Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fluffybunny
No. We're the ones who are saying the commandments were already there, and there is no real legal reason why they should not be there, we are the ones reminding non-scientists that science is not about consensus, it's about questioning what we think we know always.

There is a big legal reason, seperation of church and state. Very big. Science is not about consensus, it is about advancing, learning, and improving ourselves and our world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
No. We're the ones who are saying the commandments were already there, and there is no real legal reason why they should not be there, we are the ones reminding non-scientists that science is not about consensus, it's about questioning what we think we know always.

1. I believe the legal reason that the 10 Commandments are not on display in front of courts is because of the separation of Church and State, guaranteed by the first amendment in the Bill of Rights in the United States constitution.

2. Do you question what you think you know about God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
There is a big legal reason, seperation of church and state. Very big. Science is not about consensus, it is about advancing, learning, and improving ourselves and our world.

Separation of church and state in the Constitution was intended to keep GOVERNMENT out of the religious business of the PEOPLE. To separate church from state is to separate the people (who ARE the government) from the government.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Show me where that says there can be no 10 Commandments in front of government buildings.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Separation of church and state in the Constitution was intended to keep GOVERNMENT out of the religious business of the PEOPLE. To separate church from state is to separate the people (who ARE the government) from the government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise there of..."

-Establishment Clause, United States constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment.

'nuff said.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Show me where that says there can be no 10 Commandments in front of government buildings.

Then I should be able to display a Satanic Pentagram in front of a government building if I want to. The Government is (supposed to be) a religion neutral entity.

Second Edit: Here is the link to the 10 Commandments case.Glassroth v. Moore Seeing as how the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal to do so... that pretty much makes it the "show you where it says you can't do that".

Edited by churchanddestroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
But from a scientific standpoint those are all acts, we call them acts of love, but there is no way to prove the love that drives us to act in that way. At best scientists can study the areas of the brain which are activated when a person says they are experiencing the feeling of love, but that is still not the feeling of love. There is no scientific way to prove love, but few question it's reality. I can't prove God is real, or that I have a real relationship with Him. But I am not the only one who does, Irish, PA, Jor-el, Mr. W., Miss Mels, and plenty of others here in UM have relationships with Him also.

son quotes:

"I can't prove God is real, or that I have a real relationship with Him."

then how can you be saying you have a personal relationship with god thats what i was asking ......i am not anymore I have a clearer understnading now of your posit....

to end this :one last note

to say you know because you just know is still saying this is what you beleive, to say you know because you are absolutley certain is radically ignoring the unreliablity of strong convicitions..

.

To say you know because you trust your source collapses back into a appeal to authority...

its misleading and many folks have been mislead by just such claims and i would not advocate taking these claims on nothing or a just because as I am certain you as a parent have some system n place for your kids to discriminate and make sound choices........ IMO not to question is dangerous whether its science or religion......... history shows us that.. it is very valid and very sound to ask how do you know?????

...but I am glad we had this conversation I am far richer for it....and I thank

all the umers who contributed to this thread.....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise there of..."

-Establishment Clause, United States constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment.

'nuff said.

That says the government can't interfere in the business of the church not the other way around. The "church" is not an actual entity, the "church" is just people of particular religions or denominations gathered, so in order to separate "the church" from "the government" is to keep some of "We the People" from our inalienable right to govern ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
That says the government can't interfere in the business of the church not the other way around. The "church" is not an actual entity, the "church" is just people of particular religions or denominations gathered, so in order to separate "the church" from "the government" is to keep some of "We the People" from our inalienable right to govern ourselves.

Read the link about the supreme court case. The supreme court made the judge remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse. Whoops, theres the "why its not allowed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
son quotes:

"I can't prove God is real, or that I have a real relationship with Him."

then how can you be saying you have a personal relationship with god thats what i was asking ......i am not anymore I have a clearer understnading now of your posit....

to end this :one last note

to say you know because you just know is still saying this is what you beleive, to say you know because you are absolutley certain is radically ignoring the unreliablity of strong convicitions..

.

To say you know because you trust your source collapses back into a appeal to authority...

its misleading and many folks have been mislead by just such claims and i would not ever advocate taking these claims on nothing or a just because as I am certain you as a parent have some system n place for your kids to discriminate and make sound choices........ IMO not to question is dangerous hwther its science or religion......... history shows us that.. it is very valid and very sound to ask how do you know?????

...but I am glad we had this conversation I am far richer for it....

