Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 31 of 31
  1. #1
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103

    No 10 Commandments in Courthouses

    Dunno why people venerate the 10 Commandments so much. Very few can recite more than three of 'em, and most of 'em are not only rediculous, but are unconstitutional as well.
    -Tock
    ===============================

    Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/...n_commandments


    WASHINGTON - In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

    The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

    The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

    But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

    "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

    "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

    Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

    In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.

    Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

    He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

    "In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."

    "The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.

    The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.

    The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

    A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.

    But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.

    Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."

  2. #2
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Why do you hate God so much Tock? You actually believe your flying dinasour posts?

  3. #3
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    commandments were here way before people started complaining about rights they feel they should have. commandments have the highest priority over anything, especially the constitution!! its a shame, but its not surprising that christianity is going to be "beat on" but eventually will lead to its glory. so i never worry about stuff like this. i know its going to happen.

  4. #4
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    Why do you hate God so much Tock?
    Yes, I hate several gods.

    I hate Osirus, Thor, and Quetzecotl.
    I am, however, rather fond of Omygod.






    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    You actually believe your flying dinasour posts?
    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you actually think that anyone would take that website as anything but parody. But I gave you the benefit of that doubt . . . an error I will endeavor to avoid in the future.

  5. #5
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    commandments have the highest priority over anything, especially the constitution!!
    I heartily disagree.

    I support the freedom for people to worship whatever god they wish to worship, as does the US Constitution.

    The First Commandment, however, says, "Thou shalt have no other god before me."

    So. You would have the Bible take precedence over the US Constitution, and require other people to worship the same god you do?

    Tsk tsk tsk . . .

    Maybe you think that's a good idea, this business of basing laws on the 10 Commandments. So did the folks who brought us the Inquisition.

    Very truly yours in Religious Freedom,
    -Tock

  6. #6
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    Laws that we have here are based on christian principles, and christianity as with Judaims is based on the commandment therefore laws is based in these basic principles!

    this PC is going too far

  7. #7
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    I heartily disagree.

    I support the freedom for people to worship whatever god they wish to worship, as does the US Constitution.

    The First Commandment, however, says, "Thou shalt have no other god before me."

    So. You would have the Bible take precedence over the US Constitution, and require other people to worship the same god you do?
    God gives you the freedom to worship any god you wish. If you are to be a christian and follow Him, then you follow the first commandment. If you choose not to follow it, so be it. im sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Tsk tsk tsk . . .

    Maybe you think that's a good idea, this business of basing laws on the 10 Commandments. So did the folks who brought us the Inquisition.

    Very truly yours in Religious Freedom,
    -Tock
    i never said anything about basing laws on the 10 commandments..trying to put words in my mouth? i simply said the 10 commandments are higher than the constitution and higher than any law. if you dont choose to follow them, then its your choice and you can have what consequences come with that decision, as will I with my decision.
    Last edited by max2extreme; 06-29-2005 at 01:27 AM.

  8. #8
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    God gives you the freedom to worship any god you wish.
    Nope, not even close.
    I have the legal right to worship teh goddess Nadine Spencer if I like because of the US Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. Compare that to, say, China, where if the government didn't like Nadine Spencer, they might not allow folks to worship this fine lady. Your god has nothing to do with anyone's religious freedom, other than to Command in the First Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

    If I was the last person on this planet, I would not be restrained from worshipping as I wish; if I were one of two people on the planet, I could worship as I pleased only to the extent the other person restricted me from doing so. Since I am one of many people in this country, my religious freedom is restricted only to the degree they agree to do so, and as the US Constitution is the guiding agreement to such things, my freedom to worship Nadine Spencer is limited only to the extent my fellow Americans agree to respect the guiding principle of the US Constitution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you claim your god has done. Period.










    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    i never said anything about basing laws on the 10 commandments..trying to put words in my mouth? i simply said the 10 commandments are higher than the constitution and higher than any law. if you dont choose to follow them, then its your choice and you can have what consequences come with that decision, as will I with my decision.
    Originally Posted by max2extreme
    commandments have the highest priority over anything, especially the constitution!!


