Question for our Christian visitors
Posted on: September 24, 2006 - 2:11pm
Offline
Question for our Christian visitors
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
- Login to post comments
So... unless there are constant reminders of your magic friend in publically funded facilities the world is drab. Regardless of others beliefs or non-belief?
You said there bigger issues to worry about. Use the money that would be spent on monuments, installation of monunments, fighting establishment clause cases in court to keep the monuments installed and then subsequent removal of said monuments when the court cases are lost.... take that money and use it for those other causes. Feed people, educate people and use the money for the good of society. Then things might not look so glum without your two ton ten commandment monuments.
What I meant by that is, unless you are different than others here, I'm guessing you would rather all this talk of God to go away, and for all religions to go away. If this did, indeed, happen it would be like cutting away 1/3 of what it is that makes us human. 1/3 being physical, 1/3 being mental/emotional, 1/3 being spiritual. All you have to do is look at history to see we as humans have a spiritual side that is contantly seeking, longing, needing. You, perhaps see the answer to this longing (religion) as simple mindedness. To me it is indicative of humanities richness...that we are more than mere animals, but there is a part of us that realizes this life and it's finiteness is not all there is. It's not about wishfull thinking. It's about acknowledging who we are. So, you would have this heritage stripped away from the public square, the schools? You would not have kids learn about this stuff because that would be "spending tax dollars on religion?" Well, kids need this stuff, they need to know they are part of something bigger and if you don't give them the opportunity to learn it, you are stunting their growth. Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for.
Okay, this is another place in our worldviews you and I diverge.
You are correct; I am tired of seeing “in god we trust” on the money, and ten commandment monuments in the federal buildings. I am tired of hearing the politicians profess their faith in order to get elected. Religion or lack of religion is a private matter.
This is a logical fallacy; it is called “Appeal to emotion”. I know you are not aware of all of the logical fallacies but basically it does not make your argument correct just because it “feels good”. There are many of us that do feel this life IS finite and this IS the only one we have. There is nothing afterward, that is why this life is SO precious. Because it is finite I want to make the most of every day, and enjoy every moment I can. There are many other things taxpayer funds could be spent on to make this world and this nation a better place. There is no need to install two-ton marble monuments in federal buildings with tax money from all citizens, believer and non-believer alike, to remind a selection of the population of their god. Tax money is from all citizens and NO monument can represent all citizens. If a church want to install a statue on their front lawn great, I have no problem driving by and laughing at it. My tax money should not install religious decorations in a federally owned public building; it does not serve a purpose there.
This is more “appeal to emotion”. Children can be taught their faith from their parents, churches and religious schools. There are plenty of places for children to be taught these things without bringing them to the public square and making it appear as though one religion is favored over all others. To me this is one of the worst forms of indoctrination, making the child follow the faith before they can decide for themselves. But that is another topic altogether. What do you say to the muslim kids? How about the buddhist kids? How about hindu kids? Non-believers? Scientology? Mormon? Jehovah witnesses? Your particular faith is not the only faith in this nation. The only fair solution is to remove all religious representation in federal building and stop using tax money to pay for the endorsement of one religion. This is not endorsing atheism. This is endorsing nothing. This is the only way to keep from violating the establishment clause of constitution of the United States of America.
Perhaps I did misunderstand. Are you saying that it is NOT ok for goverment to interfere with religion, but it IS ok for religion to interfere with government?
Actually, that was not quite what I meant and I do apologize if it came across that way. I was merely trying to point out the hypocricy of your statement.
Even when I was a theist, I felt it was wrong to have this monument in a federal building. I did not want any religion to gain a foothold in government and just because christians outnumber other religions in this country does not make it right.
This is getting nowhere FAST! You seem to be supporting these installations only because they favor your religion and the way to keep your favorites there is to install more illegal monuments. When you cannot give valid reasons for keeping the monumants in place, you start thowing logical fallacies left and right. False dichotomies, ad hominen, appeal to emotion... etc.
Yes, I have emotions. Using emotion in a debate is bad form. This is about whether the ten commandments belong (legally) in federal buildings paid for with taxpayer monies. This is not about how they make you "feel".
See above statement. ^
This statement was not an argument for the ten commandments, therefore it was not a logical fallacy. It was clearly stating how I live my life because you gave "hope" as one of your "reasons".
If the godamn things were not where they didn't belong the court cases would not be fought. This argument is asinine.
"Well the rapist no longer rapes so leave well enough alone and do not prosecute", it is still ILLEGAL.
No, it is not okay to leave them as is for reasons already stated. IT IS ILLEGAL. IT VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMANT CLAUSE.
Yes, they are there for practical reasons and they are owned by all citizens. Beatification is okay as long as it does not promote a religion.
