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


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

Reviewing your tract:

Quote:
The Bible is a collection of writings that were written over a 1600 year period of time by 39 differing authors, most of which had never met each other.

Ignores the fact that all of these writings, and others such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were compiled, edited, vetted and, in many cases, rewritten and altered to create the KJV that most people use today.

Quote:
We trust the things that were revealed to Moses as being true for one reason. Moses demonstrated that he was a spokesperson for God by demonstrating 100% accurate short term knowledge of future events.

Where did he do this? Oh yeah, in the Bible. So we are supposed to trust that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is. Do you see your problem here? What is needed is independent confirmation that Moses predicted things that later came true. No such evidence exists.

Quote:
Many of his longer term prophecies regarding the Jewish nation are still coming true today.

This is not supported and needs to be. The fact that you would make such an incredible claim and not offer even one specific example is extremely damaging to your credibility.

Quote:
Many of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah have their fulfillment recorded in the New Testament.

There is direct, independently confirmed evidence to the effect that the New Testament was carefully edited and altered to agree with the OT prophesies. Even so, in many cases, the compilers screwed up and left in severe contradictions and omissions.

Quote:
The Bible itself contains a prophecy regarding its own completion.

I hereby prophesy that I will finish writing this post at some point. If I'm right, does that mean you will take everything I say as the perfect Word of God?

Quote:
For the remainder of this tract we would like to concentrate on the prophecies which were fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming.

There is no need for me to read further at this point, since I have already pointed out that those prophecies, and the tales of their fulfillment, are not worth the paper they are printed on. When a writer foreshadows that something will happen later in the story, then writes the story such that the predicted thing actually happens, no one ascribes miraculous powers of prophecy to that writer and for good reason. This is what occurred with the Bible and that is why the Bible agrees with itself in many areas (and not others).

I have to say that tract was a little disappointing as an attempt to present a convincing case for the truth of the Bible. Have you written the one that deals with the modern-day fulfillments of Biblical prophecy yet? Because that would probably be a lot better.

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


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
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 would get upset at someone trying to remove the 10 commandments because i wouldnt try to remove this atheist forum from the internet just because i dont agree with the viewpoints.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:i would get

Shitrock wrote:

i would get upset at someone trying to remove the 10 commandments because i wouldnt try to remove this atheist forum from the internet just because i dont agree with the viewpoints.

Except the internet doesn't have the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Specifically, the inclusion of the Ten Commandments on government property can be viewed as violating the intent of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:i would get

Shitrock wrote:

i would get upset at someone trying to remove the 10 commandments because i wouldnt try to remove this atheist forum from the internet just because i dont agree with the viewpoints.

there's a difference between free speech and establishment of religion.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Joy is Shelley ! "no law

Joy is Shelley !

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" ....

 Tax the fuck out of the churches, Sue for back taxes! Fish people are the enemy!  Zappa

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-z.htm

      BTW, That's a great site to dig into , see home here,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Nothing great about this question

it actually shows how much you do not know about religion. Jesus was a Jew and followed all the Jewish customs. I do not know what Christian religion you are talking about, but as a Catholic the Ten Commandments are first and foremost as the guiding rules of our religion.

 

Washington's farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
You should actually understand what you post.

And what religion is the government trying to establish by displaying the Ten Commandments. The Jewish faith follows these and so does Christian faiths(Catholic,, Lutheran etc). So which one is the government establishing here. NONE. It is a statue representing a lot of different religions never establishing one as dominant.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
to thine own self be true

That is Shakespeare


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Once again

By letting all Churches and temples be tax free, the government is not establishing one as dominant.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The LAWS created are a violation

In passing a LAW that gives tax-free status to churches, the First Amendment was violated.

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion..."

In passing a LAW in the form of appropriation of taxpayer funds to house and maintain Ten Commandments monuments in public buildings such as courthouses, the First Amendment proscription has been violated.

It doesn't matter that the Ten Commandments are sacred to more than one establishment of religion (The Catholic Church, for example)... the simple fact that they are related to any religion at ALL, makes taking tax money for their maintenance a violation of the First Amendment.

Again, I'll ask if you religious types would feel the same way about installations of monuments bearing the Buddhist Eightfold Path, the Wiccan Rede, or the Satanic Principles, upon public property using your tax dollars? Would you consider those monuments "no big deal" as well? If not, why not?

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Other religious statues

I would have no problem with any other religious statues or non-religious statues...because I am not a whiner baby. We all have to get along we all live on the same planet in the same country with the same color blood and the same aspirations and hopes and dreams. Whiner Babies....people who always have to get their way. I pay school tax, yet I do not have children in school, why do I, not because it is the law because it is for the betterment of society. I would rather that my scool tax dollars go to a Catholic school but you can't win them all. I went to Catholic grammer school, when I got to public high school and took my science and math guess what I already learned that in catholic school. I had already read Romeo and Juliet and hamlet and lord of the flies and alot of other books already also. Catholic schools are just better for education.

Super-sensitivity, political correctness....whiner babies. Hate crime...whiner babies. If i want to call someone an ethnic slur that is my first amendment right to do so. That is not to say I will not get the crap kicked out of me, but then I deserve it. Putting someone in jail longer or at all because of what is said...whiner babies and against the first amendment. Why don't you put some energy on that issue since you are all so concerned about the first amendment in here. Certainly free speech is more important than a number of religious statues and Merry Christmas signs.

 

George Washington's farewell address:

 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Balone ,"it actually shows

Balone wrote ,"it actually shows how much you do not know about religion". ///////

Oh really ... how so? Go ahead, let's hear your appeasement baloney ...

Dogma is poison, plain and simple, period .... the enemy to heal ....

Teaching 'God of Abraham' doctrine as truth, is flat out child abuse.

Idol worship is a deadly mind numbing sickness.

Religion dogma is terrorism.

Displaying the cross is a hate crime against humanity.

The Christian god is the Devil and the bringer of Hell on earth. 

The Pope is the devils servant.

America is a Christian nation and so is Hell.

Jesus/Buddha was Atheist. Paul was a sick murderous Xain

Excuse me, but I feel dirty, as the foul dark cloud is thick and sickening, as I need      pollution relief from this suffocating God of Dogma.

"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be--a Christian." M. Twain

"I like your christ. I don't like your christians. They are so unlike your christ." Gandhi

 ATHEISM is the on going fight for the true "resurrection" of the simple truth, 

                                                NO MASTER                     

                 

   

   

       


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
You all really think your the shit

You all really think that you are so much smarter and better than the billions before you. You are arrogant, selfish, and self centered. 

Dogma is poison, plain and simple, period .... the enemy to heal ....

    Teaching 'God of Abraham' doctrine as truth, is flat out child abuse.

Says who...you and your cronies.

Let me reitterate....religion was created by man who is fallible,so was science

The Bible was written by divine intervention through God making the Bible infallible.

Since Man is fallible both science and religion will always be controlled by the people in power.

