10 Commandments Displays

[verte76]

I don't like Roy Moore, the guy who's been making a big deal about his Ten Commandments statue in the Alabama courthouse. I think he's doing the whole thing for political gain, it's not really a spiritual thing for him, and he doesn't recognize the importance of the separation of church and state. Notice I said church and state, I know some of you think it's Christ and state. Not in Alabama, particularly. I don't care that the governor has prayer breakfasts. Some of the other liberals do, but I don't. The governor is a sincerely spiritual man. Roy Moore wants his job, you see. He's using this as a springboard to deny the governor the Republican nomination for governor next year. Yikes, I'm going to be a real nervous Nelly over this election. I may have to vote in the Republican primary. I did in 2000, and I had an identity crisis. This isn't the last time I'll be posting a note saying I'm against Moore.

 

[-macphisto-]

There's a lot out there. Here's one of my favorites from John Adams' book, "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88):

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."






Abortion has existed for thousands of years. Ancient texts often record substances that could be used to induce labor for unwanted pregnancies, along with the existence of some texts that list punishments for using those substances. However, let's put it this way, if people wanted to have an abortion, they knew how. Or, if you were one of the Inuit, you just left your baby out in the cold and let it die.

And who says that, over the past 50 years that we've seen an increase in violent crime? Ask a black person what they'd say about that. Over the past 50 years, they haven't worried about getting lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way. But I guess when good Christians hang people, they deserve it, right?

Pornography has also existed for thousands of years. Gotta love those ancient paintings of Indians (from India) engaging in group sex.

Adultery has also been very commonplace; they just used to put nice names on it. It was said that you married out of convenience, but then you'd have a mistress out of love. It was only until the 19th century that then-liberal Protestants believed that marriage should be out of love, not for dowries or property alliances. That's probably why much of the world still has arranged marriages; they still don't believe marriage should be out of love.

And homosexuality. You can kindly fuck off. My boyfriend and I have more morality than most of the fucking heteros that I know. If you don't like homosexuality, don't partake in it. Period. Science and reason have long since determined that it's natural, and it's due time for religion to wake up to reality.



You're so blind that you listen to every crackpot minister that tells you that. In the 19th century, they said the same thing. That our "morals" were falling apart. Blah blah blah. They've said the same thing every year for 2000 years, and only the blind would continue to believe it.

The fact remains that we are living in the most peaceful and tolerant time the world has ever known, and it has mostly to do with the fact that, with increasing education levels, people are realizing what a joke religion has become, and that "love" in Christianity is selective. Thankfully, the days of religion causing war is increasingly coming to an end; but I guess we still have our modern Crusades in the "war on terror."

Melon

http://www.ingodwetrustassociation.com/50_states_are_not_wrong.htm

I found this for your history


I never said abortion wasnt around, I said it became "legal" and that is a quote I found on the internet. Pornography may have existed but not like today, this should not even be an argument, look at how everything is becoming accepted slowly and slowy, you walk down the streets of vegas these days and theres pornography on every street corner and all over the street, its just like a drug, and it is addicting many people, and it ruins marriages. Adultery is all over the tv, and in movies like it is nothing now, its not a big deal, people having sex with whoever, in Hollywood its a joke to them, but it is very serious. Violence has increased, like I said- investigate. I dont care about your boyfriend and your morality with him, and I love homosexuals like a brother, they are no better or worse then me. But I beleive the bible and the teachings of the prophets of God. All of those things are increasing, and we are drifting further and further from the shore- make excuses for it, but its true.

I dont know why you bring up ministers, I never said anything about them, I beleive in God and his law, and this great country he gave us, and we should have the respect for him to obey his commandments, and be able to show our grattitude to him.

You have a great attitude towards morals, I can tell by genuine "blah blah". I cant believe that you cant see the diffrence from 200 years to now, or even 10 years, it is slowly slipping and only the blind refuse to see it.

Geez you know everything there is to know about religion, and what a joke it is, keep on living your life, with your great morals and attitude!

