NationStates Jolt Archive

In the United States, the first amendment to the American Constitution explicity states that Congress shall make no law with respect to a religious establishment. This wording has been interpreted by the high court of the nation to entail a necessary separation of all things religious from anything that has any affiliation with the government. Some people, at the very least a very vocal minority, however, believe that the idea of a necessary separation has been taken too far. They believe that practices such as banning displays of the ten commandments of Chrisitan doctrine from courthouses, prohibiting public school instructors from leading their classes in non-denominational praying, and disallowing religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades have taken this concept too far.

What is your opinion on the separation of church and state, and its needed scope in the United States' system? If you are not American (and I know a large number of you are not), how does your nation deal with this issue, if it does at all, and how well do you believe your government's practices in relation to religion are working?

I think basically that one should not be visible from the other.

When you stand in a public building, look around, and are unable to guess to what religion(s), if any, or in what proportion, the population subscribes, then the separation is adequate.

What is your opinion on the separation of church and state, and its needed scope in the United States' system? If you are not American (and I know a large number of you are not), how does your nation deal with this issue, if it does at all, and how well do you believe your government's practices in relation to religion are working?

In the long run, hopefully, seperation of church and state will result in the end of all religions. Then people will make their decisions based on what is best for man, not some invisible god(s).

The only religion I might exempt from this is Islam because it does not have the concept of seperation of church and state in it, and we have to work to be more tolerant of other faiths.

The graduation ceramony at my highschool began with a prayer to thechristian god. my state run school, not a church school. They should have a moment of silence, in which you are allowed to pray to whatever diety you worship, or not if you want. Church and State should be seperate. When people go to a church and donate money, it should go to charity, not a certain political party. And the church should not tell people who to vote for.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a healthy link between Church and State. Faith and/or a healthy dose of morality can bring a lot to the decision making process; I think most of us would trust Rowan Williams to make honest, decent choices for the country a lot more than Tony Blair.

In the United States, the first amendment to the American Constitution explicity states that Congress shall make no law with respect to a religious establishment. This wording has been interpreted by the high court of the nation to entail a necessary separation of all things religious from anything that has any affiliation with the government. Some people, at the very least a very vocal minority, however, believe that the idea of a necessary separation has been taken too far. They believe that practices such as banning displays of the ten commandments of Chrisitan doctrine from courthouses, prohibiting public school instructors from leading their classes in non-denominational praying, and disallowing religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades have taken this concept too far.

What is your opinion on the separation of church and state, and its needed scope in the United States' system? If you are not American (and I know a large number of you are not), how does your nation deal with this issue, if it does at all, and how well do you believe your government's practices in relation to religion are working?Well, frankly, besides "This is a Christian country!", what arguments could you use to tell the muslims that they can't have sharia law put on courthouses in the US if you have the ten commandments?

The graduation ceramony at my highschool began with a prayer to thechristian god. my state run school, not a church school. They should have a moment of silence, in which you are allowed to pray to whatever diety you worship, or not if you want. Church and State should be seperate. When people go to a church and donate money, it should go to charity, not a certain political party.

Why didn't you contact the ACLU. Even if 99 out of 100 people want to pray and you don't, you win out because the First Amendment was intended to seperate church from state. Frankly, even if 100 out of 100 wanted to pray, it's still NOT ALLOWED.

GOD shouldn't be used in any voting decision! I hope one day the ACLU finally files a lawsuit that requires evangelical Christians to go into the voting booth with a third-party. The third-party would ask them SECULAR REASONS why they are voting for a particular candidate. If the third-party cannot identify any secular reasons, the evangelical wouldn't be able to cast a ballot for that election.

Well, frankly, besides "This is a Christian country!", what arguments could you use to tell the muslims that they can't have sharia law put on courthouses in the US if you have the ten commandments?

Laerod, you are absolutely right. You could easily make the claim based on the Treaty of Tripoli that this country was founded on Shari'a. Do we want Shari'a?

I'm not sure Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be all that unhappy with Shari'a.

Laerod, you are absolutely right. You could easily make the claim based on the Treaty of Tripoli that this country was founded on Shari'a. Do we want Shari'a?

I'm not sure Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be all that unhappy with Shari'a.
You're turning every argument I look at into an increasingly humorless joke.

Why didn't you contact the ACLU. Even if 99 out of 100 people want to pray and you don't, you win out because the First Amendment was intended to seperate church from state. Frankly, even if 100 out of 100 wanted to pray, it's still NOT ALLOWED.

GOD shouldn't be used in any voting decision! I hope one day the ACLU finally files a lawsuit that requires evangelical Christians to go into the voting booth with a third-party. The third-party would ask them SECULAR REASONS why they are voting for a particular candidate. If the third-party cannot identify any secular reasons, the evangelical wouldn't be able to cast a ballot for that election.
This doesn't even make sense as an attack of Secular reasoning...

I don't think there is anything wrong with a healthy link between Church and State. Faith and/or a healthy dose of morality can bring a lot to the decision making process; I think most of us would trust Rowan Williams to make honest, decent choices for the country a lot more than Tony Blair.
You're forgetting that Tony Blair is, in fact, a fairly hardcore Christian.

I'd sooner that nobody who seriously thinks their imaginary friend runs the universe was in a position to make decisions affecting me, to be honest.

Edit: Post 666. How appropriate ;)

Why didn't you contact the ACLU. Even if 99 out of 100 people want to pray and you don't, you win out because the First Amendment was intended to seperate church from state. Frankly, even if 100 out of 100 wanted to pray, it's still NOT ALLOWED.

GOD shouldn't be used in any voting decision! I hope one day the ACLU finally files a lawsuit that requires evangelical Christians to go into the voting booth with a third-party. The third-party would ask them SECULAR REASONS why they are voting for a particular candidate. If the third-party cannot identify any secular reasons, the evangelical wouldn't be able to cast a ballot for that election.I'm guessing you're just mocking liberals here, eh?

Keep God out of the government. What if you are of a minority religion who is forced to pray to "Christ" in public school, how would you feel? What if that was blasphamous to your religion?

You're forgetting that Tony Blair is, in fact, a fairly hardcore Christian.
Tony Blair is hardly a 'hardcore Christian', whatever that it. He is a fairly ordinary Christian who should do some more time learning what Christianity teaches about lying.
I'd sooner that nobody who seriously thinks their imaginary friend runs the universe was in a position to make decisions affecting me, to be honest.
Ah, I see. You're someone who decides to mock the faith of others because he doesn't believe. Much easier than actually trying to learn or develop an understanding. :rolleyes:

The seperation of chuch and state was not intended to make the government remove any relation to the chuch in it, but to keep the government from forming its own church or religion. Over time, special interest groups with the help of liberals in the judical system have altered the ideals behind the amendment to apply to their own agendas, thereby altering the public views on what the amendment really means.

In the long run, hopefully, seperation of church and state will result in the end of all religions. Then people will make their decisions based on what is best for man, not some invisible god(s).

The only religion I might exempt from this is Islam because it does not have the concept of seperation of church and state in it, and we have to work to be more tolerant of other faiths.
I am much confused. We should not tolerate God, except those guys whose God doesn't tolerate us?

Anything in Christianity you may wish to restrict should be applied in equal doses to both Islam and Judaism, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to promote the social impact of one patriarchal religion over any other; monotheism will ultimately have the same effect, regardless of what sect of it you subscribe to.

I think basically that one should not be visible from the other.

When you stand in a public building, look around, and are unable to guess to what religion(s), if any, or in what proportion, the population subscribes, then the separation is adequate.
More eloquent than I could have put it.

I am much confused. We should not tolerate God, except those guys whose God doesn't tolerate us?

Anything in Christianity you may wish to restrict should be applied in equal doses to both Islam and Judaism, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to promote the social impact of one patriarchal religion over any other; monotheism will ultimately have the same effect, regardless of what sect of it you subscribe to.
Kam, he's a conservative mocking liberals.

Kam, he's a conservative mocking liberals.
Either it's a pretty bad attempt at it or my browser doesn't support sarcasm tags.

*Shrug*

Tony Blair is hardly a 'hardcore Christian', whatever that it. He is a fairly ordinary Christian who should do some more time learning what Christianity teaches about lying.
From my point of view, a total unbeliever, he is.
In my experience Christians, no matter how hardcore (I know a few), are no better at honesty than anybody else.

Ah, I see. You're someone who decides to mock the faith of others because he doesn't believe. Much easier than actually trying to learn or develop an understanding. :rolleyes:
My Primary school was CofE, I went to Sunday school, I've lived with a Jehova's Witness for a year, I've actively tried to understand why people believe these things, and yet nobody's managed to give me a reason. Just because I dressed it up in a facetious comment doesn't mean it's not a serious sentiment; why should I, or any other unbeliever, care about or wish to follow the rules in any holy book? Such things deserve no place in any government other than a theocracy.

My Primary school was CofE, I went to Sunday school, I've lived with a Jehova's Witness for a year, I've actively tried to understand why people believe these things, and yet nobody's managed to give me a reason. Just because I dressed it up in a facetious comment doesn't mean it's not a serious sentiment; why should I, or any other unbeliever, care about or wish to follow the rules in any holy book? Such things deserve no place in any government other than a theocracy.
Then if you want a serious reply then a less offensive attitude would be a good place to start.

I'll just run through a few of those 'rules'. Tell me when you'd like me to stop as they are 'inappropriate' for a nation:

Don't kill.
Don't lie.
Don't steal.
Don't cheat.

Oh save us from these terrible things, oh almighty God of Atheism!

the problem with christianity,you have to have a god tell you those rules. Most people generally just... have common sense.

Then if you want a serious reply then a less offensive attitude would be a good place to start.

I'll just run through a few of those 'rules'. Tell me when you'd like me to stop as they are 'inappropriate' for a nation:

Don't kill.
Don't lie.
Don't steal.
Don't cheat.

Oh save us from these terrible things, oh almighty God of Atheism!

Christianity is not necessary for the inclusion of those values within our moral or legal system.

the problem with christianity,you have to have a god tell you those rules. Most people generally just... have common sense.
If I have no morality, then what do I have to stop me overwriting this 'common sense'?

After all, there are many circumstances when it may be in my best interests to lie, steal or kill. Why should I not do so if I'm not going to be caught/punished for them?

Oh save us from these terrible things, oh almighty God of Atheism!
I know you say that in jest, but the God of Atheism is alive and well, and every bit as visible as any other. All it takes to see it is a certain amount of... abstraction.

I know you say that in jest, but the God of Atheism is alive and well, and every bit as visible as any other. All it takes to see it is a certain amount of... abstraction.
I'm not joking; I believe that these 'militant atheists' have as strong a faith in their 'god' as any religious person. The only difference is that their 'god' is certainty of nothing/science/ridiculing of faith (delete as appropriate).

Oh dear, I have no morality, for I don't worship what could be out there!!!!11!! You are so high and mighty, christians, for only with religion can you be a good person!!!1!!! Please teach me your ways!!!:rolleyes:

Oh dear, I have no morality, for I don't worship what could be out there!!!!11!! You are so high and mighty, christians, for only with religion can you be a good person!!!1!!! Please teach me your ways!!!:rolleyes:
Great answer. I'm going to drop my faith right away. :rolleyes:

I'm not telling anyone to drop their faith!!! I'm merely stating that people without religion aren't all baby raping satan worshippers!!!

I'm not telling anyone to drop their faith!!! I'm merely stating that people without religion aren't all baby raping satan worshippers!!!
Without any sense of morality, then you have no reason not to be that thing. Without it, there is no logical reason to do good things.

