pleasure from collecting money , building things , conducting scientific researches and many other motives like giving to the pore! OK the only thing that counts is this “you due it because it feels good this is selfish “. The action is unimportant the feeling of pleasure and longing for it is selfish , mother Teresa did her work because it makes her feel good. And it make her feel good because she was broth up in the way that thus actions made her feel good. WE all are addicts of outer brains we get reworded for doing the commands of outer minds (Warning I’m not suggesting soles ore that we are not outer brains I think a different part of the brain responds for the injection of our pleasure drug) commands. While we obey it and we make it only because it pleases us. And the commands are according to the experience and data impute with we have received from outer surroundings (You are what you are trained to be by society and personal experience).

Sum it up :

Personal gain = BAD ;

Longing for pleasure = BAD;

Getting pleasure = BAD;(For Christians like having sex or masturbating )

Getting pleasure = Getting pleasure from serving people ;

BAD = Getting pleasure from serving people;

Getting pleasure from serving people = BAD;

Getting pleasure from serving people = Personal gain ;

Its like a drug amplifier on outer brain while we do what it wants we are happy it comes from evolution and evolution explain why it is like it is.

For more reference read “Richard Dawkins The selfish gene“.

So god cant exist if he is love there is no love so there is no god.

End of story humans are dirty hunter gather animals and I’m not hiding it.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
dust1 wrote:

dust1 wrote:

I guess what I really meant about this being a Christian nation was the fact that most of the founding fathers were Christians (with the exception of a few) also most of the settlers that traveled here initially were Christian (of one sort or another) and came here to practice religion freely and also to spread the gospel as well.

It is that freedom that has made this country great and is also becoming our undoing.

I am never able to figure out in what way it is that America is any freer than any other democracy in the world. Indeed, the laws governing democracies are so similar across the board that the differences are hardly worth noting. In fact, some of the only differences that stand out in democracies are those that set America a part from the others, as in the right to bear arms, to name a prominent one. When it comes to the use of freedom here, I become distressed, for the poster would have it seem that somehow freedom of religion, in the way that it is granted within the United States, and indeed within other democracies, creates a negative circumstance that can lead to a countries 'undoing'. Just how is 'undoing' defined? If this is so, where is the evidence that this kind of freedom has had a negative effect in other democracies? Is America unique in this 'undoing'? Is there not, then, something else that can explain how freedom of religion is becoming America's 'undoing'? Does the poster mean to suggest that if there were not freedom of religion, that if one religion were not only dominant but the only lawful religion, that America would not be great and would not be subject to this 'undoing'? Or does he mean that if the freedom were tweaked America would be great and would not be subject to this 'undoing'? In what way, then, would the freedom be adjusted?

I am sorry to have broached a new tangent in this quite off track thread. I am just always bothered by the apparent arrogance of some Americans. I am unable to see what it is that makes any country great and I definitely am unable to see by what definition of great America would qualify as a great country if one could exist. Perhaps I would need to feel some sort of patriotism to understand the particular illogic that could lead to the conclusion, but necessarily patriotism lies as distant from me as theism. I can never hope to have either as a belief.

In regards to the topic, while I am not a Christian or American (if that wasn't discernable) and the topic really doesn't affect me (though perhaps this objective view will be useful), I find it (the posting of any religious article) contravenes the particular freedom I addressed in the former portion of my post and plain peculiar of a government that is supposed to be secular. What purpose is served by the commandments being displayed? I can only imagine that, as it can have nothing to do with a secular government, it is there simply by virtue that Christians are a majority in America and that only goes to compound the contravening of the freedom of religion. I don't believe the law is intended to be interpreted as 'the freedom of Christian devotees to do as they like, especially when they are the majority and can exert enough political force as to simply (and apparently so) forgo the freedom of everyone else.' The problem is not that the ten commandments are being displayed; it is that displaying a religious article of any sort in any manner where the government is concerned is pandering to religion. It would not necessarily be better, but perhaps the case would be different if similar laws from other religions were displayed also and equally (after all many are similar to and as acceptable as the ten commandments), but they are not and are not likely to be because they are not the ten commandments and would necessarily not represent Christianity or pick it out as special (which certainly their being displayed by the government does), or else again: Why display them at all?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Christians get upset for

Christians get upset for two reasons:

 1. Christianity represents morality. By removing these symbols, Christians believe you are removing morality.

2.  Status Quo. If it's not broken, dont fix it. It doesnt hurt to have the 10 commandments in a court house, especially a sculpted one -- thats just removing a peice of art, a piece of history. 

 In addition, how can proponents question why Christians get upset for having them removed. The origin to this question should be, why are athiests so upset that they need to be removed in the first place?


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Christians get upset for

Christians get upset for two reasons:

1. Christianity represents morality. By removing these symbols, Christians believe you are removing morality.

2. Status Quo. If it's not broken, dont fix it. It doesnt hurt have the 10 commandments in a court house, especially a sculpted one. Thats just removing a piece of art, a piece of history.

The real question should be: Why are atheists so upset about having them there in the first place, that they must cause scenes, and open websites, to have them removed? Everyone has a cause.

If Christians want to be Christians, then let them be Christians. I learned in grade school its not your place to change what people think. If it works for them, it works for them. If it gives them hope of eternal life, why take that away? Why tell a 6 year old there is no Santa?


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Christians get upset for

doublepost


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Christians get upset for

I got a PHP Fatal error saying that there was an undefined function commentLastPage() and thought it didn't post. Sorry for the multiple posts.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
r3lic wrote: Christians

r3lic wrote:

Christians get upset for two reasons:

1. Christianity represents morality. By removing these symbols, Christians believe you are removing morality.

Should our government be in the business of endorsing the myths, beliefs and feelings of every person? If yes, then every belief must be endorsed, not just the majority ones. If anything, it would be the minority ones that need protection, not the majority ones.

r3lic wrote:

2. Status Quo. If it's not broken, dont fix it. It doesnt hurt to have the 10 commandments in a court house, especially a sculpted one -- thats just removing a peice of art, a piece of history.