 

[pax]

 

[-macphisto-]

In the past 50 years we've seen the "moral" hijack the religion while they spend billions building up nuclear weapons.

We've seen the "moral" support segregation, the outlawing of interratial marriage, and create 2nd class citizens.

So spare me the psedo history lesson.

The things you propose won't bring morality to this country. Morality doesn't come from a dollar bill or a plaque it comes from our parents, role models, and ourselves.

So a government with commandments from God at there side is better then a corrupt government, with now morals to obey.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I agree that morals need to come from parents etc.

 

[BVS]

So a government with commandments from God at there side is better then a corrupt government, with now morals to obey.

What??!!

Explain please...

 

[melon]

http://www.ingodwetrustassociation.com/50_states_are_not_wrong.htm

I found this for your history

You'll ignore direct quotes from the Founding Fathers in favor of quotes from state constitutions? Well, I never expected my quotations to be actually listened to anyway. The fact remains that our nation was founded on secularism and religious freedom--and, simultaneously, freedom from religion. If they wanted religion to dictate their lives, they would have kept the old monarchy and its state religion.

You have a great attitude towards morals, I can tell by genuine "blah blah". I cant believe that you cant see the diffrence from 200 years to now, or even 10 years, it is slowly slipping and only the blind refuse to see it.

Geez you know everything there is to know about religion, and what a joke it is, keep on living your life, with your great morals and attitude!

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

This is my law, and the only law of early Christianity. You can keep your archaic "Ten Commandments," for all I care. It's merely a perversion of what early Christianity stood for: a rejection of Jewish legalism, in favor of inclusion. I often wish the early Church fathers went with their initial instinct, which was to eliminate the Old Testament completely. Instead, they recognized that the Old Testament had value as a point of reference. It was never intended to be a guiding precept of Christian morality; that was the purpose of the New Testament.

And you look at 200 years ago, and you see some romanticist vision of the past that was created by Hollywood. You don't see the rampant disease. A bacterial infection 200 years ago would have seen your death, whereas nowadays, we use antibiotics like candy. You don't see the almost incessant wars they had. The cause of the Spanish American War in 1898 was actually invented by newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst, and America went along with it. You don't see the corruption that people fought against. While Hollywood gleefully portrays the upper classes of 200 years ago, they ignore the lower classes who toiled for 12+ hour days, seven days a week, including children. In fact, the end of child labor owes a great debt to Marxism. In Europe, ultimately, religion stood for everything that was corrupt and imperial, and Italy gleefully seized the Papal States in 1870 to stick it to the Catholic Church. The cardinal of Boston was on record for opposing women's suffrage with the same zeal that the Catholic Church currently opposes gay marriage.

That's reality. That went on 100-200 years ago. If you think we have it worse off now, feel free to invent a time machine and go back in time.

Melon

 

[u2bonogirl]

If we're on a history kick here, God created the commandments because the people asked for them

edited to say: and he dismissed them as law after the sacrifice
so they are just a moral guideline now. not "law" in a christian sense

 

[A_Wanderer]

So a government with commandments from God at there side is better then a corrupt government, with now morals to obey.

The commandments are not from god, proper laws can be crafted by man in a logical and proper fashion without using "divinity" as a smokescreen to make them beyond reproach.

 

[Irvine511]

i posted this a few days ago in another thread, but i think it's applicable here ...



what strikes me as odd about very religious people -- of all faiths -- is that they don't understand that it is secularism that allows for the robust practice of any faith to begin with. christianism - politicized Christianity ... i'm trying to find new words so i don't piss off all self-identified Christians - argues for the imposition of one religion's values over the entire society. the example that leaps to mind would be preventing gay couples from getting civil marriages or unions and prevent pregnant women from seeking an abortion. secularism, by contrast, does not say "marraige for gay people and federally funded abortions." what secularism does is allow Christians, and any other religious faith, to affirm religious values, live exactly as they see fit, and avoid abortion and gay civil unions in their own lives. secularism says that, because the government represents all citizens equally, it must be as neutral as possible in regards to theological issues. the Church and the state shall coexist independently.