See above^.
The point of the argument which you ignored is this can be done other places than publically funded federal programs and buildings.
And yes, I do think indoctrination warps children.
This is not about classes to offer, this is about installation of monuments in federal buildings and the legality of such structures. Please stay on topic, when you try to change issues it show your lack of argument.
Again, NO MONUMENT ENDORSES NOTHING!! There should be no endorsment in federal buildings of zeus, moses, vishnu, allah, yahweh, jesus, magic fairies, buddha, or even "humanist tenants" as you call them.
Leave it all out of publically funded areas and let people relish in their faith elsewhere.
You see?
BGH: It appears I have offended your Logic.
They are historical record. Leave them alone. That's the cheapest alternative.
You have only offended my logic by refusing to use logic, refusing to discuss certain points or even acknowledge the existance of a legality issue.
You are being asked to question things that go against your faith. Things you wish were true but are not. When a solid refutation is made regarding whether they belong in federal buildings you skirt the issue and say 'leave them be, they aren't hurting anyone". The point is they were illegally installed and therfore should be removed. Period!
Please stay on topic.
Well, at least we have an understanding. I see a legality issue. You love the favortism.
I am not trying to "bamboozle" you with logic. Logic is essentially how people properly debate. Bamboozle would be the term I would use for what goes on in churches on a regular basis.
I think this argument is done so I will restate:
BGH = 1 point
Sugarfree = -1 point
There is another thread that more thoroughly explores this issue and I may be wrong, but I believe BGH has already stated that only two of the commandments refer to any kind of law. They did not/do not provide significant influence on the development of law. They represent religious symbolism and do not belong on federal property.
still favoritism
I agree with the score.
To make a brief addition to complete the refutation:
1: Humans are animals. The comment "mere animals" is egotistical and arrogant to an extreme. You deny our ancestors struggles through billions of years. Disgraceful and disgusting.
2: We have art and imagination for societal richness. Religion is redundant and harmful.
3: Kids do not need to be told there's a magical god watching over their shoulder every second. That's harmful in so many ways I'm not even going to bother counting them. You are the one stunting the growth of children. Teaching critical thinking and allowing expression of imagination is the only real way to not stunt the growth of children.
Of course it will. Their own government is telling them it's real, even though it's fiction. Why would kids disbelieve the ultimate authority figure to them?
That's what college and university are for. Not public schools.
You really don't get it. Any image of any religion in government is government endorsement of that religion. I'm guessing you're completely clueless when it comes to advertising and the law. Considering your complete ignorance and closed mindedness on this issue, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to point it out to you.
Religious texts can be saved in the attics of libraries to gather dust to preserve their so-called historical value. They had little to no influence on the law at all. Napoleon was the single greatest influence on the law today. No religion, a man. A warlord at that. Go figure.
The second a government spends money on and displays an object of religious value, it has endorsed that religion. And forced everyone under that government to also endorse that religion. But then I don't think you've even really considered the whole issue in the first place, beyond your self centred world view.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
We are not under the curse of the law (hell)
________________________________________________________
Psalms 14:1 . <nabal> <'amar> <leb>, <'elohiym>. <shachath>, <ta`ab> <`aliylah>, <`asah> <towb>.WTF??
One word (date, actually): 9/11
Caring god... hmm... surely he cared about:
- all drowned in the flood (the Noah episode)
- Sodom and Gommorrah
- egyptian children cursed because the Pharaoh refused to comply
- children ordered dead by Herod
- all those people that the Jews supposedly massacred on their way to "the promised land"
- the Jews, giving them a "promised land" which I would personally gladly decline
Caring god... hmm...
No insulting attachment to a message (or goodwill one, for that matter) makes it more or less true. Nobody should be forced to keep silence about something, if he can offer proof for/against that. Would you agree to keeping silent on flat-eartherners just because "it's their belief and we should respect it", when we know beyond doubt that they are simply wrong ?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Writing does not seperate us from every other life form that exists. We didn't start doing it ourselves until a few thousand years ago.
And I disagree with your disagreement. And I have evidence backing up my position. You don't need a sky daddy to dance around listening to music.
No god is a caring god, and you are not only stunting their growth, you are traumatizing them. For life.
Your world view is so obviously self centred that this comment reaks of it. You think you are so superior to animals that you view yourself in a different life category. You think you are superior to those who don't believe in god. You think your beliefs are superior to everyone elses. I don't think any of these things. I just think your beliefs are harmful. And this is based on factual evidence, not a self centred position.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, you're self centered. No. You. I'm not self-centered. You're self-centered. (joking)
If we keep going back and forth like this we're gonna start to sound like a couple kids.
Well you certainly are.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Tell that to the children of New Orleans that lost everything including family members.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Excellent point Susan.
I am sure the same parents who think the thought of a sky daddy watching over tthe kids is a "gift" would call New Orleans a "test".
I have no doubt that many good god-fearing xians lost everything in New Orleans. It saddened me to see how many people were desperately clinging to their faith to get through the horrors of what happened.
As for the "test", I go right back to my example of the abusive husband. He smacks his wife around just to make sure she really loves him even more afterward. Huh? if someone I loved smacked me around, the love would cease immediately and I would get as far away as possible.
It just defies comprehension how people cannot see that.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
This is probably the dumbest question an atheist can ask.
Ok, let's see... to quickly answer this question you first have to understand that the Law of God as to the Ten Commandments. The penal laws of God were not abolished, but fulfilled through Christ since no man, except Christ(who is God), could fulfill all things. The only laws that were abolished were the ceremonial laws. Hebrews Chapter 8-10 tell us this in great detail. Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial laws pointed to Christ. They were a "showdow" of the One to come.
Okay... that was one of the dumbest posts on this tread. Try reading the rest of the thread. The discussion took on a completely different argument, you are responding to something probably addressed on the first page.
This is probably the dumbest response a theist can come up with. Since it doesn't answer the question, and makes a complete idiot of the theist in the process.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
sorry for being away for so long life has a way of making sure you pay attention to it. first of all i believe in jesus christ,so when i hear the ten commandments being removed i shake my head. (in disqust) why remove it ?why does the ten commandments get everybody in an uproar they are basic rules to live buy. dont steal , dont commit adultrey, dont lie , dont murder, without these guidelines people would do what ever they want causing hugh problems. why does the aclu want all of these rules removed ? because when you read them you instantly reflect on your life to see if your doing them .if not you feel guilty so lets remove them and we wont have to reflect on our lives or feel that we are acountable for our actions , i even heard that the aclu tried to stop the marines from praying during a ceramony why ? do you think the aclu would try to stop the islamic world from praying, ohhh i would love to see that on the news.
Christian's don't believe the 10 Commandments were done away with. The premise of your argument is false. The reason we get upset, is because it is the first of many steps of trying to free society of religious freedom, tolerance and God. Our country was founded on God and biblical principles. That is why He has blessed America. If we push God out of this nation, we are only removing His hedge of pertection and invoking judgement.
Sorry, thanks for playing.
Article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli:
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
There you have it. If this country were founded on Xtian belifs, in any way, this treaty would not have made it through the Senate so easily.
Because it's divisive, delusional, endorsing a religion above others(without any evidence suggesting that religion is accurate mind you), and a waste of taxpayers money.
Adultery has nothing to do with causing society huge problems. It's always happened and society is just fine. Theft, murder, and perjury were all crimes long before the ten commandments were invented. And what about the commandments that talk about worshipping one god above all others? There's no law saying you have to worship god.
They don't. Why are you making a strawman attack?
No I don't. I instantly get annoyed that some delusional freak is shoving them in my face. I see nothing wrong with a number of them, so the entire concept is flawed. Just because they made a couple of rules that made sense doesn't mean anything to the rest of it. If you really want to see laws enshrined, then it should be real laws. Not fictional ones.
Bullshit. Pure strawman.
Prove they did first, then I'll deal with any possible why's.
It's against their stated objectives to interfere with people praying. They make sure that you religious nuts don't make US pray.
I'd deal with Albert next, but there's really nothing else to say.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Albert,
We have had xian's come to this website that have said that Jesus did away with the old law so don't tell us you speak for them.
Even the supreme court has agreed that their display on public property can be a violation of the constitution (the real and legal basis of this country, not the Bible). No one is trying to get rid of your beliefs. You can believe anything you want in this country. You just can't have the government endorse your crazy myths, but apparently you feel the need for them to. It must be an insecurity thing on your part.
Your last sentence about God's prtection is purely magical thinking.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
is it possible that the 10 commandments were put in the courts originally as an example of early recorded law? concidering how they are possibly the most famous worldwide example. i know there would have been earlier recorings of laws, but those are the most famous laws i can think of.
hail jesus and rule brittania!
just because you dont believe in something, doesn't mean it's not there.
Okay... I am emailing Merriam-Webster. This thread has GOT to be the definition of "ad nauseum".
what's ad nauseum?
Wikipedia:
"Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam": it has been discorsed extensively and everyone is tired of it."
But we are going to change that definition and just link to this thread. The theists keep saying the same thing over and over in the posts here and it is continually refuted.
i apologise to all if my random little idea has been rebuked in the past. it was not my intention to go back to an idea that has been discused to the point of it becoming overkill. i was unaware it had already been brought up and rejected as a plauseable theory. again, i apologise.
just because you dont believe in something, doesn't mean it's not there.
