Removal of Ten Commandments ordered (IN)

http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/133735-3245-103.html ^

[orionblamblam]

> The Old Testament "screams" a disrespect for human life?

Indeed so. Genocide was common, and basically shrugged at. The OT is full of the "good guys" doing things we'd find ghastly.

> God can do that if he wants.

That's nice. It's still genocide.

> The civilization in question was irretrievably pagan,

Hey, that's great. But I question where "Wipe out the pagans" is in our founding documents...

[goldstategop]

The Jihad on the central founding document of Western Law continues. Film at 11.

[Zack Nguyen]

Please post proof that genocide was "common" component of God's law, and please also post proof that God "winked at" genocide.

As I already stated, God gave Israel instructions to wipe out another civilization one time - agains the people of Canaan, who were grossly pagan and who occupied the land of Israel. I explained why. God can take life if he wishes. You and I can't. That's why he is God and you and I aren't.

In Deuteronomy 20:10, God orders Israel to offer peace negotiations eith every other country they invaded. An important thing to consider.

[Landru]

~eh?

...what say you to *this*?

[orionblamblam]

> Please post proof that genocide was "common" component of God's law

Read the Bible.

> wipe out another civilization one time -
agains the people of Canaan, who were grossly pagan and who occupied the land of Israel

They "occupied" it because nobody was there when the Caananites got there. Would *you* leave your home jsut because soem straggelrs from afar told you to git?

> God can take life if he wishes. You and I can't.

Does that include soldiers?

> God orders Israel to offer peace negotiations eith every other country they invaded.

Gosh, that's sure nice of 'em.

[Zack Nguyen]

Sorry - you have presented no proof whatsoever to back up your assertion. "Read the Bible" just isn't good enough. You asserted that 1) Genocide was a "common" part of God's law; and 2) that God "winked" at genocide. Neither of these is true.

God can take life as He wishes. He can take land and give it to someone else, as He did. He's allowed to do that, because he created life and land to begin with. It all belongs to Him. This is a fundamental principle of Judaism-Christianity. "The Earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." Psalm 24.

[orionblamblam]

> "Read the Bible" just isn't good enough.

Huh. It's a common enough line when used by fundamentalists...

But still, the OT is full of genocide, like it or not. God wiped out the world in a flood (what did the poor ammonites and Pterodactyls ever do to him?), God wiped out Soddom, God wiped out Gemmorah. Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9: "You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you."

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14: "Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)"

Deuteronomy 2:34 "At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them - men, women and children. We left no survivors."

Deuteronomy 32:23-26: "I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men."

Deuteronomy 17:13 "And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."

There's a lot more, but I haven't the time right now.


> You asserted that 1) Genocide was a "common" part of God's law;

Nope. Never said that. Said it was common in the OT.

> and 2) that God "winked" at genocide.

Nope. Never said that either. You are not only putting words in my mouth that I didn't say... you are putting quotes around them. This is astonishingly dishonest. Isn't there some commandment regarding bearing false witness?

Where did *I* say God "winked?" Where did I mention "God's Law?" If you can't debate honestly... get thee hence to DU.

> It all belongs to Him. This is a fundamental principle of Judaism-Christianity.

That's an interesting thing to say, given that you just recently wrote: "The OT allows for a free market and private property that is inviolable." If private property rights are inviolable, how do you square that with a God who can violete them at a whim?

[jwalsh07]

Just say no.

[Zack Nguyen]

Pardon me - you said genocide is "shrugged at" in the OT. For some reason I read "winked at." My mistake. Yet they mean the same thing. You said that genocide was "common", in the context of your sentence indicating an uncaring attitude about it by God. Your very assertion here is that the God described in the OT is evil and immoral.

None of these assertions are true. God most certainly does not "shrug at" genocide, and it is not "common" in the OT, reflecting a casual attitude by God.

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14:. This concerns Israel's conquest of Cannan, which I discussed already.

Deuteronomy 2:34. This concerns Israel's conquest of Canaan, which I discussed already. The Amorites (the race being discussed here) were given many chances to repent before God. The first mention of them goes all the way back to Genesis 15:16 (hundreds of years before Israel was a nation), where God states that Israel will not be allowed to take the land of the Amorites until their sin "has reached its full measure."

Deuteronomy 32:23-26. Good grief - this is a passage that describes God's anger at Israel, not a foreign pagan nation!

Deuteronomy 17:13. The words don't match your verse. I have no idea what verse you are quoting, but it isn't Deuteronomy 17:13.

Regarding private property - again God can do what he wants. It all belongs to Him. My neighbor can't lawfully take it, however, and government should respect it.

[orionblamblam]

> you said genocide is "shrugged at" in the OT. For some reason I read "winked at." My mistake. Yet they mean the same thing.

