What I don’t get is why the Christians even care about the Ten Commandments so much anyway. They’re Jewish, not Christian. They’re a part of the 316 commandments from the Torah, none of which, as I understand, Christians are obligated to follow. Or maybe Christians have changed their mind on following the Torah and I missed the news? Will they start keeping kosher now?
[sub]Oh, shit.[/sub]
I meant “Guideposts”! Really! There was this pictoria … um, article on Juggs Naughty, the … no, no! Judge not! That was it! I don’t know where “Juggs Naughty” came from! Ignore that! It was “Judge not, lest ye be judged”! That was it! Yes! Really!
Whew! That was close. Now, as long as I don’t hit “Submit Reply”, I’m golden.
[sub]Oh, shit.[/sub]
Number the Eleventh: Thou shalt get even.
As someone who actually is a student of history, and by that I mean “What actually happened” and not “Fundie porn some preacher told me to believe”, I find this statement to be scary as hell.
KYLA –
Surely you’re not serious.
Whether read literally, figuratively, or mythically, the acknowledged holy book of Christianity is the Bible – both Old Testament and New Testament. (Which Bible? Depends on who you ask.) The Ten Commandments: figure prominently in the OT; form in part the basis of Judaism (which is in turn the basis of Christianity); include the chief commandment of both religions (and Islam as well) that there is only one God; and also set forth some handy rules for living, including the part about not coveting the ass of your neighbor.
Frankly, I can’t believe you are seriously unaware the of the fact that the Old Testament (including three versions of the 10C) is as much a part of our holy book as it is a part of yours.
For a great discussion of the 10C and the Judge Roy Bean Moore debacle, see (as usual for religious issues) religioustolerance.org, a link to which is right here
. . . Which you will see makes the important point, thus far overlooked in this discussion, that only five or so of the 10C actually deal with the law, as opposed to morality. Compare: “Don’t Kill People” with “Don’t Take My Name In Vain.” So how do the pro-10C in a flipping government building people justify the inclusion of clearly non-legal maxims such as “make no graven images”?
And if your answer is that you think the government has any business imposing morality, ask yourself if you’d feel the same way if it was imposing morality you didn’t happen to agree with.
People only think government meddling in religion or morality is a great idea when they believe the meddling will be in support of, and in complete agreement with, their own personal beliefs. But if you give the government that much power when it agrees with you, how do you propose to take that power back when it no longer does? That’s the short-sightedness of supporting Moore and what he stands for.
Amen to that! It’s why these battles against any such in-your-face form of religion-brandishing are worth fighting. I’m not going to get worked up about a Christmas creche in the town square, for example; but something like this cannot be let slide. For everyone’s good, including the protesters’ if they only could see it.
See, now we’re back to coveting our neighbor’s ass.
No, and I wasn’t suggesting that. But it is my understanding that Christians believe that Jesus ended the previous covenant with God and created a new one, one that doesn’t require following the laws set down in the Torah. The Ten Commandments are a part of those laws. Why should Christians embrace those ten laws so emphatically and, OTOH, say that they can eat shellfish? It strikes me as picking and choosing.
Jesus said that the two most important laws (guidelines, rules, commandments, whatever) were “love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” (Paraphrasing a bit there.)
One can argue that these two commandments would, in various forms, meet the criteria put forth in all of the Ten Commandments (for example, loving your neighbor would preclude killing him/her, would prevent you from bearing false witness, etc.). So viewed in that light, what Jesus said is a simplification – and, at the same time, validation – of the 10C. Therefore, they’re still an important part of a Christian’s life.
The shellfish thing is covered later in the New Testament, when Peter (I think) is shown a table in a vision covered in various types of food. He refuses to eat any of it, saying that it’s “unclean.” God rebukes him by saying, in effect, “Hey, homeboy, don’t be dissin’ my cookin’. I made it, so you can eat it.”
KYLA –
You see no difference between “You shall have no other gods but Me” and “You shall not use the same bowls for meat and milk, nay, not even if you wash them first”?
I think Christians still adhere to the 10C (or at least admit that they ought to) because the 10C set down important, fundamental, universal religious and moral principles of enduring import, and Christians feel that nothing in Jesus’s new covenant indicates that they should not continue to follow them. Jesus’s teachings did not serve to overrule the OT entire, as if you just throw out the old playbook without regard to whether the rules in it make sense or not. If that had been the case, then the Christian Bible would be the NT alone, and it’s not. So I think it is more accurate to say that Christians do not believe they are required to follow all the laws of the Torah. And while that may in fact leave us open to a charge of “picking and choosing,” it’s an open question whether it’s worse to “pick and choose” to follow those religious laws that make moral and logical sense, or to strictly follow a number of laws that don’t make much sense at all.
In other words, and speaking only for myself, I can understand why God desires me not to kill people; I’m more at a loss to imagine why He cares if I eat shellfish. Surely you can see the logic in jettisoning rules that no longer serve any purpose, while keeping those that still do?
