TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US Supreme Court ducks decision on 10 commandments
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

I think the most amusing thing out of this whole post is that you referred to me as Athiest. That's Digi, not me. I could be one of the farthest things from Athiest.

Please do not sit there and try to assume what I believe in. I believe that the commandments have no place in front of a courtroom, because it is not the unanamous beliefs of the country. This has little, in fact nothing, to do with my religious prefrences.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You aren't listening to a word I said. I didn't state anything other than " Yes I am a Christian " that doesn't mean I'm religious. Let me put it this way. God-is God. Not religion. I listen to God,Not religion. All better now?

Okay, enough of this nonsense. Since you refuse to look it up, I'll bring the definition to you.

Main Entry: Chris�tian�i�ty
Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : CHRISTENDOM 2

Now that we have that all cleared up.

quote:

Now atheism...That's religion.

Main Entry: athe�ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�isme, from ath�e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Notice, how no where in there it says that Atheism is a religion. Can't say the same for Christianity.

quote:

Oh and when you look up the work Denomination you find "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single body" Remeber,I'm NON denominational

Did I comment on that? I don't think so.

quote:

It is only a ritual if you are doing because you"are expected to", it is not a ritual if you are doing it because you enjoy worshiping God. One is done becuase you think you have to do something because of a guilt feeling, the other is a relationship based event. "Religion" is what man makes up that he needs to do so that he feels right with God, a Christian relationship with God is something that a Christian truly desires, not to simply carry out the motions of a hollow belief.

Main Entry: 1rit�u�al
Pronunciation: 'ri-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'rich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ritualis, from ritus rite
Date: 1570
1 : of or relating to rites or a ritual : CEREMONIAL
2 : according to religious law or social custom
- rit�u�al�ly adverb

It says custom. Says nothing about doing anything because you're expected to. Nor does it say anything about doing it because of a guilty feeling. Actually on that note:

I wrote this down from a lecture. Might interest you a bit.

Santeria

Syncretic religion fusing with West African religions and CHRISTIANITY.

The ritual of skulls recovered as a center piece of an alter. Placed in a cauldron.

quote:

I haven't been able to make it to church, in a VERY long time. Mind you. But, I'm not religious because I go to church.

You said you went to church every Sunday. Can't make up your mind?

quote:

we [ wee ] 1. refers to speaker and others: refers to the speaker or writer and at least one other person ( first person plural personal pronoun, used as the subject of a verb ) We are going on vacation. We grown-ups should protect our children�s rights. We all want our children to have a better future. 2. refers to people in general: refers to all people or to people in general We are getting closer to the election. 3. used instead of �I�: used by a writer or speaker to include the listener or speaker in what is being said, used especially to talk about how a book or talk is organized We will now consider the causes of World War I. 4. used instead of �you�: used sarcastically or condescendingly by a speaker How are we today? Are we getting better? Gee, I don't see anything about being a part of a "religious organization"

I was referring to your usage of the word "we" in the statement you had made. You said it as though you were part of the religious organization. Go back and re read.

quote:

The 10 commandments ARE NOT a part of religion.. And you don't have to bring up the ammendments like I'm stupid. I studied government, all last year. I know what the ammendments state.

Main Entry: bi�ble
Pronunciation: 'bI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos, ancient Phoenician city from which papyrus was exported
Date: 14th century
1 capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
2 obsolete : BOOK
3 capitalized : a copy or an edition of the Bible
4 : a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership
[bible table]

And since we already established that Christianity is a religion, I think I need to say no more.

quote:

And further more, My question yet again. If it is conflicting with another religion, Where is it the governments place to deconflict it? Since you are always whining about church and state being seperated. And what church are the 10 commandments supporting? What are they representing?

Um, at what point did I "whine". Wouldn't that be your dreadful name calling being used?

