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
My oh my - an irrational reaction from someone gets his rocks off by accusing others of irrationality.
Why go ape-crazy about the historicity of the 10 commandments (especially when I said that I had no problem with their historicity)? Concentrate on assuaging my doubts that the 10 originated from God when such laws existed before the Hebrews did.
I'll settle for you justifying your position that all religionists with money are just chock full of heavenly goodness (since you call my hypothesis that wealthy religionists corrupting government ridiculous). Please remember what you called it earlier - what I said about religious money is a hypothesis. You asked for an alternate possible explanation for why the commandments are emblazoned on buildings - I gave you one. I never said it was correct or that I even believed it
"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
Now do you see where the trouble is?
Uh....no.
The courts don't have a problem with the public display of the Ten Commandments, either (relative to the Establishment Clause, or any other). See ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska (and other cited cases noted there within):
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/022444P.pdf
It isn't ape-crazy...This thread is about the topic of the Ten Commandments.
People on this thread alleged that the Ten Commandments did not play any role in the Country's law-making, which is contrary to documented history.
I am not going to attempt to assauge your doubts about the origins of the Ten Commandments. You can choose to believe whatever you want about their origins...though many of the Founders had a different view than you (and our Country utilized them in our law-making).
This thread is a repeat in nature from the previous thread on the Ten Commandments. The original questions, in this thread, are stated as if they were never answered at any other time (which is irrational)...Therefore the questions, and the thread, "were dead on arrival".
I didn't ask for any possible explanation for why the Ten Commandments are displayed at the US Supreme Court, the National Archives and other Federal and State buildings...I asked what you believed.
Please provide primary source documentation/citations for your strange, ape-crazy hypothesis.
And I will give five links where they were removed because of the establishment clause. If you need more I will supply them.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html
http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1146
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98267,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17314
To use the argument that the ten commandments were integral to the founding of this nation and important to this nations history therfore they should be displayed fails. There are many things that were integral to the founding and developement of this nation. Things we have been able to let go and get past.
Maybe a monument of white man killing a native american is needed, that was intergal history. How about a white master beating some slaves, that was integral history also. Or maybe burning witches in Salem, that was an important part of history.
How about we follow the intent of the founders when the document was written and leave religion out of goverment and leave goverment out of religion.
You don't feel that the Constitution of the United States of America is more important to the laws of the United States of America than Colonial Constitutions from around 100 years prior? Yes these colonies may have possessed laws inspired by Christianity, but as christians are so apt to claim that the NT overturned the laws of the OT, the US Constitution established the desired legal climate of the Union and States.
The vast majority of the statements in the affadavit, which I will agree are true, are from the Laws of the Colonies pre-American Revolution. Do not confuse the founding of the colonies with the founding of the new union.
I'm sorry if our opinions on what constitutes the founding of America differ, but I put more weight on our nation's constitution than the combined Constitutions of the Province of New Hampshire, the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the Connecticut Colony, the Province of New York, the Province of New Jersey, the Province of Pennsylvania, the Delaware Colony, the Province of Maryland, the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, the Province of North Carolina, the Province of South Carolina, and the Province of Georgia.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
Thank you very much for the five links...In addition to the documentation that I have already provided, these links further support that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in this Country's lawmaking! Also, in a most excellent way, these links help prove my contention that the public display of the Ten Commandments (in, and of, themselves) does not violate the Establishment Clause!
For instance, link# 1 is associated with is associated with Glassroth v. Moore in which the decision states, "But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commadments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law." [emphasis mine]
Judge Myron Thompson's decision in Glassroth v. Moore goes on to explain that it was not the Ten Commandments that violated the Establishment Clause, but that it was Moore's "actions and intentions" that caused the violation.
This District Court of the United States went on to declare, "Experts on both sides testified that the Ten Commandments were a foundation of American law, that America's founders looked to and relied on the Ten Commandments as a source of absolute moral standards." [emphasis mine]
I couldn't have contended the point any better than this court declared...thanks for bringing this case up!!!
As to your link #2...it is not related to a court decision but to a Duluth City Council vote (5-4).
Your link #3 states, "a consent decree was signed that offered the county the options of removing the monument, or making it part of a display at the courthouse on the evolution of law. However, commisioners decided such a display would be too expensive." [emphasis mine]
As I said...evolution of law.
Link #4 states, "...the US Supreme Court has made it somewhat easier for government officials to justify displays like the Ten Commandments...the high court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas...an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capital grounds in Austin did not amount to unconstitutional government promotion of religion."
Again, thank you for providing a link that supports my previous posts!
Link #5 relates to a court decision in which the City of Ogden displayed the Ten Commandments but denied other displays. This does not support your contention that public display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.
Again...thanks for those great links, though!!!!
From all the historical documentation provided see previous links in previous posts), it is clear that the Ten Commandments played a significant role on our Country's lawmaking (from the 1600's through the 1990's...see affadavit and other links)...
Your denying this historical fact and wanting Decalogue citations as source material for the Constitution does not change this historical fact!
In conclusion, pby is a propagandist but not a very good one.
You are one funny cat, pby.
You say that the 10 Commandments are a historical document. I have no dispute with this. You go apeshit on me anyway.
You say they are historically significant to the laws of this country. I disgaree because the laws that deal with interpersonal relationships are not original to the Hebrews (societies that existed before the Hebrews had similar rules). I do not have a serious dispute about this because it is likely that the people who made the laws of this country didn't know of the pre-existent codes. More apeshit reactions from you.
Your underlying claim is that because the Founding Fathers looked at the 10 Commandments as one of the base documents on which they built their laws they were intending that America be a nation founded on the principles on the Christian God. Many have disputed you on this and you dodged them I dispute you on the basis that you haven't established that God gave the 10 Commandments in the first place and you dodge me and project your apeshit behavior on me.
"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
Propagandist...LOL!
It was the athiests on this thread, and on the previous thread on the Ten Commandments, that incorrectly spouted (in the face of evidence to the contrary) the liberal, revisionist history propaganda that the Ten Commandments had no historical significance related to this Country's lawmaking.
If citing primary source historical documentation, case law (State and Federal), the statements of the Founding Fathers and experts in these matters makes me a propagandist in your eyes...name-call all you want...BUT THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN OUR COUNTRY'S LAWMAKING!
THE CITATIONS I PROVIDED ALSO PROVE THAT THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!
The founding fathers, the courts, case law and the experts (on both sides) say that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in this Country's lawmaking...Your disagreement with them is meaningless.
I think a good example would be that thread that says, something about "God and Jesus being a prick." That's pretty irreverent.
Please cite as many U.S. and state laws you can that directly relate to the ten commandments. PLEASE!
TWO... murder, and theft. Three in some states where adultery is illegal. So don't give me this bullshit that the commandments are essential and inspirational to U.S. law.
Florida Supreme Court circa 1950.
Mr. Justice Biblethumper: There's not a single provision of the Bill of Rights that did not come directly from Scripture.
Observer: Except Freedom of Speech
Justices: Oh, Yeah!
Other Observer: And Freedom of the Press
Third Observer: Freedom of association
Fourth Observer: Freedom of Religion
Other Observer: And there's the Right to Bear Arms, I don't remember that one in the scripture
Mr. Justice Mackerelsnapper: Allright, don't labor the point.
Observers: -Right to be secure in our homes
-No cruel and unusual punishments
-No search and seizure without probable cause
General murmur.
Mr. Justice Biblethumper: Allright, but except for freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, to associate, to bear arms, to be secure in our homes, no cruel and unusual punishments, there are no provisions of the Bill of Rights that didn't come from scripture:
-Right not to quarter soldiers, etc. General murmuring.
Thandarr
Thandarr
[email protected]
Sugar, I'm sorry, but I just don't think you understood the questions.
You've responded to all of the questions, but you haven't adequately answered any. Once again, I'll suggest that you need to learn something about the nature of argument. While you may find your own answers comforting, they are meaningless as answers.
Let me help you a little. Anything that is an interpretation is going to do something called begging the question. In other words, if you say, "the correct way to read this commandment is X," you are asserting that one interpretation is correct and another is incorrect. The thing is, sugar, you're not providing any reason or any proof.
If you don't offer any proof, then I can come back and say, "No, the correct interpretation is Y." All you can do to respond is say something like, "No, it isn't." It's just naysaying, not debating!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I thought I explained my ideas quite well, regardless of your opinion. Like I have said before, my mission is not to become a stellar debator. I'm here to converse.
Your citations from the post I quoted did not support your case in the slightest, but you said they did. Therefore you are a propagandist.
To answer the apparent issue of contention. The 10 commandments did have an effect on the bill of rights. It was used in many cases as an example of what american law should NOT be like!
Well, ask 100 logicians if you answered my questions, and 100 of them will say no, so it's not really my opinion, but whatever.
Conversation is fine, I guess. We're here (We atheists, that is) to try to help theists overcome their delusions. If anything, I guess I should thank you for demonstrating that theists don't have answers, and that they're perfectly happy believing without thinking about it because it makes them feel better.
If anything, sugar, I think you're a pretty good example of 90% of Christians. You distinctly avoid thinking about why you believe.
At any rate, since you don't want to test whether or not your opinions are based on fact, I'm done trying to help.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism