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


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

Balone , your comment (last page) on George Washington shows your understandable error. In that G.W. quote, he's simply used the word "religious", as a deist, to mean deeply morally aware. G.W. was not xain, nor supporter, by any stretch. A jesus fan yes, xain no, just as many atheists are. He was a deist, like a pantheist, zero superstition dogma.

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

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Matt Churchman wrote:Listen,

Matt Churchman wrote:
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.
So... ignore the thin edge of the wedge?

I don't think that's such a good idea. There are very good reasons to be absolute about the separation of church and state - reasons that protect the religious as well as the non-religious. No infraction should go unchallenged.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think there may be

Quote:

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'?

 

 

Why do you call them my 'founding fathers'? The phrase, as I said, is used to denote the authors of the US constitution and the leaders of the campaign for independence.

 

Puritan "administration" in Massachusetts was by no means a precursor to what would become federal government, in constitution or tone. It could not even be called government in effect since the colonists had extremely limited gubernatorial mandate sanctioned under the terms of the royal charter. This charter removed all such responsibilities from them under James II and the later charter under William established what would quickly be referred to as the commonwealth administration, the colony's puritans by then already in a minority, even within the initial areas they had colonised (about 10% of the entire Massachusetts colony area).

So yes, you're "off", as you say. The puritans administering themselves for twenty years while dwindling in terms of population and importance has absolutely no relevance to the establishment of government in the USA, even prior to its independence.

 

Quote:

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.

 

They are unconstitutional when they advertise christian bias inside a court. That has been decided in the case against Ray Moore. They are not unconstitutional if they stand on government property and commemorate or reflect local history or tradition. That was the judgement in the Haskell County case, where the statue was a suitable distance from the courthouse and part of a statuary group that purported to "celebrate" local christian history. It's not what I feel. It's what the law says.

 

Quote:

My point was that if you should choose to fight against anything it should be the problem and not a symbol.

 

The symbol in this case is part of the problem. It is the statues' placement by people with a wilful and arrogant disregard for law and for the rights established on everyone's behalf constitutionially that merits opposition. If that arrogant disregard extends to areas of social legislation which also inhibit my freedoms then that merits opposition too.

Symbolism is not something that should ever be underestimated. It should never be the sole focus of opposition. But it must be opposed when it symbolises the intent to subvert human rights, along with everything else its perpetrators get up to.

 

 

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
"Puritan "administration" in

"Puritan "administration" in Massachusetts was by no means a precursor to what would become federal government, in constitution or tone."

I never said it influenced them at all. All I said was that the original form of government instituted by European settlers was set up by fundy's. It was a comment about the history of the geographical area now refered to as America. Like 'hey, when it starts out like this what do you expect'. that's all I said. I sense that sometimes when someone might have a little bit of knowledge in a certain area they try to turn a conversation that has little to do with that area of knowledge into a conversation about something they know a little bit about. Know anyone like that?

"It could not even be called government"

Actually yes it could be called government. I just called it government and it was a form of government - they governed. You are just arguing words. I see what you are saying and how you can make distinctions between current forms of federal government ect but that wasn't even my point. Very interesting history though, thanks for that.

Okay so what if we say that the statue is merely there in recognition of one early example of how law was central to the building of a nation. It is a popluar and well recognized example and it's there as a reminder to the court of how important their jobs are in determining the future of the nation...then what?

None of the 10 commandments that you would disagree with will ever be law. It just won't happen. Stealing and killing are the only ones that are in place and they have little or nothing to do with Christian influence as most athiest would agree that they are important rules for society. I think this is the whole slippery slope fallacy.  Even though we both probably know that the other commandments will never become laws.

I think we will probably just have to agree to disagree about this statue. I'm just maybe not that sensitive about stuff like this. If they had a statue with Buddhist sayings or something that was clearly athiest related I wouldn't be concerned with the statue so much. I'm also what you would call a Christian-pacifist so that might explain a little of why I see it as I do.

Sorry about the question about your age...I didn't realize it was so personal or that you would have a problem answering it.

Take Care

 

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
If you had all the symbols

If you had all the symbols of the major religions displaced together in a setting of unity, of "one earth, one people" I guess I could approve ???   But displaying the word g-o-d gets too tricky. Put the title god on a picture of me and hey, I'll vote for it !    Just saying WTF ain't god ? .... and, NO religion has any valid special claim to this G_O_D word. No religion anything belongs in a court house.       

I am a  57 yippy. BTW, I don't object to the big 10 as I interpret them. No god, no idol, before you ... Me / You / It being the same. In the celebration of ourselves, spend 24 hrs a week minimum, relaxing and meditating, if ya can. Engage in only safe, kind, morally responsible sex. Etc.

Maybe if I new the actual original first writing of the big 10 I'd say different. Whatever. I need no religion, no jesus , no buddha, no idol etc to simply know all is one, all is god. BUT without the many many wise one's, and contributors to knowledge, that have come before us, we'd still be little more than fancy monkeys.    

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:All I said was that

Quote:

All I said was that the original form of government instituted by European settlers was set up by fundy's.

 

And you're still wrong. The puritans were by no means the original European settlers. Regional administration government was already in place in several colonies before their arrival (based on English law and administered through a combination of private companies and political appointees), and in fact the puritans in Massachusetts were subject to the terms of such administration, dictated by royal charter. What you are insisting on referring to as government is the self-imposition of rules of behaviour within a small community who constituted a minority within the administrative area from an early point in the history of that colony. You might as well say that the Amish, the Mormons, or the Hare Krishna communities of present day USA operate governments. They don't, and neither did the puritans. You are mangling language to bolster an assertion that you should never have made had you the slightest knowledge of the subject you are discussing. Your advice concerning steering subjects to areas of expertise is something that maybe you should take yourself. It would at least help deter you from launching into assertions that have no basis in fact.

 

Quote:

Actually yes it could be called government. I just called it government and it was a form of government - they governed. You are just arguing words.

 

See what I mean? Stop, before you embarrass yourself further.

 

When it comes to the statue we do not need to "agree to disagree" at this point. I have disagreed with you from the first and still do. A secular court is no place for a monument to sectarian moralism, whatever sect is represented. If I am in a position where I depend on the impartiality of justice the last thing I want to see in the place where it is dispensed is a reminder set in stone that I cannot expect it. A statue of the christian version of the judaic commandments would worry me, one of Buddha would puzzle me, and one of the Koran outlining the texts used to justify the Sharia code would terrify me. As it would you, for all your assertions that these things are "just stone". When you claim lack of sensitivity to the issue it is because you choose, for subjective reasons, to go along with the compromising and corruption of secular egalitarian principles as long as the compromisers and corruptors generally coincide with your own moralism. I do not. The essential difference therefore between your attitude and mine is that mine, if it should prevail, guarantees impartiality for everyone including those whose narrow moralism I object to, whereas yours selfishly guarantees a system of "justice" weighted in favour of those who constitute a group of which you are a member.