Very good question. I'm a non-practicing Christian, and I guess I like to consider myself a bit more enlightened then the rest of the flock (well, at least I hope so).
In any regards, on a personal level I have no problem whatsoever with the 10 Commandments coming out of schools/public buildings/etc. As a faith based believer (which is, really, all I feel anybody can subscribe to Christianity or any religion with - faith and nothing more), I've never considered the removal of the ten commandments, the bible or any other religious aspects from public places offensive. Simply put in the most basic terms, all the information in the world is available in a host of places regarding any branch of religion anybody could possibly be curious about; one could go to any of these places (libraries, stores, churches, etc) and ask for information if one was curious.
That being said, I'm also a big fan of the separaion of church and state and feel that removal of the ten commandments or other religious references is unoffensive (and depending on the case and reasons behind it, sometimes a very good idea). Removing these items does nothing to dissuade me from my own personal belief system, nor does it ruffle my feathers individually.
I have only one question: Why can't there be Jeudeo-Christian imagry in the courthouse if there can be Islamic prayer shrines in the government airports?
(Islamic Taxi drivers recently demanded from an airport for prayer shrines to be put in on government property.)
The representation of the Ten Commandments is purely symbollic and serves only as a reminder. These prayer shrines are actually being used.
Just a little bit of favoritism? I think so.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
I say they should both go.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Jesus came to "fulfil" the "Law", not abolish it. The Law still applies! It is "Salvation" that is through "Grace" because the Law does not save, all it did was show man his sin.
When we/you/all use the term "Law", to what are we referring? For the sake of this discussion, is it limited to what has been traditionally been referred to as the "Ten Commandments"?
To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I view the "Law/Torah" as: "Any Direct Revelation given as a Law, Practice, Custom, Rule, Regulation, Ordinance etc... By God/The Lord" Anywhere in the biblical narrative. (Not just the 5 books of Moses alone, and not the laws/customs of the Jews added outside the God Breathed Word.)
And when you say that the "Law" still applies, do you mean in toto as contained in the Biblical narrative?
To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.
Those "laws" that I described in my prior post still apply to this day. There are clarifications of those laws made by Jesus on things such as "Adultry. Murder", but that only clarifies the law, and narrows its scope.
And those laws that Jesus does not address? They stand as recorded?
Yes, indeed they do! But... Remember, ours is no longer to execute judgement! So if this is leading to "stoning" homosexuals, adulterous people. etc... Then:
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
The Law is the same, it is the covenant that has changed.
"Stoning" and other old arguments that are used to give the appearence of hateful Christians are refuted here:
Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
We do not violate man's law. It is God who will be the "Judge, Jury, & Executioner"
John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Salvation from sins is by "Grace", punishment can be avoided through "Pardon".
I would hardly be that disingenuous, but I think that this does lead to the need for a new thread before we completely hijack this one from its original intent. I will put it back on track and create the new thread.
Though I am an atheist, as a former minister I understand that the slow and systematic removal of religious practice from the governmental areas of this nation is not something that would go by without comment or fight. I led those fights at one point in my local community.
These are symbols of a tradition, practice, world view and way of life for a group of people who whole-heartedly view these things as rational and justified - and sacred. I fully agree that the use of dispensation on religious grounds is not considerate of the world view of the people that make up this country.
Certainly the decision to allow Muslim prayer shrines in certain airports was one based on political expedience, not religious sensitivity. Our country, when it claims equality for all, must either make the public lands available to EVERY world view or none. My opinion is that by keeping religion out of the government machinery, we risk less chance to offend anyone.
When Freedom of Religion imposes standards upon those that do not hold the same religious dogma, there is the foundation for conflict. Practices that have been held as acceptable for 200 years are no longer so as we become one of the most culturally diverse enclaves of humanity on the planet. Freedom of Religion guarantees those cultures the right to practice their specific belief systems as long as it is not endorsed by government and others do not feel compelled to participate without choice. Whether I agree with the belief system or not is not relevant when it does not compel me to participate.
In short, those that support church and state separation have been more active as a result of increased deliberate moves to interject religion into the government forum. Those that fight to have the symbols remain in place do so from fear that religion is being legislated out of America. We both do so for one fundamental reason - the fear of the loss of our culture and the imposition of another.
To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all the wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime—that is the purpose of humankind.
I can't speak for anyone but myself but it makes me feel that I'm being marginalized and that what I perceive as good things (Christian ideas of love and non-violence for example) are being undermined. For me it has nothing to do with law and grace.