Only to people who regard hope as something restricted to members of a particularly delusional club and justice a reward only to those members for obeying that club's delusional rules.

True justice thankfully is a concept which transcends such a narrow psychosis. The insistence on that club's behalf by its members that their "ten commandments" be displayed prominently where justice is dispensed reveals the extent of their delusion, but also reveals their desire to impose that psychosis on everyone else. It is yet another example of how sad delusional fools aspire to be dangerously sad delusional fools.

Most important of all its placement in such places is a symbol to all true believers in justice that justice itself is a precious commodity which survives only by being constantly defended against assault from self-interest. The christian insistence that its members' interests should override all others places them on the side of society's enemies, not its defenders, and that makes the "ten commandments" into even another symbol - that of the intention to oppress.

Where have you EVER SEEN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS posted at schools etc!!!! THAT IS A BUNCH OF B**&*&*T!!!!!!you are just here to goof off and show your mantality?????? THAT WOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED IN THE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!... AND LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!!!!....This has got to be the most idiotic comment I have ever heard!!!!!!!!...and I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!

Nordmann is amazed that "mantality" has never been used as a word before. Feminists would love it!

LOL.

God did not create evil. As I understand it *and I do not officially pronounce myself a Christian or a "theist" in any way * God is supposed to have created the human being, as a free entity, and the human being then created evil. God is not supposed to be sitting up there on his throne moving people around like chess pieces. He is not like the Zeus in the Disney Hercules movie, either, moving lightning bolts around to destroy things. When will some atheists stop taking the Bible so literally? A huge amount of Christians have largely discarded the Old Testament as a book of metaphors to help society attempt to understand where it comes from, not necessarily as a list of events that actually took place. Notice how the God from the Old Testament is so different from the God in the New Testament. The Old Testament writers were just trying to come up with some reason to explain death. The New Testament writers seem much more inclined to see it as inevitable, whether you believe in God or not.

Also, you do realise that although there is a big chance that the Old Testament is not all "true", human beings must have succumbed to incest to populate the earth anyway?

Although I am not exactly a Christian, I would assume that God didn't create evil. I think it makes sense that God created man as a free entity, and man then created evil. God is not sitting on his throne creating machine guns out of clay or planning the next World War. Neither is he like Zeus in the Disney Hercules movie, throwing lightning bolts around to create thunder storms and maybe flushing his toilet to create hurricane katrina. At least this is not how I see it, and I don't think it's what Christianism is suggesting. Man is supposed to have been created by God with the freedom to hurt and kill other human beings. God hopes man will not do it, but man does it anyway. In my opinion man is the real prick in this scenario.

As for those killings mentioned in the Old Testament... well, the OT has been generally discarded by a large portion of Christians who simply see it as an allegory, or a metaphor, a way to explain things we cannot possibly explain. Not all Christians believe it literally word for word. In fact most Christians are more for the message of the New Testament, rather than "an eye for an eye", a concept which has been quite abandoned throughout the ages. The 10 commandments are more true to what Jesus was trying to do; to spread good and help us establish what that good actually is. It is interesting that many of the commandments are actually laws, and if you break them you will be imprisoned. If we are still following these laws, which God is supposed to have made up, it seems to me like God is wiser than you have suggested, treat2.

You do know, even if you are not religious, that it is most probable if not absolutely certain that we have succumbed to incest to populate the earth right? I mean... how else would we be here? 

"christians" only follow what is not too difficult. If they followed everything in the new testement they should all be walking around with their hands cut off and eyes poked out. I think jesus said that somewhere in there, I can't remember where. Maybe someone knows the verse. Christians seem to think they are better than you when you can quote a verse from memory.

This is my first time to this forum, and I do not know the 'unwritten rules' about posting.  I know that most people viewing and making posts here are atheists, and I assume would not accept Bible quotes.  I, however, am a theist, and believe in the Bible.  Please understand that when I quote from the Bible, I am only trying to make manifest MY point of view.

Let me start my answer by agreeing with the spirit of this site, (religion has caused lots of problems and MOST conflicts throughout history), and by clarifying some of the terms used in the question.  