 

No amount of further mangling of language or subjective assertions from you will change that fact. Religion and its symbolism have no place in a courthouse dispensing justice impartially. Period.

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
"The puritans were by no

"The puritans were by no means the original European settlers."

Okay history lesson. Let's just get this cleared up. Who were the original European Settlers and what was their religious affiliation if they had any?

The interesting thing here is that you are attacking my understanding of history, not the point I was making. Is it true that their is a fairly strong Christian presence in the United States? Is that likely a product of the ancestry of modern Euro-Americans? If your answer to both of these questions is yes then you agree with what I was saying and there was no need for any of this babble (if your answer is no please explain). That was ALL I WAS SAYING. It's not suprising that a country with a strong history of Christian influence would have that influence reflected in areas both social and political. It just doesn't suprise me...that's all I was saying. I didn't say it was right I just said it doesn't suprise me. I feel like I'm getting a crash course in intellectual masterbationSmiling

"Stop, before you embarrass yourself further."

Well to be honest I find nothing embarassing about learning through dialogue. I'm not sure that I'm learning anything incredibley significant but a lot of your assertions about history are quite interesting. What I'm saying is that judging by your condescending tone and insults, my ego is not nearly as fragile as yours. Always open to correction.

"one of the Koran outlining the texts used to justify the Sharia code would terrify me. As it would you, for all your assertions that these things are "just stone". "

Well no it wouldn't terrify me. What might terify me is if they were actually put in place as laws. A stone with these laws really wouldn't concern me too much unless there was a threat of them being legislated and having a REAL effect on my life. I don't see that being the case and so I don't see it as a major issue of concern.

"When you claim lack of sensitivity to the issue it is because you choose, for subjective reasons, to go along with the compromising and corruption of secular egalitarian principles as long as the compromisers and corruptors generally coincide with your own moralism."

Wrong again mi amigo. I am morally indifferent when it comes to stones with words on them. Instituting Christian morals as laws (which is really what you are fighting against) does not in any way coincide with my own moralism. I'm actually quite opposed to this and I feel that it goes directly against what Jesus taught in the NT accounts of his life. When there as a threat that my own government would not legalize same-sex marraige based solely on Christian morality I spoke out. That would have been a very real consequence that would have had a real effect on real peoples lives. That would be an abuse of basic human rights. I don't care about symbols, I care about people.

"The essential difference therefore between your attitude and mine is that mine, if it should prevail, guarantees impartiality for everyone including those whose narrow moralism I object to, whereas yours selfishly guarantees a system of "justice" weighted in favour of those who constitute a group of which you are a member."

HELLOO! I don't even know what to say??? I am of the same attitude. We are not talking about laws. As far as how we beleive politics ought to operate we believe esentially the exact same thing! I beleive that the government should be set up in a way that 'guarantees impartiality for everyone including those whose narrow moralism I object to.' Stop before you embarass yourself any further:P I don't want a system that is weighted in favour of anyone. Thought I made that pretty clear...like twice in nearly every single one of my posts.

"Religion and its symbolism have no place in a courthouse dispensing justice impartially."

You're right about the religion part...as far as the symbols I just don't care either way.  So long as that symbol doesn't effect the courts it is nothing more than a stone. Period. But hey, I'm also not opposed to them removing the stone (if it's open to public vote I would ike to nominate your front lawn as its new home :P ).

 It makes me wonder...with all the bloody history of the United states...Slavery excetera...maybe any monument that might quote or depict any one of those leaders should be removed...George Washington owned slaves and as  a black male I find it to be a constant reminder that I will never find equality in the United States so long as his face is on my money. Or in any place remotely associated with politics. What do you think? Let's get this movement on the road eh?

 

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You call what I write

You call what I write "babble" and accuse me of "intellectual masturbation" and you call  me condescending? You christians never fail to crack me up.

 

The early European settlers were an ad-hoc mixture of christian denominations, some having moved because of their religious beliefs but the vast majority for more secular political or financial reasons. While christianity might predictably be used as a "catch-all" phrase to describe them it is woefully inadequate in terms of their motives, their expectations on arrival and - crucially - how they proceeded to organise themselves. Incidentally, when it comes to autonomous government (one organised and defined without reference to royal writ) it was the Quakers whose self-governance was fated to become the starting point and model for what was to follow in securing independence and self-governance for all the colonies.

 

If you genuinely cannot see the implication of sectarian moralism being represented through effigy in what is meant to be a secular court of justice then I hope it keeps fine for you. The day the Koran turns up in monumental form in the courthouses of your own society might not frighten you, but it should at least cause you to question why. I have no such blind spot when it comes to the intentions of those erecting these statues, and to me their action is knowingly subversive. Whether their society in the majority has harboured a nominal adherence to the narrow morality the monument represents is immaterial. To the great credit of that same society their courts have been constrained not to, and the placement of an advertisement for the opposite intent right on their doorsteps is not a benign act.

 

The issue of slavery, and of the endemic racism that practise left the same society as a legacy on its abolition, is indeed a sad history and a very pertinent indictment of how "enlightened" the "founding fathers" were. But even if every last one of the signatories of the declaration of independence can be proved a hypocrite on that score it does not detract from the validity of the high ideals that they themselves aspired to, set into constitutional form, but failed to live up to on a personal level. Proof of this can be found in many ways, perhaps the most dramatic being the way that people like Martin Luther King and others could use the very words of these men to promote the destruction of racism in recent decades.

 

It is good to hear that you place your concern for people ahead of other issues in your life. I commend you for that. But my point has been from the beginning of this dialogue which you see fit to disparage that the same concern should alert you to when people whose intents are quite the opposite are mobilising their efforts and flexing what they hope is an increasingly political muscle. Their placement of statues of the ten commandments in a context which their own constitution terms an abomination is not an empty gesture and these are not "just stones".

 

You can consider them history buffs if you want to. But I know enough history, and enough about bigotry as a malignant social force, to hold a very different viewpoint.

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
"You call what I write

"You call what I write "babble" and accuse me of "intellectual masturbation" and you call  me condescending?"

The 'babble' part I don't think I was just refering to you. I just meant that because of the misunderstanding I was repeating myself and trying to find new ways to communicate the same message...which amounted to a whole lot of posts and not a whole lot of anything else. I suppose this sort of thin is bound to happen on forums because of the limits to communication. The 'intellectual masterbation' part... sorry about that bud. Really. It was really not even frustration with you or the insults so much as I just felt like what I was saying was not being understood. That came through obviously. I know you don't need my apology on some forum but that was my bad.

"The early European settlers were an ad-hoc mixture of christian denominations"

That's really all I meant when refered to the religious affiliations of early Euro-Americans.

"Incidentally, when it comes to autonomous government (one organised and defined without reference to royal writ) it was the Quakers whose self-governance was fated to become the starting point and model for what was to follow in securing independence and self-governance for all the colonies."

Same point. I was just saying with a history like this you can't be suprised when it is then reflected in some way in politics. Actually the Quakers are an interesting group of people. I think maybe the communication breakdown may even have come from my use of the word 'fundy's' (to be honest I learned that word from Athiests who use the word to refer to Christians). It seems like you may have a great deal of pride in your country and the early Americans and this might have hit a nerve.