this does not mean that all displays of faith should be removed from the public arena. secularists can be immoderate too. however, it's hilarious when fundamentalists to say that they are being persecuted merely because others are treated equally in the public square. i.e., it's ludicrous for Rick Santorum to say that gay marriage is an attack on his marriage.

and the irony of this is that secularism is not only compatible with aggressive and proud Christian faith, secularism actually allows the practice of that faith in as free a form as those who live in a secular society might wish. secularism does not regard the rights of minorities as somehow only achievable at someone else's expense -- and if Christianists were in the minority, they might come to value secularism in the ways that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and atheists currently do.

essentially, the difference between secularism and Christianism is that one side is happy to let people make their own moral choices; and one side isn't

 

[Irvine511]

essentially, the fact that we have separation of church and state enables all self-identified Christians on this list to practice their religion as they see fit. even small chips at the wall between the two must be resisted, especially by those who are most religious, because without it, you will start to lose the freedoms you now enjoy.

 

[-macphisto-]

The commandments are not from god, proper laws can be crafted by man in a logical and proper fashion without using "divinity" as a smokescreen to make them beyond reproach.

Ok you believe what you want, either way they are there for the better not for worse

 

[melon]

If we're on a history kick here, God created the commandments because the people asked for them

If we're on a history kick, the Pharisaic Old Testament, which is what we have, was created by minions of Persian king, Cyrus the Great. The latter half of the Old Testament is full of Persian figures: Ezra, for instance, reflects the people who really wrote our Old Testament.

Cyrus was known as a subverter of religions to ensure loyalty. He, himself, was a Zoroastrian, but he conquered a wide land with various religions, including what is now Israel. However, rather than forced conversion, Cyrus would completely reinvent religions to ensure loyalty. Cyrus would feign belief in gods like Baal or Marduk, then declare himself a god and, depending on his mood, would sometimes destroy the religion afterwards. While Cyrus did not destroy Judaism, the latter half of the Old Testament shows plenty of parables of where Cyrus feigns belief in the Jewish concept of God. Except that he was no longer the tribal, mountain God, "Yahweh." Instead, "Yahweh" was transformed into a mirror of the main Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda, while the evil god, Angra Mainyu (a.k.a., "Ahriman" or "Shaitan"), was transformed into "Satan" and demoted to an angel to maintain monotheism. But if you ever wondered why God was petty in the beginning of the OT and then does an about face in the latter half, it's because they're, for all intensive purposes, two different gods; and if you ever wondered why Satan had so much power for an angel, it's because his qualities were fashioned off of a god.

Following the destruction of the Persian Empire and conquest of the region by Alexander the Great, Judaism divided under two main factions: the Sadducees, who reflected old Jewish belief, and the Pharisees (taken from Parsi or "Persian"; the "Parsis" in India are Zoroastrians), who reflected Zoroastrian-infused Judaism. They hated each other, and while the Pharisees rejected Jesus, because He was not a warrior Messiah, the Sadducees rejected him, because Messianic beliefs originated from Zoroastrianism. Original Judaism did not believe in a Messiah at all.

History changed forever after A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and either murdered or forced Jews into slavery. The Sadducees were effectively annihilated, while the then minority Pharisees were the only Jews left. The head of the Pharisees had made an arrangement with the Roman Empire prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and was busy setting up a learning center in Tyre. As such, our Old Testament is, more or less, the Pharisees' Old Testament, while the text of the Sadducees is, so far, forever lost.

Most ironically, if we are to follow Zoroastrian beliefs, then "the end" already occurred 2000 years ago with Jesus. They had no theology of a Second Coming. However, the book of Revelation is a mirror of what Zoroastrians, and, by extension, the Pharisees expected with the First Coming: a warrior Messiah who will vanquish their enemies and lead to Judgment Day. As such, Christianity is looking for disappointment, if Jesus comes again and is as unexpectedly peaceful as He was the first time around.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

They are not the foundation of society when we have a system of law enforcement, judiciary and government.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I cant wait to major in history

 

[anitram]

what strikes me as odd about very religious people -- of all faiths -- is that they don't understand that it is secularism that allows for the robust practice of any faith to begin with.