In addition, how can proponents question why Christians get upset for having them removed. The origin to this question should be, why are athiests so upset that they need to be removed in the first place?

There was a time when this "piece of art" was not in the courthouse. Why wasn't it the christian that said "why not just leave it alone?" 

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


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: r3lic

Randalllord wrote:
r3lic wrote:

Christians get upset for two reasons:

1. Christianity represents morality. By removing these symbols, Christians believe you are removing morality.

Should our government be in the business of endorsing the myths, beliefs and feelings of every person? If yes, then every belief must be endorsed, not just the majority ones. If anything, it would be the minority ones that need protection, not the majority ones.

I never mentioned myths, beliefs, and feelings. Morality/Christianity teaches good behavior, honesty, and humility--character traits that ANYBODY should agree are good characteristics. And it would be typical that you have an all-or-nothing attitude toward theism. Probably why you are an atheist?

Randalllord wrote:
r3lic wrote:

2. Status Quo. If it's not broken, dont fix it. It doesnt hurt to have the 10 commandments in a court house, especially a sculpted one -- thats just removing a peice of art, a piece of history.

In addition, how can proponents question why Christians get upset for having them removed. The origin to this question should be, why are athiests so upset that they need to be removed in the first place?

There was a time when this "piece of art" was not in the courthouse. Why wasn't it the christian that said "why not just leave it alone?"

This is the good part: the peices of art im talking about were built specifically for the project. For example, lets take the Supreme Court building in DC:

"Justice, the guardian of liberty"

In the middle is Moses holding the 10 commandments. Very beautiful architectual work. Moses isnt the only "mythilogical" person up there either. Confucius and Solon are up there next to him. Read a little bit more about it here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8c.htm

The sculptor is Hermon A. MacNeil.

Here is a little more information about the building on the supreme court's website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
r3lic wrote:

r3lic wrote:
Christanity represents morality.

This is a belief based on a mythical god.

r3lic wrote:

I never mentioned myths, beliefs, and feelings. Morality/Christianity teaches good behavior, honesty, and humility--character traits that ANYBODY should agree are good characteristics. And it would be typical that you have an all-or-nothing attitude toward theism. Probably why you are an atheist?

Morality is a human characteristic and its not even excliusive to humans. Morality does not come from the Bible anymore than it comes from the Koran, the Bhavagad Gita, Aesops Fables or any other book of mythology.

 

r3lic wrote:
This is the good part: the peices of art im talking about were built specifically for the project. For example, lets take the Supreme Court building in DC:

"Justice, the guardian of liberty"

In the middle is Moses holding the 10 commandments. Very beautiful architectual work. Moses isnt the only "mythilogical" person up there either. Confucius and Solon are up there next to him. Read a little bit more about it here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8c.htm

The sculptor is Hermon A. MacNeil.

Here is a little more information about the building on the supreme court's website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf

I'm very familiar with the Supreme Court building and you are mixing apples with oranges now. No one was questioning this issue. The relief of Moses holding the 10C's is part of a histroic display to show a number of mythical origins for our laws. As long as the 10C's are part of the mythical display its not a violation. Jugde Moore did not have the "art work" display in the Alabama courthouse as a part of a historic display.

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


r3lic
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord

Randalllord wrote:

Morality is a human characteristic and its not even excliusive to humans. Morality does not come from the Bible anymore than it comes from the Koran, the Bhavagad Gita, Aesops Fables or any other book of mythology.

I agree. That is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter where humans and non-humans recieve teachings of good vs bad, of morals, and other good characteristics. The same goes for those who use logic to come up with the same result. I know not to rob from people because logically, its not mine. Logically I know I shouldn't negatively affect other people with my actions. Some people must fear brimstone and tortuous eternity to keep from doing bad things. If that's what works for them, then let them have it. If that's what the majority needs to feel happy in their lives then why stricken them of that?

Randalllord wrote:
I'm very familiar with the Supreme Court building and you are mixing apples with oranges now. No one was questioning this issue. The relief of Moses holding the 10C's is part of a historic display to show a number of mythical origins for our laws. As long as the 10C's are part of the mythical display its not a violation. judge Moore did not have the "art work" display in the Alabama courthouse as a part of a historic display.

I thought this issue was about having religous references in a publicly funded building, maybe I was mistaken. As for Judge Moore, if his intentions for posting the 10C's were to emphasis ancient literature, would it have made a difference to you? Or is it because the 10C's allude to religion?


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Judge Moore, by displaying

Judge Moore, by displaying the 10C's in the courthouse, was asserting that our legal system was based not just on the Bible but rather specifically the laws of the Old Testament. As we have pointed out in this thread and many others, this is historically/factually incorrect and violates the 1st admendment of the US Constitution. My original question was more to the point that many Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the laws of the OT and they were now little more than a historical amusement. That being the case, why did they want the 10C's displayed in public buildings? Like any good attorney, I knew the answer before I asked the question. I just wanted to see the Christian Apologist do their mental backflips trying to answer in a rational manner and have it on public display for all to see.

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


goodeh
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-09-20
User is offlineOffline
I think the question is a

I think the question is a subtle accusation directed at christians that is saying that christians are not doing good works. The accuser is the devil. I think Paul said "Let us not weary ourselves with good works'.

Where in the bible does it mention that christians are supposed to get 'upset' if men want to move a rock with 10 commandments written on it???

It is not in the bible. The bible does not say what to do. Love your enemy? But, the law is death to me.

I am dead to the law.