"I know enough history, and enough about bigotry as a malignant social force, to hold a very different viewpoint."

Totally a valid viewpoint. The struggle seems to be, from your perspective, not a struggle against the placement of the stone in itself so much as the intentions of those who have placed it there.

Peace and Love

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm not American, Matt. But

I'm not American, Matt. But I do have a great respect for civil liberties and enough personal attachment to the US and experience living there to care deeply about the erosion of those liberties (once naively believed to be constitutional rights which therefore could not be eroded).

 

Confusing the specific term "fundamentalist" with the generic term "christian" is unhelpful, even to atheist critics of both. You come across as a person who is intent on relating his opinion accurately and leaving his audience in no doubt about what he really means when he states that opinion, but in this instance I have to say that you have failed in that respect. I have re-read your posts substituting the correct term "christian" for all the occasions where you used "fundy" and can tell you that the meaning of your posts changes utterly.

 

It pays to use exact language in a discussion, if only to spare your blushes afterwards when you have to explain that what you said and what you actually meant were two very different things. I'll accept your word for it that this was a slip on your part, thinking atheists use the terms interchangeably and that you should follow suit. But I should add that this is not something I had ever noticed "atheists" doing myself, and even if "they" did it is no reason for you to drop your own standards when talking to them.

 

And finally thank you for at last ceding that my objection to the placement of the ten commandments in statue form in US courthouses is based on the intended statement their placement is designed to convey, not on the material used in their construction. I still maintain that your seeming indifference to the implications of this action is grounded in the fact that you do not think it personally impacts on you, or would do even if you lived in that society. This can be adduced to stem from naivety or self-interest on your part. Again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. It is not just atheists who are justifiably concerned about this trend, you know, and so far the only people who have defended the action with a "but they're only stones" argument have been people sympathetic to christian fundamentalism. So you can see why others might make the same presumption about you based on your adoption of the same attitude.

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


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
like i said in my other

like i said in my other post, im new around here and got lots of reading to do, you guys post alot=p but i read a little bit on this. and i just came up w/ a quick response. first of all, i would say that placing the ten commandments in court houses and things like that was started by our founding fathers. now whether you are christian or not i think is besides the point. whats the purpose of having them taken away? now for a new believer myself yes i do believe we are under grace 100%. and unless you truly know what that means then you wont understand it or what i believe i have been saved from. the law was given by moses, but grace came THRU Jesus, grace in not a doctrine or a thing or gift that we recieve if it was Jesus could have given it to us. but the Bible says that it came. only a person could come, Jesus. but thats another topic. i personally dont understand why christians do get so upset over this, even me being one. but i dont understand the purpose of having them taken out. a court house is a place of law and a place of justice why not have the ten commandments right there? seems to make sense to me.


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
o yeah, i was also taught

o yeah, i was also taught that the man with the microphone always wins. doesnt matter, he always wins. even though i am a christian i would like to say this to the other christians that reply here. we dont have the microphone. think abt it.

ok, i read something on a different page dont remeber which one, but someone was talking abt healing. like why doesnt god put back on heads, or replace legs that were cut off and such. well although i personally have witnessed a few miracles, subjective truth would obviously do me no good. however, you cannot dispute other healings that happen in africa and other foreign countries on an almost DAILY basis. i can give you peoples names to research. heidi baker is the first that pops into my mind. she lives in a foreign country going to different villages and tribes that have never heard the gospel, and you wanna know the one way she shows them god is real? bc they have no revelation of god, they need one right? a blind person will see that day. and if you dont wanna believe it thats fine. go to africa witness it whatever. documentations of it have proved its real. and i personally cannot find a way to account for it but God.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Just to keep this thread

Just to keep this thread on-topic instead of devolving into Pauline legitimacy...

Matt Churchman wrote:

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.

Here's the thing: It's not necessarily about the judges.

It's about the faith of the people in the system. By that, I don't mean the faith of the Christian people, either. I mean, if I'm a Sikh, and I go into a place that is blatantly and prominently touting its judeo-christian roots, then do I then have a seed of doubt about its objectivity? In this day and age, I'd like to say 'no'. But human nature being what it is, I can't say that that reaction won't occur. I can't say that our average and general level of secular trust in one another won't deteriorate if there's severe economic hardship (look at what happened to our 'tolerance' in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, after all) or that a recent non-islamic immigrant from a country where sharia-law is enforced with zealous enthusiasm won't feel that worry.

Symbols matter. The fact that symbols matter is why there are symbols, and why they resonate, and why we respond to them. And the institutions of governance must be above these worries. They must remain uncorrupted by the appearance of any bias, so that they can be equally trusted by all, including the most sheltered, ignorant, and insecure elements of society.

As individuals, we can use our personal beliefs and faiths to benefit others. As a nation, we must instead use our willingness to stand as equals, not just ignoring, but disavowing the differences between us, in order to ensure that our national institutions are above reproach. I am an atheist. But when it comes to the government, I am not an atheist, I am not a lapsed Catholic, I am not even the Lofty Arch-Chronicler of Mysteries for the First Church of the Metric Week. I am an American, and the institutions of my government are answerable only to that.

"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


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
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." - 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'? 

Nope, the Spanish did. St. Augustine, 1565. They, of course, were also religious zealots, but they weren't Puritans. The earliest English government in the Americas was at Jamestown, in 1607, which was a mercantile establishment. It's not until 1620 that the Puritans make it here. Of course, by then the Dutch were already in New York, the New Netherland territory being established in 1614.

Actually, the Puritans were pretty late to the party. If not for the facts that they despised the Dutch and were legally prohibited from doing so, that first deadly winter and the intervention of the natives that inspired the Thanksgiving holiday could've been completely avoided by sending someone up the Long Island Sound to resupply at New Amsterdam. (and, btw, from the very beginnings of the New Amsterdam town, New York has been home to mixed ethnic, national, and racial groups from all over. Bustling harbor town run by a mercantile government. Free blacks, arabs, euros of all nationalities, as well as natives mixed there. Fun New York Fact: The earliest surviving documents of the New Amsterdam colony is a civil complaint being sworn against a sea-captain by a sailor, for calling him a disreputable name in public. The counterclaim is that the captain was provoked by the sailor making a lewd gesture at him. So, the earliest records of New York? Someone calling someone else an asshole after they flipped him the bird. I so love this town. Eye-wink )

"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


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Belief Without Reason.

reason_passion wrote:
.....So on to faith. Defining it as belief without reason is not an argument because that is precisely what it is. All you’re doing is stating a fact. What has yet to be shown is whether therefore faith is a valid epistemic tool. And to do so, it is not enough to simply say “well, reason says so.” One must demonstrate that when a person uses the term in its religious context, they are failing in engaging with reality. By gallivanting around and picking fights with statements of faith, instead of the core epistemic theory itself, the atheist is implicitly at a loss in argumentation. 

