Oh, what the heck. We haven't talked about the 10 Commandments in a while
Offline Let's talk about the 10 commandments. I have a couple of questions about them. First, just in case, let's make sure we all know what we're talking about.
NIV: 1)"You shall have no other gods before me.4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Also, just so we are clear, here's what "covet" means:
cov·et
/ˈkʌvɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhv-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
–verb (used without object) 2. to wish for, esp. eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted. 3. to have an inordinate or wrongful desire.
Ok. Questions for theists:
1. How exactly can we obey number 10? It's not too difficult to avoid expressing desire for our neighbor's house, but the desire is either there or it isn't. This commandment, however, tells us not to desire things. This is impossible.
2. Why do so many Christians flippantly dismiss the one about the Sabbath? I notice that Walmart's open every Sunday, and by all accounts, Sam Walton was an upstanding Christian. Or, did I miss something where after Jesus sacrificed himself to himself so he could forgive us for what Adam and Eve did, we can work on Sunday now?
3. What exactly does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain? "Vain" of course, means:
vain /veɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[veyn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, –adjective, -er, -est.
| 1. | excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: a vain dandy. |
| 2. | proceeding from or showing personal vanity: vain remarks. |
| 3. | ineffectual or unsuccessful; futile: a vain effort. |
| 4. | without real significance, value, or importance; baseless or worthless: vain pageantry; vain display. |
| 5. | Archaic. senseless or foolish. |
| 6. | in vain,
|
This says "in an improper or irreverent manner" but it doesn't really say what's improper or irreverent.
4. The one about idols says two things. First, it says you shouldn't make any images. Then it says you shall not worship any images. So, why are there so many statues in churches?
5. In the same one, God says he punishes children for four generations for things their ancestors did. Could you please explain why it is proper to punish someone who didn't commit a crime?
6. Could you explain some math to me? If God punishes 4 generations for making images, and shows love to 1000 generations when nobody makes any images, how would he ever get to love for 1000 generations? That's a long time to not make any images. If this is more general, and applies to any sin, why would he bother saying that, if everybody's going to sin because that's the way god made them?
7. In light of this verse: Exodus 34:1 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke" why are the next 10 commandments different than the first?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
What I meant was that by giving your own personal interpretation of verses, you are doing exactly what Luther or Calvin did: creating a different branch of religion. I don't see how that can be a good thing.
The first sentence is a good example of the "no true Scotsman" in action. If we consider the second, this way, we can safely that almost whatever work one may do is "for God" and is "good". So what's the purpose of this commandment?
If the farmer works on Sunday, he can say and actually believe it's for "good", since the whole town will have more food on monday.
So I ask you again: what was the purpose of this commandment? Oh, yes, don't mow the lawn on Sunday. Mowing the lawn isn't "good" for anyone (joking).
Also, I think Susan's response should have been enough for you to feel ashamed just a little.
Take it as a question. Why didn't an omnipotent, omniscient God find a better sollution than torturing innocents? I'm trying to be honest: I don't know and I can't suspect the answer to this one.
You just said it. I have given you the scriptural support to prove otherwise. Now how about you proving your claim as well? You are contradicting the Bible with your assertion. I read the verses, and they say something different from your story. Explain it.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Double post.
OK, so the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore. Very well. Ham, would you borrow me that crowbar? I'll send razorphreak straight to his god. And that because if the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore, is it a sin to try and shorten someone's life here on this miserable Earth, by sending him straight to paradise ?
Do
youInquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
OK, so the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore. Very well. Ham, would you borrow me that crowbar? I'll send razorphreak straight to his god. And that because if the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore, is it a sin to try and shorten someone's life here on this miserable Earth, by sending him straight to paradise ?
Do
you seeInquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
OK, so the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore. Very well. Ham, would you borrow me that crowbar? I'll send razorphreak straight to his god. And that because if the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore, is it a sin to try and shorten someone's life here on this miserable Earth, by sending him straight to paradise ?
Do
you see theInquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
OK, so the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore. Very well. Ham, would you borrow me that crowbar? I'll send razorphreak straight to his god. And that because if the ten commandments don't apply to us anymore, is it a sin to try and shorten someone's life here on this miserable Earth, by sending him straight to paradise ?
Do you see the error of this?