GRACE

Biblical grace is the same as wordly grace.  If a person were to do somthing to or against me which is against the law, I could either press charges or extend grace to that person.  If I chose to extend grace and did not press any charges against them,  I would not be giving them the right to continue to do the very thing they were guilty of doing in the first place.  My grace can be limited.  If the behavior continues, I have every right to press charges in the future.

Heb 10:26 - 10:29     For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto (insulted) the Spirit of grace?

THE LAW OF THE OLD TESTIMENT

Exd 24:12     And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

See above:  The law and the Commandments are not the same.

Gal 3:19     Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added because people would not obey the commandments.  The Bible states that where there is no law, there are no transgressions. 

Rom 4:15      Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

Now to answer the question, people who believe that God's Commandments are the same thing as the law of Moses, and that Jesus somehow "fulfilled" the law so that we no longer need to obey the Commandments are simply not understanding what they read in the Bible.  Something WAS nailed to the cross along with Jesus, and it was commandments, but it was not God's 10 Commandments.

Eph 2:15     Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
     a) of public decrees
     b) of the Roman Senate
     c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
 

The law of commandments contained in ordinances = dogma /the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment.  These rules and regulations that carry punishment no longer apply.  They were nailed to the cross, crucified with Christ.

Col 2:14     Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

In closing, from the beginning, all God has wanted from us is to Love each other, and to Love him.  Love is not an emotion, Love is somthing we do...it is active.  

Rom 13:10     Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Loving each other means feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, not murdering each other, not lying to each other, not stealing from each other, ect.  One cannot Love his neighbor and break God's Commandments at the same time.  It is like the guy who beats up his girlfriend, then brings her flowers and says "I'm so sorry, I really do love you".  NO HE DOESN'T!  He may not want her to leave, he probably feels bad about what he did, he may even want to spend the rest of his life with her, but he does not Love her.  Beating her up is the oppisite of Love. Love works no ill towards her, Love is what he does, not what he feels.  

If 'religion' did not corrupt God's word and take it out of context, and actually Loved each other which Jesus Commanded us to do, maybe God would not be hated by so many people today!  

By the way, I use this same question to argue with "christians" who claim that we cannot keep God's Commandments.  I play Devil's Advocate and say "If the Commandments were nailed to the cross, or if it is impossible to keep them, why not get rid of them.  Why keep them up in schools, or public places is they are no longer valid?" 

I know I am long winded, I just hope I answered your question to your satisfaction.  

Hello and welcome.

There are no unwritten rules here, just the written ones. We often get pretty heated here, and will, on occasion, use REALLY strong language, so do be ready for that (if you haven't already prepared yourself with a few days of lurking; always a good idea no matter where you sign up.)

That said: Your recapitulation of the Nicene position on the Law still doesn't explain why it is/isn't important to have the Ten Commandments specificially in courthouses. What do you think about it? You talk about grace and love and that imply that certain commands were 'nalied to the cross with Jesus' (roughly paraphrasing here.)

First: How do you know which ones were done away with? The anti-homosexuality edicts seem pretty popular; those are somewhere in the middle of 'how to sacrifice a goat and do augury with its entrails' and 'shellfish is EEEEEVIIILLLL.'

So how does one *know*?

Is it what other Christians have said? Is it what Jesus said? If it's the former case, you're relying on the words of fallible humans; moreover, you've still got to pick and choose what's important- if you don't, you live by the Law of Moses. If it's the latter, you've only got his odd semi-related (read- potentially misquoted by the Gospel author(s)) 'commandments.' Jesus said plenty of things, but some of it was in direct contradiction to the specifics in the Law- even taking the potential tack that the punishments in Mosaic Law only represents the absolute maximum sentence, so to speak, and not the only sentence.

This brings us back to the Commandments. They were merely the first in a series of close to 600 commands from God. For some reason, possibly because they were vague enough and simple enough to keep and shove into peoples' faces, Christians kept them and ignored what they wanted to from the Law. Which is a big, fat 'no, no.'