This is especially true of Christianity.

It is in fact one of the main reasons the early Christians split from the Jews. They'd existed in an uneasy arrangement for some decades after Christ's death, and when the Jews decided to revolt against the Romans for the last time, the Christians refused to join them.

The thinking of the day was that Jesus was going to return like a thief in the night. Not in a thousand years, but at any moment and so the utmost goal of a Christian should be to prepare their heart for the arrival of the kingdom of God. They were more concerned with salvation and the 'circumcision of the soul' and felt that fighting the Romans was secondary and unimportant to them.

It is also why Christians were able to coexist (with struggle, of course) in a non-Christian society, whereas the Jews of the day could not accept polytheist rule, as they felt it was an affront to their God. The Christians took a different view, saying that they did not need to be ruled by a Christian class, because their preoccupation was with Jesus, the heaven, and salvation of their soul, and what went on down on Earth, politically, was not of great concern to them.

It is therefore puzzling to me that so many Christians today seem to insist they live in a Christian state with Christian laws and Christian morality. It is simply the antithesis of the early Church, and maybe we should go back to preparing our souls to accept Jesus rather than legislating our morality to everyone around us.

 

[financeguy]

However, rather than forced conversion, Cyrus would completely reinvent religions to ensure loyalty. Cyrus would feign belief in gods like Baal or Marduk, then declare himself a god and, depending on his mood,...

Ahem. Strangely familiar.

Does anyone uhm...?

Nah, never mind.

 

[-macphisto-]

You'll ignore direct quotes from the Founding Fathers in favor of quotes from state constitutions? Well, I never expected my quotations to be actually listened to anyway. The fact remains that our nation was founded on secularism and religious freedom--and, simultaneously, freedom from religion. If they wanted religion to dictate their lives, they would have kept the old monarchy and its state religion.



"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

This is my law, and the only law of early Christianity. You can keep your archaic "Ten Commandments," for all I care. It's merely a perversion of what early Christianity stood for: a rejection of Jewish legalism, in favor of inclusion. I often wish the early Church fathers went with their initial instinct, which was to eliminate the Old Testament completely. Instead, they recognized that the Old Testament had value as a point of reference. It was never intended to be a guiding precept of Christian morality; that was the purpose of the New Testament.

And you look at 200 years ago, and you see some romanticist vision of the past that was created by Hollywood. You don't see the rampant disease. A bacterial infection 200 years ago would have seen your death, whereas nowadays, we use antibiotics like candy. You don't see the almost incessant wars they had. The cause of the Spanish American War in 1898 was actually invented by newspaper magnate, William Randolph Hearst, and America went along with it. You don't see the corruption that people fought against. While Hollywood gleefully portrays the upper classes of 200 years ago, they ignore the lower classes who toiled for 12+ hour days, seven days a week, including children. In fact, the end of child labor owes a great debt to Marxism. In Europe, ultimately, religion stood for everything that was corrupt and imperial, and Italy gleefully seized the Papal States in 1870 to stick it to the Catholic Church. The cardinal of Boston was on record for opposing women's suffrage with the same zeal that the Catholic Church currently opposes gay marriage.

That's reality. That went on 100-200 years ago. If you think we have it worse off now, feel free to invent a time machine and go back in time.

Melon

John Locke (1632 - 1704), was an English philosopher whose writings had a profound influence on our Founding Fathers, and in turn, the writing of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was strongly influenced by John Locke. John Locke wrote in The Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690:

"Thus the Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must...be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e. to the will of God...no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made."

John Locke quotes:

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men.-It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter.-It is all pure, all sincere; nothing too much; nothing wanting."

George Washington Quotes:

Would to God that George Washington was seeing into the future and the fate of our modern day communistic liberals when he said this, although rather than drive them out, I'd love to see them soundly converted to Jesus Christ:

"Our attention is now drawn to one point: the enemy grows weaker every day, and we are growing stronger. Our work is almost done, and with the blessing of heaven, and the valor of our worthy General, we shall soon drive these plunderers out of our country!"