*sigh* The 10 commandments support a religious backround. The government should not keep them there because not every religion follows it. What can you not see? We have laws for a reason. We don't need the 10 commandments to back it up.

quote:

Oh and this.. Religion in America Oct. 14: Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles

What does that have to do with anything? You don't have to be of a certain religion to believe in God. You can be of a completely different religion and follow completely different practices, but still believe in God.

quote:

I'm not forcing anything.I'm standing up for my rights-I have that right. Who is "digi" to judge me? Or tell me,and my country we can't have the 10 commandments in the courthouse? Beliefs, they are important to a lot of people. Keep that in mind. I'm not forcing someone to see things the way I do, but I'm sure as heck not going to let them tell me what to do. Yes, That's right. All my job is to do is plant the seed and let it go from there. But, I'm not going to be a doormat either, also remeber that.

Your country? You own it now? You are part of a country. And I don't believe I should have to state why it shouldn't be in the courthouse again, but I suppose I shall, since you're obviously not getting it.

The Ten commandments refer to a RELIGIOUS backround. It has no need to be in a courtroom. Not everyone follows the 10 commandments. The law, yes. The commandments, no.

quote:

And they aren't harassing what I believe in?

Just as you aren't by assuming I'm Athiest?

quote:

It is only a ritual, IF you do it because you think that is what opens the doors to Heaven for you, not if you do it because you believe it is the right thing to do. A ritual done out of a hollow desire to go through the motions is meaningless, but a rite or ritual done out of respect for God has absolutely no negative conotation.

Read the definition provided above.

quote:

Nope, I understand,just fine. The 10 commandments DO NOT support a religion. I'm not blind. ^_^ I see just fine, infact..Take this to mind... a good mind,is like a parachute..It only works when it's open.Remeber that,It will help you in the future.

Refer to the definition above. It refers to Christianity. Then refer to that definition. It says it is a religion. Kthxbye.

quote:

Yes, That's right. You have the freedom here in the USA of what you want to believe.

Then why and try and force the belief of the 10 commandments?

quote:

This country was founded by the Christians..and it is a part of our history.. To say it's no longer a part of our history is taking the country away from it's founders.

It was built off of millions of religions. There is no need to concentrate on just one when it is the combination of them all that makes this country what it is.

quote:

That's not true. Just read them,They are our moral laws. It's not of a certain religion. And have you noticed,It's only the atheists having a problem with this? First you wanna screw with our pledge, then mess up our money.Now this? When are you all going to quit? When the country falls apart?

Referring to me as an Athiest. Big mistake. I am one of the farthest things from one. You don't know me. Don't try to assume what I believe in. Mess up our money? Um, which religion passes around a collection basket?

quote:

Read this,my friend. The Capital Building in D.C. has a statue of Moses and the 10 Commandments, because they are throught to be the basis of all law.

We are not friends. Do not refer to me as one. He carries blank slates. Maybe there was a significance in this.

quote:

God is our heavenly father, if you want to accept it or not.You're choice. Just don't go around telling myself,and other Christians he isn't.

At what point did I say that God wasn't? I said that you are trying to force the belief that God is. I stand by that. Here you are doing it again. If people don't believe that, don't force it.

quote:

The first ammendment states many things. It says it won't "Established" and official state religion. But it goes on further to say... That it is prohibited to interfere with the free practice of religion.

At what point did the government become religious? Placing the ten commandments is a religious preference, as stated numerous times aboce.

quote:

The supreme court recongnizes atheism as a religion and by interfering with the free practice of religion they are favoring a religion in itself.. Secularism is a form of religion, humanism is a form of religion.

What does this have to do with anything?

quote:

Who do you bother most? Christians? Are you trying to prohibit the buddhists, hindu's and muslims their beliefs? No you are always dogging on the Christians.

I'm not dogging on Christians. I'm dogging on you. There's a difference.

quote:

To add-The basis of the first 10 Ammendments or the "Bill of Rights" was authored by James Madison. I believe he was also a minister. The Bill of Rights would be based upon his own faith.