It's something to consider, but ultimately a side issue in what we're talking about here, which is:

Why, in the face of all this (Christians ignoring whatever parts of the Law they want to, that Jesus' commandments weren't really *the* commandments, etc.) do Christians get all up in arms about the Ten Commandments in the first place? And why, further, bother to try and place them in a courthouse, as if they *truly mean* something to Christians as anything other than a sanctimonious symbol of their alleged moral superiority?

I look forward to reading your answers, isa.

How does one know?  If one wants to believe what other people have said, their words must be checked against the word of God first.  If one believes that Jesus did come from God, then it is easy for them to know.  I believe that Jesus is God's Messiah, that he was sent from God to make the Law manifest, and to die for 'sins that are past'.  Therefore, I take the words of Jesus as gospel.  Here are some quotes from Jesus that help me know.

Mar 7:18 - Mar 7:23     And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?  And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.  For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

From these words I know that I can eat swine, or any other food because what goes in does not defile me.  I need to change my heart, because what comes out of my heart can defile me.

Mat 22:36 - 22:40     Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.  

From these words I know that ALL law is ultimately about Loving God and Loving each other.  Why worry about anything else if one fulfills the law of Love?  Isn't this what Humanists want too?  Doesn't the entire world want to end war, end hunger and the like?  We all want love, right?  Man defiled God's word and distorted the truth.  Man created religion and carried out many crimes in the name of his religion.  This is man's fault, not God's. 

First, I'll directly answer the question, then I will clarify some of the terms you used.

I agree 100% that if one believes the Commandments are no longer valid, there is no reason to keep them in public view and expect people to respect them in some way.  I agree!   As far as the alleged moral superiority part, unfortunantly, I agree with this as well.  I can understand your frustration and disbelief based on what religion has done and is doing. This does not reflect the Bride of Christ, as the Bride of Christ is supposed to be a light to the world, so that others might see the light, and be drawn towards the light.  

I would not refer to people who fit your criteria Christians.  Christians are followers of Christ.  Christians obey the commands of Christ, and they obey the 10 commandments.  I know people from many denominations who fit this description.  This is what Jesus said about people (hippocrates) who preach but do not obey themselves:

Mat 7:21 - 7:23     Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  

I want the 10 Commandments shown because they help us to know how to Love God, and how to Love each other.

You are essentially acknowledging that some ordinances are bad ones and need repealing, but that others are worth keeping. I agree.

Where you and I would disagree however is in selecting the criteria by which one chooses the "good" from the "bad". You, for example, think the 10 commandments of your faith "apply". In fact you go further and say "they will always apply". But to what do they apply?

As fundamental precepts from which just laws can be derived only some of them apply. The bits about taking some non-existent deity's "name in vain", for example, would be a disastrous and highly sectarian precept upon which to build any law. The general advice to "honour" one's parents, if taken literally, would in some circumstances lead to unimaginable suffering. Even apparently simple instructions, such as "don't steal" are so simplistically devoid of definition as to be worthless in the structuring of an equitable and fair justice system.

Yet we have in many societies developed just such a justice system, albeit with local flaws and variations but nevertheless remarkably uniform in its application across several cultures and apparently from different societal paths of development. So where does this common recognition of what's fair and just come from? It obviously doesn't derive from Jewish belief systems of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. It seems, on the basis of archaeological evidence, to predate that rather limited and self-serving blending of religious edict and communal law which the commandments represent (even the ten which have been whittled down from their original several hundred). And in terms of refinement and effective application it has moved considerably from the narrow perspective enshrined in that piece of Judaeo-christian scripture.

Your filtering of your perception through the christian concept of grace derived from a divine deity is quaint, but rather irrelevant to the issue at hand. While you can interpret and express your own peculiar views in any way you want, the real question is if one of the by-products of such thinking - the ten commandments - deserves to be represented symbolically in a manner designed to insinuate that the values they represent should be associated in any way with a modern system of imparting justice. In the final analysis the ten commandments are just one rather ancient and quite archaic take on how people should live responsibly and in a manner least likely to impinge on the welfare of others - the fundamental intention of all legal systems based on the concept of justice. But others exist, many others. In fact as many as there are groups with the inclination to promote their own self-interests.

