I took some time to wrap my head around what you posted so, after a night's sleep, here goes.

1) I'm not sure what you're talking about here but it is a very poor comparison. Shapes ,being inanimate objects have no choice in the matter. People who believe that Jesus is God and the Holy spirit is God as well as god the Father being God have all kinds of problems they can't resolve.

For example, John 3:16 becomes "For God so loved the world he gave Himself to Himself so that He could have the ability to change a law He made."

The resurrection also poses problems for trinitarians. If Jesus is God then God died on a cross. But Paul wrote that God raised Jesus from the dead. God raising God from the dead - how is that possible if God died on the cross. Too many mental gymnastics involved in trying to make sense of nonsense.

2) More mental gymnastics - It's OK to offer prayers and sacrifices (in the Hebrews case) to a statue as long as you're not actually "worshiping" (ofering prayers and sacrifices to) the statue. Wait a minute, you said that you ask the saint who is represented by the statue for assistance. So, in a sense, you are worshiping it but I don't expect you to see it.

3) That brings up an interesting point - why should people be held to standards that God himself can't live to? I realize you haven't seen all of the contradictions that Rook posed and I'll leave it at that until you do. As far as the Constitution and human laws, the average citizen has no problem keeping those laws. If someone does happen to break those laws, there is a system of punishment available that actually fits the crime. God can't say that.

4) So, people committed murder with the Church's blessing and somehow the Church wasn't involved? Don't hurt yourself doing thos mental backflips.

5) I said I didn't know of any Catholics who practiced prosperity theology. If you don't know of any either, on that we agree. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that we don't know of them. I'm still looking (there are Catholics who believe in other lunacy that the televangelists make money off of - faith healing comes to mind).   

Actually, the verse becomes "For God so loved the world, that He gave Himself, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

You said He changes laws. No He doesn't. He fulfills them, and then institutes new ones. There's a slight difference. 

 

Yes, that is something we don't understand, so we classify it as a "Mystery" (big diff between a "{m}ystery" and a "{M}ystery&quot. These are things that we cannot yet explain, so we say, "God did it!" which causes a lot of people a lot of grief. However, given that we are reading a book written by a Being WAY out of our league, we would expect maybe, well, at the utmost (probably) 5 things that are just too complicated for us to currently conceive. Anything over that renders it improbable, but a few "explain-colors-to-a-blind-man" situations is probably forgivable.

 

No, actually, you are right. I don't see it. We don't offer prayers and sacrifices to statues. Offering a prayer is useless, unless it is someone on Earth or in Purgatory, so we wouldn't bother to do that. Requesting prayers is a different story. Offering sacrifices to statues...we don't do that either. In fact, we don't offer ANYTHING to statues, or even PRAY TO statues. Rather, we "pray to" the person who the statue REPRESENTS. And, even if we WERE offering prayers and sacrifices to them, that still isn't necessarily worship. Worship is subjective; it depends on your intent. If your intent is to worship, then whatever you do is worship. But if your intent is NOT to worship, then whatever you do is NOT worship. 

The Church didn't sanction the murder. However, PLEASE let's not argue this here. Instead, please go to my discussion, which can be found http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/4567 <<There. I discuss that with Rigor_OMortis, and, in fact, we're still discussing it. 

 For a belief to be rational there must be evidence for its existence.

 

How then do you explain Love?  How can you prove to me that you love your mother, brother, sister, friends?

Okay, I lied.  there was one time off the top of my head that I can remember that I was always right.  It was a timed multiplication test in elementary school.  I got all 100 right in 60 seconds!

Actually, they might. They are making quite a bit of progress (or should I say "di"-gress?). Anyway, they had quite a run of success. 

i personally think that all religious symbology should be kept out of the public sphere.  not that i personally give a damn whether or not the ten commandments, or statues of jesus, mohommad, buddha and krishna line the courthouses, but people just get so torn up over it, and i'm indifferent.  so just take them out, i'm tired of hearing people bitch about it all of the time. 

I didn't look through the whole thread to see if the question was addressed, but I did it anyway. I think that the question posted is a very good one.

I think that why we Christians are upset over the removal of the ten commandments from court houses is more about what it represents in this country rather than us "being under the law." A scuplture of the ten commandments doesn't necessarily represent the law of the Old Testiment as much as it represents the principles on which this country was founded on, which were very much influenced by the Bible. The removal of that symbol is just a reflection of the country's overall shifting away from that foundation. This is upsetting because a secular wordview comes in and laws are written to the point where we become like Germany where you're not allowed to home school because teaching your children Christian doctrine is seen as abuse.