 

 

Rubbish! Your long post is just a very wordy variation of the old: “Prove to me that god doesn’t exist” argument. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. If you think that by using faith you are “engaging with reality” then it is up to you to demonstrate how. What is the “reality” you are engaging with?   You have admitted that the definition of ‘faith’ is “belief without reason”. The onus is squarely on you to show why you would chose to believe anything without any reason for doing so.

 

............................................................

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov


Mavar
Mavar's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree Future Indefinite

I agree Future Indefinite

 

 

 

 

 

 


Mavar
Mavar's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-03-14
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote:Ok.

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

 

 

...I don't think this is suitable for young children....

"a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Dawkins


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:If that

Randalllord wrote:
If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
  who is "you"?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I am GOD ....

I am GOD ....


freypark123 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
old covenant vs. new covenant

A better word than fulfilled is "completed." Jesus came to bring the missing pieces of the puzzle. Society during His day allowed divorce and Jesus came and preached reconciliation between husband and wife-unless adultery was involved. The point is that each revelation was given in a different paradigm or "era" to deal with specifics of that culture. God said in the old testament "don't eat cloven foot animals" (Pork)...but at that time refrigeration and preservatives to properly secure the bacterial health of pork was not an option and God knew it would hurt the Israelites (his people) if they tried to prepare and keep it. But when Jesus came he said "It' s not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of his mouth (harsh, cruel words)". Jesus was dealing with heart attitudes because he "knew what was in man." God gave us many decrees from the Old Testament that we as Christians should still follow. But there is further revelation because the son of God has come to be the final piece of the puzzle.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Again, Simple , a summary,

Again, Simple , a summary,

As cool, world religion student, wise Alan Watts wrote:

"The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and,  "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God." [ you and all are christ too, 100% god too ]

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." ~ Alan Watts

 


LoveThyNeighbour
LoveThyNeighbour's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2008-10-22
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?

You fail to grasp the basics of Christian Theology. Read some more on it, then come back to me.

I'm an agnostic atheist who thinks you should love your neughbour.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You're posts leave much to

You're posts leave much to be desired, LoveThyNeighbour.  Do you actually have any arguments to make here?

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."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LoveThyNeighbour wrote:You

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
You fail to grasp the basics of Christian Theology. Read some more on it, then come back to me.

Okay, I read some more on it. Now, can you answer the question?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


LoveThyNeighbour
LoveThyNeighbour's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2008-10-22
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
You fail to grasp the basics of Christian Theology. Read some more on it, then come back to me.

Okay, I read some more on it. Now, can you answer the question?

Lol, it's such a ridiculous question I am embarrassed you don't know the answer. EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.

I'm an agnostic atheist who thinks you should love your neughbour.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
LoveThyNeighbour wrote:You

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
You fail to grasp the basics of Christian Theology. Read some more on it, then come back to me.

Basics of christian theology: Embracing a collection of poorly written middle eastern fiction as reality. Not impressive.


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

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
You fail to grasp the basics of Christian Theology. Read some more on it, then come back to me.

Okay, I read some more on it. Now, can you answer the question?

Lol, it's such a ridiculous question I am embarrassed you don't know the answer. EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.

I smell a troll!


 

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."


look2logic
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-09-19
User is offlineOffline
The Old Testament Law

You are partly right, which makes your conclusion only dependently correct. It depends what you mean by "old testament law." A thorough moral and ethical study of the old testament will reveal two "laws": the Moral Law and the Ethical Law. [Some even split the Ethical Law into a third subclass, the ceremonial law, but I won't.] The Moral Law represents those things that are objectively right and wrong. Mostly, it is believed that these laws are absolute truths, stemming from God's character. For example, it is immoral to lie, because lying is contrary to God's character (or nature, if you will).

Then there is the Ethical Law, which consists of all those laws and commands that are subjectively right and wrong. They are subjective because they are culturally dependent. Today, an ethical standard is obedience to the speed limit. While it may or may not be immoral to disobey your governing authority (those that make the speed limits and enforce them), it is unethical to drive over the speed limit. Yet, this is only unethical to those who are under the current ethical standard. Centuries ago (had there existed speed limit signs with no laws pertaining to them), it would not be unethical for a driver (horse and buggy, perhaps) to exceed those speeds. This is because this law is culturally relevant. Likewise, God gave various ethical laws to the Jews (and only the Jews), such as not eating pork, sacrificing animals, etc. It was not immoral to eat pork, but it was unethical. The purpose of the Moral Law is to keep the people righteous (or at least have a righteous standard), while the Ethical Law was meant to set apart the Jewish people as an example and a foreshadow for Jesus Christ. Some of the ethical laws that God established might have had other origins--hygienic purposes, for example (uncooked pork is quite disease-ridden)--but it also was so that the Jewish people would be a people set apart, different from all the other nations around it.

Coming to the question at hand, what part of the Old Testament law was fulfilled. The ethical law, especially the ceremonial law, was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. This is because the Jewish people no longer needed to be set apart, or to foreshadow the coming of Jesus Christ. Both jobs were accomplished. Therefore the Moral Law is still in effect. That is why it still is, and always will be, immoral to murder. In fact, the ten commandments were a set of moral laws, not just for the Jews, but for everyone. At the same time, you realize that some of the ten commandments (6-10, to be precise) would not have been new to anyone reading them. We, as humans, do not get the majority of our morality from the Bible, or any religious book for that matter. Rather we get our morality through our conscience, which God gave us way before the ten commandments. The ten commandments were an empirical reminder for the Jews that God existed, and his moral law was in effect. However commandments 1-5 might be new to some--though logically deducible. They claim that it is immoral to worship gods other than God, the one true god. All five of these commandments deal with this concept. Logically, if only one God exists, it is not in its nature to worship, or ascribe worth, to something that is not god, and not greater than itself. Therefore, if only one God exists, it is immoral to worship other gods. Therefore the ten commandments are a moral law, and so its statutes are still in effect.

However, it is not immoral to not have the ten commandments in public buildings [sorry for all the negatives]. Neither did God give us the ethical command to put them in public buildings. However, as a generally Christian nation, we have largely made it ethical to put them there. Therefore to take them down is generally unethical. Moreover, as a Christian, I do not find myself morally (or ethically) outraged at the prospect of taking them down. I might find it somewhat offensive because they don't harm anyone [if anything, they reaffirm what everyone's conscience tells them], but I don't disagree with the idea of separation of church and state.

Lastly, I'll briefly explain why there needs to be no enforcement of certain commandments (1-5, specificaly). I do believe it is immoral to worship other gods (or not believe in god, for that matter) just as I believe it is immoral to lie. However, just as we don't prosecute every type of lie (white lies, for example), we cannot prosecute worship of other gods (especially in a religiously-tolerant, non-theocracy). Each moral law has dimensions of prosecutability. Jesus said malice is the same as murder. But it is virtually impossible to prove someone's malice, and also virtually everyone would be a convicted felon. This is just an example of how ethical standards can oppose moral laws. This is also why, as Christians (and everyone, really), we need to be careful where our country is headed ethically. For instance, I don't want to live in a country whose ethical standard has slipped so far that murder is considered ethical. And I am also not saying that we are near that point either, but it is a distinct possibility if we are not wary.