If you don't, I'll give you another example: a masoquist. If he loves others the way he'd like to be loved... I think you get what I mean.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Interesting assessment. I have no desire to start a "religion" and neither did Luther. He did not want to branch out from the Roman Catholic Church - he wanted to correct their mistakes because of their perversion of the word from the bible and Calvin from my understanding was simply following Luther's lead even though he bought into the power of being a leader. If what I am saying sounds different from dogma then I suggest you stop approaching what I'm saying from the standpoint of a Catholic or a Baptist or a Methodist and approach it as someone giving a book report on what the bible says (all the while accepting it to be truth).
Maybe we can think of a "better solution" however we can speak of it from hindsight. God has a purpose for doing what he did and I can only guess as to why that was. Could we have had a better solution in place to prevent 9/11? I'm sure we could have now that 9/11 already took place...
Yes. The point has been and has always been "do on to others as you would have them do on to you". If you don't want me to take a crowbar and kill you why would you do that to me? Get it? It is not "me doing to you" first, it would be the other person doing to you first. Your examples are wrong because you have them backwards.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I have to agree with the Dan Barker when he said almost any rational person could write a kinder, more intelligent set of 10 commandments than applies in the BuyBull - how about forbidding slavery and rape rather than worrying about whether someone makes a graven image or covets?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Oh, dude ! Give me a break ! I didn't say that you have the intention to do that, I didn't say that you will for sure do that. I am simply making an analogy. I'm not sure what Luther or Calvin WANTED to accomplish, I'm just retrospectively examining the results.
What point I was trying to get across is that I'm more interested in an official position. Because as history has shown it, the Bible can be interpreted in many many ways. And as a good Christian, you should be knowing the official position. So I ask you, to avoid such problems in the future: when you say something that might not result so obviously out of the Bible, please say "This is the official position" or "This is my own interpretation", according to case.
I can be hard-headed enough to say "Aha! so it was God who did this, and not the free will fo those terrorists?" but I'm not going to do that. What is obvious to me is that you admit to God having the possibility to stop that act, but he didn't. The question you posed indirectly, why he did what he did, is exactly the question I've posed as well. Should I conclude that you do not know the answer?
You're not taking into consideration that I'm speaking from a Christian point of view. If I were convinced of the truth of your religion, I'd be glad for you to bang me with a crowbar, sending me straight to Heaven. Considering the "new commandment", this would be the good thing to do.
Of course, as an Atheist, I'm not keen on being banged to death with a crowbar, but my point was stated from a Christian point of view.
Now how about answering the questions about coveting, about the masoquist (I apologize if I spelled it wrong, I'm not sure how to correctly write it; in short it means "someone who takes delight in his own physical pain"
, about Walmart, etc.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Let me give it a whirl:
1. "Thou shalt do whatever possible to generate progress throughout humanity as a whole"
2. "Thou shalt try to keep thyself alive as much as possible, except for the case in which thy death is needed to prevent something more destructive towards society"
3. "Thou shalt have no excuse for being ignorant, and shalt try and study as much as you possibly can"
4. "Thou shalt aid anyone for the progress of humanity as much as possible"
5. "Thou shalt have no right to decide alone what is good for others, thy freedom is granted if itself does not contradict any of the other laws"
6. "It is thy duty to procreate and multiply, and thy duty to help if you cannot"
7. "Thou shalt be equal to all, and all shalt be equal to thee in the face of progress of humanity; the way thou shalt choose to organize and supervise activity is thy own damn business"
8. "Thou shalt attempt to not waste time"
9. "Thou shalt take care of the gift I give to thee, this world, and thou shalt not burden it with insignificant significance, such as the mysticism of 666"
10. "Thou shalt believe whatever you want, as long as it is not dictated by thy own, willing ignorance"
I think this pretty much sums up an extended bill of rights. And obligations.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
And yet when you get it, you reject it anyway so what's the point?
Of course God has the ability to do something different but he did what he did for an exact purpose. If he were to say, "OK you see that kid right there (pointing at Joshua), he'll be your new leader" of course that would be simple. But then would the Hebrews learn anything of God?
But that's not even the Christan point of view. You are wrong and that is an offical stance.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
The point is that we can't see any difference between your position (when you'll actually nail it down... forgive the pun) and any other interpretation. Since you seem so certain, we'd like to know why you're certain... what evidence you have. All you ever seem to do is assert your beliefs. You must have some reason for your certainty, right? If you don't have a concrete, logical reason for believing, that means you're irrational, right?
