Originally Posted by Matthew

The point, theocrat, is that you just want to make everyone obey civil laws derived from Christian moral principles as you interpret them, whether we agree with your interpretation of Christianity or not. And you dare accuse others of "violating the Constitution?!?" I'm all for you finding the plank in your own eye first, you liberty-challenged zealot.

>flush!<

(This "flush" thing is really fun! Adds a lot to my posts, don't you think?)

How is following the 10 commandments an interpretation of Christianity or scriptures.

Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet, how are those even considered to be interpretable?

Originally Posted by Theophilus

How is following the 10 commandments an interpretation of Christianity or scriptures.

Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet, how are those even considered to be interpretable?

For starters, the commandments themselves are provided in two places -- and the lists are not identically worded. Additionally, there is a great deal of controversy over the interpretation of individual commandments. Famously, the injunction against killing is subject to much disagreement: does it mean murder only? all killing? somewhere in between? And then there's the matter of how to understand the Ten Commandments in relation to other portions of Christian ethical teaching, especially given Jesus' two highest commandments. All of it is subject to huge interpretive variance, for a variety of reasons.

And where abortion is concerned, there is no explicit discussion of the topic anywhere in the Bible. Are there discussions of accidentally causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy? Yes. Are there discussions of God knowing people in the womb? Yes. But nowhere is abortion discussed. So the conservative Christian interpretation that there is an ethical prohibition against abortion must be recognized for what it is: an interpretation. It is possibly the right interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless. And there are interpretations, even within Christianity, that hold otherwise.

Beyond just that, my larger point in responding to Easyrider is, since when does any religious view get to be applied to people who don't share it in a free society? This is America, for pity's sake. If you believe that the Bible prohibits abortion, then don't have one. And encourage other people to make that choice also. But don't try to put the force of law behind that encouragement to turn it into compulsion. That is theocracy, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Matthew

The point, theocrat, is that you just want to make everyone obey civil laws derived from Christian moral principles as you interpret them, whether we agree with your interpretation of Christianity or not. And you dare accuse others of "violating the Constitution?!?" I'm all for you finding the plank in your own eye first, you liberty-challenged zealot.

You can thank God that he has allowed you to live another day. In spite of your warped view of Americanism and Biblical theology. That's grace.

As far as supporting Christian values and morals, you bet I do. That's the American way. And if we have enough votes we can amend the Constitution to outlaw your rear-end idol worship movement.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You can thank God that he has allowed you to live another day. In spite of your warped view of Americanism and Biblical theology. That's grace.

Why, I'd get the same result saying thanks to a loaf of Bread...

Originally Posted by Easyrider

As far as supporting Christian values and morals, you bet I do. That's the American way. And if we have enough votes we can amend the Constitution to outlaw your rear-end idol worship movement.

You don't have any Christian Morals Ezridden.. You're a hypocrite just like every Christian I have ever known. You don't, and Can't follow the words of your mythical magical book to the letter so stop trying to convince everyone that you do. Sorry to break the news but You'll never have enough votes to outlaw anything. We might one day outlaw religion.. how would you like that? This world would be a much better place without religion ...

Originally Posted by Matthew

For starters, the commandments themselves are provided in two places -- and the lists are not identically worded.

The obvious problem with that argument is that the basis you put forward is a two-edged sword--that there are two lists means they are may be all the more important to be listed twice--at least the commandments that were repeated twice. It's interesting that those who criticize Judeo-Christian religion tend to always pretend that the very "evidence" they put forward often may equally apply against them as well.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Additionally, there is a great deal of controversy over the interpretation of individual commandments. Famously, the injunction against killing is subject to much disagreement: does it mean murder only? all killing?

No, there's not much controversy on that at all. Most everyone, including most scholars, holds to the idea that it means murder.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Beyond just that, my larger point in responding to Easyrider is, since when does any religious view get to be applied to people who don't share it in a free society? This is America, for pity's sake.

Since when do we NOT allow views that religion holds to not be applied to society? What about "Thou shalt not steal" do you not understand?
Moreover, you don't seem to realize that you will lose your ability to push for many so-called liberal policies if you were to get your way and religious motivation be disqualification to influence public policy. Most of the greatest human rights achievements have come about from religious people. Or have you forgotten that MLK and many civil rights leaders attributed their views to their religion? By your demands that religious belief can't be applied, the Civil Rights Act might never have taken place.

Originally Posted by Matthew

If you believe that the Bible prohibits abortion, then don't have one. And encourage other people to make that choice also.

That would be fine, except you all don't stop there; you and your ilk demand religious people not even be able to merely "encourage others to make that choice", but ONLY keep it to themselves. Don't act like you suddenly think religious people should be able to persuade on an equal opportunity as everyone else. You've ALWAYS wanted religious people to just keep their views to themselves.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Since when do we NOT allow views that religion holds to not be applied to society? What about "Thou shalt not steal" do you not understand?

This is the problem with you Zealots.. You think the world revolves around the Bible and the words that are written in it...

Men knew that it was wrong to steal another mans possessions long before the ten commandments were written.
Men knew it was wrong to Kill another man long before your mythical book was thought of.

Humans don't need religion, God, Jebus, or the Bible to have Morals nor to know the difference between right and wrong. Open your eyes to reality, the evidence that God does not exist is all around you.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You can thank God that he has allowed you to live another day. In spite of your warped view of Americanism and Biblical theology. That's grace.

As far as supporting Christian values and morals, you bet I do. That's the American way. And if we have enough votes we can amend the Constitution to outlaw your rear-end idol worship movement.

