TN: Legislators push for legal public Ten Commandments displays
We read:
"To state Rep. Matthew Hill, his legislation authorizing local governments to display the Ten Commandments along with other historical documents is not about religion. It’s about history. ...
'We’re not talking about holding a church service. We’re not talking about having a Bible study at the courthouse,' said Hill, R-Jonesborough. 'What we’re talking about is remembering who we are, where we came from and not being ashamed of that.' But not everyone agrees."
Source
20 comments:
I guess that Tennessee have solved all of their problems so that they can address important things like the display of mythological "historical" documents.
Thank you for proving your opponent's point. Clever, that.
This is sure to upset the ATHEISTS.COMMUNISTS & LAWYERS.UNDERGROUND and the rest of the leftists reptiles
And just which of the so-called Ten Commandments (there were others) are still observed today in any US laws? Adultery is ignored completely for instance. Only the obbvious laws against stealing and murder are still crimes. Lying may or may not count as relevant in law.
Interestingly, any mention of homosexuality doesn't appear in those "Top Ten", yet the so-called Christian churches of various denominations are tearing their churches apart over just what adult people may do for sexual pleasure or for the simple wish to live as a legally recognized couple.
Clearly the churches are just shooting themselves in the foot and proving some darwinian law about unsuitablity for survival!
What makes laws against murder, stealing, rape, etc. obvious? Libs seem to want to operate under the principle, I see, I want, I take as a matter of course.
I see someone with money, I decide (by majority aka mob rule) that I want it, I take it (through taxation aka theft), should someone resist I take it at the point of a gun if necessary: the Randy Weaver case comes to mind.
Or let's talk about Sharia Law. Theft is ok as long as you steal from an infidel. Murder is ok as long as you call it an honor killing. Rape is ok cause its the woman who will be punished.
Guess all laws really aren't created equal, huh!
libturds do not like laws unless only conservatives and Christians have to obey them.
Homosexuality and extramarital sex are referenced in the seventh commandment, and neither is more egregious. Since the bible states that marriage is between man and woman, there's no way for to accept homosexuality as normal.
That being said, we're all guilty of sin and are commanded to love one another without judgment. Anyone who "hates" GLBT is not a Christ follower.
If 11:32 is merely referring to "Adultery", then why aren't Christian churches far more concerned about divorce and how much that undermines families. I can't see how homosexual unions re-defined as "marriages" in any way undermines heterosexual marriages at all, and at least it's promoting the concept of marriage rather than promiscuous sex or the damage caused by widespread divorce (50% is now quoted).
Anon 2:50 - What makes you think that churches are not concerned about divorce and it's horrible effects on both the children and those who get the divorce?
Are you unaware of how many programs churches run to help couples reconnect with each other when they are at risk of divorcing? Are you unaware of how strongly the church teaches against unfaithfulness (ie. adultery)?
So why is here so much fuss over homosexual marriage, but nothing equivalent about divorce - and divorce never called a sin!!
Divorce is permitted in certain circumstances, and is not biblically declared a sin.
We didn't make this up. It was all written over the past few thousand years.
So why do main Christian churches (eg. Roman Catholic and Episcopalian/Anglican) frown on divorce and don't officially allow re-marriage while the former spouse is still living? Re-marriage is technically adultery in their view.
The Bible states that it is adultery.
Yet no visible campaigns against such re-marriage by divorcees in any mainstream church, when adultery is in the top ten Commandments.
"What God has joined together (in holy matrimony), let no man put assunder" or words to that effect is said in many traditional church weddings, and the couple make a solemn vow before God to stay together until death do they part!!
Instead such divorces and re-married church members would rather cast stones at homosexuals and their wish to marry each other even once. Thankfully they don't cast stones literally as the Old Testament required!
The First Testament ("Old" suggest it should be disregarded completely) defined marriage and divorce. It also condemned homosexuality among other acts as sinful. The New Testament (Jesus is the new covenant) similarly condemns the same acts as an afront to God.
Churches are made up of people; all sinners who have (hopefully) accepted the gift of salvation through Christ. However, many, I'm sure, are posers who profess hate. They aren't perfect. If they were they wouldn't need the grace of God.
I don't hate homosexuals. I have friends and loved ones who are gay. I don't even "hate the sin", but God does. True Christ followers have a responsibility to love others; to tell them of the salvation available to them through Christ's suffering (today, as it were); and to tell them how Christ overcame death as we celebrate on Easter. True Christ followers also have the responsibility to maintain His law, so you'll not see them embrace what God has not ordained.
I invite you to find a friend and a church which, like mine, embraces all people of all color, economics and orientation and celebrate this Easter.
God loves homosexuals just as He loves us all! Not with our sins, nor despite them, but because through his sacrifice God no longer sees them! They are as far away from Him as the east is from the west!
@TheCaniac
If you disregard the Old Testament completely then you ignore the Ten Commandments and therefore any justification to have them on any US public building or officially referenced.
Jesus in the New Testament never referred to man-on-man sex unless you try to infer indirectly from his references to Jewish and thus Old Testement law (which you disregard). Ditto St Paul and his Jewish prejudices.
Secondly, you don't actually know the mind of God, unless that is just your own anthropomorphic version of a "God".
Misunderstanding: I prefer to call it the first testament rather than "old". I in no way disregard it. In fact, it is the basis of Jesus' teachings, and therefore Christianity.
Jesus never spoke directly on homosexuality, other than through reference to the first testament. However, He was pretty specific on marriage:
Matthew 19: 4 "Haven't you read the scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them both male and female'". 5 And He said, "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one". 6 "Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together."
Since Jesus WAS God, he in fact gave us the "Old" Testament, He did believe in all of its teachings.
10:28 I think you'll find a lot of Christians would disagree with you about the "Old" Testament, as for them it is a way of getting around the unpleasant parts about God condoning or even ordering mass-murder, etc. to say that God gave the jews/humanity a new covenant through Jesus, etc. etc.
If Jesus "believed" in the OT, why did he contradict such principles as "an eye for an eye" and others, including the law about divorce.
Actually, Jesus in the Bible never actually said himself that he was God incarnate, or even that he was the long-expected Messiah. His followers thought he was the Messiah or an incarnation of an earlier prophet. Only much later did Christians decide he was a divine incarnation. That he said he was the only Way, etc. to Salvation, could just as well be a claim made by a prophet.
An "eye for an eye" is misinterpreted as well. Read this closely and you'll realize that this seeks to make sure that the punishment does not go too far. We shouldn't take a life for a thief, for example.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." There are several examples where Jesus tells us that He and God are one and the same.
Unlike prophets, unlike Muhammed, Abraham, Buddha, et al, Jesus defeated the grave. "Death, where is thy sting?"
If Jesus and God were one and the same, why did Jesus pray to God and ask to be released from his fate (crucifiction), and later when on the cross accuse God of forsaking him. Is this an example of the schizophrenic "Trinity", with multiple personalities out of sync with each other. Good luck with that crazy religion!
No matter how irrational and self-contradictory it is, I'm sure you'll manage to find some twisted logic in it, because you are emotionally dependant on it like a security blanket. But what went on in ancient middle-eastern religions really has no more to do with you than the religions of native americans, and at least that would be geographically more relevant (if you live in the US).
Post a Comment