The difference is the Pope isn't taking money under the table to hold back progress in order to keep power in a controlled state. The second vatican council proved that by changing the Mass and making it more Humanist, which failed because we have people like you today and the loss of Church attendance. Which is why the current Pope is trying to put things back to the way they were.

Humanism is by definition arrogance. Look at all your titles above your pictures..you are all arrogant, self centered and are trying to make yourselves sound elite and the need to feel important. I feel important already because God created me, that is important enough for me. I do not need a title or a mantra to make me into something "special". I belong to God and I am special. that is all I need to get me through the day how bout you. And you already have the titles so the answer is plain to see.

 

YOU ARE NO WHERE NEAR GODLY

 


Atheologian
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-07-14
User is offlineOffline
Arrogant?

What is more arrogant?

To accept that we are nothing more than the product of chance mutations combined with the winnowing effect of natural selection. That we are just another animal and related to all other life on Earth. That our planet is just a tiny speck in an out of the way corner of an immense universe.

Or:

To believe that the universe, and everything in it were specially created for us. That we have a place of dominion over all life on Earth, which we are separate from. That we are part of a divine plan and that the universe begins and ends with us.


Balone
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
yes arrogant

God created man on the 6th day not the first.

 

George Washington:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Balone , this is especially

Balone , this is especially for you and your shit !  I recommend an atheist baptism !

SHIT is everywhere. So as long as you're stepping in it, show it some respect.

WORLD RELIGIONS PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER THINGS

THE COMPLETE AND UNCENSORED SHIT LIST

                                   http://www.bytebrothers.org/shitlist.htm

             Science works at eradicating all dogma shit , Religion is shit dogma.

  This might "save'"you. 2 atheist angels want a few words with you, good luck, lol.

Carl Sagan - "Pale Blue Dot"  , 3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M


"Wisdom of the Buddha" , 8 min   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI

                             


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Balone wrote:You all really

Balone wrote:

You all really think that you are so much smarter and better than the billions before you. You are arrogant, selfish, and self centered.

Nope. Not at all. I think those who came before simply lived in times where they had less opportunity to be open about saying "does God exist? I don't know, and I won't claim I do until that changes". If you don't know that God exists, you can't actively believe in him. Belief is the assertion of knowledge. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist.

Balone wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Dogma is poison, plain and simple, period .... the enemy to heal ....

    Teaching 'God of Abraham' doctrine as truth, is flat out child abuse.

Says who...you and your cronies.

Mutilating a child's body is abuse. Teaching them that the natural urges of their body due to powerful hormones as they mature are inherently evil is abuse. Teaching them that if they fail to live up to the standards of an unattainable perfection, they're going to burn for all eternity... abuse.

Teach them to live their lives as best they can. Teach them that we live and work and play in cooperation because cooperation benefits us all far more than simple selfishness. There's no need to wrap it up in divine finger-pointing and thunderous 'obey me or hurt forever' nonsense.

Balone wrote:
Let me reitterate....religion was created by man who is fallible,so was science

'Science' is a methodology, not a belief structure, which is why the scientific method calls for all findings to be tested, rigorously, and calls for us to be willing to discard any that we find to not fit observations, no matter how long we may have held them. Men are fallible, and so science calls upon us to presume our results are flawed, and seek to disprove them.

Balone wrote:
The Bible was written by divine intervention through God making the Bible infallible.

And you have actual evidence of this, right? You've independently verified the statement, I mean, you're not just repeating what some fallible man told you, right?

Balone wrote:
Since Man is fallible both science and religion will always be controlled by the people in power.

That has more to do with most people being passive sheeple, not 'fallible'... and science, in this age of easy access to mass communication tools, growls less and less controlled all the time.

Balone wrote:
The difference is the Pope isn't taking money under the table to hold back progress in order to keep power in a controlled state. The second vatican council proved that by changing the Mass and making it more Humanist, which failed because we have people like you today and the loss of Church attendance. Which is why the current Pope is trying to put things back to the way they were.

So you're saying Ratzinger's taking money over the table to reverse progress? Vatican II's changes to the Mass amounted to nothing more than the same changes Martin Luther et al ushered in centuries earlier. And yet, it's the Protestant evangelical denominations that are most rabidly fervent in their (internal) orthodoxy. Seems to me like those 'humanist' changes didn't stop them from attending Church.

Maybe Catholicism (and I say this as a former Catholic) would do better by putting the interests of the community the Church is supposed to serve ahead of the interests of the Church hierarchy. I did dearly love JPII, but the pedophilia issue was one where he dropped the ball in a massive fashion, and that damaged the credibility of the Church in the US.

Balone wrote:

Humanism is by definition arrogance. Look at all your titles above your pictures..you are all arrogant, self centered and are trying to make yourselves sound elite and the need to feel important. I feel important already because God created me, that is important enough for me. I do not need a title or a mantra to make me into something "special". I belong to God and I am special. that is all I need to get me through the day how bout you. And you already have the titles so the answer is plain to see.

I am not special. I am me. I am extremely similar to many other individuals out there, though exactly like none. Of course none of them are exactly like one another, either, so our differences are yet another similarity. I have no need to feel special. I have no titles. I live, and that's all I need. One day, I will die, and I will end, and that very finite nature to my life is part of what gives it meaning to me: This is all the time I have, so I do my best to appreciate it. What about you? Why do you need more than this life?

Let's assume, for a moment, that you're right, God exists, and the RCC is dead on the money.

God has created a world for you. He has given you your life, and the people who surround you. He has given you gifts that no other being could give you. And yet, you want more. You tell your benefactor, "This is lovely and all, but I don't want to end. I want to exist forever, in a nicer place, where nothing bad ever happens."

I accept and embrace the finite nature of my existence.

You reject all you claim your God has provided you with, and demand more.

Which of us is 'arrogant'?

Balone wrote:

YOU ARE NO WHERE NEAR GODLY

Nor do I seek to be. I seek to be me. What about you?

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
The christian says "faith

The christian says "faith works for me in practice." Would an atheist say faith could be thought of as a form of self-hypnosis or must an atheist go so far as to call it mental illness - delusion, schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.? It seems like just calling it irrational doesnt explain much.

And how does hypnosis work so well BTW? Should the argument be to try to convince believers that faith is equivalent to really good hypnosis plus conartistry? I have been hypnotized on a stage and its pretty damn remarkable. Only the difference was I knew I was hypnotized and I wanted to take on those behaviors but I knew the reasons werent real. But after watching "Mind Control with Derren Brown" it seems one can be made to believe magic works.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

The christian says "faith works for me in practice." Would an atheist say faith could be thought of as a form of self-hypnosis or must an atheist go so far as to call it mental illness - delusion, schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.? It seems like just calling it irrational doesnt explain much.

And how does hypnosis work so well BTW? Should the argument be to try to convince believers that faith is equivalent to really good hypnosis plus conartistry? I have been hypnotized on a stage and its pretty damn remarkable. Only the difference was I knew I was hypnotized and I wanted to take on those behaviors but I knew the reasons werent real. But after watching "Mind Control with Derren Brown" it seems one can be made to believe magic works.

I would say that faith can be thought of as suspension of disbelief. Much as we suspend our disbelief to watch a film, faith can be viewed as the willingness to set aside doubts and say 'Ok, I'll roll with it', only outside of any agreed-upon time limit or circumstance.

But that's just a thought.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM A Believer, I have

I AM A Believer, I have faith, I am saved, I am holy, the Christ is in me, I and the "thingy-force" are ONE. I AM ATHEIST. I AM 100% GAWED .... as you, as all is connected, as all is equal .... NO MASTER.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote:When the

JesusLovesYou wrote:

When the Holy Ghost was poured out at Pentecost the Lord was made available to all. Prior to that He only made Himself available to Israel. The gentiles did not have the law of moses. That is why paul consistanly says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (Paul was sanhedrin, he knew Jewish law). The difference is that now there is the availability to receive the Holy Ghost inside of us.

Let's keep in mind that A)Paul was not present at Pentecost, and B)The Twelve endorsed no ministry to the gentiles until Paul was already gaining in strength and influence over twelve years after his supposed 'conversion'.

As for why Paul said anything? Because it served to extend Paul's influence. Paul is the worst religious con-man in the last 2000 years, and at the same time, the most successful. He perverted a celebration of the life of the Apostles' friend and teacher into a ritualized performance of human sacrifice, and directly contradicts what we are told are the words of the living Christ.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Damn Paulines , I

Yeah, Damn Paulines , I meant Xains ....


TheOnlyChristian123 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
none

Them being scared definately isn't the reason for christians not commenting, they definately just dont visit a rediculously biased site like this one, but i like to hear the other side and i must say that i 100% believe in seperation of church and state. It's stupid for people to try and force their bible laws on the unfaithfull.  If you want me to question my religion you have to make a better question than that.


PeteBot (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Wooooooooooow

WOW. This is ridiculous. You atheists are constantly looking for ways into arguments as if you were little saints trying to free the unenlightened. All of you are this way. This entire message forum of comments going back and forth is ridiculous. I don't even have to do anything to prove this, you all do a great job of this yourselves. 

Sure, I can go ahead and explain to all about how the Bible is non-linear and you are all wrong thinking that it's actually true that the arrival of Jesus automatically negates everything the Old Testament stands for when in actuality, it strengthens it. Do you guys possibly believe that Jesus came just to tell us to go and disregard everything said by God? I know that you can all just get this message and flame it all you want. But then again, what do any of you know about the bible? Or what anything else means? Have you even read Paul's historic testimonials? (since you all don't know to an acceptable degree who that is, he's the guy that said we are living under grace; which is true, btw [Galatians 3:27]) The New Testament itself is built on the Old testament there's no way one can contradict the other. 

As for the given information about how Christian claim [insert blank here]. Don't you get it? IT DOESN'T MATTER. We are only humans. The only truth is the Bible. (You know, that one thing that you believe to be so fake it's not worth studying when there are so many prophesies having been proven)

All you do is fascinate yourselves in fake wisdom and deep sounding quotes. You guys will earn the validity to disregard fundamental truths about Christianity when you do the homework.

For the time being, you all provide nice laughs.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
PeteBot, "You guys will earn

PeteBot, "You guys will earn the validity to disregard fundamental truths about Christianity when you do the homework."  ////

As a general rule the atheists have done their homework and have graduated to the the status of being "saved". God of Abe idol worshipers are failing and blind. People assemble or follow many different story Jesus philosophical versions.

I can only accept the atheistic/pantheist Jesus as a jewish buddha philosophy. I am an atheist jesus fan , as the christ is in me, as we are one with the cosmos (father/mother). The Bible is an interesting and revealing ancient "Twilight Zone"script.

Religion dogmas and "god" really don't belong in the same book. The best study of god is science. My jesus had no religion and no separate master. This simple jesus message has been perverted by so so many, as would be expected.

I sure wish all "god of abe" worshipers would read the eastern writings on jesus.

Can buddha jesus save the christians yet? Talented delusioned bible paul and his, the anti-christ clan, have sadly rendered saving the xains a huge task.

 


kelly dorr (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
i got all the answers

the reason we get upset is that it is still God's Word and this world is so evil that as christians we know that any truth such as the 10 comm. in any way shape or form is better than nothing. it will give you pagans something to read and to think about and maybe you will come to your senses and not have to burn in the lake of fire forever. next question!!!


kelly dorr (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
to einstein

it is a crossed t or a dotted i ,  your a genius!!!!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"The Golden Rule", of many

"The Golden Rule", of many centuries prior god of abe inventions, is all need be said.

  The only wisdom in the bible, a caring 12 yr old could write, in a few short simple sentences. We are all equally the "Christ" for those who are "awake" and not blind. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:"The

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

"The Golden Rule", of many centuries prior god of abe inventions, is all need be said.

  The only wisdom in the bible, a caring 12 yr old could write, in a few short simple sentences. We are all equally the "Christ" for those who are "awake" and not blind. 

Well said. Nuff said.


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"As for why Paul said

"As for why Paul said anything? Because it served to extend Paul's influence. Paul is the worst religious con-man in the last 2000 years, and at the same time, the most successful."

Sucessful? Con-man? In what sense? Seems to me that from any of the writings we have that he was actually persecuted and imprisoned. If he was a con man he definately should have just latched onto something a little less dangerous like maybe one of the more accepted forms of spirituality of the time. Generally con men don't measure their sucess based on the sucess of the movement after death...the point of being a con man is to prosper in ones own lifetime no? What was his 'con' and what were the goals of this great con do you suppose?

As for the bigger question of the post...I think that it has been addressed failry thoroughly. There are so many problems with the question that show both a lack of understanding of Christian theology and a lack of a distinction between Christians and the message of Christ. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, I just mean the question is kind of flawed. I think there are two better questions in there...

1) Why do Christians still hold the 10 commandments as a valuable part of Christian living today despite their non-compliance with many of the other laws and rituals in the OT?

2) Do Christians beleive that the 10 commandments (or any other biblical teachings) have a place in State politics? If so, why?

Here's my own...

3) Why do athiests care if there is a piece of stone with some words on it in a court building?

That's all I see this as. It really has no meaning. The Supreme Court is still going to pass laws in favour of abortion and against mandatory prayer in schools so who cares about a friggin' rock in the lobby?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman is almost

Matt Churchman is almost atheist ! Going backwards thru your post, the supreme court is barely pro freedom, so the struggle is not nearly over.

And yes talented Paul, the greatest of NT deceivers. Look, another jesus writer wrote that "I have not come to bring peace, but to divide" ... Why ? Might it be there is only one truth, that all is the the kingdom of god / heaven NOW ? That we are one with the cosmos ( father /mother/ it ) ? FUCK all DOGMA, of all SEPARATISM.

             My way or the Highway ... fuck yeah atheist jesus buddha ....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
The entire site is informitive of many historians view points , get your"Jesus/Buddha" on !
             ((( "I am God/Jesus as you" )))


"Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical." ~

               ALL IS ONE , is it not ? poor poor xains, idol worshipers  ....

