Oh, what the heck. We haven't talked about the 10 Commandments in a while

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, what the heck. We haven't talked about the 10 Commandments in a while

Let's talk about the 10 commandments. I have a couple of questions about them. First, just in case, let's make sure we all know what we're talking about.

Quote:
NIV: 1)"You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

13 "You shall not murder.

14 "You shall not commit adultery.

15 "You shall not steal.

16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Also, just so we are clear, here's what "covet" means:

Quote:
cov·et /ˈkʌvɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhv-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object)

1.to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
2.to wish for, esp. eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted.
–verb (used without object)
3.to have an inordinate or wrongful desire.

Ok. Questions for theists:

1. How exactly can we obey number 10? It's not too difficult to avoid expressing desire for our neighbor's house, but the desire is either there or it isn't. This commandment, however, tells us not to desire things. This is impossible.

2. Why do so many Christians flippantly dismiss the one about the Sabbath? I notice that Walmart's open every Sunday, and by all accounts, Sam Walton was an upstanding Christian. Or, did I miss something where after Jesus sacrificed himself to himself so he could forgive us for what Adam and Eve did, we can work on Sunday now?

3. What exactly does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? "Vain" of course, means:

vain /veɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[veyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, –adjective, -er, -est.

1.excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: a vain dandy.
2.proceeding from or showing personal vanity: vain remarks.
3.ineffectual or unsuccessful; futile: a vain effort.
4.without real significance, value, or importance; baseless or worthless: vain pageantry; vain display.
5.Archaic. senseless or foolish.
6.in vain,
a.without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in vain.
b.in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in vain.

 

This says "in an improper or irreverent manner" but it doesn't really say what's improper or irreverent.

4. The one about idols says two things. First, it says you shouldn't make any images. Then it says you shall not worship any images. So, why are there so many statues in churches?

5. In the same one, God says he punishes children for four generations for things their ancestors did. Could you please explain why it is proper to punish someone who didn't commit a crime?

6. Could you explain some math to me? If God punishes 4 generations for making images, and shows love to 1000 generations when nobody makes any images, how would he ever get to love for 1000 generations? That's a long time to not make any images. If this is more general, and applies to any sin, why would he bother saying that, if everybody's going to sin because that's the way god made them?

7. In light of this verse: Exodus 34:1 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke" why are the next 10 commandments different than the first?

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

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

HumanisticJones wrote:
Still waiting for a response to my previous question... I asked for something that should be very simple given that it's so obvious that our laws are based on the 10 commandments.

See my post. It was answered.

So...If the Ten Commandments have no historical significance, as you assert, then why are they displayed in the United States Supreme Court (in two places), in the National Archives, and in several other Federal and State buildings throughout the Country?

Governments are easily corrupted by religionists with money?

Hey jcgadfly,

Now that the historical role of the Ten Commandments can't be argued against...We have to field bizarre hyptheses?

So...from the 1600's through the 1900's, the colonialists, the Founders, and the Federal and State Courts were coerced/corrupted by the vast wealth of the religionists? This is the only reason for the role of the Ten Commandments in our law-making?

Is this a rational response?

And...For what reason are the Ten Commandments displayed in the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and a multitude of other State and Federal buildings?

What did the Founders believe relative to the Ten Commandments (are the Founders the corrupting religionists with money that you are referring to)?

You based their historical significance on their presence on buildings - I based their presence on the buildings on the religions of the funders.

That the commandments are historical I have no doubt. The doubt comes in when folks state that they are God-originated.

 

Read the affadavit link...I do not base their historical significance, only, on their public display on public buildings! Read what the Founders had to say about the Ten Commandments.

The religion of the funders? Who are these funders that had the Ten Commandments displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and at several Federal and State buildings?

And...Did you mean "Founders" and not "funders"?

In your opinion, were the Founding Fathers wrong about the Ten Commandments?

(regardless of your answer...To bad! You weren't a Founding Father!)

 

No, I meant funders as in the people who put up the money for the building.

