Tear down the 10 Commandments

[gallantwarrior]

as everyone should know that Christmas is a PAGAN HOLIDAY USURPED BY CHRISTIANITY .
Love this time of year.

The same is true with most christian holidays. The church saw it as expedient to coopt local pagan holidays when they were converting the unwashed masses of barbarians. Later "holidays" (Kwanzaa) co-opted the christian holidays in order to compete. Fact is, mankind has been much more closely linked with the natural cycle in the past. Modern religious leaders were clever enough to recognize the connection with cyclic celebrations.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey.........I personally think that they should be allowed to stay. Why? Because I also believe the 10 Commandments are a good idea, as it is a way for the human race to keep on keepin' on.

God was not having his best day when he wrote the ten commandments

I could have done a better job

actually there were over 400 commandments given, Paul did the editing..so if their fucked up blame him.
I'm for keeping church and state as far apart as possible..
a religion should have only the Right to display their symbols on their own property.
public buildings need to stay religious symbol free.
since the SANTA we know today was created by the coca cola company in the 1930's
he can go anywhere,especially since lot's of churches have vending machines.

No, there have never been 400 commandments, however, for those of the Jewish faith, there are 613 Mitzvot which are rules that govern how a community should run.

As far as the 10 Commandments? Wanna explain how it's possible for Paul to have screwed things up when they were originally given to Moses in the book Exodus (which is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY before Paul).

If you wanna blame someone, blame the Romans and their formation of the Catholic Church.

 

[mudwhistle]

As odd as this may seem, I am probably more christian than many church-goers of my acquaintance. I do not think that human goodness comes from the place you kneel once a week. It comes from within a person. Whatever label you give it, it seems too few people have confused that nature with the label.

I think being a Christian is a private thing.

Keep it to yourself. Don't pray in public. Praying in public is an attempt to glorify yourself with others.

It's good to talk about it when those around you show interest, but being a Christian is like a secret between us and God.

However, I believe that it's not right for folks to go around getting insulted whenever they see a cross.

I feel the same way about who you are fucking, and how you do it. PDAs, of any stripe, should be kept at home.
I'm with you as far as folks need to grow a thicker skin. On a scale of 1-10, how is what they believe going to affect me? I've been condemned to hell many times. I asked one "christian" once if dogs and cats were to be found in heaven and was told unequivocally that "No", they were not. I let her know I'd rather go where the dogs and cats were.

My first question after their answer would be how do they know if they've never been there in the first place.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I fall into the "not necessarily christian" category. I find it far more offensive when someone demands that their "faith" be substituted for another. Like the way atheists demand that all christian-related symbolism be removed from public view while either demanding, or at least condoning, the substitution of islamic religious observances or even the forcible adoption of the "gay" agenda as classroom doctrine.

Atheism isn’t a ‘faith,’ and no one is advocating one faith ‘replace’ another. Any symbol – Christian, Muslim, Jewish – which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is subject to restrictions accordingly. Last, there is no ‘gay agenda.’

... but where are all the nativity scenes that have been banned? It's a public venue, why aren't everyone's sensitivities considered? Maybe NO displays, of any kind, would be best? Gravy for the goose....

As noted, they were likely state sanctioned, and found in violation of the Establishment Clause. Case law on this has been all over the judicial map for decades to the point where no consistent precedent exists. Otherwise it has nothing to do with public venues or ‘offended sensibilities,’ it has only to do with a state authorized religious display, the state’s intent as to the display, and the degree of state ‘entanglement.’

And what one person views as protected speech may be considered obscene by someone else.

Since obscenity is not protected speech, it must first be determined if given speech is indeed obscene:

The Supreme Court has created a three-part test, known as the Miller test, to determine
whether a work is obscene. The Miller test asks:

(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.7

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973)

 

[daws101]

as everyone should know that Christmas is a PAGAN HOLIDAY USURPED BY CHRISTIANITY .
Love this time of year.

The same is true with most christian holidays. The church saw it as expedient to coopt local pagan holidays when they were converting the unwashed masses of barbarians. Later "holidays" (Kwanzaa) co-opted the christian holidays in order to compete. Fact is, mankind has been much more closely linked with the natural cycle in the past. Modern religious leaders were clever enough to recognize the connection with cyclic celebrations.

thanks, for the info I already had.