 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"Matt Churchman is almost

"Matt Churchman is almost atheist !"

Nope. Still very much a follower of Christ (Christian).

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
But Matt C,   wasn't story

But Matt C  wasn't story jesus a jewish buddha like character, with a non superstitious atheistic / pantheistic philosophy? How could one say "I am one with the cosmos (father), or "this is the kingdom and heaven NOW" etc, and not be of a buddha mind set, of no other master, so don't pray publicly, go home and meditate (think) alone, and yes the "laws" of physics (g-o-d) will never change. All is "ONE".

500 BC - Buddha consciousness - 'I am in the father and the father in me'. The message is that we are all the "christ" ....

 

There are two major conflicting jesus versions in the NT. The buddha like one, and the pauline like one. It's really is up to a persons interpretation and close examimation. Much has been written on this subject. The books not included in the NT are also revealing.

http://tomstine.com/jesus-and-buddha-parallel-sayings/

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

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." -Thomas Jefferson

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson

       Etc etc, just keep on thinking honestly on it good Matt C. I am an "atheist for jesus", the buddha like story jesus. Whether a historical person, Jesus or Buddha existed, is  irrelevant. What we are, on this atomic speck of dust we call earth, is all a science question. Amazing, Gawedly, Miraculous, it is ! .... So NO to all dogma superstition idol worship separatism. Why create a master, an idol??? .... Sure, I understand ..... and I am sorry, but obviously we are on our own. Welcome to the still primitive, "21st century schizoid man", on this planet of fear and confusion.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1) Why do Christians

Quote:

1) Why do Christians still hold the 10 commandments as a valuable part of Christian living today despite their non-compliance with many of the other laws and rituals in the OT?

2) Do Christians beleive that the 10 commandments (or any other biblical teachings) have a place in State politics? If so, why?

3) Why do athiests care if there is a piece of stone with some words on it in a court building?

 

Hi Matt - from an atheistic perspective these questions deserve (and have) answers.

 

1) In fact you can go further and ask why it was deemed necessary by the Jews to whittle down the 613 commandments listed in the Torah to a more manageable number (10 or 12 depending on which source you reference). Some scholars link this development to a contemporary fusion of religious leadership and secular authority in Israel (Jewish scholars dispute exactly when this might have happened - either during David/Solomon's consolidation of Israel or the later Hasmonean Kingdom era). Both periods occasioned much "settling of differences" both politically and theologically between diverse Jewish groups, and would have lent themselves to a reduction of the Torah into a civil-religious ethical code which would, in an archaic sense, have served as the definitive constitution from which the remainng 603 commandments followed. Christianity, which itself began as a Jewsish sect, would have had no reason to reinvent this code. It inherited the ten commandments as a central plank of its doctrinal stance, but its rapid transformation into a predominantly non-Jewish body meant that all memory of and reference to the rest of the Torah was quickly abandoned. That is why modern christians find themselves still with this essentially Jewish doctrinal plank at the heart of their religion.

 

2) Many christians do think that secular law should be based on the commandments, even many who benefit from the fact that it is not. Why they think this is obvious - they cannot conceive that it should be otherwise. But that is failure on their part in terms of imagination, a sense of justice, an inclination to bigotry and, most damningly, in terms of an arrogant disregard for anything and anyone outside of their extremely narrow and self-serving, self-imposed intellectual limitations.

 

3) Atheists care very much if statues of the ten commandments start popping up at entrances to court houses. It implies that all the moral imperatives named in that code, only some of which overlap with secular law, should somehow play a role in the deliberations and judgements made within that court house. This is not only grossly offensive and intimidating to people who depend on that court house functioning impartially but also in breach of the constitutionally established function, character and proceedings that the process of adjudication is subject to. On another level it is an insult to justice itself since secular law and the principles upon which it is established have long outgrown the sectarian and inadequate mores enshrined in that Iron Age list.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:"As for

Matt Churchman wrote:

"As for why Paul said anything? Because it served to extend Paul's influence. Paul is the worst religious con-man in the last 2000 years, and at the same time, the most successful."

Sucessful? Con-man? In what sense? Seems to me that from any of the writings we have that he was actually persecuted and imprisoned. If he was a con man he definately should have just latched onto something a little less dangerous like maybe one of the more accepted forms of spirituality of the time. Generally con men don't measure their sucess based on the sucess of the movement after death...the point of being a con man is to prosper in ones own lifetime no? What was his 'con' and what were the goals of this great con do you suppose?

And therein lies his success. Paul was imprisoned? Repeatedly, right? At least, according to Paul... but never charged with any crime, and always finds a way out. Saul of Tarsus, the tax collector who was from the 'civilized' areas north of Judea, who had many contacts and connexions among the Romans...

Paul's imprisonments read very much like 'I'm gonna go crash with my wealthy friends for a bit, how do I spin this?' Prospering in his lifetime? The man gained influence and power over others. You think there was no money in it? Then why did he send Timothy and at least three others to collect offerings from congregations when he wasn't present?

Generally, honest men can remember the most significant and important event of their lives, instead of changing their story each and every time they tell it.

Quote:

As for the bigger question of the post...I think that it has been addressed failry thoroughly. There are so many problems with the question that show both a lack of understanding of Christian theology and a lack of a distinction between Christians and the message of Christ. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, I just mean the question is kind of flawed. I think there are two better questions in there...

1) Why do Christians still hold the 10 commandments as a valuable part of Christian living today despite their non-compliance with many of the other laws and rituals in the OT?

2) Do Christians beleive that the 10 commandments (or any other biblical teachings) have a place in State politics? If so, why?

Here's my own...

3) Why do athiests care if there is a piece of stone with some words on it in a court building?

That's all I see this as. It really has no meaning. The Supreme Court is still going to pass laws in favour of abortion and against mandatory prayer in schools so who cares about a friggin' rock in the lobby?

I care because the Constitution of the United States says that the government shall not endorse any religion over any other. The Ten Commandments on government property represents an endorsement of Abrahamic faiths over non-Abrahamic faiths.

I care because the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and the judicial system of the United States are about us. They're about men and women being responsible for themselves and responsible to one another. They are about We the People declaring our dedication to establishing, propogating, and striving to ever improve our own society. Ours is a society where we exercise our best judgement and call upon those around us to exercise theirs, in cooperation and understanding, because we acknowledge that while it may not be perfect, so far what we have is the best thing we've been able to come up with, and if it isn't, we can try to change it so it is. They're about the unspoken trust we should have in one another that when there is injustice and evil, we must be the ones to face it, and we must be the agents of justice and righteousness who will solve the problem; and that so long as we stand together in our determination to solve these problems, good people can disagree on the best way to attempt it. Everything this country is built upon is a testament to that principle: that good people can disagree about solutions without sacrificing their virtue, and without sabotaging one another's attempts to find the answer. They are about us, human beings, as the ones who shoulder these responsibilities.

The Ten Commandments are about people being responsible to God. They're about people ceding their judgement and self-determination over to an unseen parent-figure who explains nothing, and just says 'trust me. do what I say.' They're about a set of ordinances set down that are forever unchangable, unappealable, unquestionable. There is no avenue to say 'hey, God? I think you made this one a little over-broad...' They're about everything, in the end, being on God. God will punish the wicked. God will reward the just. God will see to the needs of His people, so long as they uphold those 10 laws. And if something bad happens? Obviously, the fault was yours.

Modern Christian thinking tends to shy away from that last bit. It likes to hold that God is testing us when bad things happen, and that by holding to our faith, we'll come out the other side the stronger. But even that encourages this reliance on God to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.

The laws of this country are about humans making the decisions about how humans need to behave. About humans having to perform the unpleasant task, sometimes, of looking another human being in the eye and saying 'You have to pay for what you did. You are accountable to us, your fellows.' And they are about giving the accused the opportunity to question this judgement, and to face both his accuser and his judge. The Commandments are about God making all the decisions, and humanity obeying without question, without the chance to face either the judge, or the one truly bringing suit against us, because it is the same being: God.

The behaviors described in the Commandments are, for the most part, laudible goals. But the why and the how of it matter. The principles behind the laws are in many cases more important than the laws themselves. And in that measure, the Commandments are anathema to the Constitution of the United States.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
PAUL...and the commandments

Of course really all we can talk bout when it comes to Paul is what we have written in the New Testament...that out of the way obviously when I refer to Paul I am refering to that which we have written about him. Whether you beleive the New Testament history to be accurate is a whole other question.

"And therein lies his success. Paul was imprisoned? Repeatedly, right? At least, according to Paul... but never charged with any crime, and always finds a way out."

Finds a way out? According to Christian tradition he was killed? We have no other sources that would suggest any other alternative. Some 'way out'....

Perhaps though you are refering to something else.  I believe that at one point Paul prolongs his trial by appealing to Caesar (because he had Roman citizenship) at one point. He also gets an opportunity to 'find a way out' when the prison wall collapses. He was also stoned and persecuted...how does this factor in with his great sucesses? Why not something more accepted? Why not stick with the Pharisees (seemed like a respectable gig)?

"Saul of Tarsus, the tax collector who was from the 'civilized' areas north of Judea,"

Also a Pharisee and tentmaker. Two reasons I mention this. If Paul were a con man he could have just over-taxed or used his position within the Pharisees to mislead people. Sure would have been a lot easier than trying to convince people you saw a 'dead guy'.  The other reason I mention the fact that he was a tentmaker is because the reason we know this is because Paul often worked where he was teaching.  He did take collections to sustain himself but at times he would completely refuse to take any offerings and insisted on working as well as teaching.

"who had many contacts and connexions among the Romans..."

Do you mean the Roman church? It may even have been that he had some connections from his Pharisee days...but it would be highly unlikely that they would have been very supportive post-conversion.

"Paul's imprisonments read very much like 'I'm gonna go crash with my wealthy friends for a bit, how do I spin this?''

They 'read very much like'? There is absolutely nothing in there that I could say would reasonabley lead anyone without a negative bias against Paul to pull that out of the text. I also think that maybe the church in Rome may have had a problem with this had it been the case. I figure like this...for whatever reason Paul really believed what he was doing. Whether you think he was misguided or not is an opinion but I don't see an argument for him as this big deciever who intentionally mislead people. His close companion Timothy who was with Paul during some of his imprisonment...dude what young man do you know that would have his forskin cut off if he knew Paul was just going to Rome to hang with his rich friends?

"Prospering in his lifetime? The man gained influence and power over others."

He encouraged people not to glorify him. He 'influenced' people to beleive in someone else'...some influence. He had the 'power' to teach both through letters and in person when he could visit...some power. What did he gain from this power and influence? Usually with conmen power and influence has a purpose, it is not an end in itself. To trick people into a life based on love and sacrifice while at the same time being beaten and mistreated? Was this his diabolical plan?

"You think there was no money in it? Then why did he send Timothy and at least three others to collect offerings from congregations when he wasn't present?"

Yup, there definately was money in it. Hardly as much money as he would have been making with the Jewish religious authorities. Especially if Paul was as well connected as you make him sound. Way more dangerous too. In some cases he didn't even accept money...mostly people just put him up and looked after him as he was passing through. You already know that the offerings that were collected by Timothy were mostly for the 'poor' or the church in Jerusalem because they were financially struggling.

The 10 Commandments Question

"I care because the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and the judicial system of the United States are about us. They're about men and women being responsible for themselves and responsible to one another"

And a large portion that 'us' have some connection to an 'Abrahamic fatih'. That's the thing about democracy...the government represents the people and often times takes on the traits of the people. You've got a country founded by these people, filled with these people and you are suprised that the structures within that country reflect those people? Those "human beings in pursuit of righteousness and justice". That was a very patriotic response...if I didn't know better I would actually peg you as a Right Wing Evangelical Sticking out tongue Mostly the whole "agents of justice" part.

"The Ten Commandments are about people being responsible to God. They're about people ceding their judgement and self-determination over to an unseen parent-figure who explains nothing, and just says 'trust me. do what I say.' They're about a set of ordinances set down that are forever unchangable, unappealable, unquestionable. There is no avenue to say 'hey, God? I think you made this one a little over-broad...' They're about everything, in the end, being on God. God will punish the wicked. God will reward the just. God will see to the needs of His people, so long as they uphold those 10 laws. And if something bad happens? Obviously, the fault was yours."

This whole section is really interesting.  I think that God gave the Jews the 10 Commandments for their own benefit. It is that they are responsible to one another and these are some social guidelines that at the time were the best for this community in order to insure their survival and prosperity.

They aren't unquestionable. Speaking as a Christian we already know that these things are questionable...Jesus questioned and redefined much of how we understand the law.

"The laws of this country are about humans making the decisions about how humans need to behave. About humans having to perform the unpleasant task, sometimes, of looking another human being in the eye and saying 'You have to pay for what you did. You are accountable to us, your fellows.' And they are about giving the accused the opportunity to question this judgement, and to face both his accuser and his judge. The Commandments are about God making all the decisions, and humanity obeying without question, without the chance to face either the judge, or the one truly bringing suit against us, because it is the same being: God."

Well the supreme court is 'about humans making decisions on how humans need to behave. About humans having to perform..........'. I don't think a rock in the lobby will ever change that. I really don't. It may even be that some of those humans happen to believe in the God who handed down those laws though...so should his/her opinion be disregarded in this beautiful democracy that you live in? They won't tell you "because God said so" either. Based on belief in God they could reasonabley tell you why these laws are important and beneificial to humanity. So should their opinion of justice be ignored and only Athiests could be judges. I don't know really. I'm not big on religion and politics being partners either but I just don't see this as a big deal. I mean do you really think some judge is in the process of making a decision and changes their mind because they remember that there is a piece of stone in the lobby with some writing on it. I think symbols are worthless unless they have some sort of influence...and if they don't have that influence I don't care.