Justice cannot cater for such demands except to recognise them in order to ignore them. The greater good cannot be served by favouring one such group's ethical stance over another. Justice, to be effective, must apply to all equally and be seen to apply to all equally. Christians sticking a representation of their own peculiar ethical code in the face of all users of that system is an affront to the ideal of justice for all.

If you claim to be living in state of grace, then at least have the good grace not to force your archaic values down the throats of others. Have a statue of your favourite Bronze Age scripture in your house, by all means. But keep it away from courthouses, the buildings where justice should prevail, not partisan and sectarian allegiance to irrelevant and archaic ordinances. The desire to place it there, of all places, is obvious in its intent - and reprehensible for that reason. As are the advocates of such bigotry.

So several books in the OT were corrupted/written by man?

Yes, followers of Christ are supposed to be an example to non-believers, just like Muslims, Scientologists, etc. The problem is, they're just not. Of course, I understand that you just see that as "very unfortunate," but to any atheist, it's simply further evidence that none of these religions have any legitimate claim on morality whatsoever.

Nordmann, Viking to fellow Viking?  My first post on this forum was an answer to a question that (i guess) was believed to be a difficult question for "christians" to answer.  Why keep the 10 commandments up in public places when they no longer apply due to us being under grace.  

To answer what you are asking, although I would like the entire world to worship God, and believe on the name of Christ, I understand that this will not happen until the end, (every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess), and I know that although this country was founded on Christian principles and designed to be a republic where human rights came from a creator meaning that human power had no authority to revoke rights given by the creator, (sorry for the run-on sentence) and that a group of individuals gathered together can not have any rights or powers that an individual can have alone, I understand that the world has moved far, far past where it used to be.  There is a large movement who still believes that they can move this country back to its roots, back to the republic it was origionally, but I am not one of these people.  This country (USA) is now a democracy.  The problem with democracy's is that the majority (of humans) make the rules.  The majority is not stable in it's ways, and can be wrong, or even evil.  In the early days of the united States of America, the majority believed that black people were not as evolved as white people, and inferior to them.  Therefore, because of the majority, it was right.  Slavery was abolished not because of human morality, but because of the arguement that God had created all men with certain rights that could not be taken away, and because our country was founded upon this principle, slavery had no place in our country or the world.  

To end this discussion, let me say that I do not want to force my morals on anybody.  Doing so would be counter productive to God's plan.  This entire movement is spoken of in the Bible.  

2Th 2:1 – 2:12 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The Mystery of Iniquity means the spirit (or attitude) of being without law.  This is where I believe we are today.  A lot of Christians know that we cannot win, but believe that we must at least slow this attitude down, to win time to teach as many others about the truth.  I, and others know what will happen to us.  I know the direction things are heading.  Very soon here in the united States, it will be a federal crime to speak against sin, and soon afterwards it will be a federal crime to obey the commands of Christ ("go and make deciples of all nations&quot.  Atheists will see this as necessary, and theists will see this as prophesy.  I understand that the powers that be in the world want human population to be under .5 billion.  I understand the perceived threat of global warming, and mans desire to find other planets in space that could support human life.  

It must be an extremely scary place to be in, believing that God does not exist, and believing that man is destroying the only place that supports their existance.  Concern over giant asteroids colliding with the earth and ending all life is probably nerve wrenching, too.  If God doesn't exist, we are alone at the wheel on this world, and must change the way we are living to ensure future generations a place to be born.  

I understand these things.  Understand that I am just one that watches these events, but am not actively trying to return our nation to a republic.  Yes it is extremely hippocriticle to want to enforce rules on other people that an individual believes do not even apply to themselves because of "grace".    

Notice that I said that non-theists (who were aware of the entire situation) that was mentioned prior to me making this statement.  Not all atheists are referred to in this statement, just the ones who witnessed the behavior of the individual spoke of in this story.