George Washington Quotes:

George Washington articulated his understanding of what will keep America great:

"The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the Representatives of the People of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the Administration of the present form of Government commenced; and I cannot omit the occasion, to congratulate you and my Country, on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his Providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the People, may be preserved; and that the Government, which they have instituted, for the protection of their liberties, may be perpetual.

It shall still be my endeavor to manifest, by overt acts, the purity of my inclination for promoting the happiness of mankind, as well as the sincerity of my desires to contribute whatever may be in my power towards the preservation of the civil and religious liberties of the American People.

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being.

Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to.

That great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.

The sentiments we have mutually expressed of profound gratitude to the source of those numerous blessings-the author of all good obligations to unite our sincere and zealous endeavors, as the instruments of divine providence, to preserve and perpetuate them.

Providence has therefore taken us up when all other means and hope seemed to be departing from us, in this I will confide.

Let us unite, therefore, in imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States; to turn the machinations of the wicked to the confirming of our constitutions; to enable us at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that posterity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipation of this government being a safeguard to human rights."






""""""This is my law, and the only law of early Christianity. You can keep your archaic "Ten Commandments," for all I care. It's merely a perversion of what early Christianity stood for: a rejection of Jewish legalism, in favor of inclusion. I often wish the early Church fathers went with their initial instinct, which was to eliminate the Old Testament completely. Instead, they recognized that the Old Testament had value as a point of reference. It was never intended to be a guiding precept of Christian morality; that was the purpose of the New Testament.""""


What are you talking about here, I dont understand where you come up with this stuff. They are both guidlines for morality, Jesus Chirst came to fullfill the 10 commandments not to elimiante them, he shortened them into 2- Love one another, your neighbor, and love God with all your heart. If you obey those 2 commandments, then you will not disobey any of the 10 commandments.

 

[melon]

John Locke (1632 - 1704), was an English philosopher whose writings had a profound influence on our Founding Fathers, and in turn, the writing of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was strongly influenced by John Locke.

John Locke was a believer in religious tolerance, but was often shocked by the intolerant behavior of what he called "non-conformist sects." As such, he was a strong believer in the institution of the Church of England, arguing that a state church could be an instrument for social harmony. Locke also provided moral justification for taking land from Native Americans.

As such, we did not base the Constitution on his religious writings. In fact, people are allowed to have personal religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that their personal beliefs had any reflection in our national documents. After all, we rejected the Church of England, which Locke supported.

George Washington Quotes:

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being.

(etc.)

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devote Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church. That first quote about governing with God and the Bible is, in fact, a fiction created by Weems. This the same fiction that declared that Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

All these quotes about "Supreme Beings," etc. are Deist, not Christian.

What are you talking about here, I dont understand where you come up with this stuff.

I certainly know where you come up with your stuff.

They are both guidlines for morality, Jesus Chirst came to fullfill the 10 commandments not to elimiante them, he shortened them into 2- Love one another, your neighbor, and love God with all your heart. If you obey those 2 commandments, then you will not disobey any of the 10 commandments.

That's a revisionist interpretation by modern Christians to reconcile the mesh of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian theology in the New Testament. St. Paul's Gentile Christianity was vigorously opposed to the Old Testament and Mosaic Law, whereas Jewish Christians believed that all Christians had to follow the entirety of Mosaic Law--all the way down to prohibitions from eating shellfish and wearing multi-fibered clothing.

Jewish Christianity was annihilated in the second century A.D. Modern Christianity descends from Gentile Christianity, except that we've bastardized it with Jewish Christian theology here and there.

We're always looking for "exception clauses" to love in Christianity.

Melon

 

[-macphisto-]

Its fiction, a myth? Where can I read about this, can you dig me a up a website? Im really not talking about christianity here, Im talking about God and his commandments. You dont have to attend church to be a christian. I think that you have taken far too many philosophy classes, and are very mixed in what you really believe, or what is real or not.