Hey I'm with you. I don't think religion has much of a place in politics, however, if people establish a country on a set of principles (in Canada the charter of rights actually says something about acknowledging the supremecy of God), sure we can challenge them, but if they don't change we can always find somewhere else to go if it's that much of an issue. Would you tell a Buddist country that they couldn't display teachings of Buddah on a wall in the courts? Who cares? Has this ever effected you in any way? Again, I don't think imposing laws on people based on religious beliefs is my favourite thing in the world either, but we should be concerned with the results...the things that actually effect people....the rulings of the court..not some symbol.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Matt C, it does effect

Matt C, it does effect people, and like putting a cross in the court entrance. I don't see how any critical mature thinker could be ho hum about it. Even as I as an atheist Jesus fan of a sort, xainity and judaism are blatantly wrong as they separate us from our true nature. Geezzzz all is g-o-d, or nature, and to say other wise is childish damaging make believe.

Having a favorite mentor(s) can often be good, important and helpful, but having an idol as is taught in most religion is obviously wrong. In the east it is more about who is your favorite "mentor". In the west it's so much like, my mentor or fuck you.The U.S. is a religious mess.

Read, "Religious Moderation", by rrs Hamby. See the other essays at "RRS Authors" in left list, a bit down from top. Link,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religious_moderation

              Keep thinking, caring, and observing.

This seems a helpful current thread for especially theists,

Is materialism self-evident?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15239

 

 


baadog
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
A rational response

BMcD wrote:

I am not special. I am me. I am extremely similar to many other individuals out there, though exactly like none. Of course none of them are exactly like one another, either, so our differences are yet another similarity. I have no need to feel special. I have no titles. I live, and that's all I need. One day, I will die, and I will end, and that very finite nature to my life is part of what gives it meaning to me: This is all the time I have, so I do my best to appreciate it. What about you? Why do you need more than this life?

Let's assume, for a moment, that you're right, God exists, and the RCC is dead on the money.

God has created a world for you. He has given you your life, and the people who surround you. He has given you gifts that no other being could give you. And yet, you want more. You tell your benefactor, "This is lovely and all, but I don't want to end. I want to exist forever, in a nicer place, where nothing bad ever happens."

I accept and embrace the finite nature of my existence.

I've not made an exhaustive search of this site, only an exhausting one; however, this is the first thing I've seen which could be understood as 'a rational response' to those who believe in God.  It's an honest and clear expression of what it's like being human, and of how one should locate oneself in the universe. It's pretty much how I feel too (except when I'm driven to bloodlust after reading Isaiah, obviously); all I want after death is peace.  So, wOOt.

As to the original post: I, personally, follow the ten commandments because I agree with them - I think they're perfectly sensible rules, especially if I get Sundays off.  Likewise, anything else I believe from the Bible I believe because I've thought about it and it makes sense - and the parts which don't, I don't agree with.  As far as I'm aware, this is a perfectly normal attitude for a Christian to take; maybe this is just because I don't attend an Evangelical Church in the USA.  Why I might want these carved in stone on a court is beyond me.

Anyway, it sounds like 'you', the embattled Atheists of America, have a constitutional right to have the commandments removed from your Courts, especially since (as I understand it) it's legal to worship whichever God one pleases there, work on a Sunday, swear, covet, and produce and sell idols of all sorts; so these are hardly representative of your legal system.  Good luck.

It is hard though, isn't it? Kicking against the pricks.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:And a

Matt Churchman wrote:

And a large portion that 'us' have some connection to an 'Abrahamic fatih'. That's the thing about democracy...the government represents the people and often times takes on the traits of the people. You've got a country founded by these people, filled with these people and you are suprised that the structures within that country reflect those people? Those "human beings in pursuit of righteousness and justice". That was a very patriotic response...if I didn't know better I would actually peg you as a Right Wing Evangelical Sticking out tongue Mostly the whole "agents of justice" part.

 

Because democracy cannot simply mean that the will of the majority must always apply in every situation there exists a constitution which forces all democratically nominated views through a procedure whereby their intent and effect are measured against the ground rules established for the functioning of that state. Decisions which offend the principles of the constitution cannot be inflicted on the state, no matter how many people want them. Only a change in the ground rules first can allow it.

 

Those ground rules were not founded on christian principles, despite what you seem to think. In fact the ground rules were devised by people with the intelligence and foresight to set in place a legal framework at the highest level which expressly STOPS what you say should be regarded as a norm. Check out the religious views of your founding fathers again, bud. You might get a shock.

 

It amazes me how ignorant many so-called intelligent Americans are when it comes to the constitution that protects them (often from themselves) and the enlightened views of those who constructed it. Even more amazing is their take on democracy, holding notions of "majority rule" that equate to "mob rule" and thinking they are echoing the wishes of "christian" founding fathers. It would be laughable if it wasn't evidence of a dangerous level of ignorance that shows a country regressing over 200 years instead of progressing. Fucking scary stuff.

 

The structures in the USA which are appointed to serve the people must, by definition, serve all the people. They are expressly forbidden to favour any one group, no matter how big it is. They most definitely should not advertise their subscription to a set of ideological principles established by an Iron Age desert race with a persecution complex and genocidal policies directed against their neighbours. The writers of the US constitution were intelligent enough to see this. You apparently aren't.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Nordmann .... Hey Matt

Yeah Nordmann .... Hey Matt C.

The American "Founding Fathers", wise to the ills of the ways of old Europe, separated church and state to protect the people from Christianity, not to support it.

   Geez, if only half of we Americans knew the words of the founding fathers. I named one of my bands "Thomas Jefferson". I had Thomas Paine also in mind.

Read them guys here, use the ABC's etc and do google 'Founding Fathers' and each of them early father presidents. This is a cool site , see home page as well.

Positive Atheism

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm

 

  

 

  

 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"Check out the religious

"Check out the religious views of your founding fathers again, bud. You might get a shock."

Just to clarify they are not my founding fathers. I'm not even American. From studying some of the earliest literature of Euro-Americans I have however got a bit of an understanding of the views of Americas earliest Anglo settlers...they were definately fundy's Smiling I do admit that when it comes to founding fathers and the original political establishment of  the US I am a bit ignorant as it is not an area I am particularly interested in.

"It amazes me how ignorant many so-called intelligent Americans are when it comes to the constitution that protects them (often from themselves) and the enlightened views of those who constructed it. Even more amazing is their take on democracy, holding notions of "majority rule" that equate to "mob rule" and thinking they are echoing the wishes of "christian" founding fathers. It would be laughable if it wasn't evidence of a dangerous level of ignorance that shows a country regressing over 200 years instead of progressing. Fucking scary stuff."

