The Ten Commandments

I think it's a given that Jesus was likely a darker skinned person, given the area in which he lived. It's nearly impossible that he was white, like he is constantly represented around here.

Either way, I have found religion to be more of a hindrance to my life than a help. I won't deny that I am happy to see the statue gone.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

I saw a programme a year or so back that covered the ground of Jesus' race. Can't rememeber any of it but the gist was that Jesus was born in Jersulam so therefore should naturally be of the typfied looking native. The caucasian of Jesus is more then likely a wishful thinking or adapted given of his features. I think what Jesus represents is more importantly the message and less the looks of the messenger. I'm not religious, more closely agnostic if anything so don't take my knowledge of Christainity as certifiable.

__________________

Me too Henry, me too.


Revenant, I agree the message is a powerful one, but I must also refer you to the following Commandment:


"Thou shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."

So, if Jesus is in fact darker skinned, then is it wrong for us to "worship" Him as we see him in the US according to that Commandment?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Woa - i knew the representation of J was pretty caucasian-ised in america - but bbbblonde?? And bbbblue eyes? What the h..? Mind you - go to south america and the three kings are shown as native-indian looking etc etc etc - Christianity has always been a very adaptive religion - whether it's the days of festivals (almost all the core ones are based on old pagan/seasonal celebrations. The comprehensive [7 volume original!!] "Golden Bough" breaks down all the original ones - the condensed version is a v.interesting if overly-thourough/repetitive read)...or the bible itself.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

What you see here and elsewhere are just artistic interpretations of what Jesus looked like… most of them reflect the period in which the painter/sculptor lived and his own ethnic background… when you really think about it, not only would Jesus have had to be a lot darker but he was supposed to be a carpenter too... and as such, in my opinion, would have been a lot more muscular then he’s normally portrayed...

Anyway, I don’t have a lot of time to weigh in on this topic right now but I would like to comment on the use of a Bible in the courtroom… the majority of the people I’ve seen lately choose to “Affirm” rather then to swear on a Bible and the courts/jurors seem to have no problem with that… and in fact seem to prefer it simply because it means a person wants to tell the truth to the best of their ability…


"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

__________________

What does he look like then?

I am not trying to caricaturize christianity. What is the purpose of swearing on the bible from a religious point of view if it doesn't mean anything else for a christian than swearing on your mother's grave (which might mean a hell of a lot to some but crap to others - just like the bible)? You might as well do that. Or just swear to tell the truth or you will be held in contempt.

Social stigma? What do you mean? That the mere presence of a bible in court leads to people straightening their backs and trying just a little bit harder to be good? I just don't believe it, not even in a fairly religious country as yours. If it was so and if that was the reason to why you think the bible has an undisputable place in the courtroom, then it shouldn't be no question about that all the holy scriptures of all the big religions represented in USA should be in the courtroom as well since it would improve the court's results in the same way. And we agreed on that that would be absurd.

Sure, if someone really wants to swear on the bible, I don't have an objection against that.

Is that what it's telling you? To me it means (at least when state and church are seperated, which they are in this case) that no religion is favored over any other. This is not the situation in America today and the courtrooms are proof of that.

Yeah, times change. Aint it a bitch?

I believe that during the time of those wise men America was the leading country in the world when it came to things like freedom for its citizens and legal system and things like that (not counting native americans and slaves of course). Today, imo, that have switched to American being the leading country in the world when it comes to economy, trade and warfare, among other things. Your constitution, if I understand it correctly, leaves a lot of room for interpretations - and that is a good thing (it doesn't mean that it was perfect from the start and will always be perfect though). But does that mean that just because the constitution does not need to be changed - does that also means that nothing else needs to be changed?

I think religion does not have a place in courtrooms. How did you turn that around to be about wanting you to change the constitution? You said that I should give the men who created America more cred. What do they even have to do with this discussion?? You had freedom of religion then and you have freedom of religion now. That does not mean that everything has to be the way they were back then.

It is two complete different things. You have turned it into an issue about "court effectiveness", which this is not about. Do you have any statistics that back up your opinion that those trials where the accused swore on the bible instead of just "affirm" were more "effective"? That is absurd. I doubt that the being or not being of a bible in the courtroom effects the effectiveness in any way. If it do I would say that the absence of a bible in the courtroom (i.e. less rituals, more trial) would increase the effectiveness rather than decrease it.

As I said, it is not a "No Bible vs. Court Effectiveness" match. It is about letting all americans feel like 1st class americans no matter what religion they belong or not belong to. To alienate someone in a courtroom because of religion is just plain wrong. Especially in a country that calls herself "the greatest democracy in the world".

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

If I pandered to people's beliefs in that way, I probably wouldn't call myself an atheist. I'm sorry, Chris, but you are just not correct here. I would probably take a secular oath MORE seriously than one where I put my hand on a bible and said, "so help me God", because the oath wouldn't contain anything that I thought was fictional.

I agree with this, and I disagree with some of our founding fathers' ideas, but I think separation of church and state is a real good one.

This is some major backbedalling on what you said previously.

Edit: You also agreed with me that The Ten Commandments have very little to do with our laws. This is hardly consistant with, "The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law".

I think you should stick to your guns, and admit that he was WRONG and STUPID, or take back what you said earlier. Nothing else makes sense. I like Bill too, but I'm not going to defend him when he says something dumb like this.

Wrong. If someone back then believed that women should never be allowed in the work force, but believed in compassion, should I link the two together and say that my disaproval of sexism doesn't have a leg to stand on? Of course not. It's the same thing. Just because they were religious, does not mean they were wrong about slavery, and just because they were right about slavery doesn't mean that I'm wrong about religion. You're using some very faulty logic here, Chris.

Oh, I don't know. I think we're changing a bit more than THAT. But you make a good point.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

There's a few too many things to respond to now, and I'm gonna be away from the computer virtually all weekend, so I'll try to reply next week. Until then, lemme just say that it's good to see fire back in the swing of things, as it were. You raise some good points, and I'll certainly be getting to them.

Take your time; I know how time-consuming these kinds of things can become.

Did anyone hear anything about the Governor of the state of Mississippi offering to place the statue of The Ten Commandants in their state capital building?

Having the Ten Commandments removed from government buildings is ALL about religious freedom.................... To think otherwise IS narcissistic..................... The right position is........."We as a government think that since most people in this nation are Christian, than ALL of us must follow this belief so here are the Ten Commandments, follow this"................ While it is a righteous moral code to follow individually, the government cannot establish it upon anyone who believes differently. No way........

It would be impossible to put every religious doctrine in all government buildings, so the solution is to remove all, and remain secular..........

I believe..............replace the Ten Commandments with the Constitution, since it much more relevant politically............. It is narcissistic for the Right to think that all believe like they do...................Yet they seek to exclude, by establishing Christian religion in government, with the purpose to exclude.................. As government officials, the Constitution should be their code, and the Ten Commandments should be solely for themselves as individuals.

__________________
~ Nikki ~

"I'm your hell, I'm your dream.......I'm nothing in between.......You know you wouldn't want it any other way".........

"Listen, when I slap you, you'll take it and like it"..........Humphrey Bogart..........Maltese Falcon.......

Graze on my lips and if those hills be dry, stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie...........William Shakespeare.......

Bump

ah those were the days....

Hi there, Fire! It's been a while....

[edit]... eh... talk about a while... That last post by Fire is almost 1½ years old....