Again, I would really like to know proof of your "That's a revisionist interpretation by modern Christians to reconcile the mesh of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian theology in the New Testament." All I see in your writing is philosophy, no facts, just ways to skip the corner.

 

[melon]

Its fiction, a myth? Where can I read about this, can you dig me a up a website? Im really not talking about christianity here, Im talking about God and his commandments. You dont have to attend church to be a christian. I think that you have taken far too many philosophy classes, and are very mixed in what you really believe, or what is real or not.

I can't reinvent the wheel for you. Historians have long determined that Weems' book on Washington is legend, not fact. And I'd hope you'd trust Washington's writings over a third-party writer like Weems, but old habits die hard.

If you want to read the book yourself and have $82.95 lying around, here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_4/002-9115000-8035268?v=glance&s=books

Again, I would really like to know proof of your "That's a revisionist interpretation by modern Christians to reconcile the mesh of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian theology in the New Testament." All I see in your writing is philosophy, no facts, just ways to skip the corner.

All religion is philosophy. I want to know proof of what you wrote. If you think your brand of Christianity has remained the same throughout the last 2000 years, you'd be fooling yourself.

The fact of the matter is that I don't have a quick quote or texts to give you. I'm sure you'll use that as evidence to dismiss everything I've written. I plain cannot summarize years of religious education and self-study into a succinct paragraph for you. But I can show you the evidence that's readily present in the Bible.

Secular Biblical scholars plain admit that early Christianity did not live in harmony, and was, in fact, in competition. A lot of this "competition" is reflected in studying the earliest New Testament texts that we have. The Jewish Christian "Gospel of Matthew" shows evidence of Gentile Christian editing. While Jewish Christianity proclaimed that one must believe in "the law and the prophets," Gentile Christianity declared that "love one another" was the "law and the prophets," and evidence of the edit is blatant in the original documents.

The Acts of the Apostles documents the Council of Jerusalem, which accents the meeting of the Jewish Christianity, led by St. Peter and St. James, and Gentile Christianity, led by St. Paul. Acts ends discussion on the Council of Jerusalem on a cordial note, saying that Gentile converts were only required to adhere to three aspects of Mosaic Law, which had to do with idolatry and food offerings to idols (which are now obsolete), and the generic Jewish concept that was "porneia," which mostly reflected Jewish law against "blood mixing," or "incest." That's funny, considering that incest in the form of marrying close cousins was a hallmark of Western civilization until we discovered something called "genetics."

St. Paul, on the other hand, completely ignored the agreement made after the end of the Council of Jerusalem. His epistles even bother to make a mockery of the agreement against eating food offered to idols, saying at one point that Christians could eat it, since those gods are false anyway. Admittedly, though, he waffled on the subject about three times in his epistles.

And since the spirit of this thread is about religious freedom, not Biblical debate, recognize that not all Christians think alike, and I'm sick and tired of Christians acting like Iranian ayatollahs trying to legislate their narrow and intolerant brand of religion onto everyone, even non-believers.

Melon

 

[Bono's shades]

Wouldn't God prefer that people worship Him out of their own free will rather than because their government tells them to?

 

[u2bonogirl]

And since the spirit of this thread is about religious freedom, not Biblical debate, recognize that not all Christians think alike, and I'm sick and tired of Christians acting like Iranian ayatollahs trying to legislate their narrow and intolerant brand of religion onto everyone, even non-believers.

Melon

Im confused by that statement
not all christians think alike, but youre sick of christians in general forcing their beliefs on you, or just some?

sorry, its actually irrelevant to the entire topic.
I hope I dont do that to people.
I question things a lot more than I feel like other christians do, and I usually afraid to bring it up to the christians I know. I fear being judged for being "faithless" or something
That, in christian terms, is called fear of man

In the spirit of this thread, I would like to say that I dont think church and state should be mixed. And putting commandments in a place of law would be overstepping some sort of boundary. If somebody wants to know christian morals then they know where to look. Its not hard. I dont think publically displaying them in a tasteful manner would be inappropriate. But it would have to be in the right setting.
Im really seeking to be a non judgemental christian, and to not force my beliefs on anybody else.
It offends me to see people I go to church with being agressive with telling people what they believe, or telling them they should go to church. I mean if somebody asks me what I believe then I wont hesiatate to tell them, but Im not ever going to just start a conversation with "so do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?"

