Supreme Court Decision on Ten Commandments

[Alex]

Wasn't the thing in Texas though that because it was there for 20 years before it was brought before them, it wasn't really bothering anybody? I think what's fair for one courtroom is fair for all.

Not from what I understand. It was allowed to stay because it is part of a group of 18 displays, so it is not being said to be the only source of law.

 

[ShamMol]

Yes you are a prime example of a hate group. . . one who hate God's word and thepeople who practice God's word. Oh all you promote are the hateful ideas of the prohomosexual /antichristian groups.

No, we see the need for seperation of church and state. This means that there cannot be excessive entanglement between the two entities. We realize several things: 1.) Part of common law is built upon the bible (not teachings of Jesus, the bible), and 2.) That there is no one religion. With that in mind, we have to be able to allow some forms of religion into governement when they don't serve the purpose of advancing its cause (aka helping people through charities that are Christian and having in god we trust on the money-though I don't agree with that last one).

That is quite obvious since you don't practice what you preach . . . a sign of a hypocrite.
So obviously you call was for the bahing of Christianity since I have be taking the side of Christianity. Yes, the hypocrite who preach "free speech" certainly are for "free speech" as long as it is antiChristian.

No, I said stop posting if you were just going to post pictures. You have stopped doing that and are actually debating, for which I am glad. And just to clear up the air, I am a deist.

Oh but of course any rights given to the gay are at the expense of the reilgious beliefs of Christians which you have failed to refute. Secondly any funding by a Christian for "gay rights" also is an afront to Christianity . . .something you have failed to refute. Of course all these thing could only be done by one group and that would be haters of God and His people.

How will giving rights to the homosexuals hurt your personal relationship with "god." Homosexuality is in the eye of the beholder and people can do whatever they want in regards to supporting it or not. So, basically, what you are saying, if you support homosexual rights, then you are a "hater of God and his people." Got ya.

 

[ShamMol]

Wasn't the thing in Texas though that because it was there for 20 years before it was brought before them, it wasn't really bothering anybody? I think what's fair for one courtroom is fair for all.

This is how it is. Basically, it was because it wasn't for a religious purpose as the people in the courtrooms said theirs was for. In the local courthouse here, we have one alongside the magna carta and harumbi (or whatever his name is) code. They stated when it was put up that it was for a historical purpose to show us where some of our common law came from. The courthouses did it for the reason to say that religion was the end-all be-all to put it in not-nice terms. They didn't say it was for a secular purpose and that is what it was uncostitutional-that and they weren't surround like the one at the state capital was.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Who said man's laws overruled God's laws . . . obviously a man . . . Christians have no obligation to obey any laws which think to "overrule" Gods laws . . . .

What you fundies never seem to get is that our laws our not based in Biblical principles, but rather, our laws are based on the principle that your right to live you life the way you choose to live your life extends so far as to not impede another individuals rights to do the same. That principle is the basis for 90% of the laws of our land. That is freedom.

As a Christian myself, what I don’t understand is why is your beliefs so seemingly weak that you need a government to compel you and others to adhere to them? You don’t need the Ten Commandments, or even to be a Christian for that matter, to know that murder is wrong or that stealing is wrong. Moreover, if you believe that the government should adhere to God’s law, then why don’t you advocated that the government forcibly compels us to do as the good Lord instructed us to do when he told us: "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise.", or when he said “"Sell all you have and give it to the poor.", or when he said "When you refuse to help the least of these (the poor), you
refuse to help me." That sounds like pure old socialism to me. However, since the Bible says this is the will of the Lord, why don’t you fundies lobby our government for laws that compel us to do so with as much fever as you lobby the government for an amendment banning same sex marriage? Oh wait, if you did, it might actually cost you something, and well you certainly couldn’t have that. I mean gosh, you may never be able to build those tax exempt country clubs (“mega-churches”) and pay your preacher (I bet he does a wonderful job telling you how materialism really is not a sin and that Jesus was a Republican) a six figure salary if you actually had to put some money towards helping the less fortunate out and building a better world. Why all that money would be better spent on an SUV, some Thomas Kinkade prints from your neighborhood Wal-Mart, and home schooling materials so you can save your children from the evils of Satan inspired notions like “Science”. :roll:

 

[Shamgar]

What you fundies never seem to get is that our laws our not based in Biblical principles, but rather, our laws are based on the principle that your right to live you life the way you choose to live your life extends so far as to not impede another individuals rights to do the same. That principle is the basis for 90% of the laws of our land. That is freedom. As a Christian myself, what I don’t understand is why is your beliefs so seemingly weak that you need a government to compel you and others to adhere to them?