Obviously this wasn't directed toward me because I'm not American nor do I as a Christian believe that Christian laws should be imposed on the people as punishable by the State. The whole idea is ridiculous in my opinion. All I was saying is that 'majority rules' does tend to be the outcome of democratic societies. I thought this was quite easy to recognize. Look at your leadership...who gets in...the one who gets the majority of votes? So if a large portion of the country holds a certain view on how things should be run...a representative who upholds those beliefs will likley get in. Majority rules. I wasn't trying to justify it...I'm just saying that's how it usually goes. Really all I was saying. It seems inevitable.

"The structures in the USA which are appointed to serve the people must, by definition, serve all the people."

Wouldn't this would place huge limits on the law as it is likely that there are going to be contradictory and conflicting ideas on how to serve the people. For instance...well there are tonnes of examples of this. Point is that what you are saying is impossible. Good idea though.

"They are expressly forbidden to favour any one group, no matter how big it is."

So within the Muslim community in America..should they be able to practice what they percieve to be justice within their own group? Just a question? To not allow this would be showing favour to others groups right?

"an Iron Age desert race with a persecution complex and genocidal policies directed against their neighbours."

Maybe you should be careful when judging other cultures and time periods based on current ideas of government and morality. Again just a thought.

"The writers of the US constitution were intelligent enough to see this. You apparently aren't."

Ah this is the trademark Athiest insult right? It is possible to conduct a conversation in which others post opinions different from your own without having to insult their intelligence no? My post was mostly just thoughts in response to the post. I am personally not for the inclusion of Christian values in politics. I thought I was clear on that. All I was saying is that it is inevitable and in this case I don't see it as something to get all out of sorts about. Again, I'm coming from the same place as you...it is not my ideal and in fact I beleive it to be against the actual teachings of Christ...however a stone in the lobby of the Supreme Court is the least of my worries. If you could give me an example of how this stone has effected you personally that might help me to understand why it is even an issue.

Peace and Love

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You will have to describe to

You will have to describe to me in more detail how Thomas Jefferson, for example, could be described as a "fundy". Or Benjamin Franklin. Or Abraham Clark. Or Francis Lewis. Or James Smith. Or  John Adams. Or Samuel Adams. Or ...

 

... oh wait a minute. You didn't know these guys and their associates are the group now referred to as "the founding fathers". Did you? You thought the phrase referred to the puritan immigrants a hundred years prior to that. Ok - so you're ignorant when it comes to basic US history. Let's see what else you're ignorant about.

 

Majority rule. You think that because a majority elects a government then the same rule applies to framing law in a constitutional democracy? Really? Ok, so you're not Amrican but I'm beginning to wonder just what type of land you do come from if you can't see the point of a constitution, let alone one so well constructed as the US constitution. Anything else you're ignorant of?

 

Yes, it seems. At least based on your next two "points". You seem to think that the constitutional requirement to frame laws which apply to all the people equally means that individual groups should get different laws which apply only to them? Have you not even the slightest notion of how secular jurisprudence governs US law making? Don't you know what is implied in practise when the constitution demands that a law must be applicable equally to all members of the one society? Apparently not, given the twaddle you then follow your inanity up with when it comes to muslims within that society.

 

Does your igorance stop there? Let's check your next "point". You advise me to be careful in my description of the Iron Age Israelites as a people typified by a persecution complex and a genocidal intent towards their neighbours. You refer me to current governments and morality on that basis. I would like to think you do so as current experience has taught us that governments which ground their morality in the supposed example made by these Iron Age people simply replicate the same phenomena but in a more modern manifestation. If that is indeed your point then welcome to atheism, as one cannot extricate adherence to deity from either scenario, and it is a scenario that you obviously disapprove of. Or did you think you were making a different point entirely? Based on the rest of what you came up with I fear you do.

 

So then you wonder why I question your intelligence. Well, for all the reasons above might be a good place to start, but that would not do justice to the depth of estimation I now, based on this latest post of yours, hold you. Your final point - that "christ" wouldn't approve of imposing sectarian values on a secular society but what the heck, shit happens - just about sums up the extent that you are prepared (and most likely able) to think.

 

Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you. Peace and love and all that to you too. But for your own sake, please read more. You can call that a "typical atheist insult" if you wish, but I would regard it more as the typical response of a reasonably educated person to the flawed logic of an ignoramus. No offence meant of course, just friendly advice. You obviously have a desire to take part in discussions you are not as yet intellectually capable of holding. Keep plugging away at the learning thing - and then come back with opinions.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Nordman

Smiling I'm just on my way out and I read this last post by Nordman. I'll get back on here and clear things up when I get a chance.  My dear condescending compadre...re-read my post and then read yours. Perhaps read the post with a less defensive attitude and you will realize that most of your criticisms are based on a serious misunderstanding of what I actually wrote. It would be helpful if you used quotes from my post that way I could address each issue and maybe bring some clarity. See you soon.

PS- I went to respond to your post and it said that the post does not exist???? If you all can't see it or don't know wha tI'm refering to it is the one about how " I confirmed your suspicions about my intellectual capacities" or some shit like that

 

 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"You will have to describe

"You will have to describe to me in more detail how Thomas Jefferson, for example, could be described as a "fundy". Or Benjamin Franklin. Or Abraham Clark. Or Francis Lewis. Or James Smith. Or John Adams. Or Samuel Adams. Or ..."

Why would I have to describe this to you in detail when it wasn't even what I was talking about? Perhaps my language was misleading...

I said

"That's the thing about democracy...the government represents the people and often times takes on the traits of the people. You've got a country founded by these people, filled with these people and you are suprised that the structures within that country reflect those people? "

Because I used the word "founded" you assumed that I was refering to the "founding fathers". This was my mistake in not carefully choosing my language. I simply meant that the original settlers..the original established government as well as the majority of the earliest American citizens were fundy's. Because of this it is not suprising that these beliefs might be reflected in laws and in society in general. I was not endorsing this as being the way it should be...it was a matter of fact statement.

"You didn't know these guys and their associates are the group now referred to as "the founding fathers". Did you?"

Umm yeah I didSmiling

"You thought the phrase referred to the puritan immigrants a hundred years prior to that. "

Nope. I never used that 'phrase' to the best of my recollection. I think that in using the term earliest American settlers I was refering to the Puritans.

"Ok - so you're ignorant when it comes to basic US history."

Well I did admit that I was somewhat ignorant of American history. This does not make me an ignoramous or unintelligent. Perhaps I should quiz you on some obscure topic that is of little interest to you and see how you hold up...to be honest though I still don't see you making a great case for my ignorance of American history unless your misunderstandings and perhaps my misuse of language equal ignorance.

"Let's see what else you're ignorant about."

Yes let's oh wise Sage. Teach young grasshopper the way:P

"You think that because a majority elects a government then the same rule applies to framing law in a constitutional democracy?"

Nopers. I think that because the majority elects the ruling government that they are likely to elect those with similar values to their own. That government then goes on to legislate and often times that legislation reflects the values of the majority group which voted them in. I did not say that I condone this...i simply stated that it happens. This is fun. Let's see what else I'm ignorant of....

"You seem to think that the constitutional requirement to frame laws which apply to all the people equally means that individual groups should get different laws which apply only to them?"

