Inadmissable
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: Inadmissable
[Image: 192829.png]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
02-12-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(30-11-2015 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2015 01:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Of course not. I'm pointing to the lunacy of throwing out "Don't murder!" with "Don't worship other Gods than Jehovah!"

We already have civil laws. Those can be posted.

Quote:If YOU are sure some of the moral imperatives of the commands are indeed moral imperatives, why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place? Or why not ask that the commandments be replaced with a statement of moral imperatives and the reasoning behind such imperatives?

Oh right--it wouldn't look as good to post in a public place how "Evolutionary psychology informs us of the irreparable harm that may be done to a society by killing some of its members..."

Do you not understand that posting something specific to a religion, any religion, on government property is unconstitutional? Are you really that unaware? Consider

One, it is arguably constitutional--and we can see the founders wouldn't have had the problem with it the ACLU has--or most citizens then and now!

Two, I hope someday you will learn what civil disobedience truly is and why even if something is right but not constitutional you will take a stand. YOUR side is aggressively pulling down DO NOT MURDER and DO NOT ADULTER signs--and thinking that the solution for murder and adultery is atheism and civil law rather than Jesus Christ is backwards thinking indeed.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(01-12-2015 07:59 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(30-11-2015 01:03 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Of course not. I'm pointing to the lunacy of throwing out "Don't murder!" with "Don't worship other Gods than Jehovah!"

If YOU are sure some of the moral imperatives of the commands are indeed moral imperatives, why not ask for some of the ten commandments, not all, to be removed from a public place? Or why not ask that the commandments be replaced with a statement of moral imperatives and the reasoning behind such imperatives?

Carlin said it best.

"I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.

Here's how it happened: About five thousand years ago, a bunch of reli­gious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God— God personally—had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.

But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fuck outta here!"

But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bullshit list. In truth, it's a politic; document, artificially inflated to sell better.

I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy.

• I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE
GODS BEFORE ME.

• THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN
VAIN.

• THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.

Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments—pure bullshit "Sabbath day," "Lord's name," "strange gods." Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized human in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, and you're down to seven.

•HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER.

This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.

Now, in the interest of logic—something religion has a really hard time with—I'm going to skip around the list a little bit:

• THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

• THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two com­mandments cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." Suddenly we're down to five.

And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that be­long together:

• THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.

• THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.

Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, mar­ital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?

But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four.

And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive lan­guage instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three.

•THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful," you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.

You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:

•THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks—especially the truly devout—murder is ne­gotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed.

And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments:

First:

•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY
TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.

And second:

•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS,
OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER
THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.

Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he in­cluded one additional commandment:

•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!”

From George Carlin – When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops (2004)

Mr. Carlin was a brilliant comedian, very funny. I mean that. However, for ones touched by things like murder and adultery, there is a time for laughing and a time to be serious. So I'll ask you, what do you think God thinks about the movement to tear down His commandments? What do you think righteous people think about this, and what do you think adulterers and murderers think in this instance?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 03:55 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(25-11-2015 07:50 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Kind of makes the notion of swearing on the Bible before giving testimony in court even more ludicrous, doesn't it?

No. It actually explains quite a fucking lot. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2015, 04:50 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(02-12-2015 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-11-2015 03:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  We already have civil laws. Those can be posted.


Do you not understand that posting something specific to a religion, any religion, on government property is unconstitutional? Are you really that unaware? Consider

One, it is arguably constitutional--and we can see the founders wouldn't have had the problem with it the ACLU has--or most citizens then and now!

Two, I hope someday you will learn what civil disobedience truly is and why even if something is right but not constitutional you will take a stand. YOUR side is aggressively pulling down DO NOT MURDER and DO NOT ADULTER signs--

No, it is the illegally posted Ten Commandments. And adultery is not a civil crime.
Why do you think those plaques are being removed? Because they are illegal.

Quote:and thinking that the solution for murder and adultery is atheism and civil law rather than Jesus Christ is backwards thinking indeed.

No, the solution is a healthier society where absurd beliefs like Christianity are a minority view. Secular humanism is far more moral and ethical that Christianity

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-12-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Inadmissable
(02-12-2015 02:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mr. Carlin was a brilliant comedian, very funny. I mean that. However, for ones touched by things like murder and adultery, there is a time for laughing and a time to be serious. So I'll ask you, what do you think God thinks about the movement to tear down His commandments? What do you think righteous people think about this, and what do you think adulterers and murderers think in this instance?