If I have no morality, then what do I have to stop me overwriting this 'common sense'?

After all, there are many circumstances when it may be in my best interests to lie, steal or kill. Why should I not do so if I'm not going to be caught/punished for them?
What does morality have to do with gods? Or laws, for that matter?

The reason to have such things forbidden is very simple: Self interest. The same thing that, ultimately, controls all human behaviour. You do not wish those things be done to you, so you forbid anyone from doing them. The side effect being that, unless you're very rich or powerful, you're forbidden from doing them yourself, no matter how convenient such actions may be.

Why does one need religion to have morality? As for a logical reason...... how about just being nice??? The problem with christianity is it tells people to be nice or they'll go to hell...... which is spreading a message through fear..... which is terrorism.

What does morality have to do with gods? Or laws, for that matter?
Our morality is based in religion. Without religion and the understanding of a greater purpose, you have only rational self-interest.

The reason to have such things forbidden is very simple: Self interest. The same thing that, ultimately, controls all human behaviour. You do not wish those things be done to you, so you forbid anyone from doing them. The side effect being that, unless you're very rich or powerful, you're forbidden from doing them yourself, no matter how convenient such actions may be.
I think the number of people who have got very rich from crime suggests that there is much to be gained from acting selfishly, and that your best self-interest very rarely involves helping others.

I think that there is absolutely no problem with the idea of seperation of church and state. Though personally I think the founders meant "Establishment" as a noun and not a verb- meaning that "you cant make any laws regarding religion" and not "You cant establish a religion" The first interpretation guarentees the second but the second interpretation doesnt guarentee the first. The difference is only slight, but has effected some court cases.

That said I am not for any measure that eliminates history or supresses the voice of any politician. Im fine with "God" being taken out of money, but not with it being edited out of quotes or speeches or documents.

In the United States, the first amendment to the American Constitution explicity states that Congress shall make no law with respect to a religious establishment. This wording has been interpreted by the high court of the nation to entail a necessary separation of all things religious from anything that has any affiliation with the government. Some people, at the very least a very vocal minority, however, believe that the idea of a necessary separation has been taken too far. They believe that practices such as banning displays of the ten commandments of Chrisitan doctrine from courthouses, prohibiting public school instructors from leading their classes in non-denominational praying, and disallowing religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades have taken this concept too far.

What is your opinion on the separation of church and state, and its needed scope in the United States' system? If you are not American (and I know a large number of you are not), how does your nation deal with this issue, if it does at all, and how well do you believe your government's practices in relation to religion are working?


Seperation of Church and state is one of the founding principles of the US. Its just a shame a few nut jobs and fanatics seem to neglect that fact.

I find it entertaining that a stone carving of the 10 commandments is arguably in violation of the 1st of them :p

I'm not joking; I believe that these 'militant atheists' have as strong a faith in their 'god' as any religious person. The only difference is that their 'god' is certainty of nothing/science/ridiculing of faith (delete as appropriate).
I'm not talking about faith, though. The spirit of communal Atheism is every bit the deity as that of any other human religion. It just so happens that its effect on people is slightly different.

Without any sense of morality, then you have no reason not to be that thing. Without it, there is no logical reason to do good things.

While religion does teach morality, it is quite possible to be moral without being religious. The Commandments against killing and stealing can also be found through empathy for fellow human beings. While this may not be logical, it is certainly a powerful force. At the same time, there are logical reasons not to do these things, such as the fear of discovery and repercussions.

Well, one thing I believe that people tend to miss when talking about the seperation between church and state is that it's a good thing not only because it protects the state from the church, but it also protects the church from the state.

How many well meaning faiths have been twisted because some power-hungry man used it for thier own purposes?

While religion does teach morality, it is quite possible to be moral without being religious. The Commandments against killing and stealing can also be found through empathy for fellow human beings. While this may not be logical, it is certainly a powerful force. At the same time, there are logical reasons not to do these things, such as the fear of discovery and repercussions.

Taliban, you are right, but George Washington addressed this issue:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Then if you want a serious reply then a less offensive attitude would be a good place to start.

I'll just run through a few of those 'rules'. Tell me when you'd like me to stop as they are 'inappropriate' for a nation:
I am the lord your god--you shall have no other gods before me; I shall punish the children, grandchildren, and maybe even the great-grandchildren for the crimes of the parents.

You shall not make any graven images.

You shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain.

Keep the sabbath day holy.

Those are quite inappropriate for ANY nation.

While religion does teach morality, it is quite possible to be moral without being religious. The Commandments against killing and stealing can also be found through empathy for fellow human beings. While this may not be logical, it is certainly a powerful force. At the same time, there are logical reasons not to do these things, such as the fear of discovery and repercussions.
In fact, there are some strong game-theoretic arguments in favour of secular morality (ie being good because it's a good idea, rather than to avoid God's wrath). Some even argue that these game-theoretic considerations are at the root of civilization.

Our morality is based in religion. Without religion and the understanding of a greater purpose, you have only rational self-interest.

Are you seriously stating that for one to be empathetic one must have a believe in god?

I don't believe in god...why haven't I murdered someone today?


I think the number of people who have got very rich from crime suggests that there is much to be gained from acting selfishly, and that your best self-interest very rarely involves helping others.

Like all that gold in the vatican.....

And what about that televangilist who was arrested for tax fraud a while back?

The problem is that so many people point to religion as a source of morality, and yet when someone else points to someone who supposedly is within that faith, yet has definitly been seen to be acting immorally, the response is always "oh, well he's not really one of us".

No true scotsman fallacy.

Without any sense of morality, then you have no reason not to be that thing. Without it, there is no logical reason to do good things.
So no god = no morality. What a wonderful ad hominem.

Take a look into contractarianism, bubba.

Well, one thing I believe that people tend to miss when talking about the seperation between church and state is that it's a good thing not only because it protects the state from the church, but it also protects the church from the state.

How many well meaning faiths have been twisted because some power-hungry man used it for thier own purposes?

The state doesn't need "protection" from anyone. It needs to be fearful of the people.

So no god = no morality. What a wonderful ad hominem.

Take a look into contractarianism, bubba.Wouldn't that be ethics and not morality, though?

Our morality is based in religion. Without religion and the understanding of a greater purpose, you have only rational self-interest.
My morality, such that it is, is based on what I have thought about and decided I shouldn't do, actually.
"Only rational self-interest"? Surely that trumps the interests of a deity whose words were allegedly transcribed hundreds or thousands of years ago, probably more than a lifetime after it's claimed they were spoken?

I think the number of people who have got very rich from crime suggests that there is much to be gained from acting selfishly, and that your best self-interest very rarely involves helping others.
You forget that crime's actually quite hard. If it were easy everyone would do it, rather than all that tedious business of getting a job.

In fact, there are some strong game-theoretic arguments in favour of secular morality (ie being good because it's a good idea, rather than to avoid God's wrath). Some even argue that these game-theoretic considerations are at the root of civilization.

For the Evolutionists/Humanists that are the vast majority of the Forum, there is a theory passed down from [y]our Common Ancestor that says that altruism was an evolved characteristic.

Wouldn't that be ethics and not morality, though?
No, it's morality.

So no god = no morality. What a wonderful ad hominem.

Take a look into contractarianism, bubba.

Knight, while you mind have a mind of extraordinary structure, in general George Washington had this advice:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a healthy link between Church and State. Faith and/or a healthy dose of morality can bring a lot to the decision making process; I think most of us would trust Rowan Williams to make honest, decent choices for the country a lot more than Tony Blair.
That's because he is a good man and a good Christian. A rare breed, in a world where power corrupts.

Problems with mixing Church and state is that it leads to sectarian conflict. Factions within religious will fight each other.

My biggest problem with it is the arrogance. Theocracy makes the assumption that the human religious ruler knows exactly what God wants, and that they are infallible. In reality, we're all sinners.

Also, I don't believe that God needs humans to intervene in punishing sinners.
He can do that Himself.

You're forgetting that Tony Blair is, in fact, a fairly hardcore Christian.
I doubt it.

That's because he is a good man and a good Christian. A rare breed, in a world where power corrupts.

Problems with mixing Church and state is that it leads to sectarian conflict. Factions within religious will fight each other.

My biggest problem with it is the arrogance. Theocracy makes the assumption that the human religious ruler knows exactly what God wants, and that they are infallible. In reality, we're all sinners.

Also, I don't believe that God needs humans to intervene in punishing sinners. He can do that Himself.

Should we open the doors to the prisons and free all prisoners?

So no god = no morality. What a wonderful ad hominem.

Take a look into contractarianism, bubba.
There is no appeal to emotion; it is a statement of faith. Your argument again assumes the morality is already in existence; if there is no sense of murder being wrong, then why would I enter into a contract to not commit it? There may be logical reasons why I should not do so obviously, but there are none as to why I should not do so covertly.

Knight, while you mind have a mind of extraordinary structure, in general George Washington had this advice:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Two things:

1) You realize that washington was arguing FOR a religious based morality, not AGAINST, right?

and

2) "because George Washington said so" is not an argument.

Should we open the doors to the prisons and free all prisoners?
Few, if any of them are there for reasons based on religion. I would like to keep it that way.

There is no appeal to emotion; it is a statement of faith. Your argument again assumes the morality is already in existence; if there is no sense of murder being wrong, then why would I enter into a contract to not commit it? There may be logical reasons why I should not do so obviously, but there are none as to why I should not do so covertly.

Because I have empathy. Because I do not wish to cause human suffering. Because humanity, simply by being human, has value, and murder would diminish that value.

Knight, while you mind have a mind of extraordinary structure, in general George Washington had this advice:
George Washington was wrong. And your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

Few, if any of them are there for reasons based on religion. I would like to keep it that way.

You said we can't punish sinners. What about thieves?

I think the government should neither promote nor suppress religious belief, and thus government displays of religious symbols and use of religious terminology should be prohibited.

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge, "In God We Trust" should be taken off our currency, granite blocks with the Ten Commandments inscribed upon them should be removed from our courthouses, etc. If such symbols were replaced with "Under No God" or "In No God We Trust", I would object on the same grounds.

I do think all sorts of morality, including religious morality, have a place in politics - with the restriction that in the vast majority of cases, acts that significantly affect only the individual who performs them and consenting participants should be outside the scope of state authority.

2) "because George Washington said so" is not an argument.
... Except, of course, in an argument about what George Washington would have thought. Or in an argument where one person is taking up the role of said individual.

around here cops use church parking lots to hide in and observe traffic. i have always had the urge to go up to them and ask them what they think about seperation of church and state.

My morality, such that it is, is based on what I have thought about and decided I shouldn't do, actually.
And why have you come to these conclusions? Again, the atheist faith shouts out from you; you are dismissing the idea that your morality is something that you have learned from your peers. If you seriously believe that you independently decided right from wrong then you are delusional.
"Only rational self-interest"? Surely that trumps the interests of a deity whose words were allegedly transcribed hundreds or thousands of years ago, probably more than a lifetime after it's claimed they were spoken?
Again, you have nothing to add and so state simple insults. Amusingly, however, this one backs up my argument.
You forget that crime's actually quite hard. If it were easy everyone would do it, rather than all that tedious business of getting a job.
Crime is very easy; there wouldn't be so much of it otherwise.

George Washington was wrong. And your appeal to authority fallacy is noted.

Knight, I know your right. What about Adams?

As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality.