I am sorry for the lengthy response, but I find that most questions worth asking are not easily (or quickly) answerable.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LoveThyNeighbour wrote:Lol,

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
Lol, it's such a ridiculous question I am embarrassed you don't know the answer. EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.

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?

Oh my God! You fundamentalist dumbass!!!

First of all, just from your responses, I can assure you that I have studied the Bible much more than you have. 

The question is simple. The Old Testament tells us to stone people for mundane things like eating shrimp and being disrespectful towards your parents. The typical Christian rationalization for this is that after Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins, most of these rules no longer applied. If this is true, then why do Christians still refer to the OT to support things such as pushing for displaying the ten commandments, charging that homosexuality is a sin, and refraining from working on Sundays?

Exclaiming that "EVERYTHING in the Bible is true," does not answer the fucking question!

If the question is so easy, why don't you give us an answer?

Finally, if you want to say that "EVERYTHING" in the Bible is true, well....

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20

Say to the Israelites: "A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be cermonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding." Leviticus 12:2-5

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

for God is LOVE. 1 John 4:7-8

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:5-6

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. Zephaniah 3:8

Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Leviticus 24:16

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:15-18

Before you start proclaiming the infallibility of your compilation of myths, you might want to read it first. No?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


CRUCIFIX (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Good question.  I think

Good question.  I think that's why Christians create such a bad name for the system of beliefs they claim.  They stand so ignorantly firm on what their daddy's and granddaddy's taught them, that they never take out the time to ask themselves why they believe what they believe.  You throw a question like that at them, and the only response is outrage and frustration. 

Personally I tend to think that a vast majority of Christians don't even really know the God they claim...  They follow the guy behind the pulpit, that tells them a twisted version of God, from his own personal agenda and sinful motives.  Walking blindly behind every word he says...  So in turn, the doctrine they receive is typically in error.  I mean look at Creflo Dollar and Benny Hinn... As if these guyz intentions behind the pulpit are not clear from the jump. 

They were taught certain "Religious" rites and symbols, to be holy.  (Because their daddy said so.)  And the public removal of those rites and symbols, is like slappin' their daddy in the face.  So naturally they get pissed off, not because you're dishonoring God but because you're dishonoring their daddy.  

If Christians were truly acting like Christians, they wouldn't need the Ten Commandments in a court house to show God to the world...  The evidence in their lives alone would be enough.


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

LoveThyNeighbour  , is sick, dangerous and a terrorist, a possessed idol worshiper. Exorcism needed ASAP. Save the kids from he.

  Here's Alan Watts, a great "exorcist" to the rescue,

As cool world religion scholar Alan Watts wrote: "The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and,  "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God." [ you and all are christ too, 100% god too ]

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." ~ Alan Watts ~~~

     .... Umm, hope that helps, to saving thy neighbors .... () amen. 

 


LoveThyNeighbour
LoveThyNeighbour's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2008-10-22
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:[The

butterbattle wrote:

[The question is simple. The Old Testament tells us to stone people for mundane things like eating shrimp and being disrespectful towards your parents. The typical Christian rationalization for this is that after Jesus came and died on the cross for our sins, most of these rules no longer applied. If this is true, then why do Christians still refer to the OT to support things such as pushing for displaying the ten commandments, charging that homosexuality is a sin, and refraining from working on Sundays?

 

 

Oh, I hold EVERYTHING in the Bible to be true. I never eat shrimp. Being disrespectful towards parents means you should be held responsible for your sins.

I'm an agnostic atheist who thinks you should love your neughbour.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LoveThyNeighbour wrote:Oh,

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

Oh, I hold EVERYTHING in the Bible to be true. I never eat shrimp. Being disrespectful towards parents means you should be held responsible for your sins.

You must be a very confused fellow because there are many many contradictions in that book.

So explain how you are able to believe both Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5 to be true?

 

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


LoveThyNeighbour
LoveThyNeighbour's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2008-10-22
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:LoveThyNeighbour

aiia wrote:

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

Oh, I hold EVERYTHING in the Bible to be true. I never eat shrimp. Being disrespectful towards parents means you should be held responsible for your sins.

You must be a very confused fellow because there are many many contradictions in that book.

So explain how you are able to believe both Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5 to be true?

 

I don't need to explain anything. If you hold the Bible to be untrue, you should be the one to show why, not me.

I'm an agnostic atheist who thinks you should love your neughbour.


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

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

aiia wrote:

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

Oh, I hold EVERYTHING in the Bible to be true. I never eat shrimp. Being disrespectful towards parents means you should be held responsible for your sins.

You must be a very confused fellow because there are many many contradictions in that book.

So explain how you are able to believe both Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5 to be true?

 

I don't need to explain anything.

Then leave.

Quote:
If you hold the Bible to be untrue, you should be the one to show why, not me.

The main reason is obvious. There is no evidence for a god.

But I guess you're having a problem with comprehension. I just provided a reason previously.

Just for a start here's more:

Gen. 1:25-26 vs Gen. 2:18-20

Gen. 11:12 vs Luke 3:35-36

Gen. 7:2 vs Gen. 6:19 and Gen. 7:8-9

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


ShadowHunter082
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-09-26
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:LoveThyNeighbour

aiia wrote:

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:

Oh, I hold EVERYTHING in the Bible to be true. I never eat shrimp. Being disrespectful towards parents means you should be held responsible for your sins.

You must be a very confused fellow because there are many many contradictions in that book.

So explain how you are able to believe both Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5 to be true?

 

Ok... Gen 2:17 states that "...for in the day you eat of it you will surely die." According to the text it was two types of death at the same moment and a third one after the physical death.

Death of the spirit. Death of the body. Death of the soul.

Death of the spirit means that we were separated from God for eternity if we do not have a personal relationship with Him.
Death of the body meant that of a slow, physical death... not

instantaneous death.
and Death of the soul meant that of the forever death after our physical death.

I hope that sort of clears up that "contravorsy" of those two passages...


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ShadowHunter082 wrote:Ok...

ShadowHunter082 wrote:
Ok... Gen 2:17 states that "...for in the day you eat of it you will surely die." According to the text it was two types of death at the same moment and a third one after the physical death.

Death of the spirit. Death of the body. Death of the soul.

Death of the spirit means that we were separated from God for eternity if we do not have a personal relationship with Him.
Death of the body meant that of a slow, physical death... not

instantaneous death.
and Death of the soul meant that of the forever death after our physical death.

I hope that sort of clears up that "contravorsy" of those two passages...

What are you going on about?  I don't think any controversy has been cleared up.

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."


ShadowHunter082
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-09-26
User is offlineOffline
What are you going on

Quote:
What are you going on about?  I don't think any controversy has been cleared up.

he stated that there was a controversy with Gen 2:17 and Gen 5:5... I read them and did not find any real "controversy" so I thought he might have been confused with something else.  So I just stated the meaning behind the first verse... and if you read the second it is pretty self-explanatory. If you could elaberate on the actual controversy it would be helpful.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Removal of the Ten Commandments

In the desire of comming back to the main topic of this thread.

I believe the issue in removing the 10 Commandments is Accountability.  Christians feel very comfortable in the belief that all of mankind is accountable to a higher power they call God.  This is actally what is called a "Judeo Christian" view. It is also a view we share with Muslims, although we would argue they worship a different God as there is not a single reference in the Koran to God being a God of Love as there is such reference in the Jewish (Old Testament) and Chrsitian (New Testament) Bible.

What do I mean by accountability.  It is believed by Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) although at one time the Christians were called Atheists becasue they refused to believe the Greek Polytheism of the day.  I regress. It is believed by Monotheists that when a government and / or the Judiciary does not feel it is accountable to a higher power that the laws they make will be made with the attitude that they are the higher power.  We have historical precedent whereby the Monarchy at one time needed to be reigned in because of the belief they were the higher power.  At one time laws were manipulated to serve the monarchy and laws were broken at the monarchies whim. British Parliaments eventually were established with the principle that the Monarchy must be subject to a higher power as the Parliament and the Courts were also subject. Laws that were made would be null and void if they broke the laws of the higher power.  This was all an attemp to make government and judiciary accountable and not ruling harshly with the attitude that their wishes are supreme.

It was a system that worked as long as some element of society believed in a higher power. For example with capital punishiment. It can be established by checking the bible that governments that value human life can use this tool to punish persons who do not value human life.  What you find today is that a new religion has come onto the horizon. This new religion is called "Secular Humanism".  The UN recognizes "Secular Humanism" as a religion and so do I.  You can be an Atheist and a Secular Humanist at the same time. Secular Humanism is a religion with a definite belief system.  The first belief of an Atheist (Secular Humanist) which I see as one and the same is that the Secular Humanist Belief system is not a religion.  To bolster that belief the second belief of a Secular Humanist is that he is a material being, not a spiritual being as a Monotheist believes.  The Secular humanist looks to his creation as material. He claims to be made from a rock, electricity, primortial slime and the such where as a Monotheist claims to be a Spiritual Being with a mortal body. He believes the second his material body is compromised his Spirit being will be released and will continue to exist for eternity in uniion with his God. The Secular Humanist attributes motives to be material. He will look for material interests as reasons for fighting wars in the middle east for example while the Monotheist will look for spiritual reasons for fighting Good against evil.  The material man I would call him actually the Secular Materialist finds it hard to believe in Good and evil. He will often confuse the two thinking it is good to kill unborn persons and deny them legal status as legal persons before they are born. Somehow he will tend to think it is a good thing to discriminate against these persons. Wheras the Monotheist Wilberforce fought for the rights of Slaves to be considered as legal persons and this resulted in the emmancipation of slaves.  Wilberforce saw this battle for legal person status for slaves as fight of good against evil.  Materialists (who may have called themselves Christians) tended to excuse themselves along material arguments such as the argument of "Survival of the Species" surely the more powerful species should domineer the weaker species.  Wilberforce was successful in arguing along the lines of their being a higher power that we are all acountable to. And he accomplished the freedom of slaves because of his appeals to a belief in a higher power.

The freedoms, liberty and Justice that Americans enjoy are all words directly taken from the bible. Without the belief in these as transcending principles (Actually they are attributes of God) Americans would not have the freedoms that they enjoy. As time goes on they will successively lose their freedoms unless they return to their belief in a higher power.  In Canada to protect our Nation frome governments and judiciary who deny the Supremacy of God over our nation we had placed in our Constitution the statement "Whereas Canada is a nation which recognizes the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law" as the very first statement in our 1982 latest constitution.  We also have place on our coins the letters D. G. Regina which means "the Queen by the Grace of God"  Dao Gracia Regina (latin).  In  the USA you have "In God We Trust". The reason for this trust is that you will have an oligarchy when your country succumbs to the belief in the supremacy of government and the courts over the supremacy of God. The trust is the hope that this will never occur. The trust is the hope that you will remain in a position to experience the attributes of God "Justice, Truth, Liberty" for many years to come.

You may wish to check out what I've been up to this year http://icctruth.blogspot.com  Check the Ray Luff's CV tab as well.

God Bless,

Ray,

 

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi caring Whitefox .... "The

Hi caring Whitefox .... "The freedoms, liberty and Justice that Americans enjoy are all words directly taken from the bible." ..... THAT were taken from "the", that were taken from "the" etc etc, ourselves.

We are the "Higher Power/Lower Power, yin yang, as all is connected, to the "Sum of One" ....

God of Abe theology is innate blasphemy of truth, for many obvious reasons.

  Should anyone demand the "Golden Rule" be publicly posted?

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
LoveThyNeighbour wrote:I

LoveThyNeighbour wrote:
I never eat shrimp.

This is just................evil.

It's virtually impossible to tell if you're being satirical or not because of all the different theists that join the conversations on a regular basis.

  

However,........................

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowHunter082 wrote:Ok...

ShadowHunter082 wrote:

Ok... Gen 2:17 states that "...for in the day you eat of it you will surely die." According to the text it was two types of death at the same moment and a third one after the physical death.

According what text?

Quote:
Death of the spirit. Death of the body. Death of the soul.

Oh really? So you're claiming you have a spirit and a soul? And where is the evidence for this?

Quote:
Death of the spirit means that we were separated from God for eternity

 And how is this done if this thing you call god is omnipresent?

Quote:
if we do not have a personal relationship with Him.

What exactly does this mean?


Quote:
Death of the body meant that of a slow, physical death... not instantaneous death.

And you determined this how?


Quote:
and Death of the soul meant that of the forever death after our physical death.

This does not make any sense!


Quote:
I hope that sort of clears up that "contravorsy" of those two passages...

Oh you hope? Why do you hope?

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:In the desire

Whitefox wrote:
In the desire of comming back to the main topic of this thread .... [cut out most of the post] Ray,
What the FUCK!?

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."


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:I believe the

Whitefox wrote:

I believe the issue in removing the 10 Commandments is Accountability. 

WHAT?!!!!!!

The issue is state endorsement of christianity!

 

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


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Whitefox wrote:I

aiia wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

I believe the issue in removing the 10 Commandments is Accountability. 

WHAT?!!!!!!

The issue is state endorsement of christianity!

 

No it is the use of Judeo Christian values to limit authority of man within the context of God's authority. Let me put it this way. Do you want a government that violates your conscience. If you don't believe in God, I ask you to believe in your conscience. Governments and Judiciary are quite capable of violating you. Do you want that?

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:No it is the

Whitefox wrote:

No it is the use of Judeo Christian values

What values?

Not only can't the state endorse christianity, it cannot endorse any religion. Displaying any religious symbol on government property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that sets down the principle of separation of church and state.

Quote:
to limit authority of man within the context of God's authority

Prove there is this thing you call god. If there is no god there is no god's authority.