Gods don’t exist so your first question is moot.

Righteous people...Consider I would say that if you live in a first world country all the laws are written down in the law BOOKS. Imagine chiseling all the laws down on a block of stone in a public place...that’s so 1st century. No, I think righteous people know that we have invented paper and now we even have the internet where everyone can google them and look them up.

The second part of this answer has to do with your term “His laws” and separation of church and State. You would have a hissy fit if you saw Sharia law engraved somewhere on the courthouse property wouldn’t you? So who’s religious laws are we going to include? This is why it is so fucking important to separate the two. You and your god have no more claim to State property than do the ragheads and their god. Apparently you don’t understand this.

As for adulterers and murderers I think they could have the laws tattooed to their foreheads and they still would be adulterers and murderers.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(02-12-2015 04:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  One, it is arguably constitutional--and we can see the founders wouldn't have had the problem with it the ACLU has--or most citizens then and now!

Two, I hope someday you will learn what civil disobedience truly is and why even if something is right but not constitutional you will take a stand. YOUR side is aggressively pulling down DO NOT MURDER and DO NOT ADULTER signs--

No, it is the illegally posted Ten Commandments. And adultery is not a civil crime.
Why do you think those plaques are being removed? Because they are illegal.

Quote:and thinking that the solution for murder and adultery is atheism and civil law rather than Jesus Christ is backwards thinking indeed.

No, the solution is a healthier society where absurd beliefs like Christianity are a minority view. Secular humanism is far more moral and ethical that Christianity

Chas, the commandments as posted since the 1700s/1800s were also illegal and no one noticed their unconstitutionality prior to the advent of the AtheistCLU?

I call baloney. Trust Christ, brother.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: Inadmissable
(02-12-2015 05:54 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 02:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mr. Carlin was a brilliant comedian, very funny. I mean that. However, for ones touched by things like murder and adultery, there is a time for laughing and a time to be serious. So I'll ask you, what do you think God thinks about the movement to tear down His commandments? What do you think righteous people think about this, and what do you think adulterers and murderers think in this instance?

Gods don’t exist so your first question is moot.

Righteous people...Consider I would say that if you live in a first world country all the laws are written down in the law BOOKS. Imagine chiseling all the laws down on a block of stone in a public place...that’s so 1st century. No, I think righteous people know that we have invented paper and now we even have the internet where everyone can google them and look them up.

The second part of this answer has to do with your term “His laws” and separation of church and State. You would have a hissy fit if you saw Sharia law engraved somewhere on the courthouse property wouldn’t you? So who’s religious laws are we going to include? This is why it is so fucking important to separate the two. You and your god have no more claim to State property than do the ragheads and their god. Apparently you don’t understand this.

As for adulterers and murderers I think they could have the laws tattooed to their foreheads and they still would be adulterers and murderers.

The framers intervened in the issue of the Barbary pirates and are on record as rejecting Islam totalitarianism. They would have no problem whatsoever with Christianity as part and parcel of public life.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2015, 09:32 AM
RE: Inadmissable
Q, you pretty much fuck up every thread you post in with your idiotic xtian drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fireball's post
03-12-2015, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2015 08:36 PM by Chas.)
RE: Inadmissable
(03-12-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-12-2015 05:54 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Gods don’t exist so your first question is moot.

Righteous people...Consider I would say that if you live in a first world country all the laws are written down in the law BOOKS. Imagine chiseling all the laws down on a block of stone in a public place...that’s so 1st century. No, I think righteous people know that we have invented paper and now we even have the internet where everyone can google them and look them up.

The second part of this answer has to do with your term “His laws” and separation of church and State. You would have a hissy fit if you saw Sharia law engraved somewhere on the courthouse property wouldn’t you? So who’s religious laws are we going to include? This is why it is so fucking important to separate the two. You and your god have no more claim to State property than do the ragheads and their god. Apparently you don’t understand this.

As for adulterers and murderers I think they could have the laws tattooed to their foreheads and they still would be adulterers and murderers.

The framers intervened in the issue of the Barbary pirates and are on record as rejecting Islam totalitarianism. They would have no problem whatsoever with Christianity as part and parcel of public life.

You are truly an ignorant douche.

The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 states:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty was written in the administration of Geo. Washington and signed in the administration of John Adams.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: