[eric strt6]

finally common sense prevails. keep the church and state seperate.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/03/s...s.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to enter the long-running fight over a monument depicting the Ten Commandments and the renegade judge who wants to keep the biblical list on display in an Alabama courthouse.

The court quietly rejected appeals from suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had argued that the monument properly acknowledges "God as the source of the community morality so essential to a self-governing society."

 

[Serial Midget]

Agreed.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

How am I going to argue with you two when I agree with you?

 

[CrAckErKorEan]

Lets hope this to catch on. Its happening here in my county.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Ahhh, I see our tax dollars are being spent wisely............

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Ahhh, I see our tax dollars are being spent wisely............

it sounds to me that taxes are (finally) being spent wisely, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear this frivilous case.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
it sounds to me that taxes are (finally) being spent wisely, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear this frivilous case.

All the mean while it is being heard at lower levels.....draining the system of resources. Hashed and rehashed with the tax dollars.

Yea for the supreme court, they get paid either way.

I really don't see the big deal. Whomever spearheaded the removal is the one responsible for the drain on the court system....with the opposite side helping by dragging this out.

If I owned property adjacent to the courthouse I would have the monument stuck nearest the courthouse just to end this crap.

The "seperation of church and state" is being used poorly here...if you ask me. Freak'n bunch of 5 year olds. :angry:

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
All the mean while it is being heard at lower levels.....draining the system of resources. Hashed and rehashed with the tax dollars.

Yea for the supreme court, they get paid either way.

I really don't see the big deal. Whomever spearheaded the removal is the one responsible for the drain on the court system....with the opposite side helping by dragging this out.

If I owned property adjacent to the courthouse I would have the monument stuck nearest the courthouse just to end this crap.

The "seperation of church and state" is being used poorly here...if you ask me. Freak'n bunch of 5 year olds. :angry:

So the grandstanding jackass judge using religion for his own political purposes comes out clean here?

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Then there's this twist: On the town common in Casper Wyoming is a Ten Commandments monument which was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles( I think that's the official name) 40 years ago. Now, the Rev Fred Phelps wants to erect a monument to the 5 year anniversary of "Matthew Shepherd's entry to Hell"http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html

Now the city council has to let him erect his monument because they've already established that religious monuments can be erected on their town common. They're trying all kinds of ideas to restrict one while allowing the other. And there's going to be all kinda suits and counter-suits and clogging the courts.

The Cheese

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
So the grandstanding jackass judge using religion for his own political purposes comes out clean here?

No, how the hell did you read that into there? I find it funny that only the Judge is a "grandstanding jackass"....I think both sides are high on themselves. Other than a hunk of stone in a courtyard that went unnoticed for a long time. Tell me how "the seperation of church and state" with respect to personal freedoms is effected here?

Are people adversely effected or persecuted for their religion by this hunk of stone....no one has payed a second thought to until someone came along and decided to make it into something.

Are people being attacked or misstreated by this monument becuase it is there? Come on. Common sense has not prevailed here, on either side.

No one is being protected here except the wallets of the attourneys involved.

Invoking the seperation of church and state here is a gross miss use of the law.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
Then there's this twist: On the town common in Casper Wyoming is a Ten Commandments monument which was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles( I think that's the official name) 40 years ago. Now, the Rev Fred Phelps wants to erect a monument to the 5 year anniversary of "Matthew Shepherd's entry to Hell"http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html

Now the city council has to let him erect his monument because they've already established that religious monuments can be erected on their town common. They're trying all kinds of ideas to restrict one while allowing the other. And there's going to be all kinda suits and counter-suits and clogging the courts.

The Cheese

I can't think of a more perfect example of why there should be no religious monuments on public property.

Rhino did you read this? When you allow one point of veiw you have to allow all points of veiw.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
No, how the hell did you read that into there? I find it funny that only the Judge is a "grandstanding jackass"....I think both sides are high on themselves. Other than a hunk of stone in a courtyard that went unnoticed for a long time. Tell me how "the seperation of church and state" with respect to personal freedoms is effected here?

