First Commandment vs. First Amendment

[Frėėthînkėr999]

Isn’t the first commandment of Christianity in direct diametrical contradiction to the essence of the First Amendment of the Constitution ?

It’s impossible to reconcile the two, in my opinion: the former forbids the worship of other deities other than the Christian god, or else you’re morally corrupt, and, it should be noted, deserving of an eternity of agony, torture and conscious suffering while slow-burning in an everlasting “lake of sulfur and fire” (pardon the hyperbole).

The latter, defines in its essence freedom of though, and the freedom of belief in any deity your conscience dictates, or no deity at all, as an inalienable right. Inherently attaching no measure of moral worth to those beliefs, no matter what they are. No religion is more worthy morally than the others, or to not holding religious beliefs at all

Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally contradictory, in my opinion

 

[Neogaia777]

It just simply is not the job of the state to institute a one government or nation religion, etc, since the separation of church and state, etc, and it is up to the church, or Christians in Christianity, to convince individual people of either who has either the upper or lower moral high ground, and which is true, or more true, or most just, or more right, etc...

And the church should be able to that job without having to have the state involved, etc, or they are just simply not doing their jobs right, etc...

But as far a government built on the foundational principles of having it's people have the most freedom justifiably possible, etc, freedom of being able to choose ones own beliefs, and not suffer severe persecution for it, is one of it's most foundational principles, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Sabertooth]

Isn’t the first commandment of Christianity in direct diametrical contradiction to the essence of the First Amendment of the Constitution ?

No.
The first Commandment advises one of their most beneficial trajectory.
The first Amendment says that one is free to choose their own trajectory, even if it is less than beneficial.

The main benefit of the latter is that it frees one from the tyranny of group-think, where we have no such personal choice (and share in a common fate). It also makes us responsible for the consequences of our own choices.

Hell is a consequence much more than it is a punishment, since God offers an alternative.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law". It says nothing about what God can do...

 

[Gene2memE]

The US was the first officially secular state.

The First Amendment and the First Commandment only come into conflict if you're trying to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US. (Or a theocracy. Or add a religious test to hold an office.)

Not that it hasn't been tried. There have been something like 40 formal attempts to have a reference to God or Christianity inserted into the US Constitution.

This started with the original constitutional convention (but the deists squashed the attempts). Its continued with various bills submitted to Congress all the way into the early 2000s. The peak was around the 1860s and 1870s, when the idea was a perennial issue for debate.

Lots of state level constitutions reference God or Christianity though. Something like 37 out of 50.

 

[Neogaia777]

The first commandment also says "no other gods "before" Him", etc, which depending on context, I think people could still debate what it means, etc, because it could possibly mean "in front of", or "above", etc, which can mean that there could possibly be allowed the possibility to think that there are other "gods", etc, (with a little "g", etc), but that Christians call "angels", etc, but that He is always the Highest, and always in charge of, or is always in control of all others, etc, that they are all always bound up always in that One's Sovereign will always, and literally cannot, (like it's not even being possible, etc), for any to ever go or ever work against it, (that One's Sovereign will), free will willingly at all ever, etc... A or the "God of all other gods", etc, or "angels" if you are a Christian, etc...

It could mean that anyway, etc, depending on context, etc...

And then there is also the matter as to what exactly another God/god is also, etc...? Besides a physical image or thing, is it always just anything you put above Him or in His place, etc...? And by "place" I mean having something else that you trust more in, or rely on more, than something only He is supposed to be primarily for, or provide, etc...

Then that gets into the discussion of "idols", etc... What actually is, and what actually isn't, etc...

And then "so on and so forth", "etc, etc, etc"...

Some people may still be debating it into eternity, etc...

Especially "some sects", etc...

And I'll leave out the names, etc...

God Bless!

 

[HTacianas]

Isn’t the first commandment of Christianity in direct diametrical contradiction to the essence of the First Amendment of the Constitution ?

It’s impossible to reconcile the two, in my opinion: the former forbids the worship of other deities other than the Christian god, or else you’re morally corrupt, and, it should be noted, deserving of an eternity of agony, torture and conscious suffering while slow-burning in an everlasting “lake of sulfur and fire” (pardon the hyperbole).

The latter, defines in its essence freedom of though, and the freedom of belief in any deity your conscience dictates, or no deity at all, as an inalienable right. Inherently attaching no measure of moral worth to those beliefs, no matter what they are. No religion is more worthy morally than the others, or to not holding religious beliefs at all

Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally contradictory, in my opinion

Actually no. For the first amendment to be "Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally contradictory" it would have to say the opposite of the first commandment. The first commandment begins "Thou shall not", but the first amendment nowhere says "thou shall".

 

[Neogaia777]

The first commandment also says "no other gods "before" Him", etc, which depending on context, I think people could still debate what it means, etc, because it could possibly mean "in front of", or "above", etc, which can mean that there could possibly be allowed the possibility to think that there are other "gods", etc, (with a little "g", etc), but that Christians call "angels", etc, but that He is always the Highest, and always in charge of, or is always in control of all others, etc, that they are all always bound up always in that One's Sovereign will always, and literally cannot, (like it's not even being possible, etc), for any to ever go or ever work against it, (that One's Sovereign will), free will willingly at all ever, etc... A or the "God of all other gods", etc, or "angels" if you are a Christian, etc...