    Well, if you're saying that the Ten Commandments have priority over anything, including the US Constitution, and that the Commandments supercede anything the Constitution says, then I'd say you're nuts.
    If you're saying that the Ten Commandments have priority over the US Constitution only for Christians, then I'd say you're nuts, because obviously very very few Christians will bother keeping the Sabbath, or observing the Commandment that bans graven images, taking his name in vain, or envying other people's stuff, etc etc etc. There's not much point in saying you support the 10 Commandments if you really don't.

    So . . . IMHO, the Commandments are NOT higher than US Law, and have absolutely no legal effect on what people do, and rightfully so.
    Maybe you'd like to see that changed . . . but I can't imagine why . . .

    -Tock

  9. #9
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
    Laws that we have here are based on christian principles
    Not really.
    The USA is a democracy (well, ok, a representative republic, but let's split that hair in another thread), and our laws are much more based on ancient Greek principles than Christian, because in the Greek tradition people have a say in what laws they will be obliged to follow. In the Christian tradition, the laws come from a book, parts of which are anonymous, and most of which is filled with superstition, and no part of this book is open to amendment, and no orthodox doctrine is open to challenge.

    Ya, I much prefer the Greek tradition to the Christian one.







    Quote Originally Posted by 3Vandoo
    and christianity as with Judaims is based on the commandment therefore laws is based in these basic principles!
    I don't see how your conclusion follows your premise.
    Just because Christianity is based on the 10 Commandments does not mean US law is based on those principles as well.
    -Tock

  10. #10
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    Dont tell me when the founding fathers created the constitution they were thinking of gay greek men instead of the bible ....!

    thats was a joke btw

  11. #11
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Nope, not even close.
    I have the legal right to worship teh goddess Nadine Spencer if I like because of the US Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. Compare that to, say, China, where if the government didn't like Nadine Spencer, they might not allow folks to worship this fine lady. Your god has nothing to do with anyone's religious freedom, other than to Command in the First Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
    you have the free will to do as you please. so if you wish to worship nadine spencer, god wont stop you. he could easily have never allowed you to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    If I was the last person on this planet, I would not be restrained from worshipping as I wish; if I were one of two people on the planet, I could worship as I pleased only to the extent the other person restricted me from doing so. Since I am one of many people in this country, my religious freedom is restricted only to the degree they agree to do so, and as the US Constitution is the guiding agreement to such things, my freedom to worship Nadine Spencer is limited only to the extent my fellow Americans agree to respect the guiding principle of the US Constitution. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you claim your god has done. Period.
    your religous freedom is restricted by the govt who sets up your laws, not by god. god allows you to do as you wish, as long as you pay whatever consequences those choices may cost.


    Quote Originally Posted by MAX2EXTREME
    Originally Posted by max2extreme
    commandments have the highest priority over anything, especially the constitution!!
    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Well, if you're saying that the Ten Commandments have priority over anything, including the US Constitution, and that the Commandments supercede anything the Constitution says, then I'd say you're nuts.
    If you're saying that the Ten Commandments have priority over the US Constitution only for Christians, then I'd say you're nuts, because obviously very very few Christians will bother keeping the Sabbath, or observing the Commandment that bans graven images, taking his name in vain, or envying other people's stuff, etc etc etc. There's not much point in saying you support the 10 Commandments if you really don't.

    So . . . IMHO, the Commandments are NOT higher than US Law, and have absolutely no legal effect on what people do, and rightfully so.
    Maybe you'd like to see that changed . . . but I can't imagine why . . .

    -Tock
    they do. if a law was passed or the constitution was amended that said something like "everyone has to worship nadine spencer or be thrown in jail", well id be thrown in jail. you can go back into your arguement that noone follows the 10 commandments, the graven image, blah blah blah if you like. to me thats trying to redirect the topic because weve gone over it, and you can re-read it if you like. you know where it is. you are right, the commandments do not have legal effect on what people do. theres nothing 'legal' about them. church and state should be separate, so no, i dont think the commandments should be made legal as "the commandments". but when it comes down to it, the bible in whole is higher than the constitution, any law, anything any man says whether you agree with it, abide by it, or just simply blow it off.

  12. #12
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    you have the free will to do as you please. so if you wish to worship nadine spencer, god wont stop you. he could easily have never allowed you to do so.
    Nope.
    My point is that your god is quite irrelevant to the question of fundamental human rights in the United States. Citizens of the USA have decided not to prevent other people from worshipping any god they wish, which in and of itself contradicts the First Commandment which says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
    So . . . right off the bat, you can see, quite plainly, that the US Constitution is in no way based upon the Christian Bible's Ten Commandments.

    -Tock
    (your favorite Religious Freedom Fighter)

  13. #13
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    i never said the constitution was based on the bible in any way. i said the bible was above it, the 10 commandments were above it.

    could god have prevented you from worshiping anyone but him?

    did he?

  14. #14
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    i never said the constitution was based on the bible in any way. i said the bible was above it, the 10 commandments were above it.
    In case of a conflict between the US Constitution and the 10 Commandments, which do you consider to be of primary importance?
    -Tock

  15. #15
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    if the bible says not to do something, and it became a law that i had to, i wouldnt.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Thomas Jefferson:

    "[the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"
    (Only the part quoted in italics appears on the Jefferson Memorial statue....but the truth is, this famous quote was against the Clergy and the Church, not simply against Tyranny over the mind of man.)

  17. #17
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    if the bible says not to do something, and it became a law that i had to, i wouldnt.
    What if the Bible said you had to do something, and the law said you couldn't do it. Would you comply with the Bible or with the law?
    -Tock

  18. #18
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    i think i sense some trap. but yea, if the bible said i had to do something and it was unlawful, i would do it.

  19. #19
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    No trap. Just a question about how far you'd go in complying with your religion's demands . . .

    . . . such as:
    ---------------------
    I Timothy 2:12 -- opposing female teachers -- "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

    I Cor. 14:34-35 -- requiring women to be silent in church -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. "

    Exodus 21:7 -- permitting female slavery -- "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

    Leviticus 24:14-16 -- killing blasphemers -- 13: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
    14: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
    15: And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
    16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
    --------------

    So, if your religion tells you to punish those who blaspheme, and the US government tells you you better not, who's rules are you gonna obey? The Bible's, or the secular, lily-livered liberal bleeding-heart godless secular government?

    -Tock

  20. #20
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    weve already gone over my beliefs about the OT laws but in short, ill say again in brief, or you can look them up in full here. We are not under the OT laws or covenant anymore. we are under the "law of Christ" as described in the NT and written on our hearts under the new covenant.

    as for your 1 timothy and corinthians verses, i wouldnt attend a church where its pastor was a female. i think ive gone over ths too. for no more reason that that the bible says how the church is to be ran. are people who go to churches with female pastors or where the females hold leadership in the church going to be punished? or are they themselves going to be punished? i dont know. but to make sure, i follow what the bible says.

  21. #21
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    weve already gone over my beliefs about the OT laws but in short, ill say again in brief, or you can look them up in full here. We are not under the OT laws or covenant anymore. we are under the "law of Christ" as described in the NT and written on our hearts under the new covenant.
    So, frequently quoted OT texts such as Leviticus 18:22 -- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" have been superceded by the New Testament Covenant, just the same as OT texts such as Exodus 22:18 -- "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Yes? No?








    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    as for your 1 timothy and corinthians verses, i wouldnt attend a church where its pastor was a female. i think ive gone over ths too. for no more reason that that the bible says how the church is to be ran. are people who go to churches with female pastors or where the females hold leadership in the church going to be punished? or are they themselves going to be punished? i dont know. but to make sure, i follow what the bible says.
    I suppose this carries over to women bosses at work, eh? That's what the scripture says . . .

    -Tock

  22. #22
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    So, frequently quoted OT texts such as Leviticus 18:22 -- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" have been superceded by the New Testament Covenant, just the same as OT texts such as Exodus 22:18 -- "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Yes? No?
    for the most part.. heres your NT verse against homosexuality.

    Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themeselves the due penalty for their perversion.


    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    I suppose this carries over to women bosses at work, eh? That's what the scripture says . . .

    -Tock
    show me where it says that? all the verses we have looked at have been about leadership and teaching in the church.

  23. #23
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Allright, so we agree that the Old Testament Covenant was replaced by the New Testament Covenant, so folks who go along with the New Testament Covenant are no longer held to the Old Testament Covenant. Right? Right.

    Ok, so now that's settled, you're prooftexting Romans 1:27.
    If you look at the text in context, you'll find that the passage says,
    -----------------------
    21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    -----------------------

    Note that the verb tense of this is PAST TENSE; Paul talks about people "when they knew god and didn't give him his props," and when they made idols, and worshipped the creature more than the creator, and when god "gave them up to" etc etc etc.

    He is talking about people in the past, maybe about folks in Sodom, but absolutely about people who were idol worshippers, and who did what they did before Jesus died and sealed the deal on the New Covenant. Paul is not murmurring about anyone who worshipped idols after the Ressurection.
    So, therefore, ergo, in conclusion, it follows, la de da, Paul was talking about people who were still under the Old Testament Law.

    Straight people who agree to the terms of the New Covenant are in good standing as long as they accept Jesus as their saviour on faith, through grace, and continue to "beleive on him" and strive to follow Jesus' two commandments (Love thy god & love thy neighbor), they're good to go, even though they may smoke, drink, dance, play cards, envy their neighbor's fancy Corvette or 23" biceps, break the Sabbath, or other stuff.

    Gay people are similarly free to agree to the terms of the New Covenant on the same terms and obtain the same benefits, even though they may smoke, drink, envy their neighbor's mountainous pecs, break the Sabbath, or other stuff, including having sex with their sweetie (assuming gay sex is anywhere near a vile transgression against God as is breaking the Sabbath, which is a transgression against one of the Ten Commandments).

    So, your Romans 1:27 verse doesn't apply to New Covenant beleivers whose faith gets them the grace necessary for salvation, but is only a commentary regarding what happened in the past.

    Maybe you would like to suggest that "Good Works" such as leading what you consider a "moral sex life" will improve your chances for salvation, or at least will make it more likely that you'll get there before any gay people will, but just let me remind you that your good works "are as filthy rags" in the eyes of God.

    -Tock

  24. #24
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    no. wrong.

    romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    and then it gave some examples of the evil things that mankind have done and ignored what god has indicated as wrong. its saying from the beginning of time, man has done such wrongs and for this to be brought back up in the nt as wrong even more clearly indicates that it is still wrong. why would homosexuality be ok after jesus and not ok before jesus when god said it was wrong, yet god and jesus are one? its your misunderstanding of this verse thats allowing you to "talk your homosexuality" into something that God allows.

    Many of the restrictions of the Law of Christ as found in the Gospels and the Epistles
    are the same as the Mosaic Covenant. but some differences, example: 1) there is no condemnation for not keeping the law perfectly, since all condemnation was placed on Christ. 2) there is actual empowerment to keep the law since we have the holy spirit.

    its not just faith, but you must also repent of your sins.

  25. #25
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Originally Posted by TOCK
    I suppose this carries over to women bosses at work, eh? That's what the scripture says . . .
    -Tock


    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    show me where it says that? all the verses we have looked at have been about leadership and teaching in the church.
    Oh, mon petite, gaze upon the eye-buggingly width and breadth of Paul's writing about the proper place of women:

    -----------------------
    1 Timothy, chapter 2

    8: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
    9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    10: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
    11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
    --------------------

    There is nary a jot or tittle anywhere in this sad chapter that declares that this silliness is to be confined to places of worship. Indeed, throughout most of history, women have been pretty much confined to the drudgery of hard labor and housework. It's "been their rightful place," thanks to pious men conscientiously obeying these words.

    Verses 13 - 15 puts the blame for the "fall" squarely on the cursed woman, and on ALL women in general.

    Verse 9 declares that women cannot wear jewelry or braid their hair. Now, does this sound like the opinion of God, who supposedly sacrificed His Beloved Son to die an excruciating death on the cross; do you think that God really gives a flip about whether or not a woman braids her hair? Or whether or not she wears gold or diamond earrings? Or does this sound like the mere opinion of a "recovering Pharasee" (remember, Paul used to be an obnoxious Pharasee hung up on rules & regulations) who also wrote,
    "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (I Cor. 11:14)

    So, if Paul is really speaking God's Intention in these New Testament passages, then long haired men are as shameful as women with hair braids and jewelry, and such people displeases God and causes causes them to lose their salvation and instead puts them squarely on the paved road to Eternal Damnation.

