Supreme Court Bars commandments from courthouses.

Funny Monkey

Board Supporter
Invalid Link Removed

I just don't understand why people are so intent about removing anything that even touches the edge of Christianity. If the commandments had any place in our society it should be at the courthouse. People just hate to be reminded that they are accountable to someone other than man.

Furthermore, wouldn't a display stripped of anything religious be promoting in some way atheism?

I am sure I'll get flamed for being a naive, uneducated, right-wing, gun toting, southern,10 commandment posting, nazi. But, so be it I speek my mind not in fear of retaliation from others.
 
Did you read the ruling? Or the one about the Texas Capital?
No you more than likely won't get flamed for the things you stated but you might for not reading the entire ruling and the other ruling that happened the same day.

Now I have a question for you.. lets say that you are Baptist... but NOW the state expressed religion is snake handling Holiness and if you don't join that particular church and go every Sunday, then you are in a world of trouble... How would that make you feel?

For me it would make me feel very very uncomfortable to say the less, rebellious at the most... while that some people don't feel that it is wrong to show religious icons at a government place, there are many that do.. mainly because "there is a time and place for everything"... and you can be religious and spiritial without having some icon right in front of you
 
If the commandments had any place in our society it should be at the courthouse.
Click to expand...
No, the commandments have their place, in churches. Why do they have a place at a courthouse? Only four of them can classify as legally applicable. Otherwise anyone could get thrown into jail for not believing that the god of the commandments is his god, or not honoring his mother and father, or wanting his neighbor's lawnmower, or for forgetting the Sabbath day, which most Christians have forgotten, is Saturday.


People just hate to be reminded that they are accountable to someone other than man.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they disagree that they are accountable to a higher power. That's why freedom of religion was endorsed by our government. Freedom of religion means you also have the freedom to not have one.


Furthermore, wouldn't a display stripped of anything religious be promoting in some way atheism?
Click to expand...
So lack of support for one idea indicates support for another? Just because I may not like George Bush, does that mean I endorsed Al Gore?


I am sure I'll get flamed for being a naive, uneducated, right-wing, gun toting, southern,10 commandment posting, nazi.
Click to expand...
No flaming. Just a friendly reminder that there are plenty of other people in this country who aren't Christians but who happen to be Americans. It may be hard to stomach for some people, but religion is not the primary basis of law in this country.
 
Matthew D said:
Did you read the ruling? Or the one about the Texas Capital?
No you more than likely won't get flamed for the things you stated but you might for not reading the entire ruling and the other ruling that happened the same day.

Now I have a question for you.. lets say that you are Baptist... but NOW the state expressed religion is snake handling Holiness and if you don't join that particular church and go every Sunday, then you are in a world of trouble... How would that make you feel?

For me it would make me feel very very uncomfortable to say the less, rebellious at the most... while that some people don't feel that it is wrong to show religious icons at a government place, there are many that do.. mainly because "there is a time and place for everything"... and you can be religious and spiritial without having some icon right in front of you
Click to expand...
yeah I read about the one in Texas. It really didn't seem like all that different of a situation. That's why I don't understand what the big deal is in Kentucky.

I see your point MattD. If the people of that town or city woudl like it to be there I don't see the problem and if another religion besides mine was more prominent in the country I live in I wouldn't have a problem with it. That being said I have a few friends that are Athiest. They show absolutely no respect for my religion and constantly attack me. They show no respect when they go into a church either. Athiests almost seem angry to me just at the world in general. I digress. Yes I do see your point.
 
Brooklyn said:
No, the commandments have their place, in churches. Why do they have a place at a courthouse? Only four of them can classify as legally applicable. Otherwise anyone could get thrown into jail for not believing that the god of the commandments is his god, or not honoring his mother and father, or wanting his neighbor's lawnmower, or for forgetting the Sabbath day, which most Christians have forgotten, is Saturday.
Click to expand...
Historical originations of law. I mean why not throw Hammurabi's law up there too. Or something representing that. It wouldn't bother me.



Or perhaps they disagree that they are accountable to a higher power. That's why freedom of religion was endorsed by our government. Freedom of religion means you also have the freedom to not have one.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% but why does it seem that the few that choose to have no religion are the most active about stripping away others religion. And yes I know plenty are active about giving them religion too. They are just so easily offended. Like when they showed The Passion of Christ on school grounds people absolutely flipped out about it, but they show plenty of other movies at school and noone ever says a thing.