Sheri, I can't prove it to you. I don't have to prove it to myself because I already know this is the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Separation of church and state in the Constitution was intended to keep GOVERNMENT out of the religious business of the PEOPLE. To separate church from state is to separate the people (who ARE the government) from the government.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Show me where that says there can be no 10 Commandments in front of government buildings.

Overview

Two very important factors affecting the legality of a display of the Ten Commandments are:

The first four Commandments (or five, depending upon which version is used) are purely theological in content. They refer solely to the Jewish and Christian religions, and are often quite offensive to non-Judeo-Christians. Unless careful precautions are made, posting them in schools, government offices, etc. will violate the principle of separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

The remaining six or five Commandments are moral and ethical rules governing behavior, which are partly accepted by secularists and followers of other religions.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been interpreted by the courts as guaranteeing that:

individuals have freedom of religious expression;

the government and its agencies will not: recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other;

promote religion above secularism.

promote secularism above religion.

These principles are continuously in a state of creative tension:

Many Americans feel that part of their personal religious expression is to pray in public schools, have the Ten Commandments posted in their courts, government offices, public schools, etc. They feel that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and remains one to the present time. Religious plaques posted in government buildings are simply one expression of this heritage. The right to display the Ten Commandments has become a topic of high priority to many conservative Christians groups. Some believe that a religious plaque placed in public schools is constitutional, if private funding is used to cover all costs.

Most non-Christians, particularly secularists, are opposed to the display of the Ten Commandments by the government. They feel that freedom of religion also includes freedom from the dominant religion.

Others feel that a wall of separation must be maintained between religion and the government and its agencies. They view this factor as outweighing any religious considerations that they might have. They object to all religious displays in public buildings.

Courts at various levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the posting of isolated religious texts and symbols in any public buildings is unconstitutional. The reason given by the courts is that governments and public schools must remain neutral on religion. i.e. when the government or a school advocates (or appears to advocate):

a specific religion, or

religion in general as preferable to a secular lifestyle, or

a secular lifestyle in preference a religious lifestyle,

then they are violating the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whether the costs of mounting the Ten Commandments is born by the government, school board or some private group appears to be immaterial. The Ten Commandments are permitted in certain special circumstances, as in some multi-faith, multi-national displays of ancient secular and religious laws.

The House of Representatives passed an "Ten Commandments Defense Act Amendment" to a juvenile crime bill in 1999-JUN. If it had been signed into law, this act would have allowed the display of the Ten commandments in any government facility, including public schools -- at least it would until it was declared unconstitutional by the courts. The law appears to fail all three criteria which have been proposed to test the constitutionality of laws with a religious content. Those representatives who voted in favor of the amendment violated their oath of office, which included a promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

link

The following article is taken from the web site of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Since 1947, Americans United has worked to protect the constitutional principle of church-state separation, a vital cornerstone of religious liberty. Americans of many faiths and political viewpoints, individuals from all walks of life, have come together to defend freedoms. Mandatory prayer in public schools, tax dollars for parochial schools, government intrusion into religious affairs, and meddling in partisan politics by religious groups are among the troubling issues that threaten the protective wall between church and state. Visit their web site.

QUOTE from Americans United web site.

AMERICANS UNITED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL'S 'HANG TEN' CAMPAIGN

The Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based Religious Right group, recently announced a new initiative it calls "Hang Ten." FRC's project encourages public school authorities and other government officials to post the Ten Commandments at public buildings. The movement has caught on in several Kentucky counties recently, and FRC is trying to make it a nationwide phenomenon.

According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, government display of religious codes, whether at public schools, city halls, courtrooms or other government facilities, is a bad idea. Why? Here are ten good reasons:

The Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. This means government is forbidden to meddle in matters of religion. Promotion of religious ideals is the job of America's houses of worship. Thus government display of the Ten Commandments violates a fundamental tenet of American life, one that has given us more religious liberty than any people in world history.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have settled the issue. In 1980's Stone v. Graham decision, the high court struck down a Kentucky law that required public schools to post the Ten Commandments. Lower federal courts have struck down the display of the Decalogue at government buildings as well. Public schools or local governments that exhibit the Ten Commandments are inviting a lawsuit they are almost certain to lose. Government officials should not squander taxpayer dollars on futile litigation.

America is religiously diverse. The United States is home to nearly 2,000 different religions, traditions, denominations and sects. While many of these groups revere the Ten Commandments, many do not. If government officials put up the Decalogue, will they also post the Five Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Wiccan Rede and the Affirmations of Humanism? Government should never play favorites when it comes to religion.