The Bill of Rights was signed by many people, and was agreed on by many people of many different backrounds. He made up the Bill of Rights based on what the foundation of a country should be. In no way whatsoever did he mention anything about a Sabbath day, which your ten commandments does.

quote:

and also, No need for name calling (such as the name ignorant) when you can't answer me in a respectable manner.

Silly, that's what makes this fun.

Maybe after reading those definitions, you will see the error in your ways.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Maybe the reason that Moses is holding blank tablets is that it repersent the tablets before God wrote them, hinting that the Supreme Court has the final say over the law. Or perhaps the sculpture refused to do it because it was too hard and would break the statue, maybe he wasn't getting his fair pay and refused to put a depicition on the tablets as a way to get back at the man. Or perhaps the artist simply could not devise away to print all 10 commandments in length on thos small tablets, nor could he devise a way of repersenting it otherwise. These are all options as far as I know which would be much more sensible then the reason you gave.

I'll defer to the artist:

quote:

Hermon A. MacNeil: Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group- left - is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The "Youth" is brought into both these groups to suggest the "Carrying on" of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left - The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right - Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left - Study and pondering of judgments. Right - A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale - The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.

Again.. Law is the focus of the East Pediment, not Yahweh.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Afterall if it point you hold that "God" is not the focus of the scuplture because their is no depicition on the tablet, then howcome the south frieze has a depicition on the tablet from then 10 commandments - God's law?? Moses is carrying a tablet on it is an inscription in hebrew that reads "thou shall not murder/kill" (he's #3 look at the video link above I posted it is a bit better zoom).

Well what do ya know! One of the commandments was actually written out in the Supreme Court building, (though it wasn't the 1st Commandment for some reason).

Here is what the curator said about the North and South Friezes:

quote:

"Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law." (emphasis mine)

Again.. Law is the focus of the USSC friezes, not Yahweh.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is different, it is an engraving on the doors into the courtroom, and in the roman numerals are incased in tablets so it is with little doubt that their depecition was meant to be the 10 commandments.

The one I was talking about was on a single tablet.
At any rate, the Commandments are not even written out. None of the USSC depictions are comparable to Moore's monument.

(nitpick: you said the engraving was at eye level.. it is actually on the bottom-inside of the door. Here is an image of the whole door:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/scdoor.jpg)

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Again though, how could you legally define context? Because their were other secular lawgivers, its ok to depecit the 10 commandments, but if there are no other secular lawgivers its not??

The Lemon Test is probably the most common method used to decide whether or not a government display is religious and therefore unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Really where did it say that it was explicitly placed their for that reason? Did it come with a plaque or something. I never got to here the whole side of it... What other statues are present in the courtroom, what other works of art grace it? I don't know, so I won't comment on it, but do you?

I'll let the Eleventh Circuit comment on it, Glassroth v. Moore:

quote:

Chief Justice Moore testified candidly that his purpose in placing the monument in the Judicial Building was to acknowledge the law and sovereignty of the God of the Holy Scriptures, and that it was intended to acknowledge �God�s overruling power over the affairs of men.�

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus This is complete blasmphemy! First repersentative democracy aside (as it can be argued it was practiced in Rome),

Rome? You think so?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus seperations of powers, and freeomd of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible! So again is the freedome of man!!! Christianity is not unique in that it accepts slaves, every relgion has, it is unique however in have causing a movment that has read and interperted the scriptutres to achieve some natrual laws. These natural laws originate from the interperation of the scriptures according to Luther, Calvin, Hobbes and Locke <- these are the guys who made natrual law, and they did it in the confines of christanity. These natural laws provided both for the development and understanding of the abolishment movment for slavery and the sperations of powers (as they searched for the divine rule of government on earth). The freedom of religion is completely a christian ideal and is enumerated by these early natural lawyers.