So lack of support for one idea indicates support for another? Just because I may not like George Bush, does that mean I endorsed Al Gore?
Click to expand...
Well its not black and white like you propose, but yeah in a genral since the oposition of one side does in a since imply the support for the other. You might desperately want a team to lose that doesn't mean you like the other team but you do want them to win.



No flaming. Just a friendly reminder that there are plenty of other people in this country who aren't Christians but who happen to be Americans. It may be hard to stomach for some people, but religion is not the primary basis of law in this country
Click to expand...
And there are plenty of Americans in this country that are Christian which is hard for some people to stomach. That was easily proven after the election with all the talk on the news about these "Evangelicals" that threw the election.
 
I'm no Christian, I see no problem with the 10 Commandments in a court house. Displaying something that, whether anyone likes it or not, is a relevant historical document with regard to law should not be a problem. That holds with any such code or document, no matter its origin. I don't know why anytime anyone mentions their religion in the context of law people flip out and claim the state is trying to impose a religion on them. Here I am, borderline atheist and fully aware that the country I live in has a very strong origin in Judeo-Christian culture. I don't see why so many people have a problem with that. You can balance everyone having the right to worship or not as they see fit while showing some respect for what is obviously a big part of our heritage here in the US.
 
If nothing else, the Ten Commandments are just good to follow. People can't seem to look beyond the fact that they imply religion because they come from the Bible and endorse them because they are just good morals.
 
Buddha had a tremendous code of ethics. I'd like to see his 4 noble truths mounted in my local courthouse. Think Christians would have a problem with that?
 
TheCrownedOne said:
If nothing else, the Ten Commandments are just good to follow. People can't seem to look beyond the fact that they imply religion because they come from the Bible and endorse them because they are just good morals.
Click to expand...


I'll remember that next time I'm coveting a manservant.

It simply boils down to what your interpretation of the Constitution is. If you feel that govt and church should be seperate entities then yes, displaying religious is a potential slippery slope or at the very least, it could give the impression that one particular religion has control over you should you be subjected to the criminal justice system.

How would you as a Christian feel if there was an Islamic crescent hanging above the judge's bench? How would a Jew feel about having a cross over the jury bench?

Though it may seem meaningless to some, to many it has the potential send a message that whomever's religious symbol is being displayed in a secular setting..is in complete control.

There's also the largely unanswered argument of WHY do any of these symbols need to be present in a court of law? Courts have been functioning pretty darn well for this long, an archaic icon isn't going to get lawyers to stop lying, witnesses to stop false testimony or judges to be any less biased.
 
THANK GOODNESS they got rid of those horrible 10 commandments.

I mean just think of it. A small child might be walking by and heaven forbid he reads thou shalt not kill.

I mean can you imagine the ramifications of such a happening???????????



CROWLER
 
I am new to the board and when i saw this I had to respond. I think the 10 commandmants do have a place in our halls of justice. Being a Gnostic Christian
I have respect for all religions, but dont all of the worlds religions honor these
same principles that is the 10 commandmants. I just can't see how anyone can be
an atheist in these days when there is so much evidence of the spiritual world around us.
Open your minds people and accept spirituality! God will never turn away from us or stop loving us, no matter how
much we turn from him.
 
Our hearts are what matter to God, not some symbol in a building somewhere. When mainstream Christians realize this, they will see this situation as it really is..without fear that anything is being "taken" from them.

Faith does not need a symbol, a stone placard, or even a church to reside in. The early Christians living under the Draconian authority of the Romans had no churches, no great monuments to Christ, no banners to wave, yet they maintained their faith as well as their love for Christ..and by doing so grew stronger.

On the legal and practical front, one must realize that keeping govt and church seperate is not a detriment to Christianity, rather it safegaurds it and all other faiths from ever having to deal with government sanctioned oppression of a religion by another religion. It was the premier reason people came to the New World..to both practice religion as they pleased AND be free from persecution by other religions. If this were not the case we would either be kneeling in a Church of England or a Puritan sanctuary...so be glad you have the system you do.

Our earliest forefathers would gladly burn us all at the stake for the way we live now.
 
bioman said:
Our earliest forefathers would gladly burn us all at the stake for the way we live now.
Click to expand...
Me, too, but I'd go to jail :D

I have no problem with removing the 10 commandments other than the fact that I'm convinced it was because it was a christian monument. Aside from that fact, I see no problem with it.