Religion doesn't need government's help to promote the Ten Commandments. For a few thousands years, the leaders of Judaism and Christianity have been doing a pretty good job of getting the word out about the Ten Commandments. Interjecting the state in the picture will only mess up a good thing.

There is no "standard version" of the Ten Commandments. Different religions and denominations list the commandments in different order and use different language. When government agencies and public schools post one version and not others, they are taking sides in a (sometimes contentious) theological debate. That simply is not government's job.

The Ten Commandments are not a "secular" moral code that everyone can agree on. Indeed, four of the Ten Commandments are specifically religious in nature. People have fought and died because they disagreed over what constitutes a "false god" or over the meaning of the ban on worshipping a "graven image." Read any history of Europe if you want to see how bad things can get when government decides to take sides in debates like these.

The Ten Commandments are not a magic charm that can make all of society's problems vanish overnight. Some Religious Right groups and politicians treat the commandments as though they are a lucky rabbit's foot -- post them on the wall and all of society's ills will disappear! This is simplistic thinking -- and it distracts us from the hard work of solving thorny social problems.

The Ten Commandments are open to different interpretations. One commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." Or is that "Thou shall not murder"? The language and meaning depends on what version of the Bible you read and your faith's understanding of it. If it's the former, does that really mean all killing, even in self defense? Elsewhere we are admonished to keep holy the Sabbath -- but is that Friday, Saturday or Sunday? Religious leaders differ on these questions. They -- not government bureaucrats -- are best suited to interpret the commandments for their individual congregants.

Politicians and interest groups are exploiting the Ten Commandments for political gain. Let's face it, many politicians and special interest groups seem ready these days to use religious symbols and religious language to win elections. Do we really want sanctimonious, poll-obsessed politicians -- many of whom don't impose the Ten Commandments on themselves -- imposing them on us?

The Religious Right's use of the Ten Commandments borders on blasphemy. Religious Right groups like the Christian Coalition and the FRC use the Ten Commandments to advance their political agenda. They force action on symbolic resolutions and issues in the hope that politicians who oppose such displays can be defeated in the next election. People who believe the commandments are God's holy word should be appalled at this cynical manipulation of a religious document.

So, to any government official who is tempted to "Hang Ten" at the Family Research Council's urging, we advise a little research into basic American principles. And remember, Americans United has litigated several of these case before -- and won them all.

In short, there's a big wave up ahead that will probably knock the Family Research Council's "Hang Ten" scheme right out of the water. It's called the Constitution.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all 50 states.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Sheri, I can't prove it to you. I don't have to prove it to myself because I already know this is the truth.

But how do you know that its true if all you have is subjective evidence? Is it the 'truth truth' or just 'your truth'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Read the link about the supreme court case. The supreme court made the judge remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse. Whoops, theres the "why its not allowed."

Shows that even the Justices are human and can not only make mistakes, but through their mistakes take away the rights of the People, which is why we need to be ever vigilant against what those we hired to run the country do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
But how do you know that its true if all you have is subjective evidence? Is it the 'truth truth' or just 'your truth'?

Like I said, I am not the only one, even here in UM, who has a personal relationship with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

And your point of view is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Spillover. You will get your way no matter what...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Shows that even the Justices are human and can not only make mistakes, but through their mistakes take away the rights of the People, which is why we need to be ever vigilant against what those we hired to run the country do.

Gah, we'll have to agree to disagree then. The courts and I agree, the 10 commandments (and other religious symbols) are not to be displayed in front of courts ;)

In the mean time, instead of digging up this old debate, I'm interesting in your reply to my post before this one, about knowing 'truth'.

Like I said, I am not the only one, even here in UM, who has a personal relationship with God.

So, please explain to me, how do you know its a universal truth then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
And your point of view is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Spillover. You will get your way no matter what...

Gah, we'll have to agree to disagree then. The courts and I agree, the 10 commandments (and other religious symbols) are not to be displayed in front of courts ;)

In the mean time, instead of digging up this old debate, I'm interesting in your reply to my post before this one, about knowing 'truth'.

So, please explain to me, how do you know its a universal truth then?

Look guys, I am not saying that we should or need to have religious icons in government buildings. To me this is a RIGHTS issue. My problem with this is that we lost rights in order to make a really stupid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Gah, we'll have to agree to disagree then. The courts and I agree, the 10 commandments (and other religious symbols) are not to be displayed in front of courts ;)

In the mean time, instead of digging up this old debate, I'm interesting in your reply to my post before this one, about knowing 'truth'.