    IMHO, Paul is just writing "in his own strength" and his own opinion, and something tells me that if the God of the Bible is indeed the One and Only True god, then he's not likely to care about this pap that Paul wrote. He will likely be more concerned about things like accepting Jesus on faith, and whether or not people lived according to Jesus' two commandments. Internal things, things of the heart, and not external things, like the gender of your sweetie, or if you ate pork or shellfish, or didn't work on the Sabbath.

    Faith, Love, and Redemption, mon petite; that is what your religion is supposed to be all about. Obeying rules about hair length, braids, jewelry, it ain't.
    Paul's writings puts women in an inferior social position. Take a look at Iran or Saudi Arabia if you wanna see how this sort of rule looks when fully implemented. Maybe you support this sort of thing, which is your perrogative. But from my perspective, it's dammed silly.

    -Tock

  26. #26
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    when people talk about good works, its not stuff like "moral sex life" like you said. good works has nothing to do with yourself, when people talk about "good works".

  27. #27
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Originally Posted by TOCK
    I suppose this carries over to women bosses at work, eh? That's what the scripture says . . .
    -Tock




    Oh, mon petite, gaze upon the eye-buggingly width and breadth of Paul's writing about the proper place of women:

    -----------------------
    1 Timothy, chapter 2

    8: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
    9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    10: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
    11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
    --------------------


    There is nary a jot or tittle anywhere in this sad chapter that declares that this silliness is to be confined to places of worship. Indeed, throughout most of history, women have been pretty much confined to the drudgery of hard labor and housework. It's "been their rightful place," thanks to pious men conscientiously obeying these words.
    the above is about women in the church. ...starting with prayer in the church chapter 2:1-8, then women in the church chapter verse 9-15, then about instruction with leaders titled bishops, then deacons 3:1-16. if you dont believe me, look elsewhere for understanding. and they'll say the same thing. this isnt debated. its clear as day to me. all of 1 timothy is about "the good fight" (1:18), in relation to the church corporately, the theme is behaving in the house of god (3:15). important subjects discussed in the epistle include the law (1:7-11), prayer (2:1-8), appearance and activitiy of women (2:9-15), qualfications for bishops or elders and for deacons (3:1-13), the last days (4:1-3), care of widows (5:3-16), and use of money (6:6-19)

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Verses 13 - 15 puts the blame for the "fall" squarely on the cursed woman, and on ALL women in general.
    no, the fall wasnt squarely on the woman, both adam and eve sinned. it was eve who was deceived by the snake, and that is true is it not? she was punished. it was adam who did as eve said against god's rule, and he was punished. but adam was not deceived was he. he was just as at fault, sin is sin, but he was not deceived. it seems that was a big deal to God, doesnt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Verse 9 declares that women cannot wear jewelry or braid their hair. Now, does this sound like the opinion of God, who supposedly sacrificed His Beloved Son to die an excruciating death on the cross; do you think that God really gives a flip about whether or not a woman braids her hair? Or whether or not she wears gold or diamond earrings?
    seems to me god really "gives a flip". how can you inject your opinions just cuz you dont understand why god would care about such stuff? respectable and honorable apparel reflects a godly woman's inner life. elaborate interweaving of the hair with gold and pearls was discouraged, and orderliness, not ostentation was the standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Or does this sound like the mere opinion of a "recovering Pharasee" (remember, Paul used to be an obnoxious Pharasee hung up on rules & regulations) who also wrote,
    "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (I Cor. 11:14)
    now, you know that i and most (you can never say all) christians believe the bible is the word of god, so the above of course is just as true as anything. what is the reason for bringing up the 1 cor. verse?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    So, if Paul is really speaking God's Intention in these New Testament passages, then long haired men are as shameful as women with hair braids and jewelry, and such people displeases God and causes causes them to lose their salvation and instead puts them squarely on the paved road to Eternal Damnation.
    now where does it say such things causes them to lose their salvation and puts them on the road to eternal damnation?? your christian theology truly needs some help. you really need to find a good church, preacher to talk to, or take a class on theology at a christian college.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    IMHO, Paul is just writing "in his own strength" and his own opinion, and something tells me that if the God of the Bible is indeed the One and Only True god, then he's not likely to care about this pap that Paul wrote. He will likely be more concerned about things like accepting Jesus on faith, and whether or not people lived according to Jesus' two commandments. Internal things, things of the heart, and not external things, like the gender of your sweetie, or if you ate pork or shellfish, or didn't work on the Sabbath.
    "if the god of the bible is indeed the one and only true god...." well what qualifies, in your honest opinion, something in the bible for you to believe and something for you not to believe? If it goes with how you act, and things you do then you believe it, and if it goes against how you act, or your lifestyle, then you choose its wrong and god doesnt really care about that, though its written in the same source that you get the possible "one and only true god".