Oh if you were a real Christian then you would be as Daniel and refuse to boey laws that violated God's laws. This makes sense why you don't since Daneil was righteous and he obeyed God rather than men.

I am unsure if we even need to go there. ShamMol, like myself, is concerned about all the pics - what purpose do they serve? The contents of them are excellent, but they are presented in a cartoonish way. Thus, the sincerity is broken.

BTW, I am all for Freedom of Speech - can't stand the courts decision - and very much Christian. Am I a hypocrite?

Oh the delivery is bad . . . .boo hoo. I guess you would have figured God's delivery was bad when He had a prophet walk naked or marry a prostitute, etc. to drive home Hi spoint Yes, you only want a certainly delivery style . . .

Isaiah 30: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Who say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not to us right things, speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Withdraw from the way, turn aside from the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

Seeing things as absolute, as black and white, as you see them, will lead to Fascism.

Oh this is a funny fallacy anything without a dash of compromise is Facism. or Pure Christinity = Fascism. Hahahahahah Sure sounds like a God hater to me.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Oh this is a funny fallacy anything without a dash of compromise is Facism.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it.

or Pure Christinity = Fascism. Hahahahahah Sure sounds like a God hater to me.

I never said anything of the sort, though I've never heard of a Democratic Theocracy.

By the way, WWJD? Would he call me a God hater, or would he talk to me like a man in an effort to help me understand the bible and change my God hating ways? Hmm. These are the questions that plague man kind...

 

[MikeyC]

Shamgar, you have the right not to marry the same sex. How is our government not banning same-sex marriage violating your ability to obey your God's laws?

 

[Schweddy]

Oh the delivery is bad . . . .boo hoo. I guess you would have figured God's delivery was bad when He had a prophet walk naked or marry a prostitute, etc. to drive home Hi spoint Yes, you only want a certainly delivery style . . .

Vegitales are excellent for the correct group of folks, as well. That delivery is awesome. Your delivery without the pics is equally awesome. I do not disagree with your position. Jesus chose the correct form of communication that was the best at that time. In this forum, maybe others, but in this forum cartoonish figures are simply not the best to present a quality arguement or opinion. Just my thoughts. I am trying to help.

 

[Shamgar]

In this forum, maybe others, but in this forum cartoonish figures are simply not the best to present a quality arguement or opinion. Just my thoughts. I am trying to help.

No one got to chose the mode, time or place for God's message. When I am dealing with a generation that has been bombarded with God hating images through television, print media, debates, and movies then there should be no problem for equal time for truth via graphics . . . just trying to help.

Shamgar, you have the right not to marry the same sex. How is our government not banning same-sex marriage violating your ability to obey your God's laws?

Let's see by forcing Christians to compromise their beliefs to legitamize it, funding it and protecting it . . . . only God haters would use such Fascist tactics.

 

[ShamMol]

Oh if you were a real Christian then you would be as Daniel and refuse to boey laws that violated God's laws. This makes sense why you don't since Daneil was righteous and he obeyed God rather than men.

The problem is that he isn't supporting them, he is following them, which is not against religion, it is merely do all he can to remian out of jail so he can continue to preach god's good word. Yada Yada Yada, you know where I am going here.

Oh the delivery is bad . . . .boo hoo. I guess you would have figured God's delivery was bad when He had a prophet walk naked or marry a prostitute, etc. to drive home Hi spoint Yes, you only want a certainly delivery style . . .

Yes, we want a serious style from those who come here to the discussions are good and are not mired in...crap. Your posts since stopping posting pics have been great by the way, keep it up.

Oh this is a funny fallacy anything without a dash of compromise is Facism. or Pure Christinity = Fascism. Hahahahahah Sure sounds like a God hater to me.

No, actually pure Christianity would be a mix of fascism and socialism, helping the society (especially the poor) but insisting on rigid adherence to doctrine.

 

[ShamMol]

Let's see by forcing Christians to compromise their beliefs to legitamize it, funding it and protecting it . . . . only God haters would use such Fascist tactics.

How are they funding it? They are merely allowing it to be added to the list of people who can be married, and at best it only adds the cost of paper and a few overtime hours. How is it a fascist tatic to allow more rights? It isn't, in Fascism, they restrict rights and insist on orthodoxy. Here, we are expanding rights which is the true definition of a liberal (not the political meaning of this word mind you) governmental system.

