10 Commandments to go on State Capitol

[cannon_fodder]

First, I disagree that Jesus was all about peace love and harmony.  I agree that is the image most choose to accept and that compared to the old God he is super.  I am also happy we choose a loving God over a spiteful vindictive and jealous god.  But the New Testament is rather explicit about what happens when Jesus returns to earth, and it fails to live up to the peace and love attributed (something like 99.99% of people cast into hell by the most ardent estimates, still something like 80% by most estimates).  There are plenty of references that seem out of place for a person devoted to Love:

But why take my arguments on the topic?
(citations to King James, http://www.biblegateway.com)

Jesus Said
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 5:17.  It goes on to say that you shouldn't break even one of the least commandments. 

Jesus Said
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Luke 17:26.  Describing how God kicked Lots butt and will continue to kick butt in the time of the Son of Man.

Jesus said
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 19:27. Presumably he wants to have them killed out of compassion, mercy and love.

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction . . . .

2 Thessalonians: 6-9.  Flaming fire vengeance from our new loving God on anyone that worships differently.  Isn't jealousy a sin and vengeance so Old Testament?

Hebrews has tons of things on casting people to perdition and how we should fear our living God.  Revelations is nothing but loving God destroying things.  But how are we to know?  Even the Bible frequently talks about God sending delusions, false prophets, and messages in parables so distorted that people won't be able to properly understand them (and will therefor be damned).  Personally, if a teacher intentionally made things confusing and flunked me, I'd be pissed.

In any event.  It is clear that Jesus unconditionally loves people who believe he is the Son of a God, a quasi God himself and do what he tells them to.  Well, he loves the other people too but hopes they are brought before him and killed and eventually he will return to Earth and cast them into a pit of eternal fire to suffer a most unimaginable fate for all time.  Which really screws with my definition of unconditional and how you treat people you love.  Frankly, loving people and treating them well when they do what you tell them to isn't that amazing to me.


But if we want to revert to the argument that the new God is a loving God:

So God changed his mind on some of the rules over the course of a couple thousand year.  Now we are a couple thousand year removed from Jesus.  Have those rules subsequently changed?  And doesn't it seem strange that a perfect deity would need to revise his teachings (or is it because the perfect being created imperfect man in his image?) in what to him would be the blink of an eye?  And if the New God is different than the Old God, why keep the Old Testament around when much of it is admittedly chronically horrible acts by/in the name of God?

You are reading into the context of a bronze age text that has been revised, redacted, and translated hundreds of times by men - often with open political motives.  Certainly a difficult task for scholars and open to multiple interpretations.   And given the number of interpretations it is highly likely that it is often incorrect.  Which seems a dangerous thing to live by.

I understanding the theory.  Old God was wrathful and liked to spite entire villages and his most ardent followers on a whim (or to prove how cool he was to an underling/Satan).  New God is happy-go lucky and isn't cool with the things the old God told people to do.  But Jesus never revoked or even spoke out against the vast majority of the laws (including slavery, as The South pointed our ad nasuem).  Hence, some of the old rules still apply (10 Commandments) but others do not (mixing cloth, stoning people) - and each sect gets to decide which apply and how to interpret them. 

But that kind of goes to the heart of the argument, we are choosing portions of laws handed down by a God that are still adhered to by a certain religious faith.   To the Jews God never did away with their laws.  To some fundamentalist Christians many of the old laws still apply.  Even the version of the 10 Commandments isn't agreed upon by Protestants, Catholics, Jews or Muslims.

And none of that goes to the fact that most of the Biblical Laws are not laws in our secular society.  Most notable the key one (belief in that particular God).  Given all that confusion and the underlying problems, a monument to the 10 Commandments as a basis for anything seems inappropriate

[rwarn17588]

^ +1

An exceedingly good and well-thought-out argument. Did anyone suggest to you that you ought to go into the law profession? 

[FOTD]

Sorry Sparty, but the demon just can't grok gawd's shock. Must be grounded.

Religulousness and churchianity do serve a good purpose when they stay out of our government.

Did not really understand the draw until Charlie Hayden emotionally produced on his non jazz cd, "Jesus, I don't want'a die alone."

Hmmmm, maybe Mike Ritze and his wingnuts need to see the huge numbers of agnostics and atheists raising their children  to be as good if not better for society than their sheeples.

[buckeye]

Trouble comes in when trying to assign human motivations and understanding to God's actions, I'd say.  Who are we to question His designs?  In other other, so what if he changed His mind - as if one data point is basis for a trend, etc.

I didn't intend to expand this thread into this kind of discussion, rather to point out what I viewed as a couple weak points in your argument.  But it didn't stick - as Luke 19:27 is the end of a parable and you've made only a very cursory attempt at interpretation, as before...