Are people adversely effected or persecuted for their religion by this hunk of stone....no one has payed a second thought to until someone came along and decided to make it into something.

Are people being attacked or misstreated by this monument becuase it is there? Come on. Common sense has not prevailed here, on either side.

No one is being protected here except the wallets of the attourneys involved.

Invoking the seperation of church and state here is a gross miss use of the law.

Judge Moore campaigned on the whole 10 commandments thing. He is a grandstanding jackass, and he is also not being faithful to the words of Jesus as far as I can tell (obey your masters, render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, etc.)

If you can't invoke seperation of church and state in a courtroom, you might as well throw it out completely, because then it has no meaning.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Invoking the seperation of church and state here is a gross miss use of the law.

law? i'm no constitutional expert, or even a layperson, so i have to defer to Judge Rehnquist for his expert opinion (unlike us, he is paid to have an opinion)

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
"There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' [between church and state]."

this whole thing started with the famous 1801 letter written by the Baptists of Danbury, Conn., to newly elected President Thomas Jefferson – and Jefferson's brief response, in which he coined the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure his constituents that the new Constitution would not establish a national church or otherwise infringe on their religious liberties

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
Now the city council has to let him erect his monument because they've already established that religious monuments can be erected on their town common.

proof that we're losing the war on terrorism (this guy's the taliban who traded his turban in for a 10G hat):angry:

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by $tinkle

proof that we're losing the war on terrorism (this guy's the taliban who traded his turban in for a 10G hat):angry:

Religious extremism and literal translations of the texts are not exclusive to any faith.

The Cheese

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by brock
I can't think of a more perfect example of why there should be no religious monuments on public property.

Rhino did you read this? When you allow one point of veiw you have to allow all points of veiw.

Hmmmmm an inflamitory "monument" that was made for no reason than to further a sick bastards own agenda. That is a smidge different than having the ten comandments in a courtyard.

I think you guys are funny. *insert preschooler attitude and voice here* Nuh-uhhhh Johny got his rock in there, so I can tooooooooooo......hermph! *end snotty little rag-a-muff'n*

That "monument" to the man killed for his sexual choice is sick and wrong. Please tell how quoting the bible in hate makes that a true religious monument and less of a hate monument. Come on. That is like some sick-o yelling fire in a movie theater to insight mass fear and then hiding behind freadom of speach.

I think if the judge is that screwed up than he should go and have the rock stay. The rock isn't the problem.....it just a power play from both sides. Haveing a rock in the courtyard doesn't directly envoke its power over the state.

The system is the problem not he rock....pure political BS=wasted tax dollars.

 

[brock]

I am all for challenging the monument. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

I am biased because I am atheist. I don't like religious people imposing their beliefs on me and I especially don't want religious "commandments" on display in a public court.

They are my tax dollars too. For once I feel they were well spent

 

[ohio]

Rhyno, you're missing the point here. No one is equating the two monuments in intent or impact. What they're saying is that BOTH fall under the category of religious monuments... even though we believe one to be worse than the other, we cannot judge religious beliefs.

which is why it's dangerous to allow ANY specific religious monument in communal/government space.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by brock
I am all for challenging the monument. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

I am biased because I am atheist. I don't like religious people imposing their beliefs on me and I especially don't want religious "commandments" on display in a public court.

They are my tax dollars too. For once I feel they were well spent

Although I can't call myself exactly an Atheist......I do have serious problems with organized religion. A different position for sure.....I could care less about the commandments (I doubt I could recite them now )

Nothing on that monument is imposing anything on you. The rock does nothing to you ESPECIALLY if you are Athiest. If a crack pot judge does, he/she is the problem.....not the rock.

Once again I reiterate:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Ahhh, I see our tax dollars are being spent wisely............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People are really thin skinned these days. I guess this sh!t gets our minds off more important things in life.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
Rhyno, you're missing the point here. No one is equating the two monuments in intent or impact. What they're saying is that BOTH fall under the category of religious monuments... even though we believe one to be worse than the other, we cannot judge religious beliefs.

which is why it's dangerous to allow ANY specific religious monument in communal/government space.