Quote:
Let me put it this way. Do you want a government that violates your conscience. If you don't believe in God, I ask you to believe in your conscience. Governments and Judiciary are quite capable of violating you. Do you want that?


This is an entirely different matter, however, values based on religious principles would violate my conscience. Many government actions do violate my conscience, but a theocracy will reduplicate that violation.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah caring Whitefox, has a

Yeah caring Whitefox, has a point as he wrote : "Do you want a government that violates your conscience. If you don't believe in God, I ask you to believe in your conscience. Governments and Judiciary are quite capable of violating you. Do you want that?".  ~~~~

   I say heck no, and I will go smash that government/church authority bull shiit, with my atheist jesus old buddy on my side this day again .... We are one. I am GOD, no belief, no faith. I AM what I AM ... just as YOU.


Whitefox
Theist
Whitefox's picture
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Whitefox wrote:No

aiia wrote:

Whitefox wrote:

No it is the use of Judeo Christian values

What values?

Not only can't the state endorse christianity, it cannot endorse any religion. Displaying any religious symbol on government property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that sets down the principle of separation of church and state.

Quote:
to limit authority of man within the context of God's authority

Prove there is this thing you call god. If there is no god there is no god's authority.

Quote:
Let me put it this way. Do you want a government that violates your conscience. If you don't believe in God, I ask you to believe in your conscience. Governments and Judiciary are quite capable of violating you. Do you want that?


This is an entirely different matter, however, values based on religious principles would violate my conscience. Many government actions do violate my conscience, but a theocracy will reduplicate that violation.

LOL. The Conscience is my proof there is a God.

However just to correct you. Neither the USA nor Canada ever were Theocracies. They limited the powers of government and the courts according to their belief in God but they never endorsed either country being run by the church. You don't need to fear that these limitations will cause anything other than the freedom, justice and liberty that these limits have given you.

There is a verse of Scripture which says "Stand fast therefore in the liberty, wherewith Chrsit (Judeao Christian values) have set you free. And be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" - The Apostle Paul (Thessalonians)

Suggest to me how you would limit the powers of Government and Theocracy.  (I am leaving now to visit Canada's Parliament in Ottawa for 3 days.)  I'll bring back some pics.  Check out my latest run at the last Canadian election if you wish. http://chp-newmarket-aurora.blogspot.com

Thanks for your comments IAMGOD. (Actually IAMGOD is right The logical conclusion for all Secular Humanists is that they are their own god.)

God Bless.

God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Whitefox wrote:I believe the

Whitefox wrote:

I believe the issue in removing the 10 Commandments is Accountability.  Christians feel very comfortable in the belief that all of mankind is accountable to a higher power they call God.

And often, this expresses itself in a corollary view that Christians are not accountable to Man, which runs directly counter to the very idea of Jurisprudence.

 

Quote:

we would argue they worship a different God as there is not a single reference in the Koran to God being a God of Love as there is such reference in the Jewish (Old Testament) and Chrsitian (New Testament) Bible.

Except, of course, verses like Surah 11, verse 90:

"But ask forgiveness / Of your Lord, and turn / Unto Him (in repentance): / For my Lord is indeed / Full of mercy and loving-kindness."

or 85:14:

"And He is the Forgiving, the Loving,"

So, perhaps you should reconsider that view.

 

Quote:

 I regress.

Digress. You're not returning to an earlier conversation point. Eye-wink

Quote:

It is believed by Monotheists that when a government and / or the Judiciary does not feel it is accountable to a higher power that the laws they make will be made with the attitude that they are the higher power.  We have historical precedent whereby the Monarchy at one time needed to be reigned in because of the belief they were the higher power.  At one time laws were manipulated to serve the monarchy and laws were broken at the monarchies whim.

Actually, I think it's important to point out that these Monarchies did not feel they were the higher power at all. In fact, the very principle that supported such abuses hinged on the presence of God: The Divine Right of Kings. In essence, the argument was that because God was indubitably real, the Monarch was justified in his actions: His authority was directly accountable to God, and so should he stray or abuse his power, God would immediately hold him accountable and impart His retribution. Thus, if God did not see fit to oppose the King's policies, no mere mortal should dare find fault with them, either.

 

Quote:

British Parliaments eventually were established with the principle that the Monarchy must be subject to a higher power as the Parliament and the Courts were also subject. Laws that were made would be null and void if they broke the laws of the higher power.  This was all an attemp to make government and judiciary accountable and not ruling harshly with the attitude that their wishes are supreme.

Except that that 'higher power' wasn't God. It was (at first) the collective will of the Nobility, and more specifically, the common law and traditions of the people.

Here's an example of an obscure bit of English tradition that places the law of the land as paramount, not the will of the divine:

"No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

That, of course, is article 39 of the 1215 Magna Carta of King John (and article 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta of Edward, but that's a minor little point of interest), and it squarely asserts that the ultimate arbiters of man's jurisprudence are 'the lawful judgement' of a man's peers, and 'the law of the land'.

Magna Carta, by the way, is the first establishment of the limits of Monarchic authority. Notice that the principle involved is that the Monarchy is subject to the Law; not to God, or the Law of Moses, or even the Church of England (which, for the record, is formally freed of the Monarchy in all but a titular sense in the same document) but to the law of the land, the 'common law' that was a slowly-developed mixture of gaelic tribal custom, saxon and other germanic custom, and the Danelaw. (Keep in mind that until 1066, there was a claim to the overlordship of England by Danes. Harold Godwinson lost the Battle of Hastings on Oct 14 in part, because his northern levies had been defeated on Sept 20 by Harald Hardrada, and he was forced to march his army, already preparing for the Norman invasion, up to York to defeat the norse invaders on Sept 25, and then back down to Hastings - it also had the effect of making him call up his levies early, which meant that some had to be released before William arrived.)

 

Quote:

It can be established by checking the bible that governments that value human life can use this tool to punish persons who do not value human life.

And the unborn! Remember, if a woman commits adultery, she's to be stoned to death. Nothing there saying you should wait to make sure she's not pregnant/wait for the baby to be delivered.

 

Quote:

What you find today is that a new religion has come onto the horizon. This new religion is called "Secular Humanism".  The UN recognizes "Secular Humanism" as a religion and so do I.  You can be an Atheist and a Secular Humanist at the same time. Secular Humanism is a religion with a definite belief system.

See, but now we're on to a whole 'nother topic...

Oh, and if you could, please provide a link to where the UN recognizes 'secular humanism' as a religion? The only use of the phrase I could find on their website is from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/ga9955.doc.htm , where it states "If the great religions continued to waste their energies in fratricidal war, instead of looking upon themselves as friendly partners in the supreme task of nourishing the spiritual life of mankind, the swift advance of secular humanism and moral materialism was assured."

 

Quote:

The first belief of an Atheist (Secular Humanist) which I see as one and the same is that the Secular Humanist Belief system is not a religion.