And before you say, "Oh, the taxpayers! So the people did want it there", many of the examples you cite are funded by private money in the majority. That's one of the reasons why these buildings are called the "<name of donor> Office Building" and the like.

Forget the buildings (if you want to go on with your ridiculous wealthy religionists corruption hypothesis)...the established case law and the documented quotes from the Founding Fathers firmly establish the role of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making.

You may not appreciate that history...but you can't change it.

 My oh my - an irrational reaction from someone gets his rocks off by accusing others of irrationality.

Why go ape-crazy about the historicity of the 10 commandments (especially when I said that I had no problem with their historicity)? Concentrate on assuaging my doubts that the 10 originated from God when such laws existed before the Hebrews did.

I'll settle for you justifying your position that all religionists with money are just chock full of heavenly goodness (since you call my hypothesis that wealthy religionists corrupting government ridiculous). Please remember what you called it earlier - what I said about religious money is a hypothesis. You asked for an alternate possible explanation for why the commandments are emblazoned on buildings - I gave you one. I never said it was correct or that I even believed it  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: First, the

BGH wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now do you see where the trouble is?

Uh....no.

The courts don't have a problem with the public display of the Ten Commandments, either (relative to the Establishment Clause, or any other). See ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska (and other cited cases noted there within):

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/022444P.pdf


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

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

HumanisticJones wrote:
Still waiting for a response to my previous question... I asked for something that should be very simple given that it's so obvious that our laws are based on the 10 commandments.

See my post. It was answered.

So...If the Ten Commandments have no historical significance, as you assert, then why are they displayed in the United States Supreme Court (in two places), in the National Archives, and in several other Federal and State buildings throughout the Country?

Governments are easily corrupted by religionists with money?

Hey jcgadfly,

Now that the historical role of the Ten Commandments can't be argued against...We have to field bizarre hyptheses?

So...from the 1600's through the 1900's, the colonialists, the Founders, and the Federal and State Courts were coerced/corrupted by the vast wealth of the religionists? This is the only reason for the role of the Ten Commandments in our law-making?

Is this a rational response?

And...For what reason are the Ten Commandments displayed in the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and a multitude of other State and Federal buildings?

What did the Founders believe relative to the Ten Commandments (are the Founders the corrupting religionists with money that you are referring to)?

You based their historical significance on their presence on buildings - I based their presence on the buildings on the religions of the funders.

That the commandments are historical I have no doubt. The doubt comes in when folks state that they are God-originated.

Read the affadavit link...I do not base their historical significance, only, on their public display on public buildings! Read what the Founders had to say about the Ten Commandments.

The religion of the funders? Who are these funders that had the Ten Commandments displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and at several Federal and State buildings?

And...Did you mean "Founders" and not "funders"?

In your opinion, were the Founding Fathers wrong about the Ten Commandments?

(regardless of your answer...To bad! You weren't a Founding Father!)

No, I meant funders as in the people who put up the money for the building.

And before you say, "Oh, the taxpayers! So the people did want it there", many of the examples you cite are funded by private money in the majority. That's one of the reasons why these buildings are called the "<name of donor> Office Building" and the like.

Forget the buildings (if you want to go on with your ridiculous wealthy religionists corruption hypothesis)...the established case law and the documented quotes from the Founding Fathers firmly establish the role of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making.

You may not appreciate that history...but you can't change it.

 My oh my - an irrational reaction from someone gets his rocks off by accusing others of irrationality.

Why go ape-crazy about the historicity of the 10 commandments (especially when I said that I had no problem with their historicity)? Concentrate on assuaging my doubts that the 10 originated from God when such laws existed before the Hebrews did.

I'll settle for you justifying your position that all religionists with money are just chock full of heavenly goodness (since you call my hypothesis that wealthy religionists corrupting government ridiculous). Please remember what you called it earlier - what I said about religious money is a hypothesis. You asked for an alternate possible explanation for why the commandments are emblazoned on buildings - I gave you one. I never said it was correct or that I even believed it  

It isn't ape-crazy...This thread is about the topic of the Ten Commandments.

