Is that why the monument in question in Texas has two Stars of David on it? (The second one is blocked by the guy in the picture, but imagine it in a symetrical place relative to the one that is visible.)
Intent is often hard to find, but in these cases it is sometimes express. Local politicians are either dumb enough to not realize that saying they want this displayed to glorify God will invalidate the action, or on the other hand they really don’t care if the item is ever displayed, and instead just want to generate a fight, to show how the nasty Godless liberals are persecuting Christians again.
Well, not added but it more correct to say splitted:
Care to take that putz back? even if you tried to say that to everyone, (and that is bad also) it looks like it was more directed at me, regardless, it is not kosher to use it here. ;j
As a Wiccan, and I think I speak for most Wiccans on this point, I have no gripe whatever with the Amish.
But as an ~~~AMERICAN~~~** I am seriously scared of Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionisn, Rushdoonyism, that Christofascist plan to replace our Constitution with Deuteronomy.
First off, it seems like this is to say that we are to make no images whatsoever. This would mean that Moses broke the Lord’s law when he had the two angels cast on top of the Ark of the Covenant. The Commandments are also listed in Deuteronomy 5 from which the Church father St. Augustine drew from when outlining the Catholic beliefs in this matter. More on our beliefs here . Your list is an over simplification and since it is you who is telling me what my religion believes, I reserve the right to defend it if I choose. I am even more skeptical because you used an atheist broadside to make your point.
Secondly, there aren’t any numbers associated with the Ten Commandments but an implied ten-fold division. The numbers are arbitrary and there is much debate about them to say the very least.
I am sensitive to this because it is a common anti-Catholic gripe. I’m sure this isn’t what you intended but I must register my objection to those who would take it in this way. We have our reasons for what we do and they have theirs. Early Christians used symbols and images as early as the second century A.D. so I take this to mean that the early followers of Christ understood what the Commandment meant.
I apologize about the putz smiley. As I am new here, I really am learning as I am going. I usually reside in the Pit anyway.
GIGObuster, when you’re trying to say what Roman Catholics believe, I would suggest it’s more accurate to go to a Roman Catholic source, rather than a site that’s expressly devoted to atheism. So for example, I would suggest that the most reliable site is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section Two, which outlines the Roman Catholic view of the Ten Commandments. I’ve cutted and pasted the commandments as set out in the Catechism:
Two points - you will see that contrary to the site you relied on, the Catechism does include the graven image portion, but as part of the first commandment, not as a separate commandment. However, you are correct that the Catechism splits up the coveting commandment, distinguishing between the carnal coveting of another human, compared to the coveting of property. The passages in square brackets come from the Catechism’s commentary.
Swing and a miss (with a fallacy bat to boot) The Highwayman, I was Catholic, or I do remain, as the old saying goes.
And that is the point: the commandments in the brouhaha are patterned after the protestant interpretation, in context I have to say I have an anti-protestant gripe
And here you miss the point, there is no problem for me that images are used by early Christians, the problem is the current ones that are trying to establish their version of religion in government.
Northern Piper, still the point was to show that it is the protestant interpretation that is one of the problems, and that is on top of the one the commandmends have with the establishment clause.
But your cite has a problem of a different kind: manservant, or maidservant are a whitewhash of what it was the original meaning: Slaves. It is still sad to see that a god that could have killing fits if you coveted something, had no problems with you owning slaves.
The 10 Commandments have validity only if they are kept; so posting them in a public place, and worrying if they are not, suggests to me that the people who are so adament about having them posted have weak faith, and need every one to agree with their beliefs, or it may worry them that maybe… they are wrong.
I have never passed a church that had the commandments posted out front.
You know, now that it is a day later, and I have calmed down a bit, I think I will explain what the hell I was on when I made that remark. Anger. That is all for today, thank you for listening.
Wait, you mean there is one more part? Oh, ok.
Well, I am not sure where, but I seem to recall hearing that the tablets are a promotional item, from an effort to promote Charleston Heston’s film, when it first came out. (Humanist magazine?) Unfortunately, “movie prop” +“ten commandments” is not yielding much on google, and I have no interest in digging deep.
Well, not really even that. There are thirteen separate statements. And not only are they never refferred to as the Ten commandments, but a DIFFERENT set of commandments are refferred to as the ten commandments. But I have a feeling that we don’t generally remember them because they include things that seem downright silly like “all the firstborn are mine!” All sorts of absurd theological contortions and rationalizations are made over this issue to fit what is a pretty complicated story of laws (numbering far more than ten in any count) into the Christian rethinking of Old Testament documents.