Maybe include something more relevant to our judicial systems "direct" roots.

BTW, I still think it wouldn't have been removed had the words been of any other religion.
 
Any other religion? Hmm maybe, but that belies the fact that one particular religion very recently marched into a court room, put down a monument or whatever and thus made this an issue out of the blue. I have to ask myself why? Why was that so important to do now?

Some of those monuments had been around for awhile and some had been planted recently..I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that there's a few people who are waaaaaay uptight and anti-religious from the get go and they too inflamed and started this issue. So what we have is a fight between those two groups and they're both wrong IMO.

If those monuments had been in every courtroom in the nation since day one..well then it's simply historical and thus has no particular slant one way or another...keep them, I don't care. But when a clearly super religious judge plants a monument as part of his belief that everyone is accountable to God..that's just wrong..sorry, he abused his power by doing that. No one can tell him what to believe and that is a glorious thing about this country..but he cannot use his government JOB to impose his beliefs on others in even the tiniest way and neither can I.
 
bioman said:
Our hearts are what matter to God, not some symbol in a building somewhere. When mainstream Christians realize this, they will see this situation as it really is..without fear that anything is being "taken" from them.

Faith does not need a symbol, a stone placard, or even a church to reside in. The early Christians living under the Draconian authority of the Romans had no churches, no great monuments to Christ, no banners to wave, yet they maintained their faith as well as their love for Christ..and by doing so grew stronger.

On the legal and practical front, one must realize that keeping govt and church seperate is not a detriment to Christianity, rather it safegaurds it and all other faiths from ever having to deal with government sanctioned oppression of a religion by another religion. It was the premier reason people came to the New World..to both practice religion as they pleased AND be free from persecution by other religions. If this were not the case we would either be kneeling in a Church of England or a Puritan sanctuary...so be glad you have the system you do.

Our earliest forefathers would gladly burn us all at the stake for the way we live now.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. I'll admit in regards to your post before this one that I do not always think before I post, as it were. In light of your comments, I'll admit that should I happen to hear of their erecting a symbol of another religion I would be upset in some ways. I never really thought of it in the way you put it in that ordering the removal of the Commandments is of no real detriment to Christianity. What matters is our personal relationship with Christ, not a symbol of times past.

I wish on many levels that if the government is deciding to go ahead and uphold some portions of the Constitution, they should exercise such empowerment to uphold every portion to the letter extending this to the Declaration of Independence, and the passage whose purpose is to define the charge of government as to uphold the law and benefit, not rule the people. Moreover, they are not to think and act for us in regards to decisions we should have charge to make ourselves. An example is the recent land issue where they feel it necessary to decide what is in the best interest of the community rather than, duh, letting the community decide what is in their best interest. We were established to be a nation of people that is self-governing and not what we are today.
 
I agree CrownedOne. Our govt has moved out of bounds of the Constitution in a million little ways. It's one reason why, IMO, a movement similar to Libertarianism or some other self governing, pro freedom populist movement will someday gain popularity. All ends of the political spectrum have feelings of being put upon in common...selective enforcement of the Constitution being a key issue.

I'm not anti-religious at all, I think it's an important part of both our society and how we relate to everyone on Earth, however I don't feel govt and religion should mingle in any way for all our sakes. History is too full of disasterous examples of what happens when these two entities join and corrupt each other. In any case, I don't think it was Christ's vision to have his people rise to political power as Politics are an unstable construct of Man. Real power comes from Faith and Love...and these are what remain after political empires fall.
 
Frankly, I am amazed and impressed at the intelligence, respect and genuine openness of discussion here. I so very much wanted to express my appreciation of respect to you all.

When I grew up, our public schools made us stand every day, sing our national anthem then actively participate in a public prayer (the Lord's Prayer). I used to sit quietly (and respectfully) during the prayer and daily was sent to the principal's office for refusing to participate.

The principal asked why I did not participate and I asked him how he would feel if all the kids and teachers were forced to affirm belief in atheism. To my surprise, he understood. He did not punish me, but told me he was caught between a rock and a hard place. He had rules to enforce and could not afford anarchy but understood why I dissented. He used to have coffee with me and chat. This guy turned the lack of respect for education and our country that had been germinating by this into a complete turnaround.

I was vilified by classmates, beaten, had my locker routinely defiled because of this but I never backed down. The biggest offenders here was the "Christian Fellowship" group. Sad isn't it?