Okay, that makes sense to me. I didn’t mean to offend, I was genuinely confused by this.
Not all of them. What’s so universal, or particularly moral, about the prohibition on graven images, other gods and the Sabbath?
At least you acknowledge it’s arbitrary.
How do you know which serve God’s purpose and which don’t? You may be at a loss as to why God cares if you eat shellfish, but the rule’s there. Who are you to question it? Maybe he has a reason that you just don’t know yet.
I’m at a loss as to why he would care who I sleep with. So instead of trying to justify why I disregard one rule but keep others, I just use my own morality and disregard the whole thing.
Tell me another one, granpa, like the time the 600 ft Lassie appeared to you and told you to build the dog shelter! **
And yet numerous Christians held slaves. **
And when was the last time you saw a Roman crucifying a Christian? **
Yeah, was it specifically designed for Christians? Nope. **
And your point is?
**
Riiiiiiiiiiight. The North just sat around saying, “Gee, we’d really like to go to war with someone, but there’s nobody handy. Hey! Let’s piss the South off, they’ll secede and then we’ll declare war on them!”
**
Obviously a piss poor one since so many people have handed your ass to you in this thread over some of the things you’ve said. (Care to continue your claim that the Founding Fathers were specifically speaking about Jehovah in the Declaration of Independance?) **
Oh, so that’s okay, then, I take it? :rolleyes: Sure took them a hell of a long time to get around to doing something about it, didn’t it? 300 fucking years. **
Yeah, it’s too bad a good number of Christians don’t follow that advice.
You didn’t offend me, KYLA, and I hope I didn’t offend you. 
HOMEBREW –
Well, “universal” in the sense of applying in the universe of those who accept some degree of Biblical authority at all, which apparently doesn’t include you. As to why it is particularly moral to do one thing or another – if you think I’m getting in that argument with you, you’re nuts.
I said, “And while that may in fact leave us open to a charge of ‘picking and choosing,’ it’s an open question whether it’s worse to “pick and choose” to follow those religious laws that make moral and logical sense, or to strictly follow a number of laws that don’t make much sense at all.”
To which you reply:
But I didn’t, did I? “Following those laws that make moral and logical sense” is hardly an arbitrary action, unless you’re operating under a different definition of the word “arbitrary” than the one I’m familiar with.
Basically, I ask Him. And people I respect whom I think might know. And I use the brains He gave me. It ain’t that hard. There are many Christians who believe their faith requires blind obedience without regard to their own understanding or common sense. I am not one of them. And unexamined life, and all that. To paraphrase Galileo, I don’t believe the God who gave me a brain would expect me to refrain from using it.
I’m me. Who am I not to question it? I am not a Jew, so the rule is “not there” for me anyway. Who are you to question it? Your nonbelief wins you a pass, but mine does not? I don’t hold to the tenets of a faith that is not my own, any more than you do.
Who are you to decide what is moral? Who are you to make a reasoned decision to “disregard the whole thing”? Which, of course, you don’t do anyway. Presumably, your personal morality includes following those rules that are useful and make sense, just as mine does. I just happen to believe my personal morality comes from a higher power. And at the end of the day, who are you to question that?
WTF? I didn’t know adultery was a capital crime.
:rolleyes:
No, it’s not Roy Moore’s property-it’s taxpayer property. Government property. It’s PUBLIC property, you drooling imbecile.
And here, I thought you pretended to be a student of history. Your odd claim is directly contradicted by the fact the the President and Vice-President of the Confederacy each enumerated slavery as the point of the rebellion and that the right to maintain slavery (that was not even under attack by the Northern states for the existing states) was explicitly declared in the declarations of seccession in four of the seceding states and mentioned in several others’ shorter statements.
If this doesn’t constitute Biblical support for homosexuality, I don’t know what does.
Did anybody else here the tape of one of the protestors yelling “PUT IT BAAACK! PUT IT BAAAACK! GET YOUR HANDS OFF OUR GOD!?”
Just wanted to point out the level of reasonable discourse going on around this issue right now.
I really hope Judge Moore never gets back on the bench. IMHO the guy has no business being involved in law. I also hope he never gets elected to any other office, since I can’t help but think this is all intended to push him into the spotlight for a congressional seat or something.
Like I said in the other thread, they protestors are breaking the Commandments by their defense of the statue as an idol. One of the protestors said to NBC News, “It’s as if the governemtn were evicting God from the courthouse.” Watching this, I thought, how odd that these fundaloonies have so little faith in the might of their God that they think He can be evicted by the removal of a statue.
Morons.
Saw it reported on Foxnews.com, of all places. I thought it had to be a Simpson’s quote or something.
That answers whoever said the thing itsn’t being treated like a holy relic or something. Get your hands off our God. Unbelievable.