Wow. Again no. I beleive that this was actually a question that I posed to you to try to understand your logic.

"You advise me to be careful in my description of the Iron Age Israelites as a people typified by a persecution complex and a genocidal intent towards their neighbours."

Actually in my post I clearly said that this was 'just a thought'. Your extremely negative words to describe the Jewish ancestors could be seen as incredibly offensive by some. I understand your point but all I was suggesting is that you be more sensitive in your wording to describe other cultures and time periods as they lived in a very different world from our own.

"So then you wonder why I question your intelligence. Well, for all the reasons above might be a good place to start, but that would not do justice to the depth of estimation I now, based on this latest post of yours, hold you. Your final point - that "christ" wouldn't approve of imposing sectarian values on a secular society but what the heck, shit happens - just about sums up the extent that you are prepared (and most likely able) to think."

Well maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I was not saying " shit happens" just let it. I was not suggesting that you should not fight against Christian laws being imposed upon you...I was saying that a stone in a lobby is not necessarily what you should be concerned about. The ston eis nothing. It is a rock. If you feel that your government...your supreme court is legislating in a way that favours one religious group over others and these laws are effecting people directly...STAND UP! DO SOMETHING! The stone I just don't care about. It's like if a politician wore a Jesus T-Shirt or proclaimed faith in God. What does it matter if nothing practical comes of it? I was not talking about Christian laws I was talking about a stone. I was saying don't be suprised if living in a country with a big Christian influence if you find yourself subject to "Christian Laws"...that's going to happen in any culture where religion has such a strong presence. Maybe if I were an Ameican I would think this whole stone thing was a big deal somehow...maybe it is but I don't get upset about it. How this 'sums up the extent that I am prepared to think'...I dunno...maybe you could explain this to me.

"Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you. Peace and love and all that to you too. But for your own sake, please read more. You can call that a "typical atheist insult" if you wish, but I would regard it more as the typical response of a reasonably educated person to the flawed logic of an ignoramus. No offence meant of course, just friendly advice. You obviously have a desire to take part in discussions you are not as yet intellectually capable of holding. Keep plugging away at the learning thing - and then come back with opinions."

Out of personal interest I would be interested to know the level of education you consider reasonable? What is your reasonable level of education and exactly how old are you? Please answer these questions because it will help me understand somethings about your communication. I am thinking you are either fairly young and 'internet educated' or you're older and educated but mistakenly think that you are conversing with someone who is an uneducated ignoramous. Just for future reference...if you are so confident in your superior intellect maybe you should take on the role of educator in conversations instead of arrogant-condescending-insult-hurling-know-it-all. I don't think this is who you are and I am sure that your frustrations got the better of you which I understand. I'm almost positive that this is not the level of respect you show to those you engage with on a daily basis. Just be aware of how you communicate your message. it would be far more effective in the future if you treat people with dignity and address them respectfully. Especially if you are interested in dialogue or hearing the opinions of others whom you may not aways agree with. Hope that gets everything cleared up.

Peace and Love

Matt

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
You are a good guy Matt C,

You are a good guy Matt C, and Nordmann is a caring, sick of the bull shit, good guy too. Hell beans, that atheistic character, caring jesus was a 'my way or the highway' good guy too. Umm, he called peter satan and went temple smashing !!!    Amazing we and our ancestors are, as all life and existence is. WOW indeed !

And seriously, many churches do good things, but the way most all them teach god and jesus is damn silly, sad, and worse. It must be fixed, and yeah I can yell like hell about it, as I often do. It sucks man. It is not healthy.

The buddha meditation method is partly about simply clearing ones mind, going to a place of zero ideas and presumtions, to return with a fresh clear unbiased sense of truth and reality. Basically the ideas of all others that have come before us in our head don't change what the ultimate truth about life is. It's some what like jesus doing his long meditation of 40 days ridding himself of wrong thinking (confronting the devil or demons within, like fear, greed and guilt)

   Keep caring, smell the roses, and be true to yourself.

 

 

 


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I Am God As You...

Thanks. You seem like a really good person. I share your frustrations with the behaviour and also a number of the teachings and teaching methods of organized religion. I am a part of the community that calls themselves the church and this only adds to my frustrations.

I do hear the message you are trying to convey and although we likely disagree on some things I believe that you are honestly persuing truth and your goal is a noble one. Much respect to you friend.

Peace and Love


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote: ...

Matt Churchman wrote:

 

... the original established government as well as the majority of the earliest American citizens were fundy's.

 

There you go again. No they weren't. Check it out.

 

 

When you get your facts straight and I can be sure that I am conversing with someone who at least recognises historical truth (whatever about other forms) then we can discuss the other more irrelevant things that suddenly seem to interest you, like my age or my intellect or whether you merit respect based on what you have communicated so far.

 

Most importantly we can then discuss your main point - that the emblematic placement of a monument to Juadeo-Christian scripture should regale all users of a courthouse in which secular law based on a secular constitution is imparted, and should not be deemed offensive. I contend that it is doubly so - it is offensive to those who do not subscribe to the narrow terms of morality enshrined in the document in question, but above all it is offensive to the principle of citizenship in a secular state where pains have been taken from its inception to ensure that no one religion's narrow morality be allowed compromise the fundamental principle of freedom and justice extended to all who live in that society. The founders of US government and law understood this, and well understood that christianity would represent the majority faith of the country's citizenship when they composed the constitution that would exclude its tenets from being those on which egalitarian justice would be structured. In fact, that was why they did so. 

 

 

What you call "just a stone" is something more than that therefore, and I suspect underneath it all you know this as well as I do.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Pilgrims and Puritans,

Pilgrims and Puritans, google a question this day .....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pilgrims+and+Puritans&btnG=Search

Hey, but don't believe all you read. ( so many liars out there, beware .... )

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/puritan/purhist.html


Matt Churchman
Theist
Posts: 95
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
"... the original

"... the original established government as well as the majority of the earliest American citizens were fundy's." - me

"There you go again. No they weren't. Check it out."

I think there may be some misunderstanding yet again. Maybe I'm off but did or did not the Puritans set up governing bodies in the Americas upon their arrival? Was this prior to the goverment that was established by your 'founding fathers'?

Listen, I'll be straight here. I understand why the ten commandments being displayed in the courthouse is offensive to you. They symbolize something to you and because of this you feel that them being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. My point was that if you should choose to fight against anything it should be the problem and not a symbol. In itself the stone is nothing more than a stone. If your government passes legislation that actually does something (outlaws abortion or gay marraige)...anything that you feel is the product of "Christian" influence - that should maybe be the focus of your political struggle. See what I mean? For example...if the stone is removed and your government goes on to create laws that are based exclusively on "Christian" morality ect...then what is the point? If the stone stays and the government is uninfluenced by Christianity in it's decision making- again what is the point? That's my point.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
It much more than a piece of

It much more than a piece of stone, and it encourages more bad religion b.s. .... it connects good moral behavior to xainity which is full of dangerous harmful myth.