No I don't think I am.

One is hiding under a vail of "religious" content.

Does seperation of church and state.....mean "elimination of"?

It is to allow the state to operate outside the church. As the court system allows us to do. If the courts are run by religious men to blind to see past that, then they should be removed. Does religion play a hand in judicial decisions....it can't help but play a part. It is when it is allowed to blind a person when the separation of church and state has failed.

Literal (no not liberal ) people blind themselfs to a much larger world. We all tend to pick apart sentences and forget to read it in its whole.

PS- It's Rhino....damn you Sun Ringle for screwing with my name LOL!

 

[MMike]

Originally posted by brock
I am all for challenging the monument. I guess you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

I am biased because I am atheist. I don't like religious people imposing their beliefs on me and I especially don't want religious "commandments" on display in a public court.

They are my tax dollars too. For once I feel they were well spent

Weird how I always seem to agree with brock...

 

[brock]

Originally posted by MMike
Weird how I always seem to agree with brock...

What is that old saying?

Great minds can usually be found bashing repeatedly into the same walls?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
law? i'm no constitutional expert, or even a layperson, so i have to defer to Judge Rehnquist for his expert opinion (unlike us, he is paid to have an opinion)
this whole thing started with the famous 1801 letter written by the Baptists of Danbury, Conn., to newly elected President Thomas Jefferson – and Jefferson's brief response, in which he coined the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure his constituents that the new Constitution would not establish a national church or otherwise infringe on their religious liberties

How can Rehnquist say that with a straight face?

The framers on more occassions than can be counted made it painfully clear that is what they intended. Jefferson specifically used those words as you pointed out. Jefferson's intent can further be seen in 1786 "Virginia Status of Religious Liberty. Is Jefferson not considered a founder by Rehnquist.

John Adams signed a treaty in in 1797 with Tripoli in which an aricle specifically declares "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." He would have to certainly be considered a founder.

James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstration." is very clear in this matter. He asserts "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been it's fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and severity in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and perecution". Madison also vetoed bills in violation of the Establishment Clause. On one his veto was based partly in his words "governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions." On another his veto concluded that the bill "compromises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for use and support of religious societies.".

In a letter to Richard Price in 1780 Benjamin Franklin is quoted ""When a Religion is good, I concieve it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one".

I can drag out tons of other quotes where these men and others like them can be found to believe in the same manner. They were terrified of religious intrustion into the government. The very appearance that any religion was favored one over another was too much. I think thru the words of the founders it is painfully clear what their expectation of religious separation from the state was and why.

Rehnquist could not be more wrong.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I have often wondered why many official military functions were started by a paryer from a chaplin...

Seemed like total dishonesty to me... esp since I was in the military and do not subscribe to any religion.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
In a letter to Richard Price in 1780 Benjamin Franklin is quoted ""When a Religion is good, I concieve it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one".

I can drag out tons of other quotes where these men and others like them can be found to believe in the same manner. They were terrified of religious intrustion into the government. The very appearance that any religion was favored one over another was too much. I think thru the words of the founders it is painfully clear what their expectation of religious separation from the state was and why.

I like that one....way to go Mr Price!

But thall that you posted said that the power of the church will not be allowed in government. What power does a rock carved into the "commandments" have? How does this equate to true religious intrusion? Just trying to talk out the use of "seperation of church and state" with the commandments object we are talking about.

The sanctity should be in the proceedings inside the building and with the workings of the law. That is where the state is....not in it's landscape lawn.

I think instead of swearing on a bible we should all say "....cross my heart and hope to die"

 

[brock]

The thing is, I don’t want the ten commandments or any other religious monument on public property. Even if it is donated, it still requires tax dollars to maintain and protect it.

What power does the commandments carved in a rock have? The power to divide. Just like Rev Phelp’s symbol of hate.