 

[shuamort]

No one got to chose the mode, time or place for God's message.

Which one? Which god? Which message? Which time? Which place? Are we talking about Zeus, or Vishnu? The great bear of native american lore? Or judeo-christian mythology?

When I am dealing with a generation that has been bombarded with God hating images through television, print media, debates, and movies then there should be no problem for equal time for truth via graphics . . . just trying to help.

It must be really hard when no one buys comic books anymore.

Let's see by forcing Christians to compromise their beliefs to legitamize it, funding it and protecting it . . . . only God haters would use such Fascist tactics.

Why should any of us have to fund, legitimize, or protect your ridiculous fantasies of invisible sky pixies sending down laws?

It must be interesting to live in a world that is so black and white.

 

[MikeyC]

Let's see by forcing Christians to compromise their beliefs to legitamize it, funding it and protecting it . . . . only God haters would use such Fascist tactics.

I'm saying that Christian churches wouldn't have to marry homosexual couples. You could still deny gay marriages WITHIN YOUR OWN CHURCHES. Your churches could still obey what you believe to be God's laws. So your beliefs aren't compromised. I'm saying the government should allow gay marriages to occur like in courthouses by judges or by other churches other than yours that think gay marriage is okay. Obviously with your beliefs you won't believe any marriage outside your church is a real marriage anyways so your beliefs are not compromised. Christian churches would still be allowed to deny any marriage they choose, including gay marriages so you won't be protecting/funding it. Okay, your taxes will give benefits to these couples through social security, but your taxes are also supporting the majority of Americans who don't see God the same way as you. As I see it, you should probably want to leave the country since your taxes support many "God haters" and not just homosexuals. BTW, your money has probably already been spent to treat homosexuals with AIDS and a Muslim who can't afford to pay for his broken arm...Or just not pay taxes and leave the country...Solves everything...

 

[Shamgar]

So your beliefs aren't compromised. I'm saying the government should allow gay marriages to occur like in courthouses by judges or by other churches other than yours that think gay marriage is okay. Obviously with your beliefs you won't believe any marriage outside your church is a real marriage anyways so your beliefs are not compromised. Christian churches would still be allowed to deny any marriage they choose, including gay marriages so you won't be protecting/funding it. Okay, your taxes will give benefits to these couples through social security, but your taxes are also supporting the majority of Americans who don't see God the same way as you. As I see it, you should probably want to leave the country since your taxes support many "God haters" and not just homosexuals. BTW, your money has probably already been spent to treat homosexuals with AIDS and a Muslim who can't afford to pay for his broken arm...Or just not pay taxes and leave the country...Solves everything...

Oh but to legitamize homosexuals as a whole is a violation of the beliefs of a Christian.

Oh such a child-like out look on life you have. Tax dollars would have and have been spent by government making and publicizing these gay rights laws . . . .they have spent tax dollars ajudicating these laws. . . and they have spent tax dollars enforcing these laws. . . and the cycle repeats ittself so the money has to continually flow in to
reenforce the Fascists God haters forcing compromise onto Christians year by year.

 

[MikeyC]

Well, then I guess to you I'm anti-Christian. I can live with that. The government should make laws that offend people like you who preach intolerance. I'm sure most of us our happy about the civil rights laws to protect African Americans which offended the KKK. This is not the country for you to live in apparently. This nation was founded on principals of tolerance.

 

[shuamort]

Oh but to legitamize homosexuals as a whole is a violation of the beliefs of a Christian.

No it's not.

Oh such a child-like out look on life you have. Tax dollars would have and have been spent by government making and publicizing these gay rights laws .

Publicizing? I call BS. Prove that the US government would have to spend money publicizing gay rights laws. We'll wait.

. . .they have spent tax dollars ajudicating these laws. . .

Prove it.

. and they have spent tax dollars enforcing these laws. .

Prove it.

. and the cycle repeats ittself so the money has to continually flow in to reenforce the Fascists God haters forcing compromise onto Christians year by year.

Yeah, all of them god haters forcing blue laws and keeping Christmas a federal holiday. :roll:

Shagmar, you've been called to the mat many, many times so far in these threads. You keep glossing over the points that are made when you're proven wrong. So, unless you got proof of your claims, it's time to start conceding.