    Quote Originally Posted by TOCK
    Faith, Love, and Redemption, mon petite; that is what your religion is supposed to be all about. Obeying rules about hair length, braids, jewelry, it ain't.
    Paul's writings puts women in an inferior social position. Take a look at Iran or Saudi Arabia if you wanna see how this sort of rule looks when fully implemented. Maybe you support this sort of thing, which is your perrogative. But from my perspective, it's dammed silly.

    -Tock

  28. #28
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Jesus and the "Ten Commandments"

    Jesus Christ stated the original Ten could be boiled down to two:
    - Love God with all your heart, the first stone tablet
    - and love your neighbor as yourself, the second stone tablet (Mr.12:28-31):

    28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
    29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mr.12:28-31).

    It should be noticed that Jesus mentioned the First Commandment, not from the Decalogue, but from the "Shema", which means "Hear":
    4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. (Deut.6:4-5).

    The Law was fulfilled "by" Jesus and "in Jesus:

    The Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5-6-7, has been called the Constitution of Christianity. In this majestic passage, as in Psalm 119, the values and obligations of obedience are magnified and presented in their true perspective. Study them carefully and by Yahweh's grace endeavor to put them into practice. Do not make the mistake of following the advice of misguided leaders who are blindly leading millions into error:

    17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
    18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
    19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven Matthew 5:17-19.

    In Matthew 5, Jesus redefined murder (21-26), adultery (27-30), divorce (31-32), oaths (33-37), eye for an eye (38-42), love the enemies (43-48). The Law was fulfilled "by" Jesus and "in" Jesus

    Jesus Christ is the "end of the Law":

    That's what the Bible says:

    - Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom.10:4).
    - For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. (Rom.6:14).

    Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. New Testament believers are not under Law but under Grace:

    Since the Lord Jesus Christ fulfills the Law by His person and work, believers are under a new law; the obligation to walk by the Spirit of Life through faith (Rom. 8:2-4). If we are led by the Spirit, then we are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18).

    The believer in Christ who functions under the filling of the Holy Spirit takes up where Christ left off and fulfills the Law. Believers in the church age are under a higher law of spirituality: Rom.8:2-4; Gal.5:18,22,23; ICor.13.

    1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom.8:1-4).

    Yes, Jesus has not violated the Law nor even ignored it; He has fulfilled it! The Law pronounced the sinner’s doom (Ezekiel 18:4). Christ, the sinner’s Substitute, died under that Law (Galatians 3:13), completely satisfying the demands of that Law (1 John 2:2), fully paying the wages of sin for the sinner (Romans 6:23).

    It needs to be emphasized that the end of the Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, does not cancel or detract one iota from the eternal moral law of God. The moral principles of the ten laws did not begin with Sinai but are as eternal and immutable as the character of God.

    http://biblia.com/jesusbible/deut3b.htm

  29. #29
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    I wonder if anyone gives a rat's hiney about this stuff.
    Makes no difference to me, because it's all nonsense, anyway. No more likely to be true than tomorrow's newspaper horoscope.
    -Tock

  30. #30
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    you brought it up...i was just setting you straight. glad you learned something.

  31. #31
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    You need more than what you posted to set me "straight," lol . . .
    -Tock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •