 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/12/2012 3:46 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
>>> They dropped that
>>> particular commandment.
>
>> News to me.
>
> The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
> Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
> make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
> God in vain."
>
Comparing Jewish, RC & Proddy: It seems to me that Christians could not
use the Jewish first commandment as they had not been delivered out of
bondage from the Egyptians so the RCs split the verses about coveting
into two and the Proddies added the one about graven images to get at
the Catholics.
Now, I don't think that I have an axe to grind as I was baptised a RC,
brought up C of E (or as near as you can in Scotland), went to a
Presbyterian school and finally the youth group I attended was afiliated
to the United Free Church of Scotland (or the Wee Free as they are
known, sometimes, the Talaban without guns).
At this point I run out of words and enthusiasm as I remember that I
think they are all the product of power games to keep the common herd in
their place. So as Robert Burns our national poet one said.
"Where ere ye be
Let the wind gang free
So (fart noise) to the lot o' them."
>>> There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
>>> church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
>>> having the power to do such things.)
>>>
>
>> Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
>> can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
>> dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
>
> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
Eh! you say that as if the bible was the word of God. It was written by
men. The King James VI version, which most English speaking people used
for more than 300 years, was commissioned to to rationalise the
different versions being used at the time. It was finished in 1611 which
was a very long time after Jesus. So what do you think about it being an
accurate source of Jesus's life and sayings?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
> consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because*shopping*
> is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
Incidentally the play (Doctor Faustus) has a scene, mostly missed out
nowadays, where an invisible Dr. F tweaks the nose of the Pope. Showing
the disdain for Catholicism in England at the time.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/12/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
>> consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because*shopping*
>> is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
>
> You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
> To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
That's where the better party will be. ;)
> Incidentally the play (Doctor Faustus) has a scene, mostly missed out
> nowadays, where an invisible Dr. F tweaks the nose of the Pope. Showing
> the disdain for Catholicism in England at the time.
:)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:
>
> "[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
> to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:
>
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> The contradiction could not be clearer.
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
There is a legal concept known in English as a "dead letter," which
refers to laws which are still on the books but which are no longer
enforced and which would certainly be tossed out if anyone tried to
enforce them.
That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
Christianity only.
Some of the men who held the pens by which our Constitution was written
favored laws to purchase Bibles for schools and also favored laws making
it punishable to publicly deny the existence of God; and these include
men like Jefferson and Franklin.
For these men, the history of religious persecution that was most
important to them was the European one, in which various Christian
denominations managed to secure official status for themselves, and used
the apparatus of the state to make life unpleasant for other Christian
denominations.
Jefferson's famous statement about the separation of church and state
was addressed to that very specific concern. After the Constitution had
been written, a group representing one of the Christian denominations
(IIRC, Baptist) wrote asking if the newly formed government was going to
have an official church, just like every European nation had an official
church, which would behave towards other churches in the same way that
the official state churches of Europe were accustomed to behaving.
Jefferson's reply was directed specifically at that particular concern.
It was never intended to mean that the government can never do
anything that appears to be religious; that is an interpretation that
did not come about until long after the Founding Fathers passed from
this life.
The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
>
> It sounds like you're surprised that there's no rationale about something
> written in the Bible.....Um, you do remember what we're talking about,
> don't you? ;)
>
> Rationale doesn't figure into it. It's about faith - with faith, you
> don't need rationale, proof, or reason.
Reminds me of some comments I saw on a religious news article, people
were quoting parts of the bible to prove their views in the same way you
might quote a scientific paper or textbook in a debate. See page 324 in
Harry Potter, it mentions dragons flying, proof they exist!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
>>> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>>
>> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
>> commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
>> coveting.
>
> Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
> coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
Proof they were dropped:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/15-commandments
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
> a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
> of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
> Christianity only.
> The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
> Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
Yeah, because "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion" and "no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
sounds exactly like "Christianity is the de-facto religion of the
United states, that should be clear even without saying it."
I just can't see how "shall make no law" and "no religious test shall
ever be required" can be read as "the United States government and the
constitution are Christian."
I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
history and their own constitution.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:01:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and
>>>> there still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>>>
>>> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the
>>> last commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
>>> coveting.
>>
>> Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
>> coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
>
> Proof they were dropped:
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/15-commandments
I wondered if someone would use that one. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/20/2012 1:59 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 3:46 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>> They dropped that
>>>> particular commandment.
>>
>>> News to me.
>>
>> The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
>> Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
>> make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
>> God in vain."
>>
>
> Comparing Jewish, RC & Proddy: It seems to me that Christians could not
> use the Jewish first commandment as they had not been delivered out of
> bondage from the Egyptians so the RCs split the verses about coveting
> into two and the Proddies added the one about graven images to get at
> the Catholics.
Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
supposed Exodus.
Of course, Christians had no way of knowing this, since they where
basing it all on the same mythology. Of course, there is always the
possibility that they did know, and a lot of the NT was scripted
"specifically" to attempt to replace the OT, and, in the process,
justify Roman attempts to rule over, and control Jewish lands, which
they had been spending decades trying, not entirely successfully, to
conquer. How much better to undermine their religion, than to conquest
them via an ineffective war.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/21/2012 5:16 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
>> a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
>> of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
>> Christianity only.
>
>> The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
>> Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
>
> Yeah, because "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion" and "no religious Test shall ever be required as a
> Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
> sounds exactly like "Christianity is the de-facto religion of the
> United states, that should be clear even without saying it."
>
> I just can't see how "shall make no law" and "no religious test shall
> ever be required" can be read as "the United States government and the
> constitution are Christian."
>
> I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
> history and their own constitution.
>
Well, California, and now one other state, has explicitly passed state
laws that "deny" the purchase, or teaching, or revisionist history,
and/or creationism, in schools, based on precisely this sort of nonsense
being rewritten into text books, in Texas.
Strictly speaking, some of that might be vaguely true, if you a) ignore
the number of them that where basically deists, b) the one or two that
might have been pagans, or c) the fact that many, including Jefferson,
might, if such a thing had been an option, declared themselves agnostic,
or even atheist. The man, after all, rewrote the Bible, taking out every
single thing in it that might have been called "supernatural", which I
presume included creationism, Adam and Eve, in the sense most Christians
understand, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