The subject of God's wrath surely is a sticky one, and once again - I don't understand how anybody can claim to understand God's motivations or rationale - that's bald-faced hubris.

In any case, I don't disagree with your point necessarily and really don't understand why the legislature passed the bill.  Political bluster, I suppose, pandering to the church crowd.  Well frankly, I resent pandering.

One thing I'll yield for sure, the reading of an ancient document translated through several languages, etc. etc. is full of pitfalls and room for differing interpretations.

FOTD, I'm not sure...but I think if your post made more sense, I'd be offended. 

[rwarn17588]

Hmmmm, maybe Mike Ritze and his wingnuts need to see the huge numbers of agnostics and atheists raising their children  to be as good if not better for society than their sheeples.

Interesting video. Well, not really.

My exposure to that song came from Johnny Cash, which takes on a whole 'nother context when the Man in Black sings it:

[FOTD]

Good one rwarn....thanks.

Cash was an American icon.

Ohio, cryptic is the devils way of communicating.

Especially, when it comes to Okie religious themes. Gotta read between the lines. Sorta what people do with the word of gawd.

[cannon_fodder]

Well Buckeye, I guess that's where the crux of the difference is.  I see things in the Bible that don't make sense, that conflict with each other,  or are patently false.  I see behavior in a loving God that I would be shocked to see from my enemies.  Instead of saying "oh well, probably something I just don't understand" and continuing on my merry way I ask why it would be that way.  The answer inevitably boils down to not questioning the book/God and just have faith and move on.

Religion is the only place in the modern world were ignorance is considered a virtue.  If you carefully read the Bible you will necessarily see these problems, but the more ignorant you are and the more willing to accept things without question, the more rewarded you will be.    Which to me is a huge red flag.  Either the book is in error, or God is an irrational being (at least from the human perspective).  In the former case one must distrust the entirety of the book, in the latter we can't claim to really know what God wants of us or if God has/did/or will change his mind. 

Hence, it is a matter of faith.  Faith being entirely antagonistic to logic.  And logic being a requisite to the just rule of law.   Which brings us back to my problem with posting faith based religious rules as an underlying doctrine behind the law of the land.

Good discussion.  We'll just wait and see what happens.

(and I realize I truncated my references, I get accused of writing novels [and how] so I am attempting to be brief)

[okcpulse]

Well Buckeye, I guess that's where the crux of the difference is.  I see things in the Bible that don't make sense, that conflict with each other,  or are patently false.  I see behavior in a loving God that I would be shocked to see from my enemies.  Instead of saying "oh well, probably something I just don't understand" and continuing on my merry way I ask why it would be that way.  The answer inevitably boils down to not questioning the book/God and just have faith and move on.

Religion is the only place in the modern world were ignorance is considered a virtue.  If you carefully read the Bible you will necessarily see these problems, but the more ignorant you are and the more willing to accept things without question, the more rewarded you will be.    Which to me is a huge red flag.  Either the book is in error, or God is an irrational being (at least from the human perspective).  In the former case one must distrust the entirety of the book, in the latter we can't claim to really know what God wants of us or if God has/did/or will change his mind. 

Hence, it is a matter of faith.  Faith being entirely antagonistic to logic.  And logic being a requisite to the just rule of law.   Which brings us back to my problem with posting faith based religious rules as an underlying doctrine behind the law of the land.

Good discussion.  We'll just wait and see what happens.

(and I realize I truncated my references, I get accused of writing novels [and how] so I am attempting to be brief)

Well, I love both of my sons unconditionally, but if one of them were to make a poor choice for their life despite how I raised him, I'm not going to wipe his a$$ for him.  It is his choice, his fate.  And, yeah, I'd be pissed knowing that all of the effort and passion I put into raising him to be a gentleman went down the drain with his choices.  I'd also want to go after the sonofabitch that corrupted him.

He'd suffer the consequences of his choices, and I would always love him, but the path he chose is his cross to bear.  I would always have hope that he'd come around, and I will always be his father regardless, but it is entirely up to him.

Right now, my boys are just toddlers.  I can only hope that I succeed and they will in turn succeed.  I believe God sees the same in all of us.

He loves us unconditionally, but our choices are our cross to bear.  What God's vengeance means remains to be seen. 

And if you haven't seen his unconditional love or vengeance demonstrated personally, I wouldn't rely on the bible as the end-all be-all type of documentation.  Just more of a guidance tool.

[custosnox]

Well, I love both of my sons unconditionally, but if one of them were to make a poor choice for their life despite how I raised him, I'm not going to wipe his a$$ for him.  It is his choice, his fate.  And, yeah, I'd be pissed knowing that all of the effort and passion I put into raising him to be a gentleman went down the drain with his choices.  I'd also want to go after the sonofabitch that corrupted him.