People on this thread alleged that the Ten Commandments did not play any role in the Country's law-making, which is contrary to documented history.

I am not going to attempt to assauge your doubts about the origins of the Ten Commandments. You can choose to believe whatever you want about their origins...though many of the Founders had a different view than you (and our Country utilized them in our law-making).

This thread is a repeat in nature from the previous thread on the Ten Commandments. The original questions, in this thread, are stated as if they were never answered at any other time (which is irrational)...Therefore the questions, and the thread, "were dead on arrival".

I didn't ask for any possible explanation for why the Ten Commandments are displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives and other Federal and State buildings...I asked what you believed.

Please provide primary source documentation/citations for your strange, ape-crazy hypothesis.


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

pby wrote:
BGH wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now do you see where the trouble is?

Uh....no.

The courts don't have a problem with the public display of the Ten Commandments, either (relative to the Establishment Clause, or any other). See ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska (and other cited cases noted there within):

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/022444P.pdf

And I will give five links where they were removed because of the establishment clause. If you need more I will supply them.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1146

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98267,00.html

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html

 

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17314

 

 To use the argument that the ten commandments were integral to the founding of this nation and important to this nations history therfore they should be displayed fails. There are many things that were integral to the founding and developement of this nation. Things we have been able to let go and get past.

Maybe a monument of white man killing a native american is needed, that was intergal history. How about a white master beating some slaves, that was integral history also. Or maybe burning witches in Salem, that was an important part of history.

How about we follow the intent of the founders when the document was written and leave religion out of goverment and leave goverment out of religion. 

 

 


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: This affadavit

pby wrote:

This affadavit lays out, with primary source documentation, the historicity of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making (the Constitution isn't the standard...look at the history from the 1600's through the 1900's, the Ten Commandments role is clear and undeniable).

You don't feel that the Constitution of the United States of America is more important to the laws of the United States of America than Colonial Constitutions from around 100 years prior?  Yes these colonies may have possessed laws inspired by Christianity, but as christians are so apt to claim that the NT overturned the laws of the OT, the US Constitution established the desired legal climate of the Union and States.

The vast majority of the statements in the affadavit, which I will agree are true, are from the Laws of the Colonies pre-American Revolution.  Do not confuse the founding of the colonies with the founding of the new union.

 I'm sorry if our opinions on what constitutes the founding of America differ, but I put more weight on our nation's constitution than the combined Constitutions of the Province of New Hampshire, the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the Connecticut Colony, the Province of New York, the Province of New Jersey, the Province of Pennsylvania, the Delaware Colony, the Province of Maryland, the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, the Province of North Carolina, the Province of South Carolina, and the Province of Georgia.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


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

BGH wrote:
pby wrote:
BGH wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now do you see where the trouble is?

Uh....no.

The courts don't have a problem with the public display of the Ten Commandments, either (relative to the Establishment Clause, or any other). See ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska (and other cited cases noted there within):

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/022444P.pdf

And I will give five links where they were removed because of the establishment clause. If you need more I will supply them.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1146

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98267,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17314

 To use the argument that the ten commandments were integral to the founding of this nation and important to this nations history therfore they should be displayed fails. There are many things that were integral to the founding and developement of this nation. Things we have been able to let go and get past.

Maybe a monument of white man killing a native american is needed, that was intergal history. How about a white master beating some slaves, that was integral history also. Or maybe burning witches in Salem, that was an important part of history.

How about we follow the intent of the founders when the document was written and leave religion out of goverment and leave goverment out of religion. 

Thank you very much for the five links...In addition to the documentation that I have already provided, these links further support that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in this Country's lawmaking! Also, in a most excellent way, these links help prove my contention that the public display of the Ten Commandments (in, and of, themselves) does not violate the Establishment Clause!

For instance, link# 1 is associated with is associated with Glassroth v. Moore in which the decision states, "But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commadments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law." [emphasis mine]

Judge Myron Thompson's decision in Glassroth v. Moore goes on to explain that it was not the Ten Commandments that violated the Establishment Clause, but that it was Moore's "actions and intentions" that caused the violation.