The seperation of chuch and state was not intended to make the government remove any relation to the chuch in it, but to keep the government from forming its own church or religion. Over time, special interest groups with the help of liberals in the judical system have altered the ideals behind the amendment to apply to their own agendas, thereby altering the public views on what the amendment really means.
You see, secularism is necessary. Even if you say, "hey we just want a few Christian expressions in public", it doesn't work. For example, in some parts of America the Ten Commandments can be seen on stone tablets on the grass outside. These are usually the Protestant Ten Commandments, yet they are paid for but Catholic, atheist and other taxpayers. How is that fair? t introduces a sectarian bias to the government.

There is no appeal to emotion; it is a statement of faith.
Which is an appeal to emotion.


Your argument again assumes the morality is already in existence;
In what manner?


if there is no sense of murder being wrong, then why would I enter into a contract to not commit it?
It's in your own best interest, and there is of course a sense (case) where murder is wrong. Why you desire to promulgate your fear-based nonsense is beyond me.

Need I remind you of the cusp of the Euthyphron Dilemma that you're on?

There is no appeal to emotion; it is a statement of faith. Your argument again assumes the morality is already in existence; if there is no sense of murder being wrong, then why would I enter into a contract to not commit it? There may be logical reasons why I should not do so obviously, but there are none as to why I should not do so covertly.The idea that murder be wrong comes from the fact that if it weren't, society wouldn't have enough security to function properly. The same with lying. If everyone told lies all the time, you couldn't trust anybody and society wouldn't be able to function anymore. Same goes for theft, and so on...

You said we can't punish sinners. What about thieves?

There is a clear purpose to imprisoning criminals beyond "punishment" - it provides a deterrent and prevents them from committing further crimes.

Knight, I know your right. What about Adams?
He's wrong too.

... Except, of course, in an argument about what George Washington would have thought. Or in an argument where one person is taking up the role of said individual.

Well....yes, but then if we take everything to extreemes I suppose the statement "the giant bunny who dances in purple drives yogurt" may have SOME relevance SOMEWHERE, heh.

I think the government should neither promote nor suppress religious belief, and thus government displays of religious symbols and use of religious terminology should be prohibited.

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge, "In God We Trust" should be taken off our currency, granite blocks with the Ten Commandments inscribed upon them should be removed from our courthouses, etc. If such symbols were replaced with "Under No God" or "In No God We Trust", I would object on the same grounds.
See, Religious people see that as suppression. And, well, it is. One is being supressed for as long as they have the potential for domination and are being forcefully denied that possibility.

Not that it's a bad thing. One should suppress that which threatens to overpower everyone else. But there's no point trying to hide what it is. The key is to obviously suppress, and to do so in such a way as to openly push everyone down to the same peak level of control.

You see, secularism is necessary. Even if you say, "hey we just want a few Christian expressions in public", it doesn't work. For example, in some parts of America the Ten Commandments can be seen on stone tablets on the grass outside. These are usually the Protestant Ten Commandments, yet they are paid for but Catholic, atheist and other taxpayers. How is that fair? t introduces a sectarian bias to the government.

I'm sure there can be a compromise reached if necessary.

I think the number of people who have got very rich from crime suggests that there is much to be gained from acting selfishly, and that your best self-interest very rarely involves helping others.
The number of people impoverished, beaten or killed while committing crime suggests otherwise.

I'm sure there can be a compromise reached if necessary.

No, there can not. No religious iconography, no slogans of a religion, nothing that promotes a religion or faith in ANY WAY over another should be permissable by a secular government.

None. We have compromised that particular ideal far too much already.

Well....yes, but then if we take everything to extreemes I suppose the statement "the giant bunny who dances in purple drives yogurt" may have SOME relevance SOMEWHERE, heh.
Which is entirely true!

The potential argument, I mean. Not the yoghurt-driving bunny.

Though it could be.

>_>;

There is a clear purpose to imprisoning criminals beyond "punishment" - it provides a deterrent and prevents them from committing further crimes.

Sin has a detrimental impact on all of society. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

I doubt it [that Tony Blair is a "fairly hardcore" (my words) Christian - CD].
Link-O-Matic 9000 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1011460,00.html)

No, there can not. No religious iconography, no slogans of a religion, nothing that promotes a religion or faith in ANY WAY over another should be permissable by a secular government.

None. We have compromised that particular ideal far too much already.

Luckily, USA isn't a secular government.

See, Religious people see that as suppression. And, well, it is. One is being supressed for as long as they have the potential for domination and are being forcefully denied that possibility.

Not that it's a bad thing. One should suppress that which threatens to overpower everyone else. But there's no point trying to hide what it is. The key is to obviously suppress, and to do so in such a way as to openly push everyone down to the same peak level of control.

I said "suppress religious belief," not "suppress any kind of religious activity."

The active discouraging of religious belief by the state would be suppression of it; the refusal to tolerate attempts by governments to encourage religious belief is not the suppression of religious belief.

Which is an appeal to emotion.
Faith is separate from emotion. You do not understand it and so you attempt to belittle it.

In what manner?
If I do not believe murder to be wrong I will not enter into a contract not to commit it. The social contract assumes that defensive self-interest, ie 'I will enter this so as not to be killed' overwrites the selfish self-interest, ie 'I will do this to advance myself, and there will be no consequences.' I do not believe this to be so.

It's in your own best interest, and there is of course a sense (case) where murder is wrong. Why you desire to promulgate your fear-based nonsense is beyond me.

Need I remind you of the cusp of the Euthyphron Dilemma that you're on?
You may fear God; I trust him. And the Dilemma relies on God 'loving' piousness or 'commanding' it; it therefore assumes a God who orders, not one who guides.

I'm sure there can be a compromise reached if necessary.I'd love to see the looks on the faces of Conservatives when the FSM decorates the Supreme Court...

Sin has a detrimental impact on all of society. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.
Sure there is. In some places, it's still a crime to have anal sex. If two consenting adults have anal sex, is there a victim? No.

In most places, it's a crime to solicit a prostitute. Is there a victim? No.

Sin has a detrimental impact on all of society. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.

Only to the extent that other people seek to imitate it - which is their choice, and their business.

Luckily, USA isn't a secular government.
Really?

I think we've been reading different constitutions then.

I suppose you find the real one, and start with amendment #1.

And btw, your trollship is showing, you've done a full 180 on your previous posts of nonsense, to refresh:

Why didn't you contact the ACLU. Even if 99 out of 100 people want to pray and you don't, you win out because the First Amendment was intended to seperate church from state. Frankly, even if 100 out of 100 wanted to pray, it's still NOT ALLOWED.

GOD shouldn't be used in any voting decision! I hope one day the ACLU finally files a lawsuit that requires evangelical Christians to go into the voting booth with a third-party. The third-party would ask them SECULAR REASONS why they are voting for a particular candidate. If the third-party cannot identify any secular reasons, the evangelical wouldn't be able to cast a ballot for that election.

If I have no morality, then what do I have to stop me overwriting this 'common sense'?

After all, there are many circumstances when it may be in my best interests to lie, steal or kill. Why should I not do so if I'm not going to be caught/punished for them?
Most societies do not like it if you lie, steal or kill. Regardless if there is a God holding you back or not.

Sure there is. In some places, it's still a crime to have anal sex. If two consenting adults have anal sex, is there a victim? No.

In most places, it's a crime to solicit a prostitute. Is there a victim? No.

Let's look at a "victim" crime. You are robbed by a thief in our neighborhood. Are you the only victim, or is everyone in the neighborhood?

All of society, which is composed of individuals and families, is impacted by those crimes against good order.

Faith is separate from emotion.
No, faith is purely emotional. It is the attempt to replace reality with "What I wish."

I do understand faith; you are terrified that I do.


If I do not believe murder to be wrong I will not enter into a contract not to commit it.
Then you will certainly have a difficult time with other people.


The social contract assumes that defensive self-interest, ie 'I will enter this so as not to be killed' overwrites the selfish self-interest, ie 'I will do this to advance myself, and there will be no consequences.
As it usually does. No need for a god.


You may fear God;
I cannot fear that which does not exist.


I trust him.
No, you merely believe that you do.


And the Dilemma relies on God 'loving' piousness or 'commanding' it; it therefore assumes a God who orders, not one who guides.
Why else are they called "commandments"?

*snip*

Leave him alone; it's better to argue with people advancing positions sincerely than to have to ignore ridiculous straw men over and over again.

Let's look at a "victim" crime. You are robbed by a thief in our neighborhood. Are you the only victim, or is everyone in the neighborhood?

You're the only victim.

Really?

I think we've been reading different constitutions then.

I suppose you find the real one, and start with amendment #1.

And btw, your trollship is showing, you've done a full 180 on your previous posts of nonsense, to refresh:

Artemis, please. You know I'm a progressive Democrat, but I feel bad because most fundies don't know how to use a computer. So sometimes I feel like making their arguments.

Can you respond?

You may fear God; I trust him. And the Dilemma relies on God 'loving' piousness or 'commanding' it; it therefore assumes a God who orders, not one who guides.

Are they called the 10 guides then?

Funny, I always heard them refered to as the commandments...

You have anal sex in your own house. are you the victim, or is the neighborhood?

Can you respond?

Sure. You're a troll.

Now go away kid, I don't like you.

Let's look at a "victim" crime. You are robbed by a thief in our neighborhood. Are you the only victim, or is everyone in the neighborhood?
Me. I know, because I was just held at knifepoint this past week.


All of society, which is composed of individuals and families, is impacted by those crimes against good order.
So how is two consenting adults engaging in anal sex a crime against good order? I'd love to know that one. Because it IS a crime in some places, you know. It's also a crime in several southern US states to sell sex toys. Yet I don't see a victim there, either. Nor do I see it violating good order.

You have anal sex in your own house. are you the victim

Depends, are you giving, or receiving? :p

No, faith is purely emotional. It is the attempt to replace reality with "What I wish."

I do understand faith; you are terrified that I do.
I assure you that of all the emotions and thoughts that come into my mind when meeting you, 'terror' is not one of them.

As it usually does. No need for a god.
History shows what people are capable of when seperated from morality and any sense of conseqences. Your statement is based on hope, not fact.

Why else are they called "commandments"?
There are many problems and errors in the Bible. It's never stopped my faith.

Luckily, USA isn't a secular government.
If it isn't, all evidence to the contrary aside, it should be.

Sure. You're a troll.

Now go away kid, I don't like you.

Arthais, please, why do you hate me so much?

I'm sorry for what I've done in the past to you.

Sin has a detrimental impact on all of society. There is no such thing as a "victimless" crime.
There could be, depending on the lawmaker. For instance, in some nations people are still arrested for being Christian. Would you say that crime had a victim?

What about the woman who was arrested for refusing to pay the excess on an incorrect tax bill? Who was she inconveniencing by paying exactly what she was supposed to have done?

And what about employee insiders, who buy up shares in the knowledge that their value is about to skyrocket? The only difference between them and the average Joe who buys shares at the same time is knowledge, and when Joe sells his shares off, he is creating no less impact than the insider, yet he is committing no crime.

If it isn't, all evidence to the contrary aside, it should be.

Where do human rights come from?

Where do human rights come from?
Human rights are a necessity in order for a society to survive. Where would we be without them?

There could be, depending on the lawmaker. For instance, in some nations people are still arrested for being Christian. Would you say that crime had a victim?

What about the woman who was arrested for refusing to pay the excess on an incorrect tax bill? Who was she inconveniencing by paying exactly what she was supposed to have done?

And what about employee insiders, who buy up shares in the knowledge that their value is about to skyrocket? The only difference between them and the average Joe who buys shares at the same time is knowledge, and when Joe sells his shares off, he is creating no less impact than the insider, yet he is committing no crime.

That's why we are allowed to select our representatives.

Where do human rights come from?
The musings of philosophers whose writings were used as a basis for law.

I assure you that of all the emotions and thoughts that come into my mind when meeting you, 'terror' is not one of them.
Then why are you so vehement in your claim that faith is not an appeal to emotion?


History shows what people are capable of when seperated from morality and any sense of conseqences.
History shows that god-belief has nothing to do with morality, viz: the crusades, Inquisition, etc.


Your statement is based on hope, not fact.
My statement is based on fact: the fact of human action.


There are many problems and errors in the Bible. It's never stopped my faith.
Thus showing your utter lack of intellectual integrity.

Human rights are a necessity in order for a society to survive. Where would we be without them?

But what makes something a human right? It's not morality because what is moral for you might not be moral for me, so where do they come from?

There are many problems and errors in the Bible. It's never stopped my faith.

Query. If you base your faith on a book which you admit to having some problems and errors, how can you logically tell which parts to believe in, and which not to. Are you not by doing so forced to concede that the whole THING might be wrong?

The musings of philosophers whose writings were used as a basis for law.

So we can amend them?

Where do human rights come from?Ooh! Damnit! That was one of the questions on the US immigration test! If only I could remember...

Ooh! Damnit! That was one of the questions on the US immigration test! If only I could remember...

Congratulations Laerod.

They used to require some basic questions on our form of government in order to register to vote, but that was considered racist and abolished.

But what makes something a human right? It's not morality because what is moral for you might not be moral for me, so where do they come from?
Hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals.

Contractarianism (http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html)

So we can amend them?
Laws can be re-written and legal rights can be changed. The "inalienable human rights" that may have inspired the laws will exist as their authors left them, barring any additions or changes later philosophers will argue over.

But what makes something a human right? It's not morality because what is moral for you might not be moral for me, so where do they come from?
Whatever is agreed upon. Many of these rights are disagreed upon. Gay marriage for one.

Basically I don't steal from you because you don't steal from me. One of us could conceivably live a better life if one stole from the other but you'd forfeit the right of calling foul if stolen from.

Then why are you so vehement in your claim that faith is not an appeal to emotion?
Because faith is not emotion. This is a simple truth; it is certainly not one born of 'terror'.

Do you seriously believe that you will ever convince me to give up my faith because of cheap quips, and that I'm so frightened of losing it that I can't expose myself to opposing views?

History shows that god-belief has nothing to do with morality, viz: the crusades, Inquisition, etc.
Exactly my point; the Crusades are a perfect example of what people are capable of when they do not see themselves as subject to authority. In this case it is because they believe that the authority, God, was on their side. In others, such as the Nazis or the Soviets, it is because they were the authority.

Human beings without restraint can be frightening things.
Thus showing your utter lack of intellectual integrity.
Oh, BAWAA, how you cut me. :rolleyes:

Frankly I'm amazed you've got this far into the debate without calling anyone a liar.

Laws can be re-written and legal rights can be changed. The "inalienable human rights" that may have inspired the laws will exist as their authors left them, barring any additions or changes later philosophers will argue over.

The right to live, barring commission of a crime, can be abolished?

But what makes something a human right? It's not morality because what is moral for you might not be moral for me, so where do they come from?

You're going to say "God can be the only legitimate source of morality." The problem with that is that it assumes we have a duty to obey God.

Morality is a human invention, it comes from our own minds and our own intuitions. We tend to accept doctrines of human rights because they make sense to us.

Ooh! Damnit! That was one of the questions on the US immigration test!
Really? You mean there was a specified answer to that question?!?

That's ridiculous. People have written whole books on the subject of rights. How could you possibly seek to condense it down into a simple answer?

Query. If you base your faith on a book which you admit to having some problems and errors, how can you logically tell which parts to believe in, and which not to. Are you not by doing so forced to concede that the whole THING might be wrong?
I do not base my whole faith on the Bible. It is based on my personal experiences, tradition, reason and the Bible.

You're going to say "God can be the only legitimate source of morality." The problem with that is that it assumes we have a duty to obey God.

Morality is a human invention, it comes from our own minds and our own intuitions. We tend to accept doctrines of human rights because they make sense to us.
It doesn't even matter where they come from. What matters is the purpose they serve.

Because faith is not emotion.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! It was said to be an "appeal to emotion". Please don't try to shift what was said. That would be quite dishonest of you.


Do you seriously believe that you will ever convince me to give up my faith because of cheap quips, and that I'm so frightened of losing it that I can't expose myself to opposing views?
I don't care enough about you to convince you to deconvert, and yes, you are so frightened that you won't expose yourself to other views.


Exactly my point; the Crusades are a perfect example of what people are capable of when they do not see themselves as subject to authority.
Ah, but they did: they were Soldiers Of God.


In this case it is because they believe that the authority, God, was on their side.
So you admit they saw themselves as subject to authority. Thank you.


Oh, BAWAA, how you cut me.
I know.


Frankly I'm amazed you've got this far into the debate without calling anyone a liar.
I have; you're just not intelligent enough to see how I did it.

It doesn't even matter where they come from. What matters is the purpose they serve.

What do you mean?

Exactly my point; the Crusades are a perfect example of what people are capable of when they do not see themselves as subject to authority. In this case it is because they believe that the authority, God, was on their side. In others, such as the Nazi's or the Soviets, it is because they were the authority.

The Crusades were a defensive response to violence and terror of the advancing Islamic front into Europe. They were called by Pope Urban II to protect Christians in their native lands, and in their pilgrimages to holy places.

Mohammed was a warrior, who established Islam, particularly Medinian Islam, as a way to keep the conquered masses under his control. Because of the nature of Islam itself, it has posed a problem for not only Christians, but most of the world, ever since.

The Crusades were a response to this violence. You should read about Richard the Lion-Hearted.

I do not base my whole faith on the Bible. It is based on my personal experiences, tradition, reason and the Bible.

So, the parts of the Bible you don't like, you can amend them?

The right to live, barring commission of a crime, can be abolished?

Given the power to do so, yes. Governments have done so in the past, the holocaust being a prime example. Non-governmental groups, like terrorists, can declare a certain group to have no right to life, although their ability to abolish that right through action may be limited. Of course, none of these examples show a universal abolition of the right to live, but that is because of disagreements as to what offenses should lead to that abolition; crime, heritage, religious beliefs, etc.

Really? You mean there was a specified answer to that question?!?

That's ridiculous. People have written whole books on the subject of rights. How could you possibly seek to condense it down into a simple answer?Well, according to the multiple choice answers, the correct one was "The Bill of Rights"... :p

Of course the question wasn't referring to "Human Rights" merely certain rights like "Freedom of Speech" and so on. If I remember correctly. I was laughing about the question on the color of the stars on the flag and the fact that there were four possibilities to choose from...

What do you mean?
If somebody wants to believe that morals come from God, let them. Who cares. Just as long as they realize that much of those same morals hold just as much of a meaning to me. I do not need the fear of hell to keep me from burning somebodys house down.

You're going to say "God can be the only legitimate source of morality." The problem with that is that it assumes we have a duty to obey God.
Massachusetts Constitution:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

Virginia Constitution:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

And why have you come to these conclusions? Again, the atheist faith shouts out from you; you are dismissing the idea that your morality is something that you have learned from your peers. If you seriously believe that you independently decided right from wrong then you are delusional.
I didn't claim to have done so. I'm no philosopher. I am quite capable, however, of deciding whether or not things I've heard claimed are wrong are wrong, and whether things I've heard claimed are right are right. It's simple; how would I like to be treated? If something has no negative effect on me it isn't, from my point of view, wrong.
Again, you have nothing to add and so state simple insults. Amusingly, however, this one backs up my argument.
Insults?
It is amusing how opinions differ.
Crime is very easy; there wouldn't be so much of it otherwise.
But it's hard to get rich from, or I'd be rich, wouldn't I? I'm an atheist, no reason for me not to...
The social contract assumes that defensive self-interest, ie 'I will enter this so as not to be killed' overwrites the selfish self-interest, ie 'I will do this to advance myself, and there will be no consequences.' I do not believe this to be so.
Which is foolish; there are lots of people who could kill you, and yet only one of you to defend yourself or kill others. It's definitely in your interest to be protected in this way.

So, the parts of the Bible you don't like, you can amend them?
That has been done repeatedly throughout history.

Virginia Constitution:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.I like that one. It means you should behave like a Christian should with love, forbearance, and charity without having to be a Christian :)

Massachusetts Constitution:
Virginia Constitution:
Both statements mean nothing about reality.

That has been done repeatedly throughout history.

The most common vicious attack is slavery. This was never mandated in the Bible. At the time, various peoples took into slavery people they conquered at war. The Bible did urge compassionate treatment of these slaves, but it never mandated slavery.

Battle Hymn of the Republic (Civil War):
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Both statements mean nothing about reality.

So then the First Amendment, as evolved by the Supreme Court, also means nothing about reality?

Massachusetts Constitution:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

Virginia Constitution:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Which proves... what? I didn't say no one agreed with you, I just said that you were wrong.

So, the parts of the Bible you don't like, you can amend them?

Like Paul did, you mean?

If somebody wants to believe that morals come from God, let them. Who cares.

Did I say I wouldn't let them believe as they wish? I am presenting an argument, not advocating state repression.

The most common vicious attack is slavery. This was never mandated in the Bible. At the time, various peoples took into slavery people they conquered at war. The Bible did urge compassionate treatment of these slaves, but it never mandated slavery.

Battle Hymn of the Republic (Civil War):
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Oh, there are others. Homosexuality, role of women, the conversion of pagan holidays into Christian ones and on and on. When the bible needed to be amended or interpreted a certain way, you can bet that it was.

So then the First Amendment, as evolved by the Supreme Court, also means nothing about reality?

As a moral precept, no, it doesn't (that is to say, its mere existence does not make what it advocates the proper course of action). As a statement of what the law is, obviously, it does.

Did I say I wouldn't let them believe as they wish? I am presenting an argument, not advocating state repression.
I didn't say you were. I agree that morality is a human invention. I was just saying, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if it was a human invention or handed down on stone tablets from God.

So then the First Amendment, as evolved by the Supreme Court, also means nothing about reality?
What does that have to do with what I said? Answer: nothing.

Oh, there are others. Homosexuality, role of women, the conversion of pagan holidays into Christian ones and on and on. When the bible needed to be amended or interpreted a certain way, you can bet that it was.

Those didn't change in the Bible. The bishops and leaders of the Church converted pagan holidays to assist in converting the large masses of the Roman Empire. It did not adopt their principles, just their dates and some of the outward essence of their celebrations.

Those didn't change in the Bible. The bishops and leaders of the Church converted pagan holidays to assist in converting the large masses of the Roman Empire. It did not adopt their principles, just their dates and some of the outward essence of their celebrations.
You're free to believe what you like.

I didn't say you were. I agree that morality is a human invention. I was just saying, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if it was a human invention or handed down on stone tablets from God.

Well, it does, because theoretically it could shake some religious people from holding to precepts they don't really want to accept as moral, but do anyway because "God commands them."