Um.. yes.
Would you please provide a source for this official stance... please? Don't you dare say the bible, because we just got through demonstrating that there are many possible interpretations. Why is this one the "official stance?" Who decided that? How did they know this is the right stance?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Nonono, Ham, let's do it in another way.
Razorphreak, is everything you said and how you explained until now the official church stance? If yes, please say which church I should look into (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelist, etc.). Point me to one of them, and I will do some research to try and match your points with that church's points.
If you are right, then we shall discuss considering that position. If you are wrong, well... needless to say.
And now let me answer your post:
Well, yes, because God, in his omnipotent self, could simply have placed the knowledge inside everyone's head that He is the one true God, etc., etc. So yes, an omnipotent omniscient god should have the ability to do things in a manner that:
- is a lot simpler to understand and observe
- doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, or the people it hurts are at least in significantly lower numbers
If I, as a human, with my limited power and knowledge, can imagine easier ways, I cannot possibly understand why God couldn't.
Really? Is the Christian point of view not towards going to Heaven? To tell you the truth, this is the first time I've ever heard of this "official" point of view. Could you explain, please?
I'm asking because as a hypothetical Christian, in a hypothetical Christian group, I cannot see any greater sacrifice than one of the group damning himself to Hell for an eternity by killing everybody else from the group, so that their path to Heaven should begin right that instant. Why doesn't anyone do that, you ask? Well, some do that (Jim Jones as an example), but most are too cowardly to be the one under sacrifice.
And to demonstrate why, I posted a thread, which Ham is bumping now. It's called "A challenge for true faith". How about answering there? We'll see just how honest you are in your belief.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Interesting how you deal in absolutes. I suppose you can apply that same logic to anyone else who believed in the "unprovable" until that person actually got to witness it for themselves right? Does that mean that while it was unproven, they were any less "rational" than after they were proven right?
And yes, I'm not answering your question because I don't really feel like getting bashed by you. Besides, I've answered this question on threads that you have read before and how it pertains specifically to me.
To be quite honest with you I have no idea. Since I am not a member of any "church" (denomination or otherwise) I cannot say with any certainty that is their stance.
I could say the same about smokers. For more than three decades (at least) everyone knows that there have been warnings that smoking is bad for your health yet people keep on. When do they quit? When they find out they have cancer. They didn't learn their lesson when they were given the knowledge so it must run the course. I know this might not be answering your point here but my frustrations are a bit on the high side.
One of the points that I've heard in the past was about the seven plagues. An atheist once asked me why would God need to kill children. My response was the fullness of them all was the only way Pharaoh finally relented. It would not have worked with 1; it didn't work with three; and until Pharaoh himself provided the last of them did he finally give up trying to fight God. The "victims", since they were part of the purpose of God, can easily be shown mercy and salvation from their death as it was for God's purpose.
God knows the heart of men and since he knows that it will take seven plagues or four generations to convince men, that's why he does what he did. In this explanation (if you actually care to TRY to understand it that is) you might see the point of "free will" and how God does not manipulate minds but rather makes believers though what is necessary (ever wonder why many find God at their lowest point in their lives?).
I have, several times now, and it seems nothing I say is helping here. You do not achieve salvation though actions or words. Yes you could be Ted Bundy or Hitler or Saddam Hussein and still achieve salvation. The point has always been however you cannot be forgiven by simply thinking "I'll do what I want and I'm forgiven in the end anyway." It states in the bible that when you believe, when you are given faith, your actions no longer are that when you were "alive to sin" which is to say that you do not act the same when all you cared about was your next hit, your next lay, or the next thing that made you a buck. It was no longer about you and your desires but about the other person and how you can do all you can to help. You are not going to kill someone to get them to heaven because in a sense that would be boastful of you ("look at what I did to help him!"
and you do not want someone killing you to get to heaven (if you were to say yes I'd rather be killed to get to heaven then your action is for self-glory not God's glory. There is a passage about men who were believers but could not remove demons from a possessed man and asked Jesus why they couldn't. Jesus told them you are not doing it to glorify God but to basically show off).
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
yes. It does mean they were less rational. Believing in something without evidence is irrational. It's irrational for me to say that I have absolute knowledge that the Colts are going to win next year's Super Bowl. Even if they win, it's crazy for me to say such a thing.
Then give me an answer that doesn't deserve bashing, razor. If your logic is sound, I'll just look stupid for trying to argue with it. Funny how it looks pretty dumb to argue against a perfectly logical conclusion, isn't it?
No, razor, you haven't. You have stated your opinion and offered no evidence. Opinions without evidence are not answers. They are just words.
Razor, you are a liar. I know you're going to say you were talking about something else, but you weren't and you and everyone else on this thread knows it. If you aren't a member of the church, and don't know what its official stance is, then you lied, no matter what you were talking about.
No, razor. Explaining involves giving EVIDENCE. You have given us none. Zero. Nothing. Zip. Nada.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
First I am no liar. I was asked to say if it was offical stance or my opinion if I remember correctly. If it is not my opinion that I speak, I wasn't aware I was supposed to say offical stance according to the church off Route 121 and of the blah blah blah...the official stance I speak of is what the bible says and that to me is the official source.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
feh.
You are a liar, razor. What part of "official stance" was it that made you think we meant, "your personal view"?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Excuse me. To me "official" is from the bible....
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Do I understand this correctly? The possessed man must remain possessed and suffering because the exorcists were showing off?
Somehow it doesn't seem very kind, gentle and loving to let the possessed man suffer because of someone else's motives.
That's like telling me that a brilliant and capible doctor won't be allowed to cure me of (fill in the blank with some disease) because his ego is too big.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes. Literal Bible. Not interpreted Bible. And your post on "A challenge for true faith" only comes to strengthen the point that you didn't make the difference between these two.
If you're not part of any Church, and you've just given us your own personal interpretation of the verses and not quoted them literally for support, what you have done is simply create another belief system in which you are possibly the only member. I gave you Luther's example before knowing that you're not part of any Church, and it comes out that my intuition was right.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
While I was reading your post, I felt a sudden urge to light a cigar and simply puff smoke up in the air.
The certainty factor when dealing with smoking is far lower than 100%. Smoking doesn't cause cancer, smoking only increases the risks of it appearing.
To make an analogy: why don't people go about touching high-voltage wires? Because the chances of not surviving such an endeavour are 99.99999%. The only situation in which you see people touching high-voltage wires is in cases of accident or severe mental handicap (temporary or permanent). Your comparison is flawed because I have given an example of CERTAINTY, you have given a counter-example of POSSIBILITY.
My grandpa (mother's dad), has been smoking filter-less cigarettes since he was younger than me. He's 71 now, and if he hadn't had an accident three years ago (a horse trampled him, broke his 4 of his ribs and they perforated his lungs) he would still be smoking. He doesn't have cancer and he's as fit as my dad (aged 48). So with smoking it's not complete crtainty, but only increased risk.
So to stop the course of one man, God had to kill many children... If you call this justice, equity and mercy, I hope you will never end up being a judge.
You are wrong about God not manipulating. Remind me to give you some quotes, I don't have enough time to search them now, but I will give you a few pages:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html
and
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/confusion.html
There were some quotes about God "darkening the souls of people so that they will not listen to the prophets"... I'll search for them, but if anyone remembers exactly which they were, please feel free to shorten my search.
I'd have to say that this is the best refutation of Pascal's Wager I've ever seen. Complete with Biblical quotes and all.
So, apart from this, my question was: What's the purpose of a Christian? I know how you achieve salvation, but isn't that the final purpose? If not, which one is it ?
My example with killing someone for him to go to Heaven you've interpreted a bit off. Presume that I'm the chosen killer. I kill you all, sending you straight to the pearly gates. I never said that I'm going to be there as well. I said exactly the opposite: I'll sacrifice my salvation in order to make sure that you achieve salvation and you achieve it ASAP. In other words: I'll be the only one sacrificing myself to an eternity in Hell, while all the others are in Heaven.
Why doesn't anyone do that, lately? "What... to sacrifice yourself for the others? No way..." - said the megachurch preacher...