I think this kind of thing pisses me off more than most people actually. It always seems as though people want to say “what harm is there” or “it’s always been that way”. We have allowed religious symbols to be so socially acceptable it drives me nuts. If it’s not crosses on people’s desks and saying “god bless you” when I sneeze, it’s the ****ing president quoting bible verses in speeches. Where does it stop?

The office my wife works in receives tons of mail (payments, etc). She tells me about the incredible amount of religious propaganda that is included with people’s correspondence. When she bitches about it people say, “What’s the big deal? No harm done”. What if I wanted to start distributing atheist reading materiel with my correspondence? I wouldn’t mainly because I don’t feel the need to spread the word or force my beliefs on others but what if I did? I’m sure that plenty of people would be downright pissed that I was distributing evil reading material.

I’m rambling now but I guess what I am saying is I wish people would stop turning a blind eye and saying that it’s harmless, or not offensive. I am offended. I live here too ya know.

 

[eric strt6]

Hey Rhino

The monument was not "out on the lawn" The Judge had it placed just inside the main lobby doors of the courthouse inside the main rotunda. You would really have to work hard to find a more obtrusive location.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
What power does a rock carved into the "commandments" have?

You can't honestly believe that...

What power? How about more power than any other symbol in Judaism or Christianity?

Symbols have no power? What about a burning cross? A swastika?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I like that one....way to go Mr Price!

But thall that you posted said that the power of the church will not be allowed in government. What power does a rock carved into the "commandments" have? How does this equate to true religious intrusion? Just trying to talk out the use of "seperation of church and state" with the commandments object we are talking about.

The sanctity should be in the proceedings inside the building and with the workings of the law. That is where the state is....not in it's landscape lawn.

I think instead of swearing on a bible we should all say "....cross my heart and hope to die"

It wasn't Price who said it, it was Franklin.

Of course the rock itself has no intrinsic power but for most the rock and the words carved into it symbolize much more. If he said it is just some rock I put in the lobby for the hell of it.....then maybe your point holds. Now while to you, the thick skinned Rhino (or is just thick ), it might mean nothing except the big rock that you have to walk around in the lobby of the courthouse, to many that is not the case. One of those many is Judge Moore himself. He as specifically stated that the monument is to honor the Christian (then he expanded it to Judeo Christian) God.

As you pointed our the sanctity should be in the proceedings in the building and with the workings of the law. Already the presence of the rock in the lobby has negatively affected those proceedings in the minds of many.

Now many in Alabama are all up in arms about this, agreeing that it some conspriacy to strip religion from our lives. The fact of the matter is that if that rock was a gigantic elephant with "Roll Tide Roll" on the side of it, half of them would be singing a different tune. Maybe even violently so.

In the end its like many things, perception vs. reality. The reality is that perception is the only reality.

 

[BurlyShirley]

As was probably expected, Im totally with Rhino on this one.

Im no christian, but i respect the fact that a good chunk of our population is...especially in ALABAMA. What soemthing like this does, is cause more problems than it actually fixes, and thats wrong in my book. I wont try to rationalize with most of your bleeding hearts, becuse i know thats impossible. But, have a little respect.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
As was probably expected, Im totally with Rhino on this one.

Im no christian, but i respect the fact that a good chunk of our population is...especially in ALABAMA. What soemthing like this does, is cause more problems than it actually fixes, and thats wrong in my book. I wont try to rationalize with most of your bleeding hearts, becuse i know thats impossible. But, have a little respect.

By that reasoning, you'd be fine if the judge was wearing a Klan robe too, because it honors the heritage and beliefs of the south.

Pure nonsense.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
By that reasoning, you'd be fine if the judge was wearing a Klan robe too, because it honors the heritage and beliefs of the south.

Pure nonsense.

whatever dude, the only reason this is an issue is because someone felt like casuing some hell, not because of some grand injustice, and if you cant see that the same as i, you're beyond help.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
As was probably expected, Im totally with Rhino on this one.

Im no christian, but i respect the fact that a good chunk of our population is...especially in ALABAMA. What soemthing like this does, is cause more problems than it actually fixes, and thats wrong in my book. I wont try to rationalize with most of your bleeding hearts, becuse i know thats impossible. But, have a little respect.