This District Court of the United States went on to declare, "Experts on both sides testified that the Ten Commandments were a foundation of American law, that America's founders looked to and relied on the Ten Commandments as a source of absolute moral standards."  [emphasis mine]

I couldn't have contended the point any better than this court declared...thanks for bringing this case up!!!

As to your link #2...it is not related to a court decision but to a Duluth City Council vote (5-4).

Your link #3 states, "a consent decree was signed that offered the county the options of removing the monument, or making it part of a display at the courthouse on the evolution of law. However, commisioners decided such a display would be too expensive."  [emphasis mine]

As I said...evolution of law.

Link #4 states, "...the US Supreme Court has made it somewhat easier for government officials to justify displays like the Ten Commandments...the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas...an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capital grounds in Austin did not amount to unconstitutional government promotion of religion."

Again, thank you for providing a link that supports my previous posts!

Link #5 relates to a court decision in which the City of Ogden displayed the Ten Commandments but denied other displays. This does not support your contention that public display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.  

Again...thanks for those great links, though!!!!


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

HumanisticJones wrote:
pby wrote:

This affadavit lays out, with primary source documentation, the historicity of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making (the Constitution isn't the standard...look at the history from the 1600's through the 1900's, the Ten Commandments role is clear and undeniable).

You don't feel that the Constitution of the United States of America is more important to the laws of the United States of America than Colonial Constitutions from around 100 years prior?  Yes these colonies may have possessed laws inspired by Christianity, but as christians are so apt to claim that the NT overturned the laws of the OT, the US Constitution established the desired legal climate of the Union and States.

The vast majority of the statements in the affadavit, which I will agree are true, are from the Laws of the Colonies pre-American Revolution.  Do not confuse the founding of the colonies with the founding of the new union.

 I'm sorry if our opinions on what constitutes the founding of America differ, but I put more weight on our nation's constitution than the combined Constitutions of the Province of New Hampshire, the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the Connecticut Colony, the Province of New York, the Province of New Jersey, the Province of Pennsylvania, the Delaware Colony, the Province of Maryland, the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, the Province of North Carolina, the Province of South Carolina, and the Province of Georgia.

From all the historical documentation provided see previous links in previous posts), it is clear that the Ten Commandments played a significant role on our Country's lawmaking (from the 1600's through the 1990's...see affadavit and other links)...

Your denying this historical fact and wanting Decalogue citations as source material for the Constitution does not change this historical fact!

 

 

 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: nor does the court

Quote:
nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law
In other words, the court does NOT hold that the ten commandments are NOT important. 1) Doesn't say what they DO hold. 2) It's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Quote:
Experts on both sides testified that the Ten Commandments were a foundation of American law
Note: EXPERTS TESTIFIED. A mere statement of fact. It proves nothing.

Quote:
on the evolution of law
The ten commandments are important in the evolution of law. Early Jewish law was clearly derived from Hammurabi's code. This says nothing about direct influence in US law.

Quote:
the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas...an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capital grounds in Austin did not amount to unconstitutional government promotion of religion
Key words: AMONG OTHER MONUMENTS.

Quote:
Link #5 relates to a court decision in which the City of Ogden displayed the Ten Commandments but denied other displays. This does not support your contention that public display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.
It does not prove the contention, but it does support the case, especially in conjunction with the prior case where display AMONG OTHER MONUMENTS was OK.

In conclusion, pby is a propagandist but not a very good one.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: jcgadfly

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

HumanisticJones wrote:
Still waiting for a response to my previous question... I asked for something that should be very simple given that it's so obvious that our laws are based on the 10 commandments.

See my post. It was answered.

So...If the Ten Commandments have no historical significance, as you assert, then why are they displayed in the United States Supreme Court (in two places), in the National Archives, and in several other Federal and State buildings throughout the Country?

Governments are easily corrupted by religionists with money?

Hey jcgadfly,

Now that the historical role of the Ten Commandments can't be argued against...We have to field bizarre hyptheses?

So...from the 1600's through the 1900's, the colonialists, the Founders, and the Federal and State Courts were coerced/corrupted by the vast wealth of the religionists? This is the only reason for the role of the Ten Commandments in our law-making?

Is this a rational response?

And...For what reason are the Ten Commandments displayed in the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and a multitude of other State and Federal buildings?

What did the Founders believe relative to the Ten Commandments (are the Founders the corrupting religionists with money that you are referring to)?

You based their historical significance on their presence on buildings - I based their presence on the buildings on the religions of the funders.

That the commandments are historical I have no doubt. The doubt comes in when folks state that they are God-originated.

Read the affadavit link...I do not base their historical significance, only, on their public display on public buildings! Read what the Founders had to say about the Ten Commandments.

The religion of the funders? Who are these funders that had the Ten Commandments displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and at several Federal and State buildings?

And...Did you mean "Founders" and not "funders"?

In your opinion, were the Founding Fathers wrong about the Ten Commandments?

(regardless of your answer...To bad! You weren't a Founding Father!)

No, I meant funders as in the people who put up the money for the building.

And before you say, "Oh, the taxpayers! So the people did want it there", many of the examples you cite are funded by private money in the majority. That's one of the reasons why these buildings are called the "<name of donor> Office Building" and the like.

Forget the buildings (if you want to go on with your ridiculous wealthy religionists corruption hypothesis)...the established case law and the documented quotes from the Founding Fathers firmly establish the role of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making.

You may not appreciate that history...but you can't change it.

My oh my - an irrational reaction from someone gets his rocks off by accusing others of irrationality.

Why go ape-crazy about the historicity of the 10 commandments (especially when I said that I had no problem with their historicity)? Concentrate on assuaging my doubts that the 10 originated from God when such laws existed before the Hebrews did.

I'll settle for you justifying your position that all religionists with money are just chock full of heavenly goodness (since you call my hypothesis that wealthy religionists corrupting government ridiculous). Please remember what you called it earlier - what I said about religious money is a hypothesis. You asked for an alternate possible explanation for why the commandments are emblazoned on buildings - I gave you one. I never said it was correct or that I even believed it

It isn't ape-crazy...This thread is about the topic of the Ten Commandments.

People on this thread alleged that the Ten Commandments did not play any role in the Country's law-making, which is contrary to documented history.

I am not going to attempt to assauge your doubts about the origins of the Ten Commandments. You can choose to believe whatever you want about their origins...though many of the Founders had a different view than you (and our Country utilized them in our law-making).

This thread is a repeat in nature from the previous thread on the Ten Commandments. The original questions, in this thread, are stated as if they were never answered at any other time (which is irrational)...Therefore the questions, and the thread, "were dead on arrival".

I didn't ask for any possible explanation for why the Ten Commandments are displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives and other Federal and State buildings...I asked what you believed.

Please provide primary source documentation/citations for your strange, ape-crazy hypothesis.

You are one funny cat, pby.

You say that the 10 Commandments are a historical document. I have no dispute with this. You go apeshit on me anyway.

You say they are historically significant to the laws of this country. I disgaree because the laws that deal with interpersonal relationships are not original to the Hebrews (societies that existed before the Hebrews had similar rules). I do not have a serious dispute about this because it is likely that the people who made the laws of this country didn't know of the pre-existent codes. More apeshit reactions from you.

Your underlying claim is that because the Founding Fathers looked at the 10 Commandments as one of the base documents on which they built their laws they were intending that America be a nation founded on the principles on the Christian God. Many have disputed you on this and you dodged them  I dispute you on the basis that you haven't established that God gave the 10 Commandments in the first place and you dodge me and project your apeshit behavior on me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: Quote: nor

kmisho wrote:

Quote:
nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law
In other words, the court does NOT hold that the ten commandments are NOT important. 1) Doesn't say what they DO hold. 2) It's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Quote:
Experts on both sides testified that the Ten Commandments were a foundation of American law
Note: EXPERTS TESTIFIED. A mere statement of fact. It proves nothing.