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
You, of course, are correct that the Florida Supreme Court is not the US Supreme Court (and I thought that this was most intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers)...Neither are the Supreme Courts in Maine, California, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Oregon, Georgia, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Washington, Texas, Colorado, West Virginia, and etc. - but they all have declared the historical significance of the Decalogue in our Country's law-making (see previous thread on the subject with link to expert's affadavit...It is all historically documented).
Are you saying that all of these State Courts declared incorrectly in citing the Ten Commandments?
And Federal Courts have declared the same thing... Are you saying that they were also wrong?
And the founding fathers stated that the Decalogue was significant in our law-making...Were they also wrong?
All of the above information was provided, in detail, in the last thread on the Ten Commandments.
The time span of declarations relating to the Ten Commandments and our laws and courts date back to the 1600's and are documented, in the previous thread on the subject, through 1988...so much for your 1950's low water mark!
Would you like the Decalogue removed from the US Supreme Court and the National Archives where it is displayed because of its historical significance related to our laws?
I love when athiests bring up the alleged deism of Thomas Jefferson... Do you and Jefferson agree on any matters of faith? (no.)
Do you agree with Jefferson when he stated that, "the moral law is that law which man has been subjected by his creator"?
Do you agree with Jefferson on the Ten Commandments? (no.)
Do you agree with Jefferson on the Bible? (no.)
Do you agree with Jefferson on Jesus Christ? (no.)
Would you accept Jefferson's 1776 proposal for the the new seal of the United States which showed, "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night"?
If you had to deal with Jefferson, today...you would most likely label him as a "fundamentalist" whacko.
You, obviously, don't like the history of the Ten Commandments as it pertains to the origins of our Country's law-making...but you can't change history!
"Our laws were founded on the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity." (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1917)
Your response is strange and your questions were answered in this thread and the last thread on this subject.
Jesus fulfilled the Ten Commandments...They don't apply to Christians, today (as explained in this thread and the last thread).
How are the Ten Commandments unreasonable as they applied to OT folks? And you are unwilling to let God establish His standards for Holiness as it relates to His people? (Well...When you get to be god, then you can establish your own rules.)
If you think that Randallord did a good job...then you haven't read this thread, nor have you read the last thread on the subject (nor have you read the judge's decision in the Moore case as he affirms the historical significance of the Ten Commandments). Randallord has absolutely no standing...primary source historical documentation proves that the Ten Commandments played a huge role in the origins of our laws.
Razor, I'd still like a reply to this.
Thanks.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
I didn't say that I agreed with Jefferson, nor did I say Jefferson agreed with biblical Christianity. The point I made was that Jefferson's deism is not consistent with the athiest's position either (but they still quote him).
Jefferson believed in God the Creator. Jefferson believed that God created us with a sense of right and wrong. Jefferson believed in a historical Jesus and that His moral teachings were "sublime". On these three points, alone, Jefferson separates himself from atheism.
But...it is true that Jefferson is no Benjamin Rush (when it comes to Christianity).
The point remains...It is documented, historical fact that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in our Country's law-making. Thus, the Ten Commandments are displayed in two places in the US Supreme Court, also at the National Archives, and at many other federal and state buildings throughout the land.
I think its how you are perceiving "suffering" or "evil" and how God should rid it all.
I think your example of the doctor wouldn't be you not allowing him to cure you but his INABILITY to cure you because he was too busy flirting with the nurse while you were on the table.
It's not God's will to have evil persist or to see someone suffering. Nothing evil comes from God; we do that all on our own. If I'm looking for glory by helping a homeless shelter, will I put forth my best effort if I'm doing it for me and not the homeless? Will that doctor be thinking about you if he's doing it for his own glorification in the news or to that young nurse? What did Iran's president achieve by calling for Israel's destruction? What did Pat Robertson get for his anti-jewish comments?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Nothing evil comes from god? Then how did it come to exist in the first place, if god created everything? And if evil is not part of his will, and evil occurs, how can god be considered omnipotent?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
It came into this world by man's desire to basically put his nose where it didn't belong. Just because God knows all or sees all or can do all does not mean it's just going to be a "let me fix this." If you want someone to understand not to put their hand on the hot stove, you can tell them 100 times not to but until they actually do and understand you don't put your hand there because it's going to burn, the lesson is not understood. And because we do not have the ability to understand God but yet we want more knowledge, this is how we learn. It was where he would just tell us and we'd accept it without question...not anymore.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I don't think anyone claims that Jefferson was an atheist or that he would necessarily have agreed with atheists about religion. Atheists refer to Jefferson in relation to discussions about the separation of church and state because it was Jefferson, along with Madison, that pushed for the concept behind the establishment clause within the first ammendment. It was Jefferson who wrote the letter to the Danbury Church in 1802 where he first coined the phrase "separation of Church and State" in a clarification of the first ammendment for the congregation who were concerned about their status in relation to their minority status (much like atheists now). To be more precise, Madison didn't want the ammendments at all because he thought that these rights would have been obvious and stating them would be more of a problem than a help, as they could be used to limit freedom rather than define them.
