I was thinking about the stain that got many fundies drooling like idiots,and other similar stains,and started wondering if anyone had ever pointed commandment number 2 to them?
and if so what was their answer?
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004 Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
[fundie]The commandments of the LORD are for men to follow, not the LORD Himself!!!1@[/fundie]
Not that they follow the commandments with their crucifixes and whatnot.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Lord Zentei wrote:[fundie]The commandments of the LORD are for men to follow, not the LORD Himself!!!1@[/fundie]
"So....since you're a man, why aren't you following it?"
It must be getting late...
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
Those aren't graven images, y'see, those are miraculous manifestations. Since God got out of the business of doing the whole Booming Voice from the Sky routine, He's settled for making Mary images on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Yeah, since we haven't seen so much of God lately ... actually, we haven't seen anything of God lately ... kind of makes you wonder...
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
I once took a look at belief in santa, and belief in God. Both promise gifts, but one can be seen to deliver. Both are in doubt, at times, but you can at least meet one at the mall. One is spoken of in an old myth, and one is spoken of by many many children, many claiming sightings. It seems to me that believing in santa is more logical then believing in God.
These images are their little vain hopes of proving their belief in God, or trying to justify it in some way. Faith is sad, sometimes...
Zero132132 wrote:These images are their little vain hopes of proving their belief in God, or trying to justify it in some way. Faith is sad, sometimes...
Nah, it's just irrational. It's only sad when you expect anything more than emotional fulfillment, because that's impossible. Do do so is to show you don't understand the very nature of faith.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
I've seen a number of versions - they are close, but do have differences.
You're right; they do. The Catholic version, for instance, doesn't preclude graven images, but rather the worshipping thereof; it also has the order switched around a bit.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Or, they just declare that the Commandments no longer apply, as the law has been fufilied. Yes there are some that follow that line of thinking (I'm one of them), although they do provide a good base to work from for laws in a secular context.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
MariusRoi wrote:Or, they just declare that the Commandments no longer apply, as the law has been fufilied. Yes there are some that follow that line of thinking (I'm one of them), although they do provide a good base to work from for laws in a secular context.
How so? Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very christian specific and have no place what so ever in secular law. Number 5 is redundant as a law (or are we supposed to illegalize dishonoring your parents?). Number 7 is an attempt to legislate morality and number 10 attempts to legislate thoughts. What we are left with is numbers 6, 8 and 9 and since those are blatantly obvious and pretty much universal in all legal systems around the world, I see no reason to congratulate the authors of the bible for including them in their laws.
Zero132132 wrote:I once took a look at belief in santa, and belief in God. Both promise gifts, but one can be seen to deliver. Both are in doubt, at times, but you can at least meet one at the mall. One is spoken of in an old myth, and one is spoken of by many many children, many claiming sightings. It seems to me that believing in santa is more logical then believing in God.
These images are their little vain hopes of proving their belief in God, or trying to justify it in some way. Faith is sad, sometimes...
Another thing to consider: Santa doesn't force you to believe in him under threat of eternal doomnation.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN! Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
1) They're not the Ten Commandments as in ten specific rules; they're categories, under which all of the 613 mitzvot can be classified. The Hebrew translates to Ten Declarations or Ten Sayings (Aseret ha-D'vareem), rather than Ten Commandments (Aseret ha-Mitzvot).
2) The Ten Commandments are ONLY binding on Jews (and, by association, Christians - whose faith claims ours as its origin). Those not belonging to the Jewish religion don't have to give a darn about the Ten Commandments.
3) The best translation I've been able to find is the original - the Hebrew translation, rather than the Protestant or Catholic version. The relevant one goes like this:
http://www.positiveatheism.org wrote:2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of 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 unto 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 showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
Worshipping an idol is supposed to be a bad thing; just making pictures and such doesn't count as a "graven image".
MariusRoi wrote:Or, they just declare that the Commandments no longer apply, as the law has been fufilied. Yes there are some that follow that line of thinking (I'm one of them), although they do provide a good base to work from for laws in a secular context.
How so? Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very christian specific and have no place what so ever in secular law. Number 5 is redundant as a law (or are we supposed to illegalize dishonoring your parents?). Number 7 is an attempt to legislate morality and number 10 attempts to legislate thoughts. What we are left with is numbers 6, 8 and 9 and since those are blatantly obvious and pretty much universal in all legal systems around the world, I see no reason to congratulate the authors of the bible for including them in their laws.
Yes 1, 2, 3,and 4 are more or less Religion Specific, and 5 comes off as only a good idea, (in the line of thinking that produces dictatorships). so we're down to 50%.
You then say 7 is an attempt to legislate morality. Sho me a case where Adultry has been good for a married couple.
In the case of 10, what culture Has not legislate what you think?
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
MariusRoi wrote:You then say 7 is an attempt to legislate morality. Sho me a case where Adultry has been good for a married couple.
It still represents the state (or whoever) intruding on personal matters. As a law it's highly impractical.
In the case of 10, what culture Has not legislate what you think?
Because others have done it is not sifficient justification.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
MariusRoi wrote:Or, they just declare that the Commandments no longer apply, as the law has been fufilied. Yes there are some that follow that line of thinking (I'm one of them), although they do provide a good base to work from for laws in a secular context.
How so? Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very christian specific and have no place what so ever in secular law. Number 5 is redundant as a law (or are we supposed to illegalize dishonoring your parents?). Number 7 is an attempt to legislate morality and number 10 attempts to legislate thoughts. What we are left with is numbers 6, 8 and 9 and since those are blatantly obvious and pretty much universal in all legal systems around the world, I see no reason to congratulate the authors of the bible for including them in their laws.
Yes 1, 2, 3,and 4 are more or less Religion Specific, and 5 comes off as only a good idea, (in the line of thinking that produces dictatorships). so we're down to 50%.
You then say 7 is an attempt to legislate morality. Sho me a case where Adultry has been good for a married couple.
In the case of 10, what culture Has not legislate what you think?
Um...as far as 10 goes, ours doesn't. Neither do most democracies in the world today; we may be judged on our actions, but not our thoughts. Treasonous thoughts do not constitute treason.
MariusRoi wrote:You then say 7 is an attempt to legislate morality. Sho me a case where Adultry has been good for a married couple.
It still represents the state (or whoever) intruding on personal matters. As a law it's highly impractical.
Isn't adultery just breach of contract, which is dealt with fairly regularly by our laws?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
George Carlin edited the 10 Commandments once, throwing out those that didn't apply, combining those that were redundant, and adding one himself.
The Three Commandments
1. Thou shalt try not to kill anyone unless they worship a different invisible avenger than you.
2. Thou shalt be honest and loyal, particularly to the provider of the nookie.
3. Thou shalt keep thy religion to thineself.
MariusRoi wrote:You then say 7 is an attempt to legislate morality. Sho me a case where Adultry has been good for a married couple.
It still represents the state (or whoever) intruding on personal matters. As a law it's highly impractical.
Isn't adultery just breach of contract, which is dealt with fairly regularly by our laws?
Not really. Breach of contract would fall under #9.
Adultery is awfully specific.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Gandalf wrote:Not really. Breach of contract would fall under #9.
I was thinking of marriage as a contract -- that would roll #8 into #9, though, right?
Gandalf wrote:Adultery is awfully specific.
Yeah. I s'pose you're right.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
You realize that under OT law, all of these commandments would be enforced by capital punishment.
"You were fucking with the gardener?!?! Why you little....!!! Eat lead, bastard!!"
"Augh!!! My intestines!!!"
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
-- Asuka
Yes there are some that follow that line of thinking (I'm one of them), although they do provide a good base to work from for laws in a secular context.
"
- PeZook