Wow.. This is all news to me. Locke, Hobbes, et al "made natural law," and did so in the confines of Christianity eh? Well, I think Aquinas had them beat by a few years; and Aquinas, like both the Romans and the Enlightenment era philosophers, adapted natural law from the ancient Greeks, specifically the Stoics.

And speaking of the Stoics, here is what Zeno had to say about slavery:
"No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. Those who claim to own their fellow men look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." (note: while it was the later Stoics that formulated natural law and not Zeno, he was the founder of Stoicism)

Oh, and 'separation of powers' was derived from the works of Polybius, another ancient Greek.

Many of the most influential founders were intimately familiar with classical Greek philosophy (ie. the works of Cicero on equality, which was based on Stoic natural law). To say that the Enlightenment era philosophers came up with natural law in the confines of Christianity, and that "seperations of powers, and freedom of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible!" is patently absurd, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus So to say that the bible did not bring about these thing is both arrogant and completely ignorant. You might have a point in arguing that the bible can be interpurted in any which way, as natural lawyers derived different conclusions from the same source. But the origins of the abolishment movement, freedom of religion, and seperation of powers is completely traceable back to these very natrual lawyers who came up with their laws from their interperations of the bible.

All you've done is erroneously argue that natural law was derived from the Bible. So I'm going to have to ask you to indulge my arrogance and complete ignorance, and spell out explicitly where in the Bible separation of powers, freedom of religion, etc... are derived from.
__ _ ____ _ _ _ _____________ _ __ _______


And I'll leave you with the Ten Commandments of Solon:

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.
--


richard

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Will be searching,don't be to shocked when I find something, alright?

I'll try not to act too surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 further more...What is your age? You wouldn't happen to be college age,Now would you?

I am 25.


richard

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit I'll defer to the artist:

I still think he couldn't of made them fit, he's just not man enough to admit it :P

quote:

Again.. Law is the focus of the East Pediment, not Yahweh.

But Moses is in the center... hmmm

quote:

Well what do ya know! One of the commandments was actually written out in the Supreme Court building, (though it wasn't the 1st Commandment for some reason).

I think it was the only one they could fit in there seeing a theme are we?

quote:

The Lemon Test is probably the most common method used to decide whether or not a government display is religious and therefore unconstitutional.

Can you expand on lemon test?

quote:

I'll let the Eleventh Circuit comment on it, Glassroth v. Moore:

They believe its intent was religious so they removed it, but was this exactly the case?

The point I was initially trying to make is that the Supreme court of course would not want to associate itself with the hypocrisy of trying this case. The works in the supreme court itself are cited in the opinons however against the Alabama statue.

quote:

Rome? You think so?

Well I guess one could try Sparta, and argue other greek polis had this form of government much earlier then Rome, but even that would probably be just 100-200 years apart.

quote:

Wow.. This is all news to me. Locke, Hobbes, et al "made natural law," and did so in the confines of Christianity eh? Well, I think Aquinas had them beat by a few years; and Aquinas, like both the Romans and the Enlightenment era philosophers, adapted natural law from the ancient Greeks, specifically the Stoics.

Undoubtetly St. Thomae Aquinatis can be viewed as father of natural law, however the natural law we use today is much more comparble to Locke, especially considering it includes property rights.

Of course using such logic as you, we can say that the Phonecians were the first ones to develop natural law as they were the ones who created the alphabet who the Greeks then used to formulate stocisim etc...

quote:

And speaking of the Stoics, here is what Zeno had to say about slavery: "No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. Those who claim to own their fellow men look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." (note: while it was the later Stoics that formulated natural law and not Zeno, he was the founder of Stoicism)

Good for him, but history has been absent of abolishment movements till Christian enlighten thinkers came around. Even the famed Sparticus cared little against the institution of slavery, he simply didn't want himself and his comrades to be slaves.

quote:

Oh, and 'separation of powers' was derived from the works of Polybius, another ancient Greek.

And many greek polis did exercise a system of serpation of powers. The Roman republic was surely setup with serpation of powers and checks and balances, but it is not the exact ideals that our current systems are based upon today.

Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu is what many consider to be the origin of seperations of powers or checks and balances in our modern society, and he certainly was their strongest advocate in the modern era.

quote:

Many of the most influential founders were intimately familiar with classical Greek philosophy (ie. the works of Cicero on equality, which was based on Stoic natural law). To say that the Enlightenment era philosophers came up with natural law in the confines of Christianity, and that "seperations of powers, and freedom of religion are completely and uniquely derived from the bible!" is patently absurd, IMO. Well not, Locke (who argues it best, again not originally) has origins of the bible to extend our natural laws to property rights. Luther and Calvin are definetly the first to argue freedom of religion, and this is a theological discussion for them with the bible as their chief source. Enlightment era thinkers however did not come up with natural law per say, but they merged it with their interpertation of the bible to create the natural laws we use today. And although you may like to believe that stoics were against slavery as well, they never argued for its abolishment - something which the abolishment movement did by interperting scripture, not classics. [quote]All you've done is erroneously argue that natural law was derived from the Bible.

Natural law as we know it today in western society is indeed different from your classical natural law. The main consideration here is property rights. You can see the arguments Locke makes for poerty rights by opening your own copy and looking up the scripture he references.

Anyway ill be glad to get to this at another time... I'm still working on my term paper on Perioikoic military utility so all my research right now is going to that. Plus I lost my locke book must of left it at home.. and besides we are thread-jacking, lets move this somewhere else now that we are going to argue the origins of natural law.

too.many.quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus That's what you get for having no resolution!

I have lots of resolution...I just hate running my browser in full screen wide mode. I like it "page sized"

quote:

Eat my nuts

No thanks

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please God... make her stop.

Geez, Diginut, why don't you stop? In my opinion, you're expending entirely too much energy trying to "win" something that you already won. Nellie has no intention of backing down even though she's clearly incorrect in just about EVERY statement she types. (Did she say you are stubborn? Well, I guess she made one correct statement )

You guys are not personally responsible for the errors in her thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Christianity is a religion. If you have a problem with that, take your complaints to Merriam-Webster.

This is cute. I can talk louder than you so you must admit I'm right! You could put this in [SIZE=60] and guess what? She's still not going to agree with you. Why? She doesn't choose to agree. I seriously don't think she's going to read anything you type and see the "light" or admit she's wrong.

Everyone with any intelligence knows you're "right." You made your point long ago. Stop beating your head against a brickwall. You're giving us Political Forum lurkers a headache!

Actually, its more entertaining than anything in Chillout. Please, carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by Echo of Silence ...You could put this in [SIZE=60] and guess what? She's still not going to agree with you. Why? She doesn't choose to agree. I seriously don't think she's going to read anything you type and see the "light" or admit she's wrong.

You are correct only to the extent that it wouldn't work because it doesn't go up to size 60. I assure you that she would understand better if I could type that large.

I don't expect her to give up her beliefs... only her flagrantly incoherent and vapid argument.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant too.many.quotes.

Lol, you took the words out of my mouth

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't expect her to give up her beliefs...

Yes, I later realized "statement" is possibly the wrong English word to use? I do not know the word that I want to use for this statement and others like it:

Christianity is not a religion.

Would I have been better using the word "facts?"

I don't have access to my dictionaries. grrrrrrs.

Political Forum lurkers should remain silent

quote:

Originally posted by Echo of Silence You guys are not personally responsible for the errors in her thinking.

Perhaps if she takes the time to read the definition above, she will realize the errors in her ways!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Lol, you took the words out of my mouth

Same here.

I wanted so much to comment on this one, but geez, where the hell to start? What to say that hasn't already been said?

Enough already.

Hey, how 'bout them KC Chiefs? I think they've got a great shot this year!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I still think he couldn't of made them fit, he's just not man enough to admit it :P

If they were important enough to the theme, he probably would have designed the entire sculpture around the writing huh? Or at least made a design that could accomodate them.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But Moses is in the center... hmmm

Praise God!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I think it was the only one they could fit in there seeing a theme are we?

The only theme I see in the North and South Friezes is the one that the artist intended: historical lawgivers in chronological order to symbolize the development of secular law.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Can you expand on lemon test?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The point I was initially trying to make is that the Supreme court of course would not want to associate itself with the hypocrisy of trying this case.

Perhaps... I think it was just so obvious that Moore overstepped his authority, that they just let the Eleventh's decision stand.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Undoubtetly St. Thomae Aquinatis can be viewed as father of natural law, however the natural law we use today is much more comparble to Locke, especially considering it includes property rights.

You said that natural law was derived from the Bible. It was not. It was classical Greek philosophy, which later medieval & Enlightenment philosophers borrowed and selectively applied to the Bible/Christianity.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Of course using such logic as you, we can say that the Phonecians were the first ones to develop natural law as they were the ones who created the alphabet who the Greeks then used to formulate stocisim etc...

You're reaching here.. The difference between Stoic invention of natural law theory and Phonecian alphabet is not analogous to enlightenment era natural law being adapted from Stoic natural law.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Good for him, but history has been absent of abolishment movements till Christian enlighten thinkers came around. Even the famed Sparticus cared little against the institution of slavery, he simply didn't want himself and his comrades to be slaves.

To quote Twain,

quote:

But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go -- and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed. [...] Our own conversion came at last. We began to stir against slavery. Hearts grew soft, here, there, and yonder. There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one -- the pulpit. It yielded at last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession -- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery text remained; the practice changed, that was all.

I still contend that the Bible condones slavery throughout. Since you don't appear to be a literalist/inerrantist however, I think we're pretty much on the same page concerning the cherry picking of scripture to suit whatever position one may hold. Christians essentially ignored the parts of the Bible that conflicted with what they saw as "natural law."

Also, I wouldn't credit Christian thinkers alone. Deists like Franklin and Paine (among others) were vocal opponents of slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus And many greek polis did exercise a system of serpation of powers. The Roman republic was surely setup with serpation of powers and checks and balances, but it is not the exact ideals that our current systems are based upon today.

Not the exact ideals? I suppose the "exact ideals" are present in the Bible?

Are you arguing that ancient Greek and Roman separation of powers/mixed constitution were so fundamentally different from ours, as to be less of an influence than the Bible in the formation of modern separation of powers?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Charles Louis de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu is what many consider to be the origin of seperations of powers or checks and balances in our modern society, and he certainly was their strongest advocate in the modern era.

If you bothered to read through at least the introduction at the link on Polybius that I offered before, you would have seen that the third section is dedicated solely to Polybius' influence on Montesquieu. You, however, have argued that the 'separation of powers' was "completely and uniquely derived from the bible."

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Natural law as we know it today in western society is indeed different from your classical natural law.

And your point?

Natural law as we know it today is the heir of classical natural law. It is the foundation on which subsequent natural law theories were formulated. Modern western law resembles the ancient Greek and Roman concepts of equality, natural law, citizenship, government, etc... far more than anything found in the Bible.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The main consideration here is property rights. You can see the arguments Locke makes for poerty rights by opening your own copy and looking up the scripture he references.

I don't know about "main" consideration. Locke may have seen property as the main consideration, and granted, he quotes scripture as support for property rights (God gave the world to Adam..) But the fashion in which he does so seems as though he could have done the same thing with the Mahabarata by applying principles of natural law which were ultimately derived from classical Greek philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Anyway ill be glad to get to this at another time... I'm still working on my term paper on Perioikoic military utility so all my research right now is going to that. Plus I lost my locke book must of left it at home.. and besides we are thread-jacking, lets move this somewhere else now that we are going to argue the origins of natural law.

Yes, we have strayed significantly off topic. Start a new thread if you want, but I too will have very limited time to put into it.. I am enjoying our discussion on the origins of natural law very much though.


richard

quote:

You said you went to church every Sunday. Can't make up your mind?

I used to, Until I was diagnosed with the illnesses I'm battling.But,it's a little hard to right now.(well..the past 2 years that is)
but,Please, don't go there.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade Perhaps if she takes the time to read the definition above, she will realize the errors in her ways!

Just because I don't agree with you,and you don't understand means I have an error in my ways? That's really childish.

Futher more.. Just because you say Christianity is a religion,doesn't make it so. You're not God, neither am I. But, I'm a believer, I know the difference between Religion,and relationship. Sorry you can't say the same for yourself. Until you've walked atleast a mile in my shoes, you will never understand.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Just because I don't agree with you,and you don't understand means I have an error in my ways? That's really childish. Futher more.. Just because you say Christianity is a religion,doesn't make it so. You're not God, neither am I. But, I'm a believer, I know the difference between Religion,and relationship. Sorry you can't say the same for yourself. Until you've walked atleast a mile in my shoes, you will never understand.

Will you please then tell us what you think a religion is?

Seriously, your views are so totally distorted that I'm starting to think you're intentionally being so stubborn just to laugh at the furious reaction of all the posters on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade I think the most amusing thing out of this whole post is that you referred to me as Athiest. That's Digi, not me. I could be one of the farthest things from Athiest.

Well,Then what do you believe? you sure sound like an atheist.

quote:

Please do not sit there and try to assume what I believe in. I believe that the commandments have no place in front of a courtroom, because it is not the unanamous beliefs of the country. This has little, in fact nothing, to do with my religious prefrences.

Actually,it says a lot about what you believe. You'd be suprised.

quote:

Okay, enough of this nonsense. Since you refuse to look it up, I'll bring the definition to you. Main Entry: Chris�tian�i�ty Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a- Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies 2 : conformity to the Christian religion 3 : CHRISTENDOM 2 Now that we have that all cleared up.

It's not nonsense. It's pure absolute truth.Can't handle it? Didn't think so..
But It's not a religion. Simple,and plain as that.

quote:

Main Entry: athe�ism Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: Middle French ath�isme, from ath�e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity Notice, how no where in there it says that Atheism is a religion. Can't say the same for Christianity.

Ugh,you are so totally getting things mixed up here. I'm not even gonna start with it.

quote:

Main Entry: 1rit�u�al Pronunciation: 'ri-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'rich-w&l Function: adjective Etymology: Latin ritualis, from ritus rite Date: 1570 1 : of or relating to rites or a ritual : CEREMONIAL 2 : according to religious law or social custom - rit�u�al�ly adverb It says custom. Says nothing about doing anything because you're expected to. Nor does it say anything about doing it because of a guilty feeling. Actually on that note: I wrote this down from a lecture. Might interest you a bit.

I don't need to hear anything from a lecture, okies?
Going to church, and attending services isn't some ritual. I've already proven that. Accept it,or forget it. That's all you have to do.

quote:

I was referring to your usage of the word "we" in the statement you had made. You said it as though you were part of the religious organization. Go back and re read.

I didn't. I'm not part of a "religious organization" No need to make accusations.

quote:

And since we already established that Christianity is a religion, I think I need to say no more.

No we haven't ^_^ Because it's not.^_^

quote:

Um, at what point did I "whine". Wouldn't that be your dreadful name calling being used?

Name calling? Oh no not me.

quote:

*sigh* The 10 commandments support a religious backround. The government should not keep them there because not every religion follows it. What can you not see? We have laws for a reason. We don't need the 10 commandments to back it up.

Do not. I can repeat it if you like. Do not, What part do you not understand?