You make a good point. The majority of the folks in Alabama don't see an issue. As will most likely be proven in the next election for Judge Moore.

But is it not the job of government, especially the Judicial branch to protect the rights, and in some respect the feelings, of the minority not just the majority.

Originally posted by BurlySurly
the only reason this is an issue is because someone felt like casuing some hell

I definately agree with this. Someone decided to make an issue of the Ten Commandments by sticking them on a 5000lb rock in the middle of the lobby of a courthouse. All that follows goes right in the same vein.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
It wasn't Price who said it, it was Franklin.

Of course the rock itself has no intrinsic power but for most the rock and the words carved into it symbolize much more. If he said it is just some rock I put in the lobby for the hell of it.....then maybe your point holds. Now while to you, the thick skinned Rhino (or is just thick ), it might mean nothing except the big rock that you have to walk around in the lobby of the courthouse, to many that is not the case. One of those many is Judge Moore himself. He as specifically stated that the monument is to honor the Christian (then he expanded it to Judeo Christian) God.

As you pointed our the sanctity should be in the proceedings in the building and with the workings of the law. Already the presence of the rock in the lobby has negatively affected those proceedings in the minds of many.

Now many in Alabama are all up in arms about this, agreeing that it some conspriacy to strip religion from our lives. The fact of the matter is that if that rock was a gigantic elephant with "Roll Tide Roll" on the side of it, half of them would be singing a different tune. Maybe even violently so.

In the end its like many things, perception vs. reality. The reality is that perception is the only reality.

Oops my bad. I was trying to give props to the writer. I just glanced and picked his name up first. I gave props incorrectly, for that I appologize.

If judge Moore is the problem he should leave, not the pretty rock. I don't care if they take bits of every religion and stick it around the lawn. The proceeding inside the court are the ones to be feared. Once again if Moore is that extreem....get rid of the problem.....him. novel concept?

If I am thick I could only wish you enlightened people would wear some body armour. Grow some skin yourselves. I agree that religion having power over proceedings like what our forefathers left behind is to be avoided, but a rock in the courtyard? Geesh it IS NOT THE SAME!

I would still stick it right next to the property and put big neon signs pointing at it....just to piss some off and to quit all this draining legal crap.

I would also like to point out that yanking it out and making a big deal out of it you are envoking your religion/beliefs on the process and I guess on the courts as you have eluded to. So I say what is being done is illegal. Hmmmm, there is something to about....

Rhino

PS- I would like to think everyone for going over this kind of subject nicely. As we have seen it can get a little out of hand. Imagine what the lawmakers have to go through with this crap!

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
If I am thick I could only wish you enlightened people would wear some body armour. Grow some skin yourselves. I agree that religion having power over proceedings like what our forefathers left behind is to be avoided, but a rock in the courtyard? Geesh it IS NOT THE SAME!

Ryhno/Rhino/Ceratotherium simum

The reason the display of Judeo/Christian law bothers people is not all Americans subscribe to the mores of that code.

We ask that justice be blind.

Then in this courthouse we put right up front and center a set of rules that are not only NOT laws of the United States but if were actually followed would make the despots of the world look compasionate.

The punishments in Leviticus are much harsher than most punishments our legal system imposes.

They were so bad that an entire new religion based on the old one was created with a simplified code (see Christianity and the Great Commandment).

Then after that another new religion with the same God had to be created (see Islam) to define more what the rules are.

So if we are going to display a set of rules in a courthouse I would prefer the U.S. Code, the Constitution and the Revised Codes of the State the courthouse is in.

Those are documents we as a nation has agreed on. The Torah, New Testement and Koran are not documents that bind us as a State but divide us.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
How can Rehnquist say that with a straight face?

for each rehnquist, i got a ginsburg

Originally posted by DRB
The framers on more occassions than can be counted made it painfully clear that is what they intended. Jefferson specifically used those words as you pointed out. Jefferson's intent can further be seen in 1786 "Virginia Status of Religious Liberty.

since i know less than you on this topic, help me understand why this "painfully clear" language was effectively ignored/hushed for 200 odd years? never heard of that jefferson document. But, neither did google, or findlaw. maybe i'll make a stop at the university library during lunch

Originally posted by DRB
I can drag out tons of other quotes where these men and others like them can be found to believe in the same manner.

lest we forget ayn rand! been combing over some of her work (& her ilk)

Originally posted by DRB
I think thru the words of the founders it is painfully clear what their expectation of religious separation from the state was and why.

but, i can't help but wonder why all the bristling of late? is the number only now sufficient to contest the status quo?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ummbikes
They were so bad that an entire new religion based on the old one was created with a simplified code (see Christianity and the Great Commandment).

This is certainly what this post is NOT about, but you are way off base as to the "whys" of the creation of Christianity. But like i said, that has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
This is certainly what this post is NOT about, but you are way off base as to the "whys" of the creation of Christianity. But like i said, that has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

Christianity was created because no one was going to get to heaven under the old law.

Am I off base here?

Thats what the bible says, you know, For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that we may not persih but have everlasting life?

Why Andyman did God do this?

Oh, it's because the old law was impossible to follow.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
for each rehnquist, i got a ginsburg

[/b]since i know less than you on this topic, help me understand why this "painfully clear" language was effectively ignored/hushed for 200 odd years? never heard of that jefferson document. But, neither did google, or findlaw. maybe i'll make a stop at the university library during lunch
lest we forget ayn rand! been combing over some of her work (& her ilk)
but, i can't help but wonder why all the bristling of late? is the number only now sufficient to contest the status quo? [/B]

I didn't bring up Ginsburg or Ayn Rand or for that matter anyone that couldn't be considered an orginial framers of the Constitution and founders of our nation. I didn't ask about how they could say it I asked how Rehnquist could say it with a straight face. I didn't address anything they may have said on this subject because you didn't quote them.

Painfully clear is Jefferson using the "wall of separation" quote you brought up. Jefferson said it and he certainly meant it. Each of the founding fathers at one time or another made very distinct statements on this matter. None of these documents, letters and statements have been hushed or hidden or covered up. Go get any decent biography on any of them and their words are their to see. (PM me if you want a list)

It seems that it is only now that the status quo of the separation of church and state is being challenged. Seems to me this started when a Judge dropped a 5000lb monument into a courthouse to honor the Christian (then Judeo-Christian) God.

As for the Virginia Status of Religious Liberty. It is called a number of different things but here is a link to a copy called "The Vriginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html or another one is where it is called the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/va-religiousfreedom.html They are all the samething.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Christianity was created because no one was going to get to heaven under the old law.

Am I off base here?

Thats what the bible says, you know, For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that we may not persih but have everlasting life?

Why Andyman did God do this?

Oh, it's because the old law was impossible to follow.

The Law was never given to be a path to salvation.

Read the New Testemant book of Hebrews, it lists a whole group of Old Testemant folks that "got into heaven" (Moses, David, Noah etc). It's interesting Noah "got into heavean" long before the Law was established because of his faith, not an adherance to the cerimonial Law. The same with Abraham, he was counted righteous by God not because he sacraficed that ram, but because he had faith.

To say that Chirstianity was created because the punishments of the Old Law is not accurate per the Bible.

But like i said, this is off topic from the post, and I didn't nessecarily want to start a theological debate on the creation of Christianity.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
The Law was never given to be a path to salvation.

Read the New Testemant book of Hebrews, it lists a whole group of Old Testemant folks that "got into heaven" (Moses, David, Noah etc). It's interesting Noah "got into heavean" long before the Law was established because of his faith, not an adherance to the cerimonial Law. The same with Abraham, he was counted righteous by God not because he sacraficed that ram, but because he had faith.

To say that Chirstianity was created because the punishments of the Old Law is not accurate per the Bible.

But like i said, this is off topic from the post, and I didn't nessecarily want to start a theological debate on the creation of Christianity.

Like any one here pays any attention to on or off topic.

Go on then....