God's commandments are not suspect.  I need to sleep now, but I will answer this in detail next time on.  This is where I was focusing my attention since confusion over this matter is common amoung theists and atheists.

I fear any full-blooded Viking would be rolling in his funeral pyre if he heard you claim heritage! But I digress ...

Well, not quite, as you have raised a point of view which is founded on inaccuracies and it's only right that I should point them out to you.

You begin by stating out straight that you believe in something for which there is no evidence (that we're all heading towards a mythical day of reckoning) so I suppose I should be grateful that you have set the tone admirably for what followed in your post, which is also as skewey in terms of history, logic and fact.

You give a summary of what you believe the founding principles of the American republic to be. To an extent your summary reflects the rhetoric of the day alright, though it neatly edits out the avowed subscription many of the authors of the constitution and the Bill of Rights held to humanist principles then being proposed as superior, both morally and politically, to all that had gone before. In an age when outright declarations of atheism were still political anathema, there evolved a classification of thought one does not hear much about these days but at that time summarised a whole generation of radical politicians, including Franklin and Jefferson in the US. They described themselves as "pragmatic deists", a definition which stopped short of rejecting the concept of god outright but which stripped the deity of all function related to political implementation of human rights. These, pragmatists averred, were human in origin, human in definition, and the responsibility for their protection was therefore exclusively human. This more than any other motivation shaped the thinking behind the formulation of the constitution which protects your rights even today, and while it paid lip service to deistic concepts it very much intentionally sidelined dogma and religion-originated concepts of morality, especially in defining the political machinery by which the essentially humanist constitution would be translated into a country.

Your point about the problem of government being simply a reflection of majority will is absolutely correct (and every American atheist has good cause to note the flaws in such a system when it is defined as such), but again this is where the US founding fathers played a master stroke. The constitution which they, and later a few others, devised and adjusted contained within it a set of inalienable rights which even the majority would find hard to eliminate. Given the history of other supposedly "enlightened" and "democratic" European countries since that time you can readily appreciate how solid and visionary that provision proved to be. The constitution has not been immune to bad tinkering, and nor has the US been immune from serious internal threats to its political stability, but in comparison to other nations it has withstood attack and survived the worst of what could have happened had its founders had less foresight. An essential strength has been its general aloofness to religion in the thrust of its various declarations of what is just and morally right, and indeed its weaknesses have proven often to be where religious rhetoric was included in its wording.

The example of slavery is a moot point. Its toleration does indeed reflect on how immature "enlightened" thinking was in relation to its application politically, socially and economically. But even then there was a considerable number of delegates involved in drafting the 1776/77 Articles of Confederation who were vehemently opposed to the concept of slavery, and indeed the very constitutional provisions which would eventually be used to abolish slavery emanated from their insistence that their viewpoint be reflected in the articles, and later in the constitution and Bill of Rights. Your bald assertion that slavery's abolition owes nothing to human morality is frankly bullshit. It owed everything to human morality (what other morality applies to humans?) and to an unfortunately lengthy period in which those moralists had to work to get their views translated into political reality. The roots of their thinking lay in humanist principles, and indeed these principles as published by humanism's leading exponents, were regularly cited by abolitionists. The christian bible, with its theological ambivalence to the issue, and a christian history of collusion with slavery, devalued christianity as a source of any high moral principle which could be applied without hypocrisy - and in the debates which occurred this proved repeatedly to be the case.

You finish your remarks to me with two rather strange sentences. First you say that you think I must be scared, what with my atheism and worrying about asteroids and whatever. I can reassure you that my concerns regarding asteroids do not impinge on my peace of mind, and that my rational investigation of both astronomy and probability reassure me greatly, even should such fears arise. Nor do I feel in any way insecure or nervous knowing that the universe proceeds quite happily with me in it at the moment and without anything divine, magic, supernatural or otherwise ignorantly conceived dictating events in any size, shape or form. In fact I find the absence of such a perversion of nature quite comforting, thanks.

The other strange thing you say is that you do not wish to return the USA to a republic. It is one, mate, for whatever the definition is worth when its full title is "federal constitutional republic". So I am afraid your wish in that respect is rather misplaced both politically and historically.

One last thing (and only because you've done it twice now). I normally never pick on an interlocutor's typos and misspellings or even draw attention to them as I feel it is a cheap and egregious way of trying to advertise some kind of intellectual superiority, which of course it doesn't and we all do them anyway. Nevertheless I have to point out to you - if for no other reason than to rescue you from potential ridicule in the future - that Hippocrates was no hypocrite and using the name of the accepted "father of medicine" as a description for dishonest behaviour is one which could get you into real trouble should you ever find yourself in discussion with a bunch of medical historians.

Kom bort fra bedrageri! Slå imot sannhets lys!

(As king Håkon Sigurdsson advised a christian emissary sent to convert him. His christian servant Tormod Kark, under instruction from a bishop, assassinated him for it. For all the fiery reputation, being a Viking meant nothing when one came up against deviously murderous bastards working for "god".)

See- I've had a lot of other people talk to a lot of other Christians about this. This is, frankly, bullshit. Why? Because you have built a moral system wherein, while specific believers may not hate people based on what they do- or more often, act upon that hatred to harm the person- it is still enshrined in the doctrine that certain things are wrong, and that, depending on your interpretation (an all-too-common one that's been established for over a millenium and a half), women are lesser than men; indeed, downright evil and not worthy of trust, respect or power of any kind beyond the household.

By making a judgment on these matters (that is, by judging that your code is 'from God', that those who focus in on certain commands over others are right- based on their words, obviously, as Jesus said nothing about doing away with the Law, any part of it) you have judged. That you say you don't is where I call 'bullshit.' The judgment, and a feeble attempt to distance yourself from that same judgement, is implicit in your statement "Although we are not to judge other people..." It is impossible NOT to judge in an inflexible system where you and other followers of your god have a direct line to the true morality.

Sooooooo..... you've got a problem with someone stopping your rights to be a bigot?

It's not stopping hate speech, it's acts of hate. So you're on even worse ground than where you think you are. Even if it were: What's wrong with stopping hate speech?

I actually only ask as a rhetorical question. I'm all for hate speech: You can know for sure who the fucking bigots are then.

*edit* Also: One of the changes to this Hate Crimes law, versus the last one, is that 'hate crimes' now are defined, in part, as crimes against juveniles. I thought there was all that stuff about Jesus loving the children, how we should become like children, etc. Yet we're not supposed to protect them.....okay. /*edit*

....Seriously, you don't want to go this route. You'll only make yourself look worse.

@Nordman: Most of the Viking reputation, as you know, comes from seriously biased Christian accounts. In a lot of ways it was their own fault, though: Putting all their wealth in unguarded and badly defended monestaries or churches.... what did they think was going to happen?

I blame Lindesfarne for the bad press.

Here are some quotes from Ben Franklin.  

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. ... I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous."

"That Being, who gave me existence, and through almost threescore years has been continually showering his favors upon me, whose very chastisements have been blessings to me ; can I doubt that he loves me? And, if he loves me, can I doubt that he will go on to take care of me, not only here but hereafter? This to some may seem presumption ; to me it appears the best grounded hope ; hope of the future built on experience of the past."

You have more of a point on Jefferson.  Jefferson did not like the catholic church, and this is seen through most of his comments on religion.  I understand where he is coming from, and why he did not want the church controlling the state.  This is the reason we left England in the first place.  He was all about being able to choose which religion, if any, a person wanted to accept, and would not stand for anybody trying to tell himself, or others what to believe.  Here is a Jefferson quote that I believe explains his views about Christianity.

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

Because you mentioned Jefferson, I will use another Jefferson quote to in this section.  These inalienable rights you mention were "inalienable" because they were given by our creator, and not by man.  Jefferson's point was that because man had not granted these rights, man could not take them away.  Here is the quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Jefferson 

Biblical slavery consisted in two different forms.  Slavery was applied BY God, as punishment to his people, due to their disobiedence to his commands.  Slavery was also expected as a form of debt payment.  If a person could not pay their debts, they would become slaves until their debts were paid.  God demanded that (these) slaves were to be treated fairly, and expected slaves to obey their masters.  

Biblical slavery never permits enslaving people because of their skin colour.  We are not to esteem one person over another, ever, for any reason.  God is taking the blame for man's mis-interpretation of his word.  Lots of church goers justified owning slave by pointing to scripture, and this is bad.  Eventually, God's principles prevailed, and bible believers fought slavery using the same bible as evidence why slavery is wrong.    

Again, I am sorry for grouping all atheists together.  I do not know if you (or any other readers) fit into this group, but I do know this group exists.  

The difference between our republic and a democracy, is that our republic was based upon the belief that our creator gave us rights, that no man could take away from us.  A democracy allows these rights to be changed based upon the opinion of the majority.  Although we may retain that title, America is a democracy now, it is different from the way it was.   

Thank you for the help...lol...I am normally tending to children's needs when writing, and overlook many mistakes. I doubt I will make that mistake again.

Aaall right- error on my part.

And a good way to explain how some European democracies went in the wrong direction.

Oh, well what about:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-36

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5:22-24

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing." 1 Timothy 2:11-15. 

Or,

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

This is a good question, and deserves a good answer.  Plz be patient with this answer, as I am going to try to give an answer that is not condescending, and answers the question in the way I believe you want it to be answered. 

Ha, and of course, the Christian forgets to mention that these "unalienable rights" only applied to white males or that the churches in the south were one of the most powerful defenders of slavery in the 19th century or that many churches were against granting women the right to vote in the 20th century. Now, we're in the 21st century, and homosexuals aren't allowed the same legal rights as everyone else because they're behavior is an "abomination."     

Baloney. Regardless of whether objective morality exists, your religion has about as much a monopoly on it as Scientology. Even if a God exists, you have absolutely zero knowledge of what it considers to be moral. Your Holy Bible contains human sacrifice, rape, slavery, genocide, etc. etc. etc., and your religion is the cause of or partly responsible for innumerable wars throughout human history. So, you can jump around, pouting that the atheist is immoral and his worldview is dangerous, but you're in the exact same position. 

Of course, undoubtedly, you'll argue that this is not the case. If so, then prove it. Demonstrate to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you know what God wants. 

I am aware of the existance of the point you are trying to make, I just don't see the evidence.  You say that although people during that time used the terminology of theists, they were not.  You say that (correct me if i'm wrong) humanists/atheists were all "in the closet" during that time in history, and had to sound like theists to get their points accepted?  Why do you believe this, is there evidence???  

Can you fill me in on the history of humanism in western society...not the advanced class, just the 101.  Maybe show some evidence supporting the claim that they were not theists.  Maybe point out the humanist language you referred to earlier.    

By the way, I know that not all founding fathers or writers/signers were theists.  I believe that a few were deists and there were a couple who were possibly atheists, but the overwhelming majority of them believed in the God of Abraham and in Christ as savior.   

Ugh, I apologize. I think I misread your previous post and thought you were implying that America was a better country because it was a "Christian nation." However, I wasn't arguing that Christianity perpetuated slavery, etc. either. Rather, I was showing how many people were denied their rights in America for most of its history, responding to your claim that America was the land of the free due to Christianity. But, since you weren't even making that claim anyways, I guess my point is meaningless.

Yes, upon review, it looks like I messed up again. I must have been in a weird mood.

Well, I'm sure you've been through enough of these debates to know, that in order to satisfy the skeptic, you have to first show how you know that the Bible is the word of God.

And, of course, there are hundreds of verses throughout the Bible that I have objections to, in addition to the ones I posted above.

This is my answer.

I would rephrase "the Bible is the word of God" to 'the Bible contains the word of God'.  The word of God came to us through the prophets, who when in the spirit, were given the word.  As those prophets spoke the word of God to the people, the words and events were recorded.  

Christ spoke the word of God.  

Rev 1:1 - 1:2   The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Jhn 17:8   For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Is Psalms the word of God?  I personally do not believe so.  Psalms is mainly recorded songs and prayers of David. If God was speaking to David telling him what to say, David's prayers and songs to God don't have much meaning.

Compare the opening of Ezekiel to the opening of Luke.

Eze 1:1 - 1:4   Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, as I [was] among the captives by the river of Chebar, [that] the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.  In the fifth [day] of the month, which [was] the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity, The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.  And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness [was] about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

Luke 1:1 - 1:4   Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Some of Paul's letters to the different churches and brothers in the lord were written because certian Jew's were trying to teach 'the law' to the gentiles who had recently discovered God.  Others were written because certian people who had received the knowledge of Christ were not growing, or were continuing in the lifestyle they had before being told the good news.  ect...

This does not mean that I abandoned any of the books of the bible.  Scripture was given to be an example to us, so that we could see that God keeps his promises to us, and that the wages of sin is death, and that living according to his word brings blessing.  

Now I will tell you why I believe that the words of Christ are the words of God.

Acts 26:4 - 26:5   My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Saul was a pharisee and had a great life.  He had respect from all his people.  He received money from his people. Everything was going great for this guy.  He actually persecuted Christians having them arrested and testifying against them at their executions.  One day he was on his way to Damascus.  He saw a light shining all around him as bright as the sun, and heard, as he described, Jesus speaking to him.  

After this meeting he left his good life and followed Christ.  He was now hated by his old friends, and eventually persecuted himself.  He was stoned on one occasion, beaten up a couple of times, thrown into prison, and had his life threatened a few times.  

This goes completely against all logic.  If he had not seen/heard from Christ, why would he give up everything and be willing to face death unafraid fulfilling the commission of Christ.  (by the way, this is still happening today all over the world.)

Matthew, Mark, the apostile John, Peter and others wrote their books because they witnessed the miracles of Christ, and wanted to let other people know that Christ not only actually lived, but that he came from God and performed miricles, died and rose from the dead.  Almost all of the apostiles were put to death for preaching the word of God, but it did not matter to them.  They also gave up everything to follow Christ, and gave up their lives for preaching his gosple.

A question for you:  How much would you give up for the spaghetti monster?  Imagine you went to Iran teaching that the spaghetti monster created the world and that all must worship it.  Imagine that you were arrested, and brought before a councel that commanded you to renounce this monster as a false God or lose your head.  Would you renounce him?  I would.  I know he is not true and is not worth losing my life over.  The apostiles knew Christ, and witnessed his miracles and teachings, and witnessed his being raised from the dead.  Remember, after Christ died, all those who followed him were in hiding.  They were scared that they would suffer the same fate as Christ because they followed him.  After he rose and appeared to them, they were fearless!

Conclusion to me, Christ really lived, died and lived again.  He DID come from the Father.  If the apostiles were lying, they would never give their lives for the lie.  I cannot believe that.

Look at the history of the Jewish nation.  Never has a people been scattered so far, and for so long, and remained a people.  God said that Israel would be scattered amoung the nations,but he would never allow them to perish.

Leviticus 26:44:     Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.

After being scattered throughout the nations, Israel returned to the land God had given them.

Ezekiel 34:13   I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land.

I need to sleep now, but If you want to continue on THIS subject let me know.  Maybe I could tell my personal experience, on how I used to be an atheist less than two years ago and why I changed.  (If I tell you MY story you would really think I was a nutcase, and you will probably get a good laugh out of it at my expense.)

Surely you can see the problem here, though.

This isn't proof- it's an assertion. You need evidence- extra-Biblical evidence- for your assertions. And the first, and most difficult proof you must establish is that of the supernatural. Just any ol' supernatural. No, personal experience does not count, because it can be (and often is) mistaken- biased to the point of uselessness. No, 'holy books' do not count, because each literate society thus far has made 'holy books,' each with competing claims, each claiming to be the truth. No, commentaries or expansions on the books do not count- see the previous remark about 'holy books.'

Any believer of any stripe can toss verses at us, and be completely right within their own framework.

This means nothing for the actual truth of the claims.