Hey guys, thanks first of all for having this blog, I see that it is pretty healthy.  I also want to state that I am going to answer this question the best that I can assuming something, which I think is not a stretch, given the nature of the question.  I assume that you are not going to attack the feasibility of Christianity after the question above because the question is not about whether Christianity is true, but about why we believe in something GIVEN  our Christianity.  The rationality of whether or not Christianity is actually true is outside of the scope of this question, though I would love to talk about that too.

 

Anyway, I think that you are attacking a small percentage of Christians here.  I've never met Christians who say that we are no longer to follow the Old Testament, although I'm sure they're out there.  However, that begs this question:  what in the world makes them think that an immutable God with a consistent nature would all of a sudden approve of what he once despised (in other words, anull his "former" Ten Commandments?).  Let me explain to you all the most rational way to treat the Old Testament from a Christian point of view.  

We no longer perform those signs which point to the coming Christ, such as animal and grain sacrifices, because Christ was the ultimate atonement and these simply pointed to his coming. 

We no longer use the same system of punishment as that prescribed for the Jews, because the METHOD of punishment was assigned to the Jews alone, since they were the Lord's chosen people.  In fact, Romans 13 says specifically that we are to obey our earthly government, yet this wouldn't be consistent if we are to obey all the ordinances of the Jews.  Only punishments that are intended to be universal, do we still keep, such as Genesis 9:6

"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall be shed, For in the image of God, He made man." 

This was instituted at the second "beginning of life" if you will, with Noah. 

 

We also no longer consider bodily contact with certain things to be "unclean," for a couple of reasons.  First of all, this change in rite is seen by Peter's vision on the roof, where God says that certain foods are no longer to be considered unclean.  Secondly, the acceptance of "uncleanliness" is metaphorical of the unification of both Jew and Gentile after the appearance of Jesus.  I could make this more exhaustive, but I think it's clear that we no longer have to abide by all the Old Testament standards of cleanliness (such as ejaculating away from the camp (sick example, I know)).

Here's what did not change from the Old Testament to the new.  The Old Testament is very different from the other Jewish ordinances in that it simply outlines a list of things that are wrong, far from prescribing any specific punishment for these crimes.  These are concrete rules set up by God (presumably, again, given the Christian stance), and anything that is ever listed as right or wrong, if given by God,  cannot possibly be changed, for that would make God as much a moral relativist as anyone.  But that's beside the point.  We consider the Ten Commandments to be just as sacred as any other rule taught in the New Testament, because these rules can't be changed if God is immutable.  The Bible never, ever implies that we throw out the whole Old Testament.  We are still to abide by its laws, but not necessarily its customs, which are temporary and confined to the Jews because of their covenant with God.

Essentially, this whole "we're under Grace!" thing is put forth by Wednesday-night-Bible-study ignorant morons who have never questioned the Bible.  I want anyone who is reading this to ask me any question they want, because I want to be rational like I know you all do, and because even the Bible commands it:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 Thanks for reading.  I know this is long, but I feel like this question deserved the best treatment I could give it.

 

 

Ok, so to the original question. And Im not speaking on behalf of all Christians but my personal beliefs as a Christian is this: Though the Ten Commandments were in the old testiment laws, they are important to understand and know in order to understand the meaning of grace and forgiveness. Ok, what I mean by that is, a person doesnt understand why they need forgiveness of sin when they dont know the laws that they have broken. The Ten Commandments are like a mirror to show us that we dont live up to a perfect and Holy standard and that is why we are in need of forgiveness and why a sacrifice was made for us. The new covenant cant be understood unless a person understands the old one. If you say Jesus died for you and you dont know what sin youve commited youre likely to reply with that so what? Why did He die, He didnt have to, what did I do to make him want to make that sacrifice and therefore you cant support the new testiment ideals of Christianity. But when you say Gods perfect standard is that you shouldnt lie, still, etc. and youve done those things then you can then say because you havent lived up to that standard Christ paid the price for your mess ups and the law that youve broken and suddenly they understand why Jesus died in the first place.Thats just my take.


JCsDisciple23

{FIXED}

If you are going to cut and paste your message into the forum, reformat it into plain text using notepad or an equivalent before doing so.
Thank you

Moderator

Translation #2:

That was much more difficult than the first one. Hope I didn't miss something.

Whether you agree with them or not, the 10 Commandments are part of human history. Why should people not know about their history, and about the history of law in our society? It does not make sense for every generation to reinvent the wheel of law. We should learn from our past and build on it. To try and wipe out the past is to wipe out the richness of our human experience.