So, please explain to me, how do you know its a universal truth then?

Well, let us turn that around, If you were the christian on this thread and you were confronted with a request like yours, how would you respond?

What arguments would you use?

Go along with this for a moment, I'm really interested in how you would respond....

But how do you know that its true if all you have is subjective evidence? Is it the 'truth truth' or just 'your truth'?

This is the post I wanted to respond to sorry...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Look guys, I am not saying that we should or need to have religious icons in government buildings. To me this is a RIGHTS issue. My problem with this is that we lost rights in order to make a really stupid point.

Well we lost rights when the patriot act was implemented too. ::shrugs:: 1984, here we come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Well we lost rights when the patriot act was implemented too. ::shrugs:: 1984, here we come.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Well, let us turn that around, If you were the christian on this thread and you were confronted with a request like yours, how would you respond?

What arguments would you use?

Go along with this for a moment, I'm really interested in how you would respond....

When I was a Christian (Catholic), I understood the separation of Church and State. Whether there were 10 commandment statues in front of courts or not wouldn't have meant diddly squat to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Hi Sheri,

I find this whole conversation strange, because in essence, you are asking for proof that God exists when the context is our feelings which can never be used to prove anything.

I can know something, but unless you actualy experience what I have, you can never "know". The most you can ever come to, is understand, but that is not knowing.

I give the example of putting your hand into a fire. If you have never done that, you will never know what that experience feels like although you can understand by parallel, that it must be painful.

Understanding is not knowing...

if evidence is what makes the difference betwen mere beleif and real knowledge then perhaps it is important to determine what kinds of evidence work its also perhaps imortant to ask what quality of evidence it takes in a given situation and how wouldl that look and how would we make sense of it ..

.people appeal to all kinds of evidence all the time in order to spell out what works for them and what doesn't are you saying you don't ahve a methodology in place in your worldview to do this???????

what standards are used to accept or reject data in your world and as we can see jsut on this thread there are lots of different ways. and standards

If the pope says he knows the color of gods essence is purple well i am gonna want to sit down and discuss it with him .. see what I am saying...i hope this helps jorel.....

If I said Jorel i saw a flying purple people eater today i think you would want to rap about it before you just took my word for it.... .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Pun intended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Pun intended?

Not at all... guess that's what happens when you post while watching TV, I didn't even notice the pun potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
When I was a Christian (Catholic), I understood the separation of Church and State. Whether there were 10 commandment statues in front of courts or not wouldn't have meant diddly squat to me.

I posted an edit, please read back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Look guys, I am not saying that we should or need to have religious icons in government buildings. To me this is a RIGHTS issue. My problem with this is that we lost rights in order to make a really stupid point.

But that is the difference. I want you to be happy with your own beliefs. If you have this relationship, then I am happy for you, really. It is wonderful for you. Thumbs up to you and good luck to you and I hope you find your happiness.

The disconnect is when you go from a one on one relationship with your god and drag me into it. I dont want to see your ten commandments in front of a building I helped pay for. You are now supporting something that causes me distress, When I see those plaques I see the torture that my Navajo ancestors went through forced on them by christians, I see people burned at the stake, I see the Inquisition...and you dont care as long as you get your way.

Spillover.

I want you to be happy in your beliefs and your relationship with your god. You want to take it ten steps further and rub it in my face.

Can you see that, or are you just too far into it to understand my point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
if evidence is what makes the difference betwen mere beleif and real knowledge then perhaps it is important to determine what kinds of evidence work its also perhaps imortant to ask what quality of evidence it takes in a given situation and how wouldl that look and how would we make sense of it ..

.people appeal to all kinds of evidence all the time in order to spell out what works for them and what doesn't are you saying you don't ahve a methodology in place in your worldview to do this???????

what standards are used to accept or reject data in your world and as we can see jsut on this thread there are lots of different ways. and standards

If the pope says he knows the color of gods essence is purple well i am gonna want to sit down and discuss it with him .. see what I am saying...i hope this helps jorel.....

If I said Jorel i saw a flying purple people eater today i think you would want to rap about it before you just took my word for it.... .....

I agree with you Sheri.... the thing is that the evidence we have of God is personal and experiential. It is our experience that convinced us all. Since you don't have that experience then it is pointless trying to convince you otherwise. You may understand where we are coming from but you will never actually believe us until you try it for yourself, and that is an experience I think you don't want or are even looking for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.