No, they don't. It's a minor point in context of this debate, but potentially important in getting terms correct. I or you might "shrug at" a story of some minor evil occuring somewhere nearby, as it is just not worth bothering with... but "winking at" it means that we know it's wrong, but approve anyway for whatever reason. That's how I, and I believe most people, woudl view those terms.

> God most certainly does not "shrug at" genocide

Indeed not. In fact, according to the OT, he orders it and carries it out.

> again God can do what he wants

And so can, it seems, his agents. But telling them apart from psychopaths seems to be a bit of a challenge, especially given the OT and the last 2,000 years. Whether or not the latest round of religious genocide is truly inspired by some moldy god or other is somewhat beside the point... those carrying it out *believe* it is so inspired.

But even so: if God wipes out a race, nation, country, species, whatever, for whatever reason, it is still genocide.

[Zack Nguyen]

Alright. I will gladly concede to you that "winking at" and "shrugging at" are not the same thing in the context of the points you are making. Again, innocent mistake on my part.

And so can, it seems, his agents.

This is absolutely, positively, not correct and is the entire point of what I am trying to get across. The OT and NT devote countless pages to what the people of God may not do. God ordered the wiping out of a civilization one time in the OT. God's people were not allowed to decide to do that on their own.

People have no right to take property or life, unless it is in line with God's created law or order. That's why I believe in capital punishment, among other things. For me to kill the thief as he's trying to get away is wrong. For the government to try and convict him, taking away his freedom and property, is fine.

So if you want to debate this, you'll have to concede that God's people (or "agents") as you put it, are not allowed to do anything they want. It's the most basic point.

[orionblamblam]

> God ordered the wiping out of a civilization one time in the OT.

Thus opening the door for further such orders, or the belief in such orders.

> So if you want to debate this, you'll have to concede that God's people (or "agents") as you put it, are not allowed to do anything they want.

They seem to enjoy their work, based upon the last several thousand years of religion-inspired genocide...

[Zack Nguyen]

Thus opening the door for further such orders, or the belief in such orders.

You'll have prove that this was God's intended effect in order to make him culpable. If not, then I don't think you have a case. If China dropped an atomic bomb on Taiwan tomorrow, is Harry Truman morally culpable?

The questions that must be asked are, did God intend the destruction of all unbelievers by believers, in all times and circumstances? Did he leave decisions on this destruction to his people?

The answer to both questions is a resounding "No."

[orionblamblam]

> You'll have prove that this was God's intended effect in order to make him culpable.

Ever heard of unintended consequences? You are still responsible, even if you didn't know what would happen. And if you're omniscient... ignorance is not an excuse.

Of course, that's all beside the point. Almost certainly, people invented Jehovah (as with all the other gods)in order to give them an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.

[Zack Nguyen]

So Harry Truman would be morally responsible for an atomic bomb dropped by the Chinese sixty years later, even if it was done for radically different, immoral reasons?

Of course not. God is holy and perfect, and always just. There is an eternity of difference between God, as Creator and Judge of the Universe, deciding he's had enough of a particular group of people, and some lone psychopath deciding it. Indeed, at the end of time God will gather all people who have ever lived before him, and separate those that have believed in His Son (and thus had their sins forgiven), and those that do not believe (and thus are unforgiven.) The believers will go to eternal life; the unbelievers to eternal punishment.

Almost certainly, people invented Jehovah (as with all the other gods)in order to give them an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.

If that is what you really think, then why are you wasting all this time commenting on a thread about the Ten Commandments? No one is making you believe them. Why are you bothering to debate with me? Why not let me go on my merry way, "blissfully ignorant?" Although I'm glad you're not.

I'd urge you to consider the reasonableness of theism. Christianity answers the most important questions that we can ask - How did I get here? What is my purpose? Why is this world such a mess? What is the cure? Where will I go when I die?

[orionblamblam]

> So Harry Truman...

Non sequitur. But thanks for playing.

> God is holy and perfect, and always just.

And, according to the OT, a big, BIG fan of genocide.

> The believers will go to eternal life; the unbelievers to eternal punishment.

Yeah, that's moral. [/sarcasm]

> If that is what you really think, then why are you wasting all this time commenting on a thread about the Ten Commandments? No one is making you believe them. Why are you bothering to debate with me? Why not let me go on my merry way, "blissfully ignorant?"

Hmmm. Let's see. Are you a Muslim or a pagan? If not, doe sthat mean that you never, ever post in threads about Muslims or pagans? Are you a Communist or a Nazi? If not, does that mean you never, ever post in threads about Communists or Nazis? Are you able to see just how loopy your arguement here is, yet?

> I'd urge you to consider the reasonableness of theism.

I have tried, but it's not there. Theism is unreasonable.

> Christianity answers the most important questions that we can ask - How did I get here? What is my purpose? Why is this world such a mess? What is the cure? Where will I go when I die?

Other religions answer the same questions. And science and reason *also* answer those very same questions.

[Zack Nguyen]

Hmmm. Let's see. Are you a Muslim or a pagan? If not, doe sthat mean that you never, ever post in threads about Muslims or pagans? Are you a Communist or a Nazi? If not, does that mean you never, ever post in threads about Communists or Nazis...

Of course I post on those sorts of threads. I am a Christian, and spreading the Good News is part of the deal. I also like to defend the public acknowledgement of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which the Ten Commandments represent. So I have a very good reason to want to defend their posting. But you haven't explained what belief system you ascribe to that would make you want to take them down. You haven't answered my question.

Other religions answer the same questions. And science and reason *also* answer those very same questions.

No, they really don't. Most other religions are "works based" - that is, do the right thing and you'll go to heaven. Christianity is just the opposite. And science doesn't begin to answer questions of morality and philosophy.

My point about Harry Truman stands. Because God, in his sovereignty, chooses to take life consistent with His holiness, does not give us license to do the same.

And, according to the OT, a big, BIG fan of genocide.

You're just trying to get my goat here. I've answered that charge, and now I'm done with it.

[orionblamblam]

> Of course I post on those sorts of threads. I am a Christian, and spreading the Good News is part of the deal.

Uh-huh. And I'm a rational human engineer... correcting factual errors is "part of the deal."

> But you haven't explained what belief system you ascribe to that would make you want to take them down. You haven't answered my question.

You never asked a question like that. I'm not a mind reader.

In any event, my "belief system" is simple: facts. The idea that the US COnstitution is based primarily or even largely on the 10 Commandments is ridiculous and libelously false. it is based on Enlightnement era Reason, English Common Law (and thense to pagan law), and many other great works of Men.

> do the right thing and you'll go to heaven. Christianity is just the opposite.

Which speaks ill of Christianity. It says that either those Men who invented the religion were political geniuses yet moral midgets, or that God reaally needs to grow the hell up. Damnation for good people is vile.

> And science doesn't begin to answer questions of morality and philosophy.

Yes, it does. You choose to believe otherwise, which is sad... and dangerous. If a Believer has a crisis of faith, or some brain fart that God is speakignto 'em... they become a danger to others.

And the point that the OT is full of genocide (mythical and otherwise) stands. Rationalizing it doesn't change what it is. Homicide is homicide whether justified or not.

[Zack Nguyen]

The idea that the US COnstitution is based primarily or even largely on the 10 Commandments is ridiculous and libelously false.

I didn't say that the Constitution is based largely on the Ten Commandments.

I said, and maintain, that the Ten Commandments as the pinnacle of Judeo-Christian ethic form the idea of freedom and human dignity, and without our knowledge of these things the Constitution is meaningless. The historical facts are clear. Our Founders were mostly (though not all) Christians, and consciously tried to set up a governing system where it could flourish, and remain the dominant cultural influence.

Which speaks ill of Christianity.

Just the opposite. Christianity, unlike any other religion, takes an entirely accurate viewpoint of human nature. We are sinners from birth, and can only be saved by a supernatural act of atonement, which is the death and resurrection of Christ.

Damnation for good people is vile.

There are no good people before God. If there were, there would have been no point in Christ coming to earth and dying on the Cross in atonement for our sin. God could have simply left us to our own devices, knowing that we would be good enough to get to heaven.

And the point that the OT is full of genocide (mythical and otherwise) stands.

That just isn't so. You have yet to prove that the OT is "full of" genocide. You brought up a few Bible verses and I responded to each one in turn. You haven't brought up anything else, or drawn your ideas into an overall viewpoint that would justify your premise - that the God of Christianity and Judaism is hateful and vile.

Homicide is homicide whether justified or not.

That just isn't true either. Killing in self defense isn't "homicide". Capital punishment after a fair trial isn't "homicide." Homicide is generally used to describe murder, and God never murders in the Old or New Testament.

[orionblamblam]

> the Ten Commandments as the pinnacle of Judeo-Christian ethic form the idea of freedom and human dignity,

ERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. These ideas were espoused by the Greek long before they had any dealigns with the Hebrews, as well as by other peoples untouched by Judeo-Christians.

> without our knowledge of these things the Constitution is meaningless.

As I said... dangerous.

> Our Founders were mostly (though not all) Christians, and consciously tried to set up a governing system where ...

... the federal government took no interest in religion.

> Christianity, unlike any other religion, takes an entirely accurate viewpoint of human nature. We are sinners from birth...

Ugh. Such self-hatred, married to pride. I never fail to be astonished.

> There are no good people before God.

Says you.

> You have yet to prove that the OT is "full of" genocide

Floods, Soddom, Gemorah, Canaanites and others. How much more do you need?

> Killing in self defense isn't "homicide".

Yes, it is. It's just not "murder." From dictionary.com:

hom·i·cide
n.
1: The killing of one person by another.
2: A person who kills another person.

This is not the first time you've made this sort of error in this debate. Leave the "redefining words to mean what we want" to the liberals.