Also, whether you like or not, this country has a judeo-christian heritage. That is our history. You may be able to affect the future of this country, but you cannot change our past. To try to erase and rewrite our past, to me is, at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst, it amounts to a type of brainwashing, which you as atheists seem to be adamently against.

That is fine, I say leave them all.

Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children? I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments. At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you? Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me.

Sugarfree said, " That is fine, I say leave them all."

No one is suggesting that they be removed. The court has said that if they are part of a historical display there is no violation. Unfortunately, it's the Xian's that want their religious message to receive special status like Judge Moore attempted.

 

Sugarfree said, "Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children? I mean, really, what's the big deal? It's not like anyone is going to go blind if they read the 10 commandments. At this, I turn the question around on you and ask, why would the positioning of the 10 commandments bug you? Why are we so stinkin' politically correct that we always have to make sure no one's feelings get hurt. It's just silly, if you ask me."

 

Yes there are more important issues and this is a red herring fallicy for you to bring up this issue but since you did I'll ask, "Why are xian's spending so much money creating and defending these illegal displays while so many go hungry?" The big deal with these displays being given special status on public property is that it conveys a message to the public that the government is confering an accecpted status to a particular religious message which violates the seperation of church and state law. Are you suggesting that we ignore it when Xian's want to break the law?

 

 

Whoa! I think we've just stumbled onto the crux of your problem. It seems by your statement that you have absolutely no basic education in reasoning what so ever.
'Red herring' is one of the most commonest terms used in logic and in most rudimentary discussions and conversations. It means to distract your opponent by baiting them to get them off the subject with an entirely different issue.

Sugarfree... care to respond? 

I will take that as your inability to formulate a coherent argument.

I think my response was fair. You were calling the desire to remove the monuments silly. I used the same tone to refute your arguments. 

Sugarfree,

"Xian" is an abbreviation for "christian".

We only "attack" when the law is violated. Don't you believe the law should be obeyed? Jesus did.

You are correct about the "seperation of church and state" not being mentioned in the constitution. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the 1st Admendment, another document he wrote.

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

 

 

BGH argument = 1point

Sugarfree silence = -1point 

Respectfully, I am here to discuss, not to fight.

I would prefer that over a sign that said "God is dead." Or, rather than saying that, I should give you a chance to tell me what you would display as an alternative.
I disagree. The point of that verbiage in the constitution was to avoid state run religion, which is why the first pioneers came here in the first place. They wanted to practice their religion freely without state intervention. If the founders wanted a sturdy wall to exist between the government and religion, why was their wording not more forceful in regards to that point? To be fair, I will look up these documents you have cited.

Disappoint?People do it all the time. In fact, I think it is impossible to go through life without using some reasoning, sometimes referred to as common sense.Logic is a valuable tool in most real world tasks, logic is not exclusive to philosophy. Your lack of recognizing the phrase 'red herring' indicates you have a lack of knowledge of many logical fallacies. Without an understanding of logical fallacies it is easy to fail to recognize a logical fallacy. For example: Randalllord wrote: Many Xian's, like the former Judge Roy Moore, incorreclty gave special status to their display on the courthouse.
Your response: Aren't there more important issues in the world, like feeding starving children?
What does feeding starving children have to do with Roy Moore giving status to the religious monument he attempted to put on puplic property?

 

Okay Sugarfree, there are a few things you should look into in the founding of our nation and the separation/establishment clause.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Thank you, I already read it.

Yes, I read this one also, and I agree with your statement that nowhere in our constitution does is state we are a Christian nation, and I agree that that should be left out of the constitution. However, this country is undeniably influenced by Christianity more than by any other religion or philosophical thought.  I think it would be dishonest to teach students of history otherwise.

 

Again, I am aware that Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution and this was done purposefully as to not endorse one specific religion. I do not believe, however, that the founders wanted to create a country that was absent of the knowledge of God.  May I ask you, do you believe that nature endowed you with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How can nature "grant" you anything given that it has no conscience, whereas, God does have a consciousness and can therefore grant things.

Yes, I still feel there are more important things, which is why I am willing to concede this: If putting the 10 commandments in a mural with Zeus and Buddha would satisfy you, than okay. I would rather you do that then take them down totally. Because, if you take ALL religious reference down, you are essentially stuffing your atheism down everyone's throats, which, given your arguments, I believe you will agree, would be unconstitutional.

I believe you have misunderstood me, then, however, I am not sure at what point the misunderstanding occurred.  If you give me a little more to go on, I can try to restate my position more clearly.

Oh, yes, please, let's play "laugh at the silly little theist" some more.  That's always fun.

BGH, I fear if you ran this world, it might be very drab, indeed.