Yeah! Get rid of that whole "freedom of religion" inconvenience, and then you can just exert a little more totalitarian muscle. Orwell would be proud of such bilge.

LMAO.. let's take that statement in two parts....

Originally Posted by Easyrider

That's the American way.

Remember.. YOU said it's the American Way... meaning Christian Morals....

Originally Posted by Easyrider

And if we have enough votes we can amend the Constitution to outlaw your rear-end idol worship movement.

The fact that you DON"T HAVE enough votes and HAVE NEVER had enough votes speaks to what the REAL American way is.

Nice way to contradict yourself....

Originally Posted by jyoshu

The obvious problem with that argument is that the basis you put forward is a two-edged sword--that there are two lists means they are may be all the more important to be listed twice--at least the commandments that were repeated twice. It's interesting that those who criticize Judeo-Christian religion tend to always pretend that the very "evidence" they put forward often may equally apply against them as well.

Except that they are not "repeated." The wordings are quite different, sometimes offering separate justifications of the commandments or different accounts of what precisely God said. Whence part of the interpretive difficulty.

No, there's not much controversy on that at all. Most everyone, including most scholars, holds to the idea that it means murder.

Not so. The concept is generally taken to be broader than murder, such that it would also include forms of killing that we take to be manslaughter. There is no single word in English that captures what is said in the commandment.

Moreover, there is in this case, and in the matter of the commandments more generally, and in the matter of any part of the text, the not-so-small matter of how to interpret it in relation to other parts of the text. None of this is remotely so cut-and-dry as all-too many conservatives mistakenly believe it to be.

Since when do we NOT allow views that religion holds to not be applied to society?

I did not say that religious views are never applicable to the rest of society. I said, that religious views should not be imposed on people who don't share them. So:

What about "Thou shalt not steal" do you not understand?

I hardly think that one must be a conservative Christian to believe that stealing is wrong. Only a criminal sociopath would think otherwise. Ditto for murder.

But I do think that your demand for control over the definition of civil marriage based on religious prohibitions of homosexuality not shared by all is itself quite wrong.

Moreover, you don't seem to realize that you will lose your ability to push for many so-called liberal policies if you were to get your way and religious motivation be disqualification to influence public policy. Most of the greatest human rights achievements have come about from religious people. Or have you forgotten that MLK and many civil rights leaders attributed their views to their religion? By your demands that religious belief can't be applied, the Civil Rights Act might never have taken place.

Not even slightly true. I believe that there are perfectly good non-religious reasons for civil rights legislation.

So what's you're non-religiously rooted argument for why civil law -- not religious sacrament, but civil law -- must define marriage as "one man, one woman?" Make that argument. I'll listen. I can't promise I'll agree; I've seen it attempted before, and it's usually cryptically religious or based on faulty premises. But I will listen.

What I won't listen to, in the context of a debate about civil law, is any claim that to allow gay marriage is an affront to traditional Judeo-Christian values. Not everyone is a traditional Judeo-Christian.

That would be fine, except you all don't stop there; you and your ilk demand religious people not even be able to merely "encourage others to make that choice", but ONLY keep it to themselves. Don't act like you suddenly think religious people should be able to persuade on an equal opportunity as everyone else. You've ALWAYS wanted religious people to just keep their views to themselves.

So now you get to tell me what I want? Oh, puhleeze. I am quite comfortable with vigorous public expressions of religion. I think that's a great thing. It's called "religious freedom," and no matter how much I disagree with it, I would defend until my dying breath the right of people to exercise it.

So hey, get out there and picket at abortion clinics. But don't interfere with people entering them, or attempt to impose your religiously derived view upon people who don't share it. For all I care, go join the Westboro Baptists and picket soldiers' funerals until America gives up its sodomite ways.

But don't expect there not to be counter-demonstrations, or that we unbelievers should be any more silent than you.

And above all, don't try to force the rest of us, by law, to obey the principles of your religion. That is a violation of religious freedom against which I would also fight until my dying breath.

Originally Posted by Theophilus

How is following the 10 commandments an interpretation of Christianity or scriptures.

Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet, how are those even considered to be interpretable?

Coveting is the basis for capitalism. Without coveting, there is no motivation!

Originally Posted by trebor

Coveting is the basis for capitalism. Without coveting, there is no motivation!

Covet implies the wealth of others. A true capitalist covets value not yet created, forged from nature, trade, but primarily the human intellect and will.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You can thank God that he has allowed you to live another day. In spite of your warped view of Americanism and Biblical theology. That's grace.

As far as supporting Christian values and morals, you bet I do. That's the American way. And if we have enough votes we can amend the Constitution to outlaw your rear-end idol worship movement.

Remember the democracy that you crave as part of the majority is a two edged sword that will cut you when you become the minority.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

Remember the democracy that you crave as part of the majority is a two edged sword that will cut you when you become the minority.

I think we are already a minority. Sure lots of people go to church, but how many people actually practice what they say they believe in? I've seen many many people who go to church go out the next day and have pre-marital sex, or use alcohol, or cuss, be angry, etc. I know, because I've been one of those people. So I would say, if you count the people that not only talk the talk, but walk the walk, the Christian population is a minority.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Covet implies the wealth of others. A true capitalist covets value not yet created, forged from nature, trade, but primarily the human intellect and will.

To covet can mean 'to desire greatly'.. and wrong as wrongfully lusting after.

Sorry, but covet is a primary capitalist characteristic... and there is nothing wrong with it.

It just so happens not to be a Christian value.