 

[daws101]

God was not having his best day when he wrote the ten commandments

I could have done a better job

actually there were over 400 commandments given, Paul did the editing..so if their fucked up blame him.
I'm for keeping church and state as far apart as possible..
a religion should have only the Right to display their symbols on their own property.
public buildings need to stay religious symbol free.
since the SANTA we know today was created by the coca cola company in the 1930's
he can go anywhere,especially since lot's of churches have vending machines.

No, there have never been 400 commandments, however, for those of the Jewish faith, there are 613 Mitzvot which are rules that govern how a community should run.

As far as the 10 Commandments? Wanna explain how it's possible for Paul to have screwed things up when they were originally given to Moses in the book Exodus (which is WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY before Paul).

If you wanna blame someone, blame the Romans and their formation of the Catholic Church.

Many Christians, in order to show Torah observant believers the "error of their ways," gleefully and with undertones of sarcasm bring up the fact that "no one can keep those old 613 commandments." Fact is, hardly any of these Christians realize what the 613 commandments were, in the first place, nor that no one (including Yeshua) has ever kept them all - because most were for the priests; some were only for men while others only for women; some were only for a certain point in time; some for Nazirite vows, and 200+ related to the Temple which is not standing!

They also don't realize that the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) were more of a man-made tradition rather than an actual number of commandments sent down by YHWH (Yahweh). The idea originated in the Talmud which says there are both "positive" and "negative" mitzvot (do's and don'ts) which can be divided into 365 Negative Mitzvot (to remind us not to do bad things every day of the year) plus 248 Positive Mitzvot (the number of bones in the human body - for a total of 613. In this way, we are able to obey the mitzvot with our entire body.

Similarly, the tzit-tzit (knotted fringes) of the tallit (prayer shawl) are also connected to the 613 commandments. Torah commentator Rashi declared that the number of knots on a tzit-tzit (in its Mishnaic spelling) has the value of 600. When doubled over, each tassel has eight threads and five sets of knots, which totals 13 - for a grand total of 613. This concept reminds tallit wearers of all Torah commandments.

The above way of tying the knots is done by the Ashkenazi Jews, whereas the Sephardic Jews tie the knots in a way that causes them to spell out the Name of YHWH. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value; consequently, the knots of the tzit-tzit on the four corners of a tallit spell out the name of YHWH/Yahweh. When Yeshua returns as "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:11-13,16), the tzit-tzits of His tallit will fall - where else, but across his thighs when He returns to earth atop a white horse....

The world needs to be made aware of the fact that, while God gave us many commands to follow, including the Ten Commandments, He did NOT "do away with Torah" (His Divine Instructions in Righteousness found in the first five Books of the Bible without which man would have NO blueprint for moral, holy living). Yeshua attempted to abolish the rabbinical, man-made "stuff" - the opinions and traditions that kept people in bondage. Neither He nor His apostles ever spoke against Torah nor suggested that after Yeshua's death Torah was to become null and void! (That is a strictly Christian concept which cannot be verified in the Scriptures!) Paul (upon whose much-misunderstood writings Christianity has based its entire theology) verified this when he said: Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)

Neither He nor His apostles ever spoke against Torah nor suggested that after Yeshua's death Torah was to become null and void! (That is a strictly Christian concept which cannot be verified in the Scriptures!) Paul (upon whose much-misunderstood writings Christianity has based its entire theology)

http://www.therefinersfire.org/original_commandments.htm

 

[JoeB131]

in every courthouse in this country. After all, they are archaic and offensive to our more "progressive" brethren. But a display like this, offensive to some and downright frightening to children, this is protected speech? Really? When did this entire country move into the topsy-turvy Twilight Zone hell we now inhabit?

County Displays Crucified Santa on Courthouse Lawn | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

From the contradictory Godless Conservative point of view.

I don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments in courts, in that they do have an important place in the history of law. The SCOTUS has a Ten Commandments as part of the history of law, along with the Code of Hamurabi and Mohammed.

The Ten Commandment themselves I think have some silly rules. The first four are essentially about God's insecurities. No other gods, no graven images, don't use my name in vain, remember the Sabbath. I'm God, and I need a hug.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd rather write the commandments on my heart and live them every day than tear them down anywhere.

