Louisiana becomes first state to require that Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms

[Argentbear]

You are welcome. Does that mean it is false? Would you like the site?

I'm saying that was not referenced, out of context and does not address the question i actually asked.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Greater freedom because the 1st still secures separation of church and state federally, yet more freedom per state to determine best policy per majority vote in specified state, which means if anyone happens to want to place Muslim literature on the wall in schools, it can still be done per state majority vote.

If a state can opt out, it does not secure federally -- only to those states that do NOT opt out. If the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and Louisiana enacts a law that says every public school MUST post an explicitly religious text (from the Bible) on the walls of every classroom, then that Amendment no longer applies in Louisiana -- and the citizens of Louisiana, all 4,590,000 of them, lose the benefit of that Amendment. That's nearly 5 million who have had a part of the Bill of Rights aborted for them. There's no getting around it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery is not declared as "hunky dory" or positive in the bible. In the US and elsewhere, people were very opposed to slavery and stated many biblical truths as reasons.

It's never declared to be wrong or immoral in the Bible.

 

[metis]

You are a Catholic, yes?

Was, but I still go to mass regularly with me wife. I also taught the RCIA program for 15 years.

So, I assume you know the church's teaching on this?

Of course.

Instead of laughing at a reply mocking your faith, maybe provide some guidance on this important question?

I was laughing at someone's comical response, thus it wasn't at the church teaching.

 

[metis]

That's a good question. I don't really know. That one's far in excess of my pay grade. But if people fall into judgement, they may be judged by what they know. So I'd also be equally concerned about the people alive in modern times, who have been aware of the Gospel, but choose to ignore it.

The article posted by Regiomontanus here reads pretty good to me.



I don't think anyone burns in hell for infinity. But that as well appears to be up for debate.

But however God will save His People, past, present and future, the mechanism will still be connected to Christ's birth, death and resurrection.

Jesus said that He has sheep in many folds. And that His sheep will hear His Voice.

"I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd.​

I will remain optimistic that the people of that One Flock will listen to their inner voice.

Even when they do the things of the law without knowing it, and that it will be counted to them as righteousness.

So there also may be something we could argue for them in Romans 2:

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.​

But I wouldn't get cute with this. Like I say, this is beyond my paygrade.

God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. It still happens through Jesus, no man can approach the Father except through Him.

Thanks for posting your well thought out response even if I don't agree with it.

 

[Kenny]

Yes Shakespeare is often quoted. I leave it to you and LEXIS to determine who is more quoted in recent history.

Let me see if I can make this more obvious.
The fact that a statement is made by referencing a piece of classical literature as an example of the basic human condition does not make it significant to the laws that we use to govern ourselves.

To be or not to be… that still is the question.

 

[Balthazzar]

And this change in dynamic is what we are trying to protect against.
As you appear to have been on both sides, what is your argument in either direction?

I've stated as much already. State majority gets the vote, I'll get in where I best fit in.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hopefully you will be less confused in your understanding of your own point tomorrow.
Maybe you could remind us of the position you held in the past?

No, I support Louisianna. I don't care either way. State majority gets the vote, and I'll get in where I best fit in. Period.

 

[Revoltingest]

obviously this is an attempt to derail….

Obviously, you’re wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except for...

Christian abolitionism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Christians were indeed divided.
But a great many found that their faith supported slavery.

 

[Balthazzar]

If a state can opt out, it does not secure federally -- only to those states that do NOT opt out. If the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and Louisiana enacts a law that says every public school MUST post an explicitly religious text (from the Bible) on the walls of every classroom, then that Amendment no longer applies in Louisiana -- and the citizens of Louisiana, all 4,590,000 of them, lose the benefit of that Amendment. That's nearly 5 million who have had a part of the Bill of Rights aborted for them. There's no getting around it.

A type of dissolution from the federal, yet still connected as we are as a nation still connected to the rest of the international world. As a state, an independence day event from forced abolition of something held sacred and personal and a freedom of every American citizen. Still protected under that 1st amendment right is every single religion in this nation. Birds of a feather flock together. As for me, I get along just fine with the 10 commandment types, so I don't care either way. But, I'll still get in where I fit in best.

 

[Revoltingest]

WORLD history says that the entire WORLD practiced slavery from as far as we can look back thru to the 19th century. Not just Christians, for the record.

What's your process for deciding that the 10th commandment is actually condoning slavery?

Researching the evolution of Christian wording of it.
There’s not denying or justifying Christians having supported slavery.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oddly, the commandments do not say that my father shouldn't have left, nor my step-father shouldn't have abused me. God, for some reason, left those out, which rather suggests that they weren't issues for Him. Nothing in God's law against abandoning me, either.

Sorry to see that story.

But it's a good illustration of how deficient the Ten Commandments are as an ethical guide. Its priorities are all wrong. It telling you to honor those people. Why is that even on the list? And what makes envy a problem? You see something and you want it for yourself. That's a good thing. I always wanted to be a physician. I wanted what physicians get and went out and got it.

What should be prohibited is jealousy. If envy is "I want what he has," jealousy is "and I resent him for having it." But even that doesn't deserve one of the top spots. Go ahead and be resentful. It harms nobody unless acted upon.

The word “honor” means to “give value”. If your father doesn’t have value - then does it really apply?

They're Commandments, not requests or suggestions. I'll bet it would be instructive to go back in time and find out if there's wiggle room there or not. "I chose to not honor my parents because I found no value in them." My guess is that you'd rarely hear the answer, "OK, in that case, you can disobey or malign them."

Ok, in that case theft is ok, murder is ok, lying about your neighbors is ok, dishonoring homesteads and households are ok, it's ok to not consider consequence of theft, murder, or anything that might be honored by the evangelical Christian flock, despite the laws already in place that deem them worthy of honor.

Why would you say that? Atheistic humanist ethics preclude murder, theft, and lying. Just because we don't get our ethics from scripture doesn't mean that we disagree with all of its ethical precepts. There is overlap, but that's coincidental. Humanists don't get their ethics from that book or any other.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - I think this translates into a "Do what you will and harm none".

Humanism differs there as well. It's not enough just to do no harm. Humanistic ethics promote human development, both social and economic opportunity, and sense of community including a social safety net.

There must be somewhere in this nation where I'm free enough to be myself. Surely.

That depends on who you are and what you want to do. If you want to obey the law and respect the rights of others, you can be that most places if not everywhere. If you want to gather with like-minded people, you're free to do that as long as you are law-abiding.

But if you want to impose your religion on others, I would prefer that you never be free to do that. I would limit your freedoms there.

Brother, read the New Testament. Even though (IMHO) you have a disordered lifestyle, I would protect you with my life.

Why would she want to go to a book that you say calls her disordered (I think abomination is the preferred biblical term)? In my world, it's the bigoted theist that is disordered, another place that humanism and Christianity part ways.

And what value is it to her that you say that you would protect her with your life? I think she'd prefer that you just accept her as she is. That's something she could use.

So, raised as a Cristian, do you really think Jesus would want you killed because of your lifestyle choices/identification/beliefs?

If she's an atheist, the question is meaningless. Atheists believe that what believer's call God's word or God's will comes from people many of whom were (and many still are) angry, bigoted, and violent. So yes, there are Christians that would have her stoned. What do you think of this Christian:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

Nothing but love from me.

Here's the problem with that: the Christian concept of love. The exemplar of perfect love unleashed Satan on the earth, equipped it with a torture pit full of demons which it throws souls into, required a blood sacrifice for people to be considered clean enough for it to be with, and drowned most of the earth. We see the "love" many Christians have been taught to have for women, gays, and atheists, especially in the States these days.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Christians were indeed divided.
But a great many found that their faith supported slavery.

Yes, many have been led astray from the love of the Gospels, sadly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, many have been led astray from the love of the Gospels, sadly.

It’s always the others who are led astray.
They’d say the same of you.
And per the Bible, you’re both right.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry to see that story.

But it's a good illustration of how deficient the Ten Commandments are as an ethical guide. Its priorities are all wrong. It telling you to honor those people. Why is that even on the list? And what makes envy a problem? You see something and you want it for yourself. That's a good thing. I always wanted to be a physician. I wanted what physicians get and went out and got it.

What should be prohibited is jealousy. If envy is "I want what he has," jealousy is "and I resent him for having it." But even that doesn't deserve one of the top spots. Go ahead and be resentful. It harms nobody unless acted upon.

They're Commandments, not requests or suggestions. I'll bet it would be instructive to go back in time and find out if there's wiggle room there or not. "I chose to not honor my parents because I found no value in them." My guess is that you'd rarely hear the answer, "OK, in that case, you can disobey or malign them."

Why would you say that? Atheistic humanist ethics preclude murder, theft, and lying. Just because we don't get our ethics from scripture doesn't mean that we disagree with all of its ethical precepts. There is overlap, but that's coincidental. Humanists don't get their ethics from that book or any other.

Humanism differs there as well. It's not enough just to do no harm. Humanistic ethics promote human development, both social and economic opportunity, and sense of community including a social safety net.

That depends on who you are and what you want to do. If you want to obey the law and respect the rights of others, you can be that most places if not everywhere. If you want to gather with like-minded people, you're free to do that as long as you are law-abiding.

But if you want to impose your religion on others, I would prefer that you never be free to do that. I would limit your freedoms there.

Why would she want to go to a book that you say calls her disordered (I think abomination is the preferred biblical term)? In my world, it's the bigoted theist that is disordered, another place that humanism and Christianity part ways.

And what value is it to her that you say that you would protect her with your life? I think she'd prefer that you just accept her as she is. That's something she could use.

If she's an atheist, the question is meaningless. Atheists believe that what believer's call God's word or God's will comes from people many of whom were (and many still are) angry, bigoted, and violent. So yes, there are Christians that would have her stoned. What do you think of this Christian:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

Here's the problem with that: the Christian concept of love. The exemplar of perfect love unleashed Satan on the earth, equipped it with a torture pit full of demons which it throws souls into, required a blood sacrifice for people to be considered clean enough for it to be with, and drowned most of the earth. We see the "love" many Christians have been taught to have for women, gays, and atheists, especially in the States these days.

Thank you for responding politely to the street corner preachers I encountered in my HS years (conveniently in Berkeley CA) while I was learning to deal with the greater world while living with parents who had given up with the idea of a loving God after their experience in WWII.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, many have been led astray from the love of the Gospels, sadly.

how many times do we have to post this?

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Balthazzar]

Why would you say that? Atheistic humanist ethics preclude murder, theft, and lying. Just because we don't get our ethics from scripture doesn't mean that we disagree with all of its ethical precepts. There is overlap, but that's coincidental. Humanists don't get their ethics from that book or any other.

Humanism differs there as well. It's not enough just to do no harm. Humanistic ethics promote human development, both social and economic opportunity, and sense of community including a social safety net.

That depends on who you are and what you want to do. If you want to obey the law and respect the rights of others, you can be that most places if not everywhere. If you want to gather with like-minded people, you're free to do that as long as you are law-abiding.

But if you want to impose your religion on others, I would prefer that you never be free to do that. I would limit your freedoms there.

I suggested they were already very well accepted and that the debate is trivial when it comes to Louisianna and their wishes for those who reside in that state. You bring up humanism and I agree, but then so do many other various flavors of idealism. I agree with the last points, which is why I also agree with Louisiana's decision. It opens a window for more intimate assembly, which would promote much greater cooperation between us and others connected to the greater democratic structure. It hasn't been declared, but this dissolution from the federal will promote in that state the wishes of their majority, which will lend itself to that states specific citizenship happiness and prosperity. It's a red state. It's to be expected from the conservative voter base. Blue States will likely not be on board, which is fine. They won't even need to pursue such a dissolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I suggested they were already very well accepted and that the debate is trivial when it comes to Louisianna and their wishes for those who reside in that state. You bring up humanism and I agree, but then so do many other various flavors of idealism. I agree with the last points, which is why I also agree with Louisiana's decision. It opens a window for more intimate assembly, which would promote much greater cooperation between us and others connected to the greater democratic structure. It hasn't been declared, but this dissolution from the federal will promote in that state the wishes of their majority, which will lend itself to that states specific citizenship happiness and prosperity. It's a red state. It's to be expected from the conservative voter base. Blue States will likely not be on board, which is fine. They won't even need to pursue such a dissolution.

How many other rights would you permit states to take away from their citizens, at the behest of state majorities? Can you enumerate which you would and would not?

The right to marry? To marry a person of another race? Of the same sex?
The right to freedom of assembly?
The right to privacy?
Non-discrimination on the basis of (pick all that apply): race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status?
Habeas Corpus?
Political dissent? (Many countries/states don't like that at all. Russia jails people for it.)

 

[Regiomontanus]

It’s always the others who are led astray.
They’d say the same of you.
And per the Bible, you’re both right.

I respect your opinion but you are wrong. There is no way to justify slavery, murder, etc., if one really follows the teaching of the Christ.