In any case, Jefferson is invoked because atheists tend to be for the separation of church and state.
Jefferson also made a version of the Bible that excluded the mythological and supernatural parts of the stories. Jefferson wasmore interested in the moral teachings of Jesus, and focused on them as secular lessons from a great personality. whether I agree with this is irrelevent, because I agree with his right to have believed it or for anyone to believe it today.
Jefferson didn't have the same information we have today; that's called progress. Newton didn't have the same information we have today either, which is why he didn't come up with relativity. So, is relativity theory incorrect because Newton didn't propose it and rather thought that gravity was explained by an attractive quality of matter rather than a bending of space time? In the same sense, Jefferson, hed he the same information we do now, might have been an atheist, but this is really tangental to the point.
It is clear that the Bible, and Christianity in general, was a significant influence on all of Western civilization. There is no evidence that the 10 Commandments in particular were influential on our judicial system. Our legal system is based on the British Common Law system, which goes back to te Magna Carta and other older Roman models. While these systems evolved in a cultural setting drenched in Christianity, I think it's simply the case that the Bible happens to agree on some points with this legal tradition, rather than a direct influence.
Sure, the Bible has a few good points. that doesn't mean that when the law reflects these good ideas that they are derived from scripture.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Oh man, I almost didn't catch this. You've made a claim without evidence here and I think we all deserve a little credit and maybe a reference.
Claim: The 10 Commandments played a significant role in our Country's law-making.
Very well, if this is the case, show me just one section of the constitution that can have no other source but the 10 commandments, and I will accept this claim. I am not kidding. If I cannot falsify with documented legal or moral-philosophical history a section of our constitution having origin in the Decalogue, I will conceed that the 10 commandments played an integrated role in the formation of the laws of our country.
However, in order for me to accept a significant role, we're going to need more than one as significant implies that a good sized piece of our laws are Per Decalogue.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
Well, yes. If there was a god, he should.
Depends. If you're doing it to win fame and glory by getting "volunteer of the year", you're going to do some darned good work. If you volunteer at a homeless shelter, no matter how well you do, the homeless will benefit regardless of your motives.
Again, even if the motives are not 100% concern for me as a patient, if the doctor is "showing off" at how skilled he/she is or trying to make the news because he/she saved the un-save-able, I still benefit. You are assuming the doctor is distracted. Not the same thing.
These aren't even in the same conversation since both are destructive acts.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Umm... no it didn't... remember the talking serpent business? It was the cause of all this. Which is to prove that evil had already existed into this world. Or, if it hasn't always existed, then it was introduced by something else than human will.
Well that's too bad, really.
FALSE. Learning and understanding is not only based on personal experience. If it were, then schooling would be useless.
I may agree with you that this is the way we learn, but I'm not sure that you can point out exactly WHAT we learn.
"not anymore" - why? Clearly a more advanced world is becoming increasingly atheistic. Should he give everyone irefutable proof of his existence and his will/desire(s), it would be without question that he exists. For this generation at least. That way 6 billion people would make it into Heaven. But nooooo...
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Oh please. Napoleon had a bigger impact on American law than did the 10 commandments.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I seriously doubt that. We've all seen it before, the person who is always brown-nosing up to the manager, discovering what can be accomplished with "hard work" when it was anything but. Getting "volunteer of the year" does not come with showing off but with actual work towards the good of the job, not for yourself. I think you misplace hard work for kissing ass.
They would be if he or she doesn't do the surgery right. You describe my examples of Pat Robertson and the President of Iran as destructive acts yet you can't see it's the same if a doctor does not have his mind on the patient. True they can do one, two, maybe a few good acts but eventually it always turns bad and it may be on you because of his or her attitude. We've all seen it before - baseball players thinking they could never get caught on steroids, the alcoholic or smoker who thinks that they can quit whenever without help, the woman who uses her looks to get away with a speeding ticket not realizing that while she keeps speeding she'll never see the kid jump out in the street in time to slow down...and so on. When you are thinking only of yourself, how often is anything good going to come from it.
Schooling means nothing without experience and anyone who has gotten a bachelors in psychology without working a day in a lab or in the real world can tell you that. School tells you (as do parents) don't do this but yet you still do. I think you miss where one cannot exist without the other.
What you call advanced most are calling self centered, irresponsible, and dare I say decedent. People are unwilling today to take responsibility for their actions as it seems more and more are the "me me me" types: suing for the quick riches, sex without love, observe how people are on the roads, and a handful of other examples where people have stopped caring about what happens to their neighbor before themselves. Sure seems like the world is going down the wrong path...
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Well I do agree with you, razorphreak, but the topic was completely different, and your response is irrelevant.
If I reply the way I initially wanted, before erasing one almost full A4 page, then you'll without doubt drop into a "no true Scotsman". Out of personal experience I'll have to say that your definition of "advanced" is far too distant from the reality of most of the world when it comes to morality, but honestly I don't really care what impression my personal experience might leave on you if I share it.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Still waiting for a response to my previous question... I asked for something that should be very simple given that it's so obvious that our laws are based on the 10 commandments.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
The following link (an affadavit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Kentucky in Doe v. Harlan County School District) was provided on the previous Ten Commandments thread (it was ignored...as was the Christian/Biblical position relative to the Ten Commandments):
www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail/.php?ResourceID=41
This affadavit lays out, with primary source documentation, the historicity of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making (the Constitution isn't the standard...look at the history from the 1600's through the 1900's, the Ten Commandments role is clear and undeniable).
See my post. It was answered.
So...If the Ten Commandments have no historical significance, as you assert, then why are they displayed in the United States Supreme Court (in two places), in the National Archives, and in several other Federal and State buildings throughout the Country?
Governments are easily corrupted by religionists with money?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hey jcgadfly,
Now that the historical role of the Ten Commandments can't be argued against...We have to field bizarre hyptheses?
So...from the 1600's through the 1900's, the colonialists, the Founders, and the Federal and State Courts were coerced/corrupted by the vast wealth of the religionists? This is the only reason for the role of the Ten Commandments in our law-making?
Is this a rational response?
And...For what reason are the Ten Commandments displayed in the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and a multitude of other State and Federal buildings?
What did the Founders believe relative to the Ten Commandments (are the Founders the corrupting religionists with money that you are referring to)?
You based their historical significance on their presence on buildings - I based their presence on the buildings on the religions of the funders.
That the commandments are historical I have no doubt. The doubt comes in when folks state that they are God-originated.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Read the affadavit link...I do not base their historical significance, only, on their public display on public buildings! Read what the Founders had to say about the Ten Commandments.
The religion of the funders? Who are these funders that had the Ten Commandments displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives, and at several Federal and State buildings?
And...Did you mean "Founders" and not "funders"?
In your opinion, were the Founding Fathers wrong about the Ten Commandments?
(regardless of your answer...To bad! You weren't a Founding Father!)
No, I meant funders as in the people who put up the money for the building.
And before you say, "Oh, the taxpayers! So the people did want it there", many of the examples you cite are funded by private money in the majority. That's one of the reasons why these buildings are called the "<name of donor> Office Building" and the like.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I read somewhere that many of these were put up in the 1950's to promote the "10 Commandments" movie.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
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?
PWNED!
Imagine that - One Nation Under the Flying Spaghetti Monster, In the Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust, So help me Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc...
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Forget the buildings (if you want to go on with your ridiculous wealthy religionists corruption hypothesis)...the established case law and the documented quotes from the Founding Fathers firmly establish the role of the Ten Commandments in our Country's law-making.
You may not appreciate that history...but you can't change it.
Read some of the quotes here (the founding fathers ones) http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/quotes.php
And here's SOME of what's wrong with the 10 Commandments:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/10comm.php
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Do you realize only TWO commandments have any direct translation to U.S. law? One has indirect translation in some states. So NO, our laws are not based on the commandments.
Please read the federalist papers before making this assertion.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html