 

[Shamgar]

Well, then I guess to you I'm anti-Christian. I can live with that. The government should make laws that offend people like you who preach intolerance. I'm sure most of us our happy about the civil rights laws to protect African Americans which offended the KKK. This is not the country for you to live in apparently. This nation was founded on principals of tolerance.

"founded on principals of tolerance." Of course that is another fairy tale. Gays didn't have "rights" until how many hundred years after this country was founded? Your revisionist propaganda is laughable. Obviously the INTENT was not tolerance.





Intolerance to the Indians pagan religion was well documented as well as intolerance to athiest . . . and the list goes on and on.

 

[MikeyC]

First of all, there probably weren't openly homosexual pastors because gays would have been persecuted against in the same manner as a black person, with violence. Black people were even more "repressed" than gays, I guess our Founding Fathers had were right about everything (sarcasm). What laws do we have that are against gays? (Laws you say are of God do not count) Also, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech which was the tolerance I meant to point out. Our country was founding, meaning to allow any religion to exist within our borders.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Intolerance to the Indians pagan religion was well documented as well as intolerance to athiest . . . and the list goes on and on.

What we did to the Native Americans is something that we should be ashamed of. We were intolerant to african-americans, and women... and you're right the list goes on and on.

What we did to the Native Americans was not done because of religion, it was done because of "Manifest Destiny" and other justifications. It was their land. We made it our land.

To call Indians Pagans is a little extreme,

Read this

It's an indian story that almost matches the story of Noah's ark. Native American lore and the bible are not as different as you might think.

 

[MikeyC]

It appears Jesus did not reach out to the Native Americans. How would they have been been able to become Christian and read the word of God like yourself? Over 1500 years later seems an awful long time to spread a message to a peoples whom Jesus supposedly was supposed to "save" right after his death. How would they have been able to accept him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven even within 1000 years of his crucifiction?

 

[shuamort]

It appears Jesus did not reach out to the Native Americans. How would they have been been able to become Christian and read the word of God like yourself? Over 1500 years later seems an awful long time to spread a message to a peoples whom Jesus supposedly was supposed to "save" right after his death. How would they have been able to accept him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven even within 1000 years of his crucifiction?

You're forgetting about the Book of Mormon:

It teaches that the American Indians are actually Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh.3 Their skin curse is to be removed within a few generations after being converted to Jesus Christ through the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 30:6'versions before 1981; 12:84).4 This change in skin color from black to white has supposedly taken place several times in the past, whenever they turned to the Lord (Alma 23:18; 14:20; 3 Nephi 2:14-16; 1:52-53).

 

[MikeyC]

I'll admit I haven't read the Book of Mormon. Over 1000 years still seems like an awful long time...

 

[Shamgar]

First of all, there probably weren't openly homosexual pastors because gays would have been persecuted against in the same manner as a black person, with violence.

Since the real founding fathers of society who were intolerant to them as evidnece of 200 plus years of OPEN discrimination.

Also, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech which was the tolerance I meant to point out. Our country was founding, meaning to allow any religion to exist within our borders.

Again historical revisionism as the Indian' pagan religion was OPENLY discrimanted against. So the INTENT was discrimination.

It appears Jesus did not reach out to the Native Americans. How would they have been been able to become Christian and read the word of God like yourself? Over 1500 years later seems an awful long time to spread a message to a peoples whom Jesus supposedly was supposed to "save" right after his death. How would they have been able to accept him and enter the Kingdom of Heaven even within 1000 years of his crucifiction?

Pagan don't accept Christ's teachings . . . just like you don't. Converts accept Christ's teachings.

 

[shuamort]

Since the real founding fathers of society who were intolerant to them as evidnece of 200 plus years of OPEN discrimination.

Really, what laws did the founding fathers put forth that were purposefully discriminatory to homosexuals? Especially since the term homosexual wasn't created for 100 years or so after the Constitution was written.

Again historical revisionism as the Indian' pagan religion was OPENLY discrimanted against. So the INTENT was discrimination.

There's no intent shown that any religion was held in one esteem higher than another for the purposes of discrimination.

Pagan don't accept Christ's teachings . . . just like you don't. Converts accept Christ's teachings.

Sure some do. Some just don't say that his teachings are the only ones. Check out a UU church sometime.

 

[MikeyC]

Thomas Jefferson accepted Christ's teachings of morals. However, he didn't believe in all the mysticism associated with Jesus Christ (IE. Walking on water).