Well, I'm an atheist (I do not believe in God), and I am an atheist based on my acceptance of the concept of 'I don't know'. Is there a god? I don't know. There may be. There may not be. Until I can be convinced there is, I cannot believe, as belief would, in fact, mean I've been convinced. So I'm forced to ask, since you hold this view:

How is 'I don't know' a religion?

 

Quote:

He will look for material interests as reasons for fighting wars in the middle east for example while the Monotheist will look for spiritual reasons for fighting Good against evil.

I'll go you one farther: The skeptic will look at the monotheist's reasons and say 'But because they are the reasons of a human being, they are material. Abstract them out all you like, but no matter how you label 'good', it remains your reason. Until you can demonstrate the existence of a 'spirit', I cannot find your reasons to be dependent upon it.'

 

Quote:

The material man I would call him actually the Secular Materialist finds it hard to believe in Good and evil.

Well, let's first keep in mind that now you're departing from 'Secular Humanism', which is a worldview that is in fact predicated on ethics, and so embraces the good/evil dichotomy.

 

Quote:

He will often confuse the two thinking it is good to kill unborn persons and deny them legal status as legal persons before they are born. Somehow he will tend to think it is a good thing to discriminate against these persons.

As does the Bible. Incest, adultery, etc... woman gets put to death, no waiting to see if she's conceived, no exemption or delay to carry the baby to term.

 

Quote:

Wheras the Monotheist Wilberforce fought for the rights of Slaves to be considered as legal persons and this resulted in the emmancipation of slaves.

Right. Slaves. People already born and living. Not blastocytes, not parasitic growths within the body tolerated purely for the sake of propagating DNA.

 

Quote:

Wilberforce saw this battle for legal person status for slaves as fight of good against evil.

As do I. That doesn't make it equivalent with the rights of non-viable lumps of cells with the potential to some day be human.

 

Quote:

Materialists (who may have called themselves Christians) tended to excuse themselves along material arguments such as the argument of "Survival of the Species" surely the more powerful species should domineer the weaker species.

Quite a number of them also justified their actions and beliefs on 'spiritual' arguments, claiming that a)slavery was legal and encouraged in the Bible (true), b)God had obviously delivered these people into bondage, and so had done so for a reason. Who were they to oppose God's plan? and of course, c)God had obviously made them superior, and so given them the responsibility of overseeing these lesser beings, for if God did not want the darker race enslaved, surely He would have delivered them. It's the Divine Right of Kings argument, reformulated as 'the Divine Right of Slaveowners': God must want them to be slaves, for is He not all-powerful? If it offended Him, would He not have acted to change it immediately?

Greed and avarice do not make someone a materialist. Materialists and theists alike were on both sides of the abolition issue. Benjamin Franklin, who by the late 1770s quite openly questioned the existence of God, opposed allowing slavery to continue, but saw no way to address the issue without destroying the unity among the colonies/states.

 

Quote:

The freedoms, liberty and Justice that Americans enjoy are all words directly taken from the bible.

Actually, they are in large part taken 'directly' from Magna Carta.

 

Quote:

Without the belief in these as transcending principles (Actually they are attributes of God) Americans would not have the freedoms that they enjoy. As time goes on they will successively lose their freedoms unless they return to their belief in a higher power.

The Rule of Law has been a sufficiently high Power for us for 200 years. The withering of our freedoms in the last decade (and, to a lesser degree, the last century) have nothing to do with theism or its absence. In fact, those who have been most eager to hand over their freedoms have been those with the strongest religious convictions. If you doubt that for even a moment, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the demographics of your southern neighbor: the 'conservatives' who have most embraced the broad, far-reaching powers claimed by the Bush Administration are largely white evangelicals, while the 'liberals' who oppose things like warrantless wire-tapping, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the secret CIA rendition prisons in other countries, and of course the Guantanamo Bay internment facility are, and have been mocked and ridiculed for being, 'godless', 'atheists', and a myriad of other descriptors for being more secular than theistic.

The withering of our freedoms, however, is not because of the theism of Republicans. It is because of fear. The Republican Party has, for the last 40 years, been playing on fears of 'the other'; communists, hippies, blacks, illegal immigrants, terrorists... they have heard in the words of Franklin Roosevelt their paean to power. "The only thing we have to fear is... fear itself", a statement that we must stand firm in the face of uncertainty and doubt, has become in their hands, "as long as you remain afraid, we are strong."

You say secularists do not recognize good and evil? I tell you right now that any man who seeks to use fear as a means to put himself into power over others is evil. I say this primarily about the Republican Party here in the U.S., but also ask that you consider this: for thousands of years, religious hierarchies have sought to do just that: "do as I say, or burn forever". Whether there is or is not a supreme being, organized religion, regardless of the good works its unfortunate minions often seek to accomplish through it, is primarily a conduit for Authority based on the threat of damnation, and based on the idea of 'no no, it's ok to give up your natural liberty here, you'll be rewarded in the hereafter.'

Those of us who do not believe in a hereafter have only 'here'. Why would we be willing to sacrifice our liberties?

 

Quote:

In Canada to protect our Nation frome governments and judiciary who deny the Supremacy of God over our nation we had placed in our Constitution the statement "Whereas Canada is a nation which recognizes the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law" as the very first statement in our 1982 latest constitution.

And that's a damn shame.

 

Quote:

We also have place on our coins the letters D. G. Regina which means "the Queen by the Grace of God"  Dao Gracia Regina (latin).

Yes, and that's actually a holdover from the feudal Divine Right of Kings philosophy. It's been on coins of the British Empire as long as there's been an Empire, and on the coinage of England since at least William of Normandy. Also (as I sit looking at a Canadian quarter), the expression you're looking for is Deo Gratia Regina.

 

Quote:

In  the USA you have "In God We Trust". The reason for this trust is that you will have an oligarchy when your country succumbs to the belief in the supremacy of government and the courts over the supremacy of God.

Actually, that, too, was fear. It was first placed on U.S. currency during the American Civil War (or, for you southern fans, The War Between The States) following a letter from a Pennsylvania Minister to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he said:

Quote:

Dear Sir;

You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances. One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins. You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?

And then proceeded to make the suggestion of putting 'God, Liberty, Law' into the image on the back of the coin.

And, for the record, "Liberty", including our current image (as typified by the Statue of Liberty) stems not from the Bible, but from Libertas, the Roman goddess of liberty.

"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
The bibles and all such

The bibles and all such ancient writings is what we are,  just as the awe of what is now is science, of refined NO pretend ...

My atheist Buddha Jesus who it was written said they were GOD as YOU , meaning no magic, a no separatism message to thier crowd ... and is always true in any day , Yeah I am god , of course I AM GOD, as all is GOD. Simple, for those not blind ..... gnosis.

Religion idol worship is Anti buddha jesus ancient gnosis , of the simple realization that all is ONE , as today we call thermodynamics ....   ... buddha jesus intuition was hypothesis , as science has evolved to what it is today. Science proclaims the intuition of our wise ancestors ....

  We are the Christ, all of us, those with minds that conceive.