He'd suffer the consequences of his choices, and I would always love him, but the path he chose is his cross to bear.  I would always have hope that he'd come around, and I will always be his father regardless, but it is entirely up to him.

Right now, my boys are just toddlers.  I can only hope that I succeed and they will in turn succeed.  I believe God sees the same in all of us.

He loves us unconditionally, but our choices are our cross to bear.  What God's vengeance means remains to be seen. 

And if you haven't seen his unconditional love or vengeance demonstrated personally, I wouldn't rely on the bible as the end-all be-all type of documentation.  Just more of a guidance tool.

As a parent we must make the choice of when to intervien in our childrens lives and when not to.  And yes, this means at times, for the better interest of the children, we let them fall on their face.  However, this is not the same as the context in which cf puts things.  I love my kids, and I have let them fail and pay the price (and the oldest is only 12), however, I do not fire up the stove and tell them I'm going to roast em if they don't do things exactly as I tell them to.  That is the differance here.  As parents, we teach our children with the goal of them succeeding in life.  As an omnipetent being, God throws a tantrum if you don't do it exactly as he wants and punishes you to the extreme for it (as per the bible, particularly the old testiment).  But then, I guess I can start raising my children with the bible as my guide book.  2/3's of the are very misbehaved.  There may not be a chance that I cansave them.  Let me drown the bad ones and let the good one (let's call this good one noah) live.  I'm sure I can so much better with the next batch.

[okcpulse]

As a parent we must make the choice of when to intervien in our childrens lives and when not to.  And yes, this means at times, for the better interest of the children, we let them fall on their face.  However, this is not the same as the context in which cf puts things.  I love my kids, and I have let them fail and pay the price (and the oldest is only 12), however, I do not fire up the stove and tell them I'm going to roast em if they don't do things exactly as I tell them to.  That is the differance here.  As parents, we teach our children with the goal of them succeeding in life.  As an omnipetent being, God throws a tantrum if you don't do it exactly as he wants and punishes you to the extreme for it (as per the bible, particularly the old testiment).  But then, I guess I can start raising my children with the bible as my guide book.  2/3's of the are very misbehaved.  There may not be a chance that I cansave them.  Let me drown the bad ones and let the good one (let's call this good one noah) live.  I'm sure I can so much better with the next batch.

I do agree with you, however you do realize all of this discussion is being centered around the Old Testament, which was pretty much thrown out of the window when Jesus was sacrificed.  Right now my cousin is reading the Old Testament.  She thinks laws from the Old Testament are in effect.  God doesn't fire up the stove anymore.  Again, we suffer our own consequences.  We stick our own feet in the fire.  The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ.  There are certainly valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, but it is what it is, a history lesson. 

[guido911]

Henry signed the bill

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090518_298_0_OKLAHO112466

[cannon_fodder]

The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ. 

Good to know we will have a history lesson from your holy book to your God's law before your Christ reset your religious laws displayed on our governmental grounds.

Remember, it has nothing to do with religion . . .

[swake]

I do agree with you, however you do realize all of this discussion is being centered around the Old Testament, which was pretty much thrown out of the window when Jesus was sacrificed.  Right now my cousin is reading the Old Testament.  She thinks laws from the Old Testament are in effect.  God doesn't fire up the stove anymore.  Again, we suffer our own consequences.  We stick our own feet in the fire.  The Old Testament is nothing more than a history lesson to God's law before Christ.  There are certainly valuable lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, but it is what it is, a history lesson. 

Except of course it's not history.

History: A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events

The Old Testament is a religious teaching text, but as nearly all the events described inside never happened it's specifically not a history text.

The world was not created in six days, the Red Sea wasn't parted, there was no 40 day flood, the animals didn't board an ark two by two, the world is not 6,000 years old and Eve wasn't sprung from Adam's rib there was no garden of Eden and no apple. I could go on but that's a start.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Except of course it's not history.

History: A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events

The Old Testament is a religious teaching text, but as nearly all the events described inside never happened it's specifically not a history text.

The world was not created in six days, the Red Sea wasn't parted, there was no 40 day flood, the animals didn't board an ark two by two, the world is not 6,000 years old and Eve wasn't sprung from Adam's rib there was no garden of Eden and no apple. I could go on but that's a start.

This is exactly why our economy is in the crapper.

[custosnox]

This is exactly why our economy is in the crapper.

Our economy is in the crapper because people actually take a moment to analize things instead of believing any old fable that is passed on to us?  Gee, and I thought it had a lot to do with a bunch of bad buisness decessions made within the administrations of large corperations (including US gov as a corperation for this particular referance).  Glad we got that all cleared up.  Everyone can stop blaming bush and the greedy CEO's now, and if things don't get back on track it won't be Obama's fault either.