You were asking, or someone was asking about the protestants,the Jews,and all that. You know, we all follow the 10 commandments. So if that's your argument. It's already been terminated.

quote:

Your country? You own it now? You are part of a country. And I don't believe I should have to state why it shouldn't be in the courthouse again, but I suppose I shall, since you're obviously not getting it.

My country,as in I live here. I don't own it. But,it is my country

quote:

The Ten commandments refer to a RELIGIOUS backround. It has no need to be in a courtroom. Not everyone follows the 10 commandments. The law, yes. The commandments, no.

I'm getting it, You don't know what you're talking about.Obviously. It's not referring to a religious background. Are you really that blind? The commandments are a part of the law.

quote:

Then why and try and force the belief of the 10 commandments?

No one is forcing it. It's the law, Live by it..or pay the price pretty much.

quote:

It was built off of millions of religions. There is no need to concentrate on just one when it is the combination of them all that makes this country what it is.

It wasn't built off of religion. You really need to get that straight.

quote:

Referring to me as an Athiest. Big mistake. I am one of the farthest things from one. You don't know me. Don't try to assume what I believe in. Mess up our money? Um, which religion passes around a collection basket?

Then What are you? Yep,Take " In God we trust " off our coins. That's what I meant.

quote:

We are not friends. Do not refer to me as one. He carries blank slates. Maybe there was a significance in this.

Hm,So you want me to call you My foe? Just trying to be polite. Guess that's not a word in your vocabulary.

quote:

At what point did I say that God wasn't? I said that you are trying to force the belief that God is. I stand by that. Here you are doing it again. If people don't believe that, don't force it.

I'm not.

quote:

At what point did the government become religious? Placing the ten commandments is a religious preference, as stated numerous times aboce.

Go back,and look at the history of the government.I've already done my part.It's never been religious. But, It is based upon God.

quote:

I'm not dogging on Christians. I'm dogging on you. There's a difference.

Then do explain,because that's how it looks and feels.

quote:

The Bill of Rights was signed by many people, and was agreed on by many people of many different backrounds. He made up the Bill of Rights based on what the foundation of a country should be. In no way whatsoever did he mention anything about a Sabbath day, which your ten commandments does.

It's not just MY 10 commandments.

quote:

Maybe after reading those definitions, you will see the error in your ways.

I don't have errors,just because what I say doesn't please you.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Will you please then tell us what you think a religion is? Seriously, your views are so totally distorted that I'm starting to think you're intentionally being so stubborn just to laugh at the furious reaction of all the posters on this forum.

They aren't distorted. Whose laughing? I'm not.

Religion is man made, It isn't of God.
You don't want to understand,until you finally decide to atleast even consider what I say..You will NEVER understand.
What I've said is very accurate,and the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Just because I don't agree with you,and you don't understand means I have an error in my ways? That's really childish. Futher more.. Just because you say Christianity is a religion,doesn't make it so. You're not God, neither am I. But, I'm a believer, I know the difference between Religion,and relationship. Sorry you can't say the same for yourself. Until you've walked atleast a mile in my shoes, you will never understand.

Obviously you also can't tell the difference between light hearted humor and true anger.

What do you think a religion is, Ms. Wise One? Ask anyone other than yourself. Christianity is a religion. It is even defined as one. Whether or not you choose to see it, is your choice.

Don't tell me about walking a mile in someone's shoes. Just because you think your life has been hard, doesn't mean that everyone else's has not been.

quote:

Geez, Diginut, why don't you stop? In my opinion, you're expending entirely too much energy trying to "win" something that you already won. Nellie has no intention of backing down even though she's clearly incorrect in just about EVERY statement she types. (Did she say you are stubborn? Well, I guess she made one correct statement ) You guys are not personally responsible for the errors in her thinking.

Again, With this whole. " you're incorrect ". That's bull.

That's right,I have no intention of backing away/down.

-That's such a lie. Just because you can't prove points, or anyone else here can't you say " I'm incorrect " well. That'll be a cold day in you know where. Yes, I did say Diginut is Stubborn.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.