But I'm not really arguing about this subject for that reason, either; I'm doing it for fun. :)

Given the power to do so, yes. Governments have done so in the past, the holocaust being a prime example. Non-governmental groups, like terrorists, can declare a certain group to have no right to life, although their ability to abolish that right through action may be limited. Of course, none of these examples show a universal abolition of the right to live, but that is because of disagreements as to what offenses should lead to that abolition; crime, heritage, religious beliefs, etc.

I would reject the view that government has the power to amend or change the rights of man. Examine the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Well, it does, because theoretically it could shake some religious people from holding to precepts they don't really want to accept as moral, but do anyway because "God commands them."

But I'm not really arguing about this subject for that reason, either; I'm doing it for fun. :)
Well, there are certain things Christians must accept socially even if they do not accept it religiously.

I would reject the view that government has the power to amend or change the rights of man.

And I agree with you, for once.

The fact that governments have the power to violate human rights does not mean that the wrongness of violating human rights (which is, after all, what the concept of "human rights" implies) is dependent on the government respecting them.

Well, it does, because theoretically it could shake some religious people from holding to precepts they don't really want to accept as moral, but do anyway because "God commands them."

God has written the moral law on the hearts of men:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
Romans 2:14-15

God has written the moral law on the hearts of men:
You realize that you've neither established the existence of god nor the truth of the bible, right?

I would reject the view that government has the power to amend or change the rights of man. Examine the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence was certainly a very important document, but it had no legal bearing whatsoever in America when it was written, and it still doesn't today.

The laws here have been amended to change the rights of man a few times, perhaps the most noticeable time being the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. They changed the rights for an entire class of Americans, transforming them from slaves to citizens and conferring upon them the rights other citizens at the time enjoyed.

And I agree with you, for once.

The fact that governments have the power to violate human rights does not mean that the wrongness of violating human rights (which is, after all, what the concept of "human rights" implies) is dependent on the government respecting them.

Why should we risk our safety in the mercy of any government?

Examine the next few lines of the Declaration: (my underlines)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Why should we risk our safety in the mercy of any government?

Examine the next few lines of the Declaration: (my underlines)

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Yes, taken from Chapter 11 of the 2nd part of Locke's Two Treatises On Civil Government, as I recall. Or Chapter 16. Whichever one is "On The Ends of Government" or "On The Dissolution of Government".

God has written the moral law on the hearts of men:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
Romans 2:14-15
That, is a matter of opinion and belief.

That, is a matter of opinion and belief.

What is the basis of justice?

What is the basis of justice?
We already went over that. It is a system of agreements within a society. It is the only way we could have moved forward. If I can't trust you not to stab me in the back when I'm turned from you, I'm not going to be spending any time inventing the wheel. I'll be spending my time sharpening my own knife.

What is the basis of justice?
Granting that which is earned.

You realize that concepts do not depend on some deity, right?

God has written the moral law on the hearts of men

All the more reason to ignore what other people say He said.

We already went over that. It is a system of agreements within a society.

If you appeal to basic tenets of justice, who or what are you appealing to?

Remember, according to Evolutionism, Humanism and Atheism, your faith(s), what I think of justice might not be what you think of justice.

So how do we find justice?

If you appeal to basic tenets of justice, who or what are you appealing to?

Remember, according to Evolutionism, Humanism and Atheism, your faith(s), what I think of justice might not be what you think of justice.

So how do we find justice?
We agree upon it for the mutual benefit of each of us.

If you appeal to basic tenets of justice, who or what are you appealing to?
Ourselves.


Remember, according to Evolutionism,
Is that like gravity-ism or magnetism?


Humanism and Atheism, your faith(s),
They aren't faiths.


what I think of justice might not be what you think of justice.
So what?


So how do we find justice?
That was explained to you.

If you appeal to basic tenets of justice, who or what are you appealing to?

Remember, according to Evolutionism, Humanism and Atheism, your faith(s), what I think of justice might not be what you think of justice.

So how do we find justice?

Firstly, those aren't "faiths."

Secondly, we find justice by selecting the answer that makes most sense to us to the question of "what is just?"

Thirdly, it is indeed true that justice to you may not be justice to me; so what?

All the more reason to ignore what other people say He said.

Soheran, you should study your Torah better. I can understand if you were brought up Reform, how you can become very cynical when everything seems relative.

Why don't you stop by an orthodox synagogue and ask to talk to the rabbi? I bet he can address a lot of your concerns.

You don't have to feel bad about it; the rabbi will be pleased.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'
Luke 15:22-24

Firstly, those aren't "faiths."

Secondly, we find justice by selecting the answer that makes most sense to us to the question of "what is just?"

Thirdly, it is indeed true that justice to you may not be justice to me; so what?

So how can society decide what is just then? If we can't agree?

Is that like gravity-ism or magnetism?

Evolution has become a faith. Especially with the variety on non-scientists who passionately believe in it. I suppose without it, suddenly you are faced with the prospect of an accounting for past acts. Although, even with Evolution, the Christian faith is not destroyed.

So how can society decide what is just then? If we can't agree?
But individuals do agree on a number of things.

So how can society decide what is just then? If we can't agree?

Well, I can appeal to your moral intuitions, which in most people are more or less similar. Or I can point out inconsistencies and flaws in the reasoning behind other people's moral conclusions (but not necessarily in their premises, unless they are contradictory.)

Furthermore, the fact that it is inconvenient that there is no objective moral truth does not make it false.

Evolution has become a faith.
Only to those who don't know anything about evolution.


Especially with the variety on non-scientists who passionately believe in it. I suppose without it, suddenly you are faced with the prospect of an accounting for past acts.
What? What in the world are you talking about? Are you trying to ad hominemly insinuate that evolution is just a cover to be able to do whatever a person wants? If so, then I truly pity you. You've been brainwashed, and you need to learn what evolution is (http://www.talkorigins.org) before you spout off on it further.

Well, I can appeal to your moral intuitions, which in most people are more or less similar. Or I can point out inconsistencies and flaws in the reasoning behind other people's moral conclusions (but not necessarily in their premises, unless they are contradictory.)

Furthermore, the fact that it is inconvenient that there is no objective moral truth does not make it false.

But we agree on so many things. Your faith, the worship of Evolution with a little Big Bang mixed in, (which you would deny as a faith and would establish as True Fact) would say that it was an evolved characteristic for altruism out of mutual benefit.

However, many people do not practice it, but still know it is the right thing to do.

Anyhow I fervently believe in science, but I do not worship Science. And what makes you think that God wouldn't be above illusionary tactics? God has this penchant for making the people who think they see, blind, and the people who you might assume are blind, do in fact see.

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

John 9:39-41

Soheran, you should study your Torah better. I can understand if you were brought up Reform, how you can become very cynical when everything seems relative.

I was brought up by liberal Jews, but it's not as if I've never met religious Jews in my life, or haven't had plenty of people attempt to instill "Jewish moral values" in me.

Yet here I am, arguing for ethical subjectivism anyway. :)

Why don't you stop by an orthodox synagogue and ask to talk to the rabbi? I bet he can address a lot of your concerns.

Because I very much doubt he could.

You don't have to feel bad about it; the rabbi will be pleased.

"The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'
Luke 15:22-24

Yeah, I'm sure he'll be real pleased to learn that I was inspired to go to him by a paragraph from the New Testament. :p

But we agree on so many things. Your faith, the worship of Evolution with a little Big Bang mixed in,
Please stop trying to bring science down to the level of faith. It only shows how desperate you are.

Evolution has become a faith. Especially with the variety on non-scientists who passionately believe in it. I suppose without it, suddenly you are faced with the prospect of an accounting for past acts. Although, even with Evolution, the Christian faith is not destroyed.
Evolution is a theory which works. Find a fault in evolution which destroys it and we'll be forced to come up with a different theory.

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin ..." (snip)
So, Ray Charles got the express ticket to Heaven? Damn, I need a bobby pin to gouge out my eyes, so I don't have to worry about MY afterlife. :rolleyes:

Dude, quotes out of context don't help your cause.

The fact that this poster has, in the SAME thread, gone from advocating the dismantling of religion to actually QUOTING THE BIBLE to support his arguments leads me to conclude nothing more that he is a troll.

I will respond to no more of his posts and suggest that nobody else do as well.

If I have no morality, then what do I have to stop me overwriting this 'common sense'?

After all, there are many circumstances when it may be in my best interests to lie, steal or kill. Why should I not do so if I'm not going to be caught/punished for them?

Same reason I don't: simple human decency. I try to live by the precept of not doing unto others what I wouldn't want them to do to me. Even if there's no chance of the law catching me. I have this ability (apparently so rare, and which perhaps you lack) to empathise with others, and imagine their suffering as my own. (Which is why I also happen to be a vegetarian, and a communist.) I don't need the threat of some fictitious God; I live by my own sense of ethics.

But we agree on so many things. Your faith, the worship of Evolution with a little Big Bang mixed in, (which you would deny as a faith and would establish as True Fact) would say that it was an evolved characteristic for altruism out of mutual benefit.

Yeah, I worship evolution and the Big Bang. I honor Charles Darwin the Prophet and the pray to the process of natural selection. :rolleyes:

However, many people do not practice it, but still know it is the right thing to do.

I know it is the right thing to do independent of my lack of religion. I thought the same way when I was religious.

Anyhow I fervently believe in science, but I do not worship Science.

Nor do I.

And what makes you think that God wouldn't be above illusionary tactics?

Sure, it's a possibility, but until there's actual evidence for it, I'll continue thinking what I think now.

God has this penchant for making the people who think they see, blind, and the people who you might assume are blind, do in fact see.

If you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, God also has a penchant for ordering people like me to be killed....

I decided a long while ago that I'll let God think what He wants (assuming He exists) while I do what I want, and if He wishes to punish me in the afterlife for it, well, sucks for me.

I was brought up by liberal Jews, but it's not as if I've never met religious Jews in my life, or haven't had plenty of people attempt to instill "Jewish moral values" in me.

Yet here I am, arguing for ethical subjectivism anyway. :)

Because I very much doubt he could.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll be real pleased to learn that I was inspired to go to him by a paragraph from the New Testament. :p
Do you think rabbis have never fielded objections to the faith? They are learned men and they can answer your objections so fast, you won't know what hit you. If one can't answer a particular objection, find another one. But remember, don't try to get God on every detail, He doesn't like that.

To develop faith requires a change of heart, more than of a change of mind. It will be very hard to write something that will make you change your mind, oftentimes, it takes visiting a service to do this.

I would prefer Christianization, because that is the complete revealed truth of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Three Gospels were written for Jews, and Christ's mission was primarily to save Jews. I realize Christianzation is disliked in Jewish circles because it results in a separation from the Jewish identity.

Orthodox Jewish congregations share a lot in common with [non-liberal] Christians when it comes to the moral law. Although in many ways, its more difficult to be Jewish with all 613 mitzvot being in full force.

We are suffering from serious anomie! The world needs more Jewish moral values! (notice no quotation marks)

All glory to the Lord Most High, the God of Israel.

The fact that this poster has, in the SAME thread, gone from advocating the dismantling of religion to actually QUOTING THE BIBLE to support his arguments leads me to conclude nothing more that he is a troll.

I will respond to no more of his posts and suggest that nobody else do as well.

I could have told you that without a 12page lockfest thread.

Conscience in lies has, before, said he would "Sue if he ever heard that song played" (Battle hymmn of the republic).

Do you think rabbis have never fielded objections to the faith? They are learned men and they can answer your objections so fast, you won't know what hit you. If one can't answer a particular objection, find another one. But remember, don't try to get God on every detail, He doesn't like that.

To develop faith requires a change of heart, more than of a change of mind. It will be very hard to write something that will make you change your mind, oftentimes, it takes visiting a service to do this.

I would prefer Christianization, because that is the complete revealed truth of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Three Gospels were written for Jews, and Christ's mission was primarily to save Jews. I realize Christianzation is disliked in Jewish circles because it results in a separation from the Jewish identity.

Orthodox Jewish congregations share a lot in common with [non-liberal] Christians when it comes to the moral law. Although in many ways, its more difficult to be Jewish with all 613 mitzvot being in full force.

We are suffering from serious anomie! The world needs more Jewish moral values! (notice no quotation marks)

All glory to the Lord Most High, the God of Israel.


You go from advocating removal of God from public life to praising the Most High God. What gives? Are you double minded? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways..."?

If you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, God also has a penchant for ordering people like me to be killed....

God does not want his Chosen killed. This is not in Scripture. Life is inviolate; it is the most sacred right guaranteed by Him.

He even waits patiently for those who have left Him:

"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 15:4-7

So how can society decide what is just then? If we can't agree?
There's the rub. That is why wars happen and people get all riled up.

The fact that this poster has, in the SAME thread, gone from advocating the dismantling of religion to actually QUOTING THE BIBLE to support his arguments leads me to conclude nothing more that he is a troll.

Maybe I am a progressive fundamentalist?!?

Maybe I am a progressive fundamentalist?!?
Which would explain all the contradiction. :)

Do you think rabbis have never fielded objections to the faith? They are learned men and they can answer your objections so fast, you won't know what hit you. If one can't answer a particular objection, find another one. But remember, don't try to get God on every detail, He doesn't like that.

To develop faith requires a change of heart, more than of a change of mind. It will be very hard to write something that will make you change your mind, oftentimes, it takes visiting a service to do this.

Why is it so hard for so many religious people to understand that most atheists are not unenlightened fools who aren't seriously thinking about these issues and haven't heard the other side's arguments?

Some of us know the arguments, have considered them countless times, and consciously rejected them because we weren't convinced. I've been to services - Orthodox Jewish services - countless times, too. Hasn't "cured" me.

If you want to try, try actually arguing against what I say instead of patronizingly implying that I know nothing, and should go to a Rabbi so that he can enlighten me as to what is truth.

I would prefer Christianization, because that is the complete revealed truth of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Three Gospels were written for Jews, and Christ's mission was primarily to save Jews. I realize Christianzation is disliked in Jewish circles because it results in a separation from the Jewish identity.

I don't care what you would prefer; I will think for myself.

Orthodox Jewish congregations share a lot in common with [non-liberal] Christians when it comes to the moral law. Although in many ways, its more difficult to be Jewish with all 613 mitzvot being in full force.

We are suffering from serious anomie! The world needs more Jewish moral values! (notice no quotation marks)

No, thank you.

The world needs more real moral values - moral values based on recognizing other human beings as beings with dignity and value, not as beings properly regarded as subservient to an unaccountable deity and His arbitrary commands.

God does not want his Chosen killed. This is not in Scripture. Life is inviolate; it is the most sacred right guaranteed by Him.

I'm a bisexual atheist heretic blasphemer who regularly desecrates the Sabbath.

As I said, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, I should be killed.

I'm a bisexual atheist heretic blasphemer who regularly desecrates the Sabbath.

As I said, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, I should be killed.
Uh...no. You cleary have no understanding of Judeo-Christian principles, whatsoever. Don't even start arguing about Christians tolerating atheists when you relish in your self-proclaimed "desecrating" of the Sabbath.

The way I see it, this issue can never be resolved from a moderate, non-biased stand-point. It seems to me that religious people would wish to see the inclusion of faith-based symbols and ideas in the government, while atheists would like to see them wiped out entirely. Thus, we have no middle ground -- just people on both sides with their own self-interests in mind.

I'm a bisexual atheist heretic blasphemer who regularly desecrates the Sabbath.

As I said, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, I should be killed.

Well, none of those charactistics are immutable. It all depends on what is important to you.

Everything we do ought to be oriented around the idea of bringing glory to God.

Uh...no. You cleary have no understanding of Judeo-Christian principles, whatsoever. Don't even start arguing about Christians tolerating atheists when you relish in your self-proclaimed "desecrating" of the Sabbath.

Oh, my apologies.

I should have posted the verses:

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Try again.

Everything we do ought to be oriented around the idea of bringing glory to God.

Why?

Uh...no. You cleary have no understanding of Judeo-Christian principles, whatsoever. Don't even start arguing about Christians tolerating atheists when you relish in your self-proclaimed "desecrating" of the Sabbath.

Verve, there is no middle ground. Nor should there be. It's not about symbols. It's about realizing that we aren't the final deicisionmakers. That we are prosperous only with the approval of the Creator and Preserver of the universe. Our conscience invariably leads us to God, and denying conscience only leads to sin and death.

Oh, my apologies.

I should have posted the verses:







Try again.
Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever. Leviticus is a book of the old testament; all of the laws you posted were overturned upon the coming of Christ.

Try again.

Oh, my apologies.

I should have posted the verses:

Try again.

You are entitled to a new life in Jesus Christ. However, you must commit yourself to sin no more and live in accordance with the law through faith:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:7-12

Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever. Leviticus is a book of the old testament; all of the laws you posted were overturned upon the coming of Christ.
Wrong.

Matt 5:17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever. Leviticus is a book of the old testament; all of the laws you posted were overturned upon the coming of Christ.

Because neither Jews nor Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible. However much some Christians like to pretend they do.

Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever. Leviticus is a book of the old testament; all of the laws you posted were overturned upon the coming of Christ.

Try again.

Progressives quote Leviticus to "disprove God." It was featured on the West Wing, which is a series that Democrats worship: Fictional President Bartlett chastizes "right-wing fundy" Jenna Jacobs, using those same verses from Leviticus.

However, I wouldn't say that they are overturned by Christ. They have to considered in light of the full revelation of the Word in Jesus Christ.

They have to considered in light of the full revelation of the Word in Jesus Christ.

Which is to say, non-literally.

Because neither Jews nor Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible. However much some Christians like to pretend they do.

Soheran, if only you had the will to give up sin. For someone as smart as you, why don't you pick the righteous path?

Why spend all your days fighting in rebellion against the One who made you. After all, in sin there is only death. In faith there is life.

Even though I'm an aspiring Christian, I would rather establish traditional Judaism as our national faith and live as a Noahide, than to go down the road of atheism that the Supreme Court/atheists are imposing on us.

Progressives quote Leviticus to "disprove God." It was featured on the West Wing, which is a series that Democrats worship: Fictional President Bartlett chastizes "right-wing fundy" Jenna Jacobs, using those same verses from Leviticus.

However, I wouldn't say that they are overturned by Christ. They have to considered in light of the full revelation of the Word in Jesus Christ.
Exactly what I meant. There is no modern Christian who follows the Levitical laws down to the letter. Of course, militant atheists with a penchant for slandering beliefs different than their own will never understand this concept. Ever.

Do I believe in Christ? I believe that he was a good person, and I try to follow the idea of loving one's neighbor and so forth. I'm by no means a Christian, but nothing irritates me more than an atheist who preaches tolerance and compassion and goes on to attack people for their religious beliefs, beliefs that many atheists clearly have no understanding of.

For someone as smart as you, why don't you pick the righteous path?

I already have. My "righteous path" simply doesn't agree with yours.

Also from the book of Matthew:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
Need I say more? Christ had a lot to do with changing ancient law; he fulfilled the more gruesome laws by being born and dying for all of our sins. The previous poster's quote from Matthew was taken completely out of context.

Exactly what I meant. There is no modern Christian who follows the Levitical laws down to the letter.

I agree. Which only makes C&T's earlier comment - "So, the parts of the Bible you don't like, you can amend them?" - all the more absurd.

Of course, militant atheists with a penchant for slandering beliefs different than their own will never understand this concept. Ever.

I'm neither a "militant atheist" nor someone with a "penchant for slandering beliefs different from [my] own." I have in fact defended both Christianity and Judaism several times on these forums.

Forgive me if I don't kneel and cry meekly, begging for enlightenment, whenever someone tries to convert me, though.

Do I believe in Christ? I believe that he was a good person, and I try to follow the idea of loving one's neighbor and so forth.

Go for it. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the most worthwhile moral precepts in the Bible.

I'm by no means a Christian, but nothing irritates me more than an atheist who preaches tolerance and compassion and goes on to attack people for their religious beliefs,

Show me where I've attacked C&T for his religious beliefs. Anywhere.

beliefs that many atheists clearly have no understanding of.

You have no idea what I understand and don't understand, sorry.

I already have. My "righteous path" simply doesn't agree with yours.

I am bisexual atheist heretic blasphemer who regularly desecrates the Sabbath.

I think you are making it up, but this is not a righteous lifestyle.

You are such a good person, why don't you just give up the sinful behaviors? It's worth it if you truly believe in God. It is so much better to walk in the sunshine of righteousness than in the darkness of sin.

I wish I could be liberated from sin. I don't understand why you wouldn't. What sense does it make to try to rebel against God? It's an unwinnable proposition. No matter how much you learn about science, it doesn't absolve you!!

Need I say more? Christ had a lot to do with changing ancient law;
No, he didn't. He said not one bit of the law shall be changed until he returns.

Also, fulfill doesn't mean end. It means to have the final interpretation.

I know more than you do on this. You've been schooled by an atheist.

Also from the book of Matthew:

Need I say more? Christ had a lot to do with changing ancient law; he fulfilled the more gruesome laws by being born and dying for all of our sins. The previous poster's quote from Matthew was taken completely out of context.

Verve, you look like you could easily defect to the Christian side. Why don't you?

For people who believe Jesus "was a good person," C.S. Lewis came up with an excellent trilemma: Lunatic, Liar or Lord.

Those are the only three options if you accept Jesus as a good person. His words either make Him a Lunatic, Liar or the Lord. You have to figure out which you think He is.

I'm a bisexual atheist heretic blasphemer who regularly desecrates the Sabbath.

As I said, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, I should be killed.
You did not attack C+T, but with this quote, you attacked Christianity as a religion with this slanderous claim.

Not observing Leviticus has nothing to do with "amending the parts of the Bible you don't like." The laws in Leviticus, some of which I posted above, were fulfilled by the coming of Christ, and therefore, do not apply anymore.

Verve, you look like you could easily defect to the Christian side. Why don't you?

For people who believe Jesus "was a good person," C.S. Lewis came up with an excellent trilemma: Lunatic, Liar or Lord.

Those are the only three options if you accept Jesus as a good person. His words either make Him a Lunatic, Liar or the Lord. You have to figure out which you think He is.
Sorry, I don't suscribe to black and white ultimatums by late authors. Neither you nor C.S. Lewis is of any authority to inform me of a set of parameters that I must follow in my beliefs. I do not believe that Jesus was any of those three "L's." Deal with it.

Sorry, I don't suscribe to black and white ultimatums by late authors. Neither you nor C.S. Lewis is of any authority to inform me of a set of parameters that I must follow in my beliefs. I do not believe that Jesus was any of those three "L's." Deal with it.

Well, at least you look at the Word. You have a case of teenage rebellion, which will pass with time, but I think you still love good and hate evil.

Well, at least you look at the Word. You have a case of teenage rebellion, which will pass with time, but I think you still love good and hate evil.
I do love good and hate evil. Yet, my beliefs have nothing to do with teenage rebellion.

You did not attack C+T, but with this quote, you attacked Christianity as a religion with this slanderous claim.

Much to the contrary. I attacked people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible with that perfectly accurate claim.

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. In fact, I don't think the essence of Christianity corresponds well with a literal reading of the Old Testament. So, no, I was not attacking Christianity.

Not observing Leviticus has nothing to do with "amending the parts of the Bible you don't like." The laws in Leviticus, some of which I posted above, were fulfilled by the coming of Christ, and therefore, do not apply anymore.

Right, and I can give reasons for ignoring the literal interpretations of all the laws in the Bible that I don't like. There's nothing wrong with that; it's pretty easy to justify, when I was religious I did it too. What's wrong is condemning other people for their insincerity and lack of faith because they don't hold to a strict literalist interpretation in places that you hold to such an interpretation.

Right, and I can give reasons for ignoring the literal interpretations of all the laws in the Bible that I don't like. There's nothing wrong with that; it's pretty easy to justify, when I was religious I did it too. What's wrong is condemning other people for their insincerity and lack of faith because they don't hold to a strict literalist interpretation in places that you hold to such an interpretation.

A lot of college students lose their faith. I pray that you get it back after graduation.

No, he didn't. He said not one bit of the law shall be changed until he returns.

Also, fulfill doesn't mean end. It means to have the final interpretation.

I know more than you do on this. You've been schooled by an atheist.
I'm a Catholic. There are no atheist priests at the church where I was schooled.

Try and make a case that the biblical passages that I quoted were not Christ, in effect, changing ancient law. I'd love to hear your spin.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
What would you call that?

Much to the contrary. I attacked people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible with that perfectly accurate claim.
Christ talked about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Please give me a passage where he or his followers, after the old law was fulfilled, said to kill non-Christians.

I'm a Catholic. There are no atheist priests at the church where I was schooled.

Try and make a case that the biblical passages that I quoted were not Christ, in effect, changing ancient law. I'd love to hear your spin.

What would you call that?

A nice Catholic boy. Did you serve at the altar?

Christ talked about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Please give me a passage where he or his followers, after the old law was fulfilled, said to kill non-Christians.

Did I say they did?

Did I say they did?
As I said, if you believe the Bible to be literally true, I should be killed.
You went on to say, even after I informed you that the laws of Leviticus were fulfilled by Christ, and that modern Christianity does not follow them, that this claim was still accurate.

C+T -- I did bear the cross a few times at the beginning and end of mass. Never was an altar boy, though.

Seperation of church and state is just like the seperation of dicks and assholes. They just aren't supposed to go together. BUT since everyone has a right to the freedom of a religion, and the government is runned by people who speak for the people, whom which those people have voted for to speak for them.

However, since there is a freedom to religion, there can be no desecration of religion. Since burning churches, mosques and synagogues are illegal, it is therefor taking out the freedom to speech and religion. Also on the dollar, under god, this was a nation founded by a range of beliefs. But they grew up on this nation quite harmoniously compared to the politicians of today. But instead of all this anti-god shit, and trying to take god out from everything, is just stupid. If you don't believe in god then god shouldn't offend you. Not everyone is going to think like you, so stop wishing for everyone to think like you, because it's not gonna happen, fascism is only for minorities of people of a nation. So stop bitching and start hugging. Same goes for you religious people.

You went on to say, even after I informed you that the laws of Leviticus were fulfilled by Christ, that this claim was still accurate.

You would dispute that the literal interpretation of those laws in Exodus and Leviticus would justify my execution? I don't know how you're reading those verses, but it's certainly not "literally."

I'm a Catholic. There are no atheist priests at the church where I was schooled.
I'm an atheist; I just schooled you.


Try and make a case that the biblical passages that I quoted were not Christ, in effect, changing ancient law. I'd love to hear your spin.
Try and make the case that the biblical passages that *I* quoted were not jesus, in effect, saying that the law was not to change. I'd love to hear your spin on that.

Matt 5:18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

G'won--try to tell me that I'm wrong. Do it and I'll laugh at you.

Christ talked about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Please give me a passage where he or his followers, after the old law was fulfilled, said to kill non-Christians.
Luke 19:27

I'm an atheist; I just schooled you.



Try and make the case that the biblical passages that *I* quoted were not jesus, in effect, saying that the law was not to change. I'd love to hear your spin on that.

Matt 5:18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

G'won--try to tell me that I'm wrong. Do it and I'll laugh at you.
He meant the law that he was laying down. If you had read the quotes I posted, it was clear that he was changing the old law.

You would dispute that the literal interpretation of those laws in Exodus and Leviticus would justify my execution? I don't know how you're reading those verses, but it's certainly not "literally."
I just told you -- those laws were overturned by the coming of Christ... To say that Christianity calls for your death and use laws that are now null and void is inaccurate.

He meant the law that he was laying down. If you had read the quotes I posted, it was clear that he was changing the old law.
If you read the quotes I gave you, it's clear that he's not changing the old law.


I just told you -- those laws were overturned by the coming of Christ
Jesus says that you're wrong.

Don't make the Li'l Baby Jesus cry.

To say that Christianity calls for your death and use laws that are now null and void is inaccurate.

Good. We agree.

Much to the contrary. I attacked people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible with that perfectly accurate claim.

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. In fact, I don't think the essence of Christianity corresponds well with a literal reading of the Old Testament. So, no, I was not attacking Christianity.

If you read the quotes I gave you, it's clear that he's not changing the old law.



Jesus says that you're wrong.

Don't make the Li'l Baby Jesus cry.
You're as bad as Ann Coulter, what with quoting things out of context to fit your agenda.
Matthew, Chapter 5. Christ clearly was talking about the laws he was laying out at that precise moment -- that the laws he would go on to lay down in that same speech at were not to be broken. He clearly, numerous times, changes old law.
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 14
20
I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21
15 16 "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.'
22
17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
23
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,
24
leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
26
Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.
27
19 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 20 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
31
21 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.'
32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33
22 "Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.'
34
But I say to you, do not swear at all; 23 not by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
37
24 Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.
38
25 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. 40
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
41
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, 26 go with him for two miles.
42
Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
43
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors 28 do the same?
47
And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 29
48
So be perfect, 30 just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Soheran, I hope you get it by now -- that old testament passages calling for two fabrics to remain separate, for all non-believers to be killed, etc. were overturned by the above passage.

EDIT: Now bolded to help with showing the exact points where Christ overturns old law.

You're as bad as Ann Coulter, what with quoting things out of context to fit your agenda.
Nope. It's quite clear from the context that jesus says that the old laws are to stay. Jesus wanted a return to the Mosaic covenant. He saw the jews as becoming comfy with their Roman occupiers, and wanted to stir some shit up. Get back to the old-time religion. Throw some snakes on the plane.

You'd know that if you'd bother to read the anthology (that's what the bible is).

Soheran, I hope you get it by now -- that old testament passages calling for two fabrics to remain separate, for all non-believers to be killed, etc. were overturned by the above passage.

Yes, I know what Christian doctrine says on this subject. I don't see why you keep on making the assumption that I'm ignorant of it.

What I've been pointing out again and again is that such doctrine requires a less than literal interpretation of the Old Testament - with the laws there being a temporary covenant, a guide for future behavior, rather than the rigid system they appear to be.

And there's nothing wrong with such an interpretation. Pretty much no one, Jew or Christian, interprets the Old Testament literally - nor should they.

Nope. It's quite clear from the context that jesus says that the old laws are to stay. Jesus wanted a return to the Mosaic covenant. He saw the jews as becoming comfy with their Roman occupiers, and wanted to stir some shit up. Get back to the old-time religion. Throw some snakes on the plane.

You'd know that if you'd bother to read the anthology (that's what the bible is).
See above post, especially bolded sentences. Period. Please explain how Jesus mentions the concept of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" and then goes on to state something entirely different.

Yes, I know what Christian doctrine says on this subject. I don't see why you keep on making the assumption that I'm ignorant of it.

What I've been pointing out again and again is that such doctrine requires a less than literal interpretation of the Old Testament - with the laws there being a temporary covenant, a guide for future behavior, rather than the rigid system they appear to be.

And there's nothing wrong with such an interpretation. Pretty much no one, Jew or Christian, interprets the Old Testament literally - nor should they.
The reason I keep pointing this out is because those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible still do not follow Leviticus literally. What I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as a literal interpretation of the old law any longer, that no fundamental Christian who understands Christian doctrine would abide by these laws anyway.

The reason I keep pointing this out is because those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible still do not follow Leviticus literally. What I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as a literal interpretation of the old law any longer, that no fundamental Christian who understands Christian doctrine would abide by these laws anyway.

We don't disagree substantively; let's stop arguing.

See above post, especially bolded sentences.
I did. See my above posts. Please show how in my above posts, jesus says "forget the old laws" or "the old laws shall be changed" or "I shall overturn the old laws".

He doesn't. He says the old laws stay.

You. Lose.

We don't disagree substantively; let's stop arguing.
I wasn't trying to argue with you, really; rather, just make sure that you understand that no fundamental Christian takes Leviticus literally. In other words, no one is calling for your death. That's all.

And there's nothing wrong with such an interpretation. Pretty much no one, Jew or Christian, interprets the Old Testament literally - nor should they.

Why? because we are allowed to erase the parts we don't like?

I wouldn't say that we can void anything we don't like, because it leads to cases like you, where you end up believing nothing. I doubt that Christians and faithful Jews should be taking advice from an atheist.

Some parts have to be reconsidered in context of the fuller revelation of Jesus Christ, but not outright voided.

On your signature:
Socialism has virtually no chance of emerging if there was no government. You need a strong government to force people to take part in socialism, which is against human nature and against God's law.

I could make an argument that moral codes would emerge under anarchy as a way to preserve some semblance of order.

Why would you want anarchy? Are you not worried about the violations of your own life, liberty and property? Are you going to provide for your own defense of these? What's your plan? Security guards?

I wasn't trying to argue with you, really; rather, just make sure that you understand that no fundamental Christian takes Leviticus literally. In other words, no one is calling for your death. That's all.

You do believe in sin right?

In the United States, the first amendment to the American Constitution explicity states that Congress shall make no law with respect to a religious establishment. This wording has been interpreted by the high court of the nation to entail a necessary separation of all things religious from anything that has any affiliation with the government. Some people, at the very least a very vocal minority, however, believe that the idea of a necessary separation has been taken too far. They believe that practices such as banning displays of the ten commandments of Chrisitan doctrine from courthouses, prohibiting public school instructors from leading their classes in non-denominational praying, and disallowing religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades have taken this concept too far.

What is your opinion on the separation of church and state, and its needed scope in the United States' system? If you are not American (and I know a large number of you are not), how does your nation deal with this issue, if it does at all, and how well do you believe your government's practices in relation to religion are working?



The use of the word establishment is the problem.
The actual wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, the Church of England was the established church of that country. People had to pay taxes to support that church whether they believed it or not. That is what the 1st Amendment originally referred. All this *Seperation of Church and State* is mainly the result of activist judges legislating through legal rulings, and was not in the Constitution.

That said, I think it's necessary, but we have taken it too far, since we are beginning to interfere with "the free practice thereof." Kids can't have organized prayer in schools, even if teachers aren't involved, and that is inhibiting "the free practice thereof."

Why? because we are allowed to erase the parts we don't like?

The Bible is vague on some points, the context can be ambiguous, and some parts seem contradictory.

Resolving these problems pretty much requires a less than literal reading.

I wouldn't say that we can void anything we don't like, because it leads to cases like you, where you end up believing nothing. I doubt that Christians and faithful Jews should be taking advice from an atheist.

They can do what they like.

Some parts have to be reconsidered in context of the fuller revelation of Jesus Christ, but not outright voided.

"Reconsidered." That is, re-interpreted in a non-literal manner.

On your signature:
Socialism has virtually no chance of emerging if there was no government. You need a strong government to force people to take part in socialism, which is against human nature and against God's law.

I could make an argument that moral codes would emerge under anarchy as a way to preserve some semblance of order.

Why would you want anarchy? Are you not worried about the violations of your own life, liberty and property? Are you going to provide for your own defense of these? What's your plan? Security guards?

This is completely off-topic. Read the FAQ if you're interested in some answers; there are also other threads here on the subject.

I did. See my above posts. Please show how in my above posts, jesus says "forget the old laws" or "the old laws shall be changed" or "I shall overturn the old laws".

He doesn't. He says the old laws stay.

You. Lose.
You. have. yet. to. explan. why. Jesus. mentions. tenants. of. the. old. law. and. then. sets. down. entirely. contradictory. laws.

Here's another version of the Bible where Jesus actually mentions the word "old":
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Thou Exod 20:14, Deut 5:18
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Source: http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B40C005.htm

EDIT:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets..
He never mentions the old law once here. He is simply saying that he has not come to abolish rules. The above context proves this.

You. have. yet. to. explan. why. Jesus. mentions. tenants. of. the. old. law. and. then. sets. down. entirely. contradictory. laws.

It's all absolutle bullshit, and the fact that it's extraordinarily self contradictory is a good indication of that?

I dunno, seems a good explanation to me.

The Bible is vague on some points, the context can be ambiguous, and some parts seem contradictory.

I'm sorry for being so mean to you Soheran. I really think you have a lot of potential.

Kids can't have organized prayer in schools, even if teachers aren't involved, and that is inhibiting "the free practice thereof."

.....

Yes, yes they can. My school had a prayer service every morning I believe.

The use of the word establishment is the problem.
The actual wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, the Church of England was the established church of that country. People had to pay taxes to support that church whether they believed it or not. That is what the 1st Amendment originally referred. All this *Seperation of Church and State* is mainly the result of activist judges legislating through legal rulings, and was not in the Constitution.

That said, I think it's necessary, but we have taken it too far, since we are beginning to interfere with "the free practice thereof." Kids can't have organized prayer in schools, even if teachers aren't involved, and that is inhibiting "the free practice thereof."
The first amendment clearly lays out that Congress cannot make a law with respect to religion. If you want to talk about strict interpretation, it never mentions taxes or anything like that. It simply says that, when legislating, Congress cannot involve the law with tenants of a religion.

You. have. yet. to. explan. why. Jesus. mentions. tenants. of. the. old. law. and. then. sets. down. entirely. contradictory. laws.

Here's another version of the Bible where Jesus actually mentions the word "old":

Source: http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B40C005.htm

EDIT:
He never mentions the old law once here. He is simply saying that he has not come to abolish rules. The above context proves this.
Umm, in that quote, he didn't contradict the old laws though. He just pointed out that thinking is as good as acting.

The first amendment clearly lays out that Congress cannot make a law with respect to religion. If you want to talk about strict interpretation, it never mentions taxes or anything like that. It simply says that, when legislating, Congress cannot involve the law with tenants of a religion.

You know what? I respect you. You obviously have your faith, which I don't agree with, but at least you're one that recognizes the law is what it is, and doesn't try to get around that by talking about use being a "christian nation".

So I can respect that.

You. have. yet. to. explan. why. Jesus. mentions. tenants. of. the. old. law. and. then. sets. down. entirely. contradictory. laws.
I. don't. have. to. It's. not. my. silly. mythos.

Jesus didn't come to bring new rules--he came to reinstate the old ones. You'd know that if you read the book.

The first amendment clearly lays out that Congress cannot make a law with respect to religion. If you want to talk about strict interpretation, it never mentions taxes or anything like that. It simply says that, when legislating, Congress cannot involve the law with tenants of a religion.
No. It doesn't. That's what I just said, actually.
Again.
*Establishment- To Establish, in present tense*

The reason we know he meant this definition is because of the context with the Church of England, as I stated before. The 1st Amendment never said the gov't could not make laws respecting religion. That would be why they were able to outlaw polygamy, even for those whose religion protected and promoted the practice. The gov't regularly regulates religion. It has and continues to makes laws respecting religion, so obviously that is false.

It's all absolutle bullshit, and the fact that it's extraordinarily self contradictory is a good indication of that?

I dunno, seems a good explanation to me.
That's the best you can do, huh? You think you're the first person in history to notice such a revelatory contradiction...

Jesus never mentioned that he wasn't setting out to overturn the old law. Never. He mentioned that he wasn't setting out to overturn the Law, as in rules for living. In every Biblical passage available from all different versions, Jesus clearly lays down new laws and abolishes the old laws. In the King James version, it even explicity mentions the old law (see above post) and the fact that he is overturning it with his new law. If you cannot get that concept through your thick skull, then it is clear that you are a) incredibly dense or b) are so focused on remaining a religion-hating atheist that you cannot accept the fact that some of your gripes with Christianity are non-existant -- as in the fact that the old laws that you disagree with don't apply anymore. I'd say it was quite clearly the latter.

Do you understand why the wording was able to be interpreted to allow the seperation of church and state? Even though that wasn't the original intention?

That's the best you can do, huh? You think you're the first person in history to notice such a revelatory contradiction...

Jesus never mentioned that he wasn't setting out to overturn the old law.
Matt 5:17.

You. Lose.

No. It doesn't. That's what I just said, actually.
Again.
*Establishment- To Establish, in present tense*

The reason we know he meant this definition is because of the context with the Church of England, as I stated before. The 1st Amendment never said the gov't could not make laws respecting religion. That would be why they were able to outlaw polygamy, even for those whose religion protected and promoted the practice. The gov't regularly regulates religion. It has and continues to makes laws respecting religion, so obviously that is false.

Absolutly incorrect. The government can not prevent a religion from performing their religious ceremonies.

They just don't give it legal authority. Which is a moral legislatory act, not a religious one.

Actually LEARN about the constitution, before you go blathering on about it.

No. It doesn't. That's what I just said, actually.
Again.
*Establishment- To Establish, in present tense*

The reason we know he meant this definition is because of the context with the Church of England, as I stated before. The 1st Amendment never said the gov't could not make laws respecting religion. That would be why they were able to outlaw polygamy, even for those whose religion protected and promoted the practice. The gov't regularly regulates religion. It has and continues to makes laws respecting religion, so obviously that is false.
Bolded -- have you ever read the first amendment? That's its exact wording...

Polygmay was declared illegal because such laws favoring legalized polygamy were favoring a particular religion; in that case, Moromonism. They could not, however, stop the religious ceremonies related to polygamy. Stupid example. Please name some instances where government actually regulates religion.

That's the best you can do, huh? You think you're the first person in history to notice such a revelatory contradiction...

Jesus never mentioned that he wasn't setting out to overturn the old law. Never. He mentioned that he wasn't setting out to overturn the Law, as in rules for living. In every Biblical passage available from all different versions, Jesus clearly lays down new laws and abolishes the old laws. In the King James version, it even explicity mentions the old law (see above post) and the fact that he is overturning it with his new law. If you cannot get that concept through your thick skull, then it is clear that you are a) incredibly dense or b) are so focused on remaining a religion-hating atheist that you cannot accept the fact that some of your gripes with Christianity are non-existant -- as in the fact that the old laws that you disagree with don't apply anymore. I'd say it was quite clearly the latter.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36 NASB)
Jesus even spoke of the effect his new teachings would have when they replaced the old. Also, at Jesus' death, the curtain at the temple was ripped in 2 by God to symbolize the death of the old law. This is true.

Absolutly incorrect. The government can not prevent a religion from performing their religious ceremonies.

They just don't give it legal authority. Which is a moral legislatory act, not a religious one.

Actually LEARN about the constitution, before you go blathering on about it.

The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. It later was "evolved" by the Supreme Court to mean absolutely no God anywhere, even on the state level.

"You can't legislate morality." - Jon Stewert, Steve Colbert, other Young Democrat heroes

"You can't legislate morality." - Jon Stewert, Steve Colbert, other Young Democrat heroes

SCOTUS would disagree. Laws against polygamy, incest, bestiality, homosexual marriage and a whole bunch of other things are legislated morality, nothing more.

Matt 5:17.

You. Lose.
I refuse to debate this with you anymore. You cannot bring yourself to understanding or admitting that Jesus was not mentioning the old law in that passage, as well as the fact that he again and again and again and again overturned the old law in Matthew, setting down entirely new rules.

For your ignorance and complete stupidity in reading only what you wish to read, you lose.

I refuse to debate this with you anymore.
That's fine. You just can't bring yourself to understand or admit that jesus did in fact mention the old law in that passage. I mean, what the fuck do you think "the law and the prophets" are? Seriously. Ask ANY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR. ANY.

For your complete and utter dishonesty in reading only what you want to read, you lose.

"Congress shall pass no law"

that has nothing to do with Christmas decorations at a local courthouse, Christmas calanders, prayers before a football game, state governments ( no state has a Congress...or a President for that matter), or any of the other matters that radilibs like to dig up as violating a mystical "seperation of church and state". That term was coined by Jefferson ( who was in France during the Constitutional Convention and played no role in the bill of rights) and was introduced to Constitutional law by Hugo Black. Hugo Black was a Klansman and introduced that langauage to precedent in 1962's Engle v. Vitale...right in the middle of civil rights for blacks gained steam as a movement...aided by....churches...what a coincidence!

That's fine. You just can't bring yourself to understand or admit that jesus did in fact mention the old law in that passage. I mean, what the fuck do you think "the law and the prophets" are? Seriously. Ask ANY BIBLICAL SCHOLAR. ANY.

For your complete and utter dishonesty in reading only what you want to read, you lose.
King James Version of the Bible:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Thou Exod 20:14, Deut 5:18

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
It's very easy to take the phrase "law and prophets" out of context without respect to the passage as a whole, but it's clear that by "fulfill", what with the fact that he established entirely new laws in every version of the Bible available, and even explicity mentioned that he was overturning the old laws in the above passage (KJV, the most popular version of the Bible in history), that "fulfill" means that Jesus, by being delivered to the people, has taken the burden of the old laws and rendered them null and void.

You. Lose. Any attempt you make at proving me wrong is either by way of utter stupidity or Coulter-esque manipulation. Sort of like how in quoting me in one of your prior posts you entirely ignored the evidence I gave in favor of my argument altogether...

I refuse to debate this with you anymore. You cannot bring yourself to understanding or admitting that Jesus was not mentioning the old law in that passage, as well as the fact that he again and again and again and again overturned the old law in Matthew, setting down entirely new rules.

For your ignorance and complete stupidity in reading only what you wish to read, you lose.

Jesus was a Jew? Do you know what the Law was according to the people of the time? It wasn't the new rules he was setting forth. Do you know who he was referring to when he said the Prophets in that passage? It wasn't Paul or Matthew or anyone coming in the future. He was referring to the Prophets that were held dear by the Jews of the time, the Law that was held dear by the Jews of the time. What Law and Prophets are you claiming he was referring to?