Years later, it was finally recognized that yes, this enforced participation trampled all over people's rights to their own personal beliefs. Some kid, braver than I, took the fight to the courts.

FYI -- I would have done this no matter what the enforced statement of belief was. My friends and family were mostly Christian, they did not understand why I was "being difficult". They are clever, caring people who did not understand how profession in a good thing could hurt other people.

That is why I am dumbfouned that people here (with such obvious and committed faith) are not similarly unable to see why the push for freedom for all religions is not an attack upon their faith.

Especially since I have lately seen people use similar things as an excuse to justify what is clearly an attempt to eliminate / destroy or somehow demonize active participation in church. The pendulum is closer to "middle ground" now where freedom FOR ALL is being respected and observed. This ruling I think is part of that, but clearly elements from all sides try to swing the balance in their favour. That is flat out wrong.

I think it's this second element that clouds the issue. There is nowadays a movement by atheist fanatics looking to eliminate religion, just as there are movements by religious fanatics looking to move religion directly into government.

I have NEVER yet until this moment seen such a clear evaluation and articulate, respectful discussion as this.

I am moved. Thank you.
 
government and religion do not belong in the same sentence let along state building

if you're going to put up the 10 comandments it would only be fair to have EVERY SINGLE relgions outlines of faith as well

i don't want the government endorsing any religion
 
So does this mean we should redo our money and take off the "In God We Trust"?
 
No. I say leave it on purely for the irony involved..money handlers n' such.


If you think about the irony involved in putting religious symbols in a courtroom full of lawyers..you'd soon rethink your position. It's like guaranteed your holy relicts will get defiled.

lol
 
Ok to start with i'll start by saying i do not beleive in any religions, i have read parts or the bible, eastern philosophy, and have looked into Scientology but only as an interest. I enjoy reading, and taking in these ideas is an excellent way to educate yourself IMO.

However, and again this is only my opinion, i think that religion is the ultimate form of Vanity. To say "there must be a bigger reason why I am here" other than the simple fact that were just animals procreating and surviving like any other creature on the planet.

If i am ever in court I would expect that the judge and any jury would be able to come to a decision based on facts and truths as presented in the hearings rather than any beliefs or 'rules' they feel their religion imposes. Therefore i would have no problem walking into a court room with religious symbols in, and in school i too had to say the lords prayer each day but I am not offended by it because to me it's just a peice of literature.

Imagine you are abroad lets use China as an example. China is well known as a country which is doing its best to suppress christian belief. You are arrested and taken to court, you would very much expect the Judge to rule on your case based on fact etc rather than any personal feelings he has toward you or your religion.

In summary, i have no problem with religious items being in courthouses etc, as long they do not weigh in when it comes to my trial. There are facts and there are beliefs and just as beliefs are in-admissable in court so they should be in a judge and jury's conscience.
 
I don't know about you guys but I don't need to see the 10 commandments in the courthouse to strengthen my christian beliefs anyone who does just isn't getting the fact that you don't necessarily need symbols to worship christ.
 
I find Christianity, its tenets, its doctrine, dogma, commandments, and books to be abhorrently offensive. Just as I find the same of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Some religions I don't find too offensive. For the most part, the more a religion claims that any of its works or laws are "infallible" and/or "commanded by God", the more I am disgusted with that religion.

It will be a happy day indeed when the world wakes up and comes to its senses to realize just how silly and stupid the whole notion of organized religion really is. If there IS a God, no one can speak for it, especially some book written by a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders.



As such, I find this decision to be a most wonderful thing.
 
I don't have an issue with most religions, I am not a Christian. I'm 1/2 Blackfoot and I follow the old ways. My issue comes when others try to impose their will on others. I have seen what this has done in other countries as well as with my people. As for the Commandments being placed in a courthouse, I don't think it belongs there PERIOD!
ROB
 
This is simply another case of our Supreme Court going completely bonkers, overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution, and just drifting out into whatever might be plausible and defendable in a PC culture.

There is no religion being established in placing the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. As foundations of both Judaism and a million different branches of Christianity, there really isn't a claim one religion has over this over another.

Secondly, this action is historically indefensible. The very first action of Congress after finalizing the wording of the First Amendment? To appoint a Congressional chaplain. There could be no greater proof that our First Amendment has been distorted to the point it is simly unrecognizeable by groups like the ACLU.

Our courts have completely lost it. Citing foreign law is NOT an acceptable action by our Supreme Court, whose sole duty is to interpret the Constitutionality of a law, solely based on the US CONSTITUTION. Failing to account for the historical intent of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, we have a court that is free to drift whereever it wants without the slightest check from the executive branch or the legislature or the voice of the people.

I can understand issues of excessive biblical teaching in public schools not being accepted (though Thomas Jefferson did order a federally-funded printing of Bibles to be used in American public schools), but this is really too much. Our rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, are God-given. Unlike the French Revolution, our revolution was premised on the idea that our rights could not be taken away by the government for the convenience of governnance, but were indeed granted by the Divine. How then, is the mention of God forbidden in any governmental action?

It's ridiculous. And it's pretty ironclad historically indefensible if you go back to the foundation of our Constitution.
 
Nullifidian said:
It will be a happy day indeed when the world wakes up and comes to its senses to realize just how silly and stupid the whole notion of organized religion really is. If there IS a God, no one can speak for it, especially some book written by a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders.
Click to expand...
Well, a very starting premise of Christianity was that Jesus was God incarnate. A step or two above a Bronze Age goatherder, don't you think? And it certainly leaves God in a position to speak for Himself (not that I don't think He could fully choose to speak through others). There's also the matter that the Bronze Age ended centuries before Christ, but if you're bothered about being offended by God, I take it you're not putting that much weight on history(?).
 
I find it hard to believe that Jefferson had Bible printed up since he was a deist

Now he might have had printed the Jefferson Bible but that is a whole different Bible that you know of, I would think
Invalid Link Removed

Here are a few quotes by him
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
 
Jefferson is a complex individual who had complex spiritual beliefs that evolved with time. Not to say that Jefferson became a Christian, as was indeed a Deist.

But why would it surprise you that Jefferson would print Bibles with federal money? As a Christian, say I lived in a nation where a vast majority of my people were Muslims, or even merely a removed province. I wouldn't be personally against printing the Qur'an to be used in their schools if that was a practice deemed acceptable in my society and its use was not of malicious intent.

Or perhaps Jefferson is a good case about what was intended by our First Amendment. If anyone was to be expected to buck the central role of religion in society, it probably would be Jefferson, correct? Certainly not Benjamin Franklin, who spoke of history and the necessity of public religion and Christainity above all others. Nope, Jefferson was pretty far from such speech (and Franklin wasn't really as dogmatic as many, many others and also himself evolved spiritually, from a deist to a Christian). But Jefferson did indeed make the Bible and Issac Watt's Book of Psalms and Hymns primary texts of the Washington, D.C., school district while he was President and had copies of both printed for this use.

See David Barton's Education and the Founding Fathers.

On religion's role in government, Jefferson noted, "Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."

So yes, Jefferson himself was not a Christian, and even so, he did not see its influence as a hindrance to government.

MatthewD said:
Now I have a question for you.. lets say that you are Baptist... but NOW the state expressed religion is snake handling Holiness and if you don't join that particular church and go every Sunday, then you are in a world of trouble... How would that make you feel?
Click to expand...
Yes, in my opinion, all evidence suggests that this example was what the Constitutional Congress meant to forbid when they decided on the wording, "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion..."
 
Actually he did.. he saw that both were better off not meddling in the others affairs...
Also the source you cite might have a bit of a bias built into it since it comes from a pro Christian source..
 
The constitution has the answer to this problem it states that there shouild be no gov. appointed religion, but it DOES NOT state that there should be no religion invlolved in gov. I have no problems with any religious matereial referenced in publiic, provided that as a public we are not required to adher to those beliefs.
 
I didn't say that it did.. I said that Jefferson said that.. and I feel pretty much the way that you stated
 
mtruther said:
Well, a very starting premise of Christianity was that Jesus was God incarnate.
Click to expand...
And a very startling absurdity if there ever was one. You might as well claim Captain Kangaroo is the brother of God, it makes as much sense and has as much supporting evidence.

A step or two above a Bronze Age goatherder, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Nope. Seeing as how there is no God, any claim to relation to such a being can be completely disregarded anyway.

And it certainly leaves God in a position to speak for Himself (not that I don't think He could fully choose to speak through others).
Click to expand...
No, since even if in some stran ge twisted dreamrealm, Jesus actually was some "relation" to God, it doesn't matter anyway since he didn't write the Bible. Might I remind you that the Old Testament was finalized hundreds of years before Jesus was born?

As for the NT, that was written by seperate people as late as several hundred years after his death and only as early (supposedly) as 40 or so years after his death.

There's also the matter that the Bronze Age ended centuries before Christ, but if you're bothered about being offended by God, I take it you're not putting that much weight on history(?).
Click to expand...
Technological advances are regional. The folks off in the hinterlands that wrote the Bible, both before and after Jesus, were most definitely backward people. It is unlikely they had access to steel. In fact, many would qualify as stone age.
 
Ironically, Franklin publically was Christian yet he had several mistresses and had a very different "public persona" from how he lived his real life. He also was an opinionated and intolerant man -- at one point he described all Jewish people as "vampires".

Jefferson was definitely a very complex man -- he was also a slave owner. It is very difficult to reconcile such a man of compassion and who fought so vociferously for freedom and recognition of man as divine, yet denied this to other men. "We have no paupers" he said but the irony's pretty apparent.

Each man's viewpoint is a stepping stone, contributing towards the growth of the real ideal and no matter how they grasp and reach towards that light, they all are flawed. To halt progress and to point to either of these two men as the perfect model for us to follow is to deny the tremendous growth that we have been offered by the contributions of thousands who have come after.

Neither of those men were perfect, though both were giants who stretched above where they started, both had flaws that could definitely be improved upon as is true for all of us.
 
Nullifidian said:
And a very startling absurdity if there ever was one. You might as well claim Captain Kangaroo is the brother of God, it makes as much sense and has as much supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, Captain Kangaroo didn't exactly directly inspire people to 1) give up their previous religion, 2) face imminent persecution and death and do so without resorting to violence themselves, and 3) to travel to the ends of the earth spreading the message that he lived post-crucifixion, and 4) didn't inspire books and oral accounts of his life and divinity to be recorded well within the lifetime of those eyewitnesses who could refute any inaccuracies, either. And given the fact that he was on a nationally syndicated television show and never achieved this (v. a guy who walked around in sandles all day amongst the low-lifes of the earth whose message would spread throughout the Roman world, from the lowliest peasent to the highest Senators and Emporers), well, I just don't think your analogy holds any water.

Listen, mack, you're coming across as a pure bigot. If you want to say that you doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible, go ahead and do so. There are plenty of ways to do such. What you are now doing is really nothing more than name-calling and bigotry, pure and simple.


No, since even if in some stran ge twisted dreamrealm, Jesus actually was some "relation" to God, it doesn't matter anyway since he didn't write the Bible.
Click to expand...
So all forms of biography and history are inherently completely inaccurate and should not be trusted? And further, what others say of the life of someone they knew and were with constantly is not to be trusted, either? So in essence, as far as history is concerned, if I don't write an autobiography, no one else can speak for my place and role in life?
 
mtruther said:
Well, Captain Kangaroo didn't exactly directly inspire people to 1) give up their previous religion, 2) face imminent persecution and death and do so without resorting to violence themselves, and 3) to travel to the ends of the earth spreading the message that he lived post-crucifixion, and 4) didn't inspire books and oral accounts of his life and divinity to be recorded well within the lifetime of those eyewitnesses who could refute any inaccuracies, either. And given the fact that he was on a nationally syndicated television show and never achieved this (v. a guy who walked around in sandles all day amongst the low-lifes of the earth whose message would spread throughout the Roman world, from the lowliest peasent to the highest Senators and Emporers), well, I just don't think your analogy holds any water.
Click to expand...
David Koresh and countless other similar cult leaders have inspired their followers to do all kinds of crazy things. From drinking poisoned kool-aid, to letting their 10-year-old daughters marry the cult leader, to murdering people, to burning people at the stake, torture, rape, etc. L. Ron Hubbard has inspired coutless people to firmly believe that an intergalactic evil ruler named Xenu imprisoned trillions of aliens on Earth and nuked them with hydrogen bombs. Many of these cults do go on to spread "the word" all over. Islam is a good example.


Listen, mack, you're coming across as a pure bigot. If you want to say that you doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible, go ahead and do so. There are plenty of ways to do such. What you are now doing is really nothing more than name-calling and bigotry, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
Bigot? No. I'm just a very logical person who founds his beliefs on REASON. Why? Because anything else is insanity. If you base beliefs on things that have no evidence whatsoever to support them other than the ramblings of a bunch of whackos and power hungry opportunists, then you my friend are easily duped. The truth is, the only reason so many follow aany religion is because religion gets them while they are young and impressionable. You know, the time when your brain isn't fully developed and you believe in stuff like the boogey-man, santa klaus, the holy trinity, and other such nonesense.

So all forms of biography and history are inherently completely inaccurate and should not be trusted? And further, what others say of the life of someone they knew and were with constantly is not to be trusted, either? So in essence, as far as history is concerned, if I don't write an autobiography, no one else can speak for my place and role in life?
Click to expand...
Nope, just ones that were passed down in oral tradition for millions of iterations before put to paper and have no documents to cross-verify their authenticity that are far more likely to be accurate.

Additionally, any talk of "miracles" can be dismissed in general. People from less scientific cultures always blaim things they don't understand on "magic", "God", or similar ridiculousness. Your average street magician in the middle ages would be burned at the stake because his simple prestidigitation would be considered only possible "by demonic powers". These people are so convinced of this preposterousness that even if you were to show them how to do it and how mundane it really is, they would maintain their position nonetheless.....

... just like religious zealots of our times.

Extremely devout dedication to a religion is a clear sign of insanity.



It should be a warning sign to anyone when an organizations demands that followers obey without question and that the word of ANY book or person is infallible. Additionally, just because someone has been sufficiently duped so as to be willing to die for a cause doesn't make it any more legitimate. Need I remind you of kool-aid drinking cults again? Or perhaps Islamic suicide bombers might better help you see the light.

The thing is, I have little "faith" you'll be swayed. Religion does an excellent job of brainwashing people. No matter what evidence I show you and how logical my claims are, you'll never listen because you've been conditioned to follow your silly book without question. The saddest part is, you consider blind faith a positive trait when in fact it is quite possibly the most despicable trait any human being can ever have because it means they have lost their freewill. Correction, they haven't lost it, they've discarded it willingly.
 
Gentlemen this has been a good thread please continue to keep it civil...
What I will say is that you need to realize that you have to agree to disagree.. neither of you are going to change the other's mind and all that is going to result is me or one of the other mods having to take action because insults will start flying and that I will not accept here.

Guys on religion, IT IS A VERY Personal thing.. everyone does not believe like any other... that fact should be that simple... and all of us have to walk in our own shoes, so as the Bible says "Judge not, lest you be judged." We will not know who has the right answers about any of this till we are all in the grave and on to the afterlife.. but we do need to follow the teachings of all the great teachers of religion, Peace is the way..
 
Nullifidian, as I said, you can make the case against religious truth. That's fine.

You do make a lot of assumptions about how one arrives at belief. As for brainwashing and the like, no, I wouldn't call it that in my case. Rather, I came to Christianity in college. It took several years of study of history, theology, cosmology, and science, but I arrived.

I'll agree that when one starts taking a book or what have you be a literal truth and infallible in everyway, that problems can arise. Indeed, that faith in that book can border on idolatry.

It is also true that reason can only take you so far. There comes a point when one must trust faith, or one must choose to walk away. I have personally reached what I consider to be a strong faith. I do believe in the spiritual, and I have benefitted greatly from my spiritual experiences and the lifestyle that this entails.

As for demanding complete dedication and inerrancy, I'm a Presbyterian. Nothing of the sort is demanded. I'm not so sure that's the message Christianty presents, anyway. Mother Theresa even had doubts. Everyone does. But IMHO, faith when reached and explored is stronger than doubt. You mention complete dedication, but Christianity is really the only major religion where one is not personally responsible for acting to ensure one's salvation. This is particularly true of Protestants, who believe that only by faith alone and by God's grace and love may one be saved. Complete adherence is seen as impossible, and as Luther put, while there is a great burden to bear in needing to improve one's self, the chains fell away upon this realization that Christ granted freedom from the utlimate and unfulfillable burden of the law.

You mention suicide cults and Islamic suicide bombers. Just FYI, suicide was considered a great sin in Judaism, tantamount to murder. One's soul was not one's to take. It's a reason you never hear of such practices as flagillation and extreme monasticism that you see in later-Christian and Buddhist observance: injuring one's self intentionally was seen as sinful. There wasn't the same mentality of dying for a cause that you see develop in other cultures.

Extremely devout dedication to a religion is a clear sign of insanity.
Click to expand...
Maybe try reading the works of Thomas Merton and see if you reach that same conclusion. Suffice it to say that I also don't consider men like St. Paul or St. Peter to be wackos, either.

But I'll let it be, and bow out of this discussion. This has drifted off course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top