Quote:
on the evolution of law
The ten commandments are important in the evolution of law. Early Jewish law was clearly derived from Hammurabi's code. This says nothing about direct influence in US law.

Quote:
the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas...an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capital grounds in Austin did not amount to unconstitutional government promotion of religion
Key words: AMONG OTHER MONUMENTS.

Quote:
Link #5 relates to a court decision in which the City of Ogden displayed the Ten Commandments but denied other displays. This does not support your contention that public display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.
It does not prove the contention, but it does support the case, especially in conjunction with the prior case where display AMONG OTHER MONUMENTS was OK.

In conclusion, pby is a propagandist but not a very good one.

Propagandist...LOL!

It was the athiests on this thread, and on the previous thread on the Ten Commandments, that incorrectly spouted (in the face of evidence to the contrary) the liberal, revisionist history propaganda that the Ten Commandments had no historical significance related to this Country's lawmaking.

If citing primary source historical documentation, case law (State and Federal), the statements of the Founding Fathers and experts in these matters makes me a propagandist in your eyes...name-call all you want...BUT THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN OUR COUNTRY'S LAWMAKING!

THE CITATIONS I PROVIDED ALSO PROVE THAT THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!

 


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
The founding fathers, the

The founding fathers, the courts, case law and the experts (on both sides) say that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in this Country's lawmaking...Your disagreement with them is meaningless.


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

Hambydammit wrote:
Questions for theists:

1. How exactly can we obey number 10? It's not too difficult to avoid expressing desire for our neighbor's house, but the desire is either there or it isn't. This commandment, however, tells us not to desire things. This is impossible.

When you realize you are coveting, repent and ask God to help you get over it.
Hambydammit wrote:
2. Why do so many Christians flippantly dismiss the one about the Sabbath? I notice that Walmart's open every Sunday, and by all accounts, Sam Walton was an upstanding Christian. Or, did I miss something where after Jesus sacrificed himself to himself so he could forgive us for what Adam and Eve did, we can work on Sunday now?
I don't know. I think it's a bad trend. Everything 24/7 bugs me.
Hambydammit wrote:
3. What exactly does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain?

I think a good example would be that thread that says, something about "God and Jesus being a prick." That's pretty irreverent.
Hambydammit wrote:
4. The one about idols says two things. First, it says you shouldn't make any images. Then it says you shall not worship any images. So, why are there so many statues in churches?
There are not statues in my church, just a cross, which invokes thoughts of the savior. But, "idol" can mean many things, including non-physical thing. This commandment helps us reminder that power comes from God nowhere else.
Hambydammit wrote:
5. In the same one, God says he punishes children for four generations for things their ancestors did. Could you please explain why it is proper to punish someone who didn't commit a crime?
I would be interested in whether there are nuances in the original languages, for instance they had many words for love. We just have love. But, what I take from this is that the bad things a person do are felt in the lives of their children, so this is sort of a warning, to let you know that your actions matter not only to you, but to your offspring also. What you reap, they will sow, so to speak.
Hambydammit wrote:
6. Could you explain some math to me? If God punishes 4 generations for making images, and shows love to 1000 generations when nobody makes any images, how would he ever get to love for 1000 generations?
I think this is a way of saying love flourishes, which is a good thing really. Meaning if we live bad lives, it only goes 4 generations, but if we live good lives it goes "1000" generation, meaning his punishment is much smaller in comparison to his blessings.

Hambydammit wrote:
which you broke" why are the next 10 commandments different than the first?

 

I'm not getting you here.


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

pby wrote:
The founding fathers, the courts, case law and the experts (on both sides) say that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in this Country's lawmaking...Your disagreement with them is meaningless.

Please cite as many U.S. and state laws you can that directly relate to the ten commandments. PLEASE!

TWO... murder, and theft. Three in some states where adultery is illegal. So don't give me this bullshit that the commandments are essential and inspirational to U.S. law. 


Thandarr
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
I see a Monty Python sketch coming

Florida Supreme Court circa 1950.

Mr. Justice Biblethumper:  There's not a single provision of the Bill of Rights that did not come directly from Scripture.

Observer:  Except Freedom of Speech

Justices: Oh, Yeah!

Other Observer:  And Freedom of the Press

Third Observer:  Freedom of association

Fourth Observer:  Freedom of Religion

Other Observer:  And there's the Right to Bear Arms, I don't remember that one in the scripture

Mr. Justice Mackerelsnapper:  Allright, don't labor the point.

Observers:  -Right to be secure in our homes

-No cruel and unusual punishments

-No search and seizure without probable cause

 General murmur.

 Mr. Justice Biblethumper:  Allright, but except for freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, to associate, to bear arms, to be secure in our homes, no cruel and unusual punishments, there are no provisions of the Bill of Rights that didn't come from scripture:

-Right not to quarter soldiers, etc.  General murmuring.

 

Thandarr


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Sugar, I'm sorry, but I

Sugar, I'm sorry, but I just don't think you understood the questions.

You've responded to all of the questions, but you haven't adequately answered any.  Once again, I'll suggest that you need to learn something about the nature of argument.  While you may find your own answers comforting, they are meaningless as answers.

Let me help you a little.  Anything that is an interpretation is going to do something called begging the question.  In other words, if you say, "the correct way to read this commandment is X," you are asserting that one interpretation is correct and another is incorrect.  The thing is, sugar, you're not providing any reason or any proof.

If you don't offer any proof, then I can come back and say, "No, the correct interpretation is Y."  All you can do to respond is say something like, "No, it isn't."  It's just naysaying, not debating! 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Sugar,

Hambydammit wrote:

Sugar, I'm sorry, but I just don't think you understood the questions.

You've responded to all of the questions, but you haven't adequately answered any. Once again, I'll suggest that you need to learn something about the nature of argument. While you may find your own answers comforting, they are meaningless as answers.

Let me help you a little. Anything that is an interpretation is going to do something called begging the question. In other words, if you say, "the correct way to read this commandment is X," you are asserting that one interpretation is correct and another is incorrect. The thing is, sugar, you're not providing any reason or any proof.

If you don't offer any proof, then I can come back and say, "No, the correct interpretation is Y." All you can do to respond is say something like, "No, it isn't." It's just naysaying, not debating!

I thought I explained my ideas quite well, regardless of your opinion.  Like I have said before, my mission is not to become a stellar debator.  I'm here to converse. 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
pby

pby wrote:

Propagandist...LOL!

It was the athiests on this thread, and on the previous thread on the Ten Commandments, that incorrectly spouted (in the face of evidence to the contrary) the liberal, revisionist history propaganda that the Ten Commandments had no historical significance related to this Country's lawmaking.

If citing primary source historical documentation, case law (State and Federal), the statements of the Founding Fathers and experts in these matters makes me a propagandist in your eyes...name-call all you want...BUT THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN OUR COUNTRY'S LAWMAKING!

THE CITATIONS I PROVIDED ALSO PROVE THAT THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!

Your citations from the post I quoted did not support your case in the slightest, but you said they did. Therefore you are a propagandist.

To answer the apparent issue of contention. The 10 commandments did have an effect on the bill of rights. It was used in many cases as an example of what american law should NOT be like!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: I thought I

 

Quote:
I thought I explained my ideas quite well, regardless of your opinion.  Like I have said before, my mission is not to become a stellar debator.  I'm here to converse.

Well, ask 100 logicians if you answered my questions, and 100 of them will say no, so it's not really my opinion, but whatever.

Conversation is fine, I guess.  We're here (We atheists, that is) to try to help theists overcome their delusions.  If anything, I guess I should thank you for demonstrating that theists don't have answers, and that they're perfectly happy believing without thinking about it because it makes them feel better.

If anything, sugar, I think you're a pretty good example of 90% of Christians.  You distinctly avoid thinking about why you believe.

At any rate, since you don't want to test whether or not your opinions are based on fact, I'm done trying to help.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism