She said the TC were dictated by God, not the OT. Let’s keep the story straight.
She didn’t say translation she said interpretation. There’s a difference. If you’ve got a set of stories orally passed down, difference in interpretation as to the meaning of the story can influence how the story is told, much like the Gospels. Same basic stories, different emphasis, means different details.
Rather than as histories, it’s quite possible that the creation stories, etc., were meant as parables. Jesus seemed fond of that method of teaching, no reason why God wouldn’t try to teach lessons the same way through his preists and prophets.
As I read her post, she seemed to be saying that apparent incosistencies in the Bible stem only from subjective understanding of its meaning, that is, “interpretation.” My point was that the incosistencies I mentioned were in the text as objective discrpancies in the details.
No argument here (except that I would omit God and just call it the passing down of folk tales), but Peace Lady appears to be posting from the fundamentalist Christian POV. If this is so, then your point is irrelevant because fundies do not admit that any part of the OT is meant to be understood as anything other than literallly accurate history.
Saying that the TC were dictated by God and saying the entire OT was dictated by God are two different things. For example, we know the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, but there are still a lot of myths and legends that aren’t true that go around about them and what happened before and after or even during.
I don’t think that’s what she meant, since it sounds like she condemns most of the OT as a pack of lies. I think she means that much of the OT was written by people with screwy interpretations of different events and laws and the whole thing sort of snowballed. Of course, then you have the task of figuring out which is which and we’re back to the whole, why should Christians care about the TC.
But I think that’s what she meant.
**
Agreed. I was just trying to argue from a theist standpoint, of which I am not actually a member.
I’m also not so sure that Peace Lady is a fundamentalist since she thinks the OT is skewed.
You know, I was just citing Matthew 15 over in GD when it occurred to me it might apply here. In it, Christ talks about the Law, quoting Isaiah 29:13, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”* These people in Alabama who proudly proclaim their Christianity, and make a great deal of noise about how it’s under attack by Godless voices seem to me to overlook what Christ, Himself, said were the most important aspects of Law: loving God and ones neighbors. If they are such devout Christians, how could they have omitted the Commandment Christ gave us? Could it be that proclaiming one’s faith and dismissing those who don’t share it outweighs doing what that faith requires? I’m told non-Christians are sinners. Last time I checked, so are Christians. The Christ I worship never was one for hanging out with the respectable types. That’s one reason I thought He might accept me.
I am a Christian. Around here, I make no secret of that. On the other hand, I would much rather my life reflected my faith than a piece of jewelry around my neck or a chunk of rock in the place where I work. I would not be comfortable in Moore’s courtroom, because I’d be worried it’d be no place for an odd duck like me. I also have reason to believe some very dear friends who are highly moral people who are not Christians would feel even less welcome.
And further to HOMEBREW’s elucidation of the Supreme Court’s use of the 10C – it’s also pretty much historical (meaning, the art has been there for a good long while), which can in certain cases get you sort of a pass in the whole “no religion in gov’t” issue.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to truck a big ol’ monument of the 10C into the building today, that very likely would be just as unconstitutional as Moore’s actions were. Though if they were to do such a thing – which they wouldn’t – they’d probably be smart enough to try to pass it off as “art” or as having “historical import” and not be so stupid as to just say “Yep! It’s a religious display!”
The Ninth Commandmant: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. Therefore I must humbly point out that it was MEBuckner and Sauron who did the elucidating, not me.
I think Sauron and Aries have more Baptists and other demoninational clergy on their side than on the other.
I don’t think Peace Lady is a true fundie. I think, she, like many Christians, is going with things she has always been taught and never thought to question. As I said earlier, a few years back I probably would have been down in Montgomery sitting outside the building myself talking about how bad it was Christians had no rights in this country.
I, for one, would like to give her a chance to think her views through and evaluate them before everybody steps in to assume she is another His4Ever or a poster along those lines…
She has been polite and well spoken so far.
And thank you, MEBuckner for the info on the Supreme Court building. I was asked the question this very week about the Supreme Court building and I was ignorant of the things you pointed out.
Holy smurf shit! I’ve been away the better part of two weeks, and the judge’s doin’s is still front and center in the pit?
Really, it was better down on the Gulf Coast. Around Perdido and Orange Beach everybody’s drinkin’ and chasin’ skirts (or shorts or swimsuits, as the case may be) and the judge is not so much the Hot Topic.
Damn political opportunist, I say. He’s usin’ this as a springboard to the governorship, which he hopes to use as a springboard to the presidency.
“There are a handful of posters here from AL and we all are highly educated and thoughtful people.” Well, maybe that should be most.
I truly can’t find very many people here who agree with the judge, but then I ain’t a church mouse, and don’t travel in them circles.
Anyways, relax, y’all. Tomorrow FOOTBALL starts. Auburn kicks off against Southern Cal at 5:00 pm, and the good(?) judge will be back on page 7 of your local paper, hopefully never to return.
Perhaps I have missed something. In the interest of fighting ignorance, could you please specify the chapter and verse which state that it was Jesus who dictated the Ten Commandments?
Yeah with football season starting maybe we can resolve the conflict by replacing the monument with combined monument of Bear Bryant and Aubbie or Pat Dye. Maybe a full-scale diorama of Toomer’s Corner covered in toliet paper.
What on earth are you talking about? Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all have different lists of Ten Commandments, because the very idea of “the standard 10 commandments” as such appears nowhere in the Bible. The monument is not a Judeo-Christian monument, not even a Christian monument, but a Protestant monument, because it gives government sanction to a specific Protestant doctrine with no Biblical sanction. Even the wording of the monument doesn’t adhere to the ostensible source material which has been twisted into “the ten commandments,” so far as I can tell. The 9th/10th commandment is rendered just as “Thou shalt not covet.”
Weeelll… technically, no. Saying “thou shalt have no false gods before me” implies there are no other gods at all. Saying “thou shalt have no other gods before me” doesn’t.
Remember, the Jews weren’t always monotheistic. At the time the commandments were first written, that particular one may have been more of a political attempt to scare some groups into falling into line with a particular point of view.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, different religions group the commandments differently, which leaves even more room for interpretation.
My problem with this whole event is that, for our country and our courts, the document that’s most important isn’t the 10 Commandments, but the 10 *Amendments[i/] to the Constitution (the bill of rights, you know?)
By his own actions, Roy Moore has sought to defy the 1st amendment, not to mention his oath of office (okay, I don’t know exactly what his oath was, but I suspect it included a promise to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.)
He claimed he’d be a traitor if he removed the monument. I say he came close to being a traitor by refusing to do so.
Ben: Whoops! I misread your posting. My apologies. I see that you were splitting them the Catholic way with the coveting being divided between #9 & #10.