 

[Diemen]

macphisto, continually throughout this thread you've made the assumption (whether directly or implied) that without religion no morals would exist. That moral life is the exclusive domain of religion.

This is completely and utterly false, and if you can't see that then quite frankly there's not much of a point in carrying on this debate (though I admire you for trying, melon).

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Im not talking about religion and schools

You said we'd been taking God out of our schools, and it sounded to me like you were blaming all the problems kids have nowadays on the fact that God isn't in schools. If that's not what you were intending, then I must've misread it, and I apologize, but that's how it came across to me.

Originally posted by macphisto23
Im talking about God and the Laws that he gave our founding fathers and this free country he gave us to live in, and how we are turning our back on what this country was built on, trust in God.

No, we're not. I believe in a higher being myself, but I don't think it's necessary to force it on everybody else, because I realize not everyone thinks like me.

Originally posted by macphisto23
I dont need to explain why there was a murder in a religious school, or some religious person committed adultery, I think you know the answer, I think you can figure it out.

The only answer I can think of in regards to the shooting story is that it appears that the kid who brought a gun to school wasn't raised right by their parents, or they just had a screw loose for a long, long time (which, if I remember right, the article did say that the kid had been having emotional problems for a long time).

And the religious person who commits adultery, well, really, that's an issue that they and their significant other and the person they had the affair with have to deal with, as I don't feel it'd be my place to butt in, but there can be many reasons for why that happens.

Originally posted by macphisto23
Im not trying to degrade the homosexuals, but anyone that believes the bible, as I do, believes that it is a sin. Nobody's better then anybody down here on earth.

Agree with your last sentence, but regarding the first, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, because I personally view the Bible as a book written by mere men who put down what they thought God would and wouldn't support. I could write a book claiming that I got a message from God that he didn't see homosexuality as sinful.

Angela

 

[-macphisto-]

Wouldn't God prefer that people worship Him out of their own free will rather than because their government tells them to?

Yes

 

[-macphisto-]

macphisto, continually throughout this thread you've made the assumption (whether directly or implied) that without religion no morals would exist. That moral life is the exclusive domain of religion.

This is completely and utterly false, and if you can't see that then quite frankly there's not much of a point in carrying on this debate (though I admire you for trying, melon).

Can you please post when i said that.

 

[nbcrusader]

Agree with your last sentence, but regarding the first, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, because I personally view the Bible as a book written by mere men who put down what they thought God would and wouldn't support. I could write a book claiming that I got a message from God that he didn't see homosexuality as sinful.

What is stopping you?

If the Bible is only the thoughts of men, it wouldn't be worth following and would likely have disappeared generations ago.

 

[BVS]

What is stopping you?

If the Bible is only the thoughts of men, it wouldn't be worth following and would likely have disappeared generations ago.

Couldn't you say that about all the books of other religions that you don't believe in? Well some of them have lasted longer than 2000 years so it kinda defeats that theory.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What is stopping you?

If the Bible is only the thoughts of men, it wouldn't be worth following and would likely have disappeared generations ago.

Perhaps these people were in some position of power, hence why what they said was so influential. After all, I understand through various religious discussions I've had with people who are much more well-versed in the history of the Bible than me that parts of the Bible had been revised by people in power over the course of centuries because they didn't like certain parts or wanted to exert some control over the people or something like that.

If I were in a position of power and sounded convincing enough to a large portion of people regarding my thoughts on God and homosexuality, I'd have many a follower, too. So my main point I was trying to get at earlier was, if that happened, who'd be right, my version of the Bible or the other one? And how would we determine that?

Angela