 

[Jackson]

in every courthouse in this country. After all, they are archaic and offensive to our more "progressive" brethren. But a display like this, offensive to some and downright frightening to children, this is protected speech? Really? When did this entire country move into the topsy-turvy Twilight Zone hell we now inhabit?

County Displays Crucified Santa on Courthouse Lawn | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Downright frightening to children? Thou shall not kill and Honor thy mother and father?

Maybe some people just look for things to be offended about. Your thoughts on this board does not offend me.

 

[rightwinger]

in every courthouse in this country. After all, they are archaic and offensive to our more "progressive" brethren. But a display like this, offensive to some and downright frightening to children, this is protected speech? Really? When did this entire country move into the topsy-turvy Twilight Zone hell we now inhabit?

County Displays Crucified Santa on Courthouse Lawn | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Downright frightening to children? Thou shall not kill and Honor thy mother and father?

Maybe some people just look for things to be offended about. Your thoughts on this board does not offend me.

Ten commandments frightening to children? Scares even me...

.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I am a jealous god.......visiting the iniquity of th fathers upon the children

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWvkG5px704]Spies & Apostles (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FA_Q2]

Absolutely fantastic.

I am not prone to defending religious symbols in public buildings. Religion does not belong there but the protest symbol forced me to crack a smile. Creative to say the least.

Oddly enough, this would not be an issue if people would simply let it lie. There is no reason that anyone is 'offended' by the 10 commandments and, while they are technically incorrect for a public building, there is zero harm in the act.

 

[Newby]

I fall into the "not necessarily christian" category. I find it far more offensive when someone demands that their "faith" be substituted for another. Like the way atheists demand that all christian-related symbolism be removed from public view while either demanding, or at least condoning, the substitution of islamic religious observances or even the forcible adoption of the "gay" agenda as classroom doctrine.

Atheism isn’t a ‘faith,’ and no one is advocating one faith ‘replace’ another. Any symbol – Christian, Muslim, Jewish – which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is subject to restrictions accordingly. Last, there is no ‘gay agenda.’

... but where are all the nativity scenes that have been banned? It's a public venue, why aren't everyone's sensitivities considered? Maybe NO displays, of any kind, would be best? Gravy for the goose....

As noted, they were likely state sanctioned, and found in violation of the Establishment Clause. Case law on this has been all over the judicial map for decades to the point where no consistent precedent exists. Otherwise it has nothing to do with public venues or ‘offended sensibilities,’ it has only to do with a state authorized religious display, the state’s intent as to the display, and the degree of state ‘entanglement.’

And what one person views as protected speech may be considered obscene by someone else.

Since obscenity is not protected speech, it must first be determined if given speech is indeed obscene:

The Supreme Court has created a three-part test, known as the Miller test, to determine
whether a work is obscene. The Miller test asks:

(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value.7

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973)

Since when is displaying a symbol an 'establishment' of anything?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Since when is displaying a symbol an 'establishment' of anything?

When a law-making entity enacts in public law or policy a measure to promote a given religion, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a test to determine if a given measure passes Constitutional muster:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

If the measure fails any of the three ‘prongs’ of the test, it is determined to be un-Constitutional.

There is no primary secular purpose for displaying the Ten Commandments on public buildings, other than to promote or advance Judeo-Christian principles and dogma; the state is advocating a given faith, establishing and codifying the tenets of that faith in the public sector. This is clearly a violation of the Framers’ original intent to keep separate church and State. See: McCollum v. Board of Education (1948).

 

[Newby]

Since when is displaying a symbol an 'establishment' of anything?

When a law-making entity enacts in public law or policy a measure to promote a given religion, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a test to determine if a given measure passes Constitutional muster:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

If the measure fails any of the three ‘prongs’ of the test, it is determined to be un-Constitutional.

There is no primary secular purpose for displaying the Ten Commandments on public buildings, other than to promote or advance Judeo-Christian principles and dogma; the state is advocating a given faith, establishing and codifying the tenets of that faith in the public sector. This is clearly a violation of the Framers’ original intent to keep separate church and State. See: McCollum v. Board of Education (1948).

Displaying the 10 commandments at the court house or a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is not 'enacting' anything, let alone legislation. It says 'shall make no law', words have meaning, no law has been passed when a symbol has been displayed.