It could mean that anyway, etc, depending on context, etc...

And then there is also the matter as to what exactly another God/god is also, etc...? Besides a physical image or thing, is it always just anything you put above Him or in His place, etc...? And by "place" I mean having something else that you trust more in, or rely on more, than something only He is supposed to be primarily for, or provide, etc...

Then that gets into the discussion of "idols", etc... What actually is, and what actually isn't, etc...

And then "so on and so forth", "etc, etc, etc"...

Some people may still be debating it into eternity, etc...

Especially "some sects", etc...

And I'll leave out the names, etc...

God Bless!

Oh, and, no, you do not worship any other gods (liitle "g") or angels, because that is most definitely putting them above and/or before Him, or in His place, etc, (The True God, or the Highest God, or the God of all other gods, etc)...

Just in case that needed to stated or said, but I just thought it would be a given, etc...

You can acknowledge their existence, but you most definitely do not ever worship them at all ever, etc...

They don't have their own will anyway, etc, and the good ones will also not allow you to ever do so at all ever also, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Pommer]

It just simply is not the job of the state to institute a one government or nation religion, etc, since the separation of church and state, etc, and it is up to the church, or Christians in Christianity, to convince individual people of either who has either the upper or lower moral high ground, and which is true, or more true, or most just, or more right, etc...

And the church should be able to that job without having to have the state involved, etc, or they are just simply not doing their jobs right, etc...

But as far a government built on the foundational principles of having it's people have the most freedom justifiably possible, etc, freedom of being able to choose ones own beliefs, and not suffer severe persecution for it, is one of it's most foundational principles, etc...

God Bless!

Zoroastrianism might make a comeback?
It’ll sound familiar to Christians.

 

[Neogaia777]

Zoroastrianism might make a comeback?
It’ll sound familiar to Christians.

Or something similar to it maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Or something similar to it maybe, etc...?

God Bless!

Hey, I'm all for the FSM! R'amen!

 

[paul1149]

Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally contradictory, in my opinion

No, complementary. The 1A makes the US a free country where you can choose to serve the Lord, or not. But if you do choose to serve the Lord, the 1C shows you how to do it. The two writs operate at different levels.

 

[Frėėthînkėr999]

The first Commandment advises one of their most beneficial trajectory.

I didn’t know the 10 commandments were “advice”. Aren’t they laws and requirements of Christianity ? I think they are ... Don’t follow them, your not Christian. Right ?

In any case, if our system of government, and its derived laws, tell people in essence “we won’t force you to worship the Christian god, you can worship any deity your conscience dictates”, then said system of government is in direct diametrical contradiction to the “you must worship the Christian God, and can’t worship any other” essence of Christian Law. I think that’s a fact, isn’t it?

 

[Frėėthînkėr999]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law"

Right. That’s why I said “in essence” ... the first amendment is in essence a declaration of freedom of thought and freedom of belief. Something akin to “you’re not forced to worship the Christian god or any god in particular ... any god your conscience dictates, or none at all”. At that point, this essence is in direct contradiction to a worldview in which the message is “you must worship the Christian God, and can’t worship any other”. Isn’t it?

 

[Frėėthînkėr999]

The First Amendment and the First Commandment only come into conflict if you're trying to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US.

Well no one could do that ... because the first amendment itself prohibits it. Just like no one could worship any other deity and still be Christian ... because the first commandment prohibits it. Right? That’s where the monumental contradiction comes into play, in the very essence of the two foundational elements.

 

[Frėėthînkėr999]

Hey, I'm all for the FSM! R'amen!

That’s very funny . I’m stealing it !

I guess the point, if you’re interested at all, is that the essence of our system of government tells Americans “FSM is alright, it’s your inalienable right to believe that if you want, you’re American even worshiping the FSM”. While Christianity says “FSM is not alright, you can’t believe that instead of or along with the Christian God, or else you’re not Christian”. That’s where I see the inevitable contradiction

 

[Frėėthînkėr999]

For the first amendment to be "Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally contradictory" it would have to say the opposite of the first commandment.

Well the point is that it does, in essence, gramatical artifacts aside. Put it this way: if our system of government defines “you can believe whichever god your heart desires, you’re still American”, but Christianity says “you can’t believe whoever god your heart desires, you must believe the Christian God or you’re not Christian” ... that’s a glaring foundational contradiction, isn’t it?

 

[Sabertooth]

Aren’t they laws and requirements of Christianity ? I think they are ... Don’t follow them, your not Christian. Right ?

That is where you are wrong. God's Laws are like the "law" of gravity. They are in effect whether you abide by them or not.

Generally, one cannot oppose the law of gravity by jumping out of a window. They can only demonstrate it. (Or one can acknowledge that law and be careful around such dangers.)

After getting Saved (which is a necessary and free Gift and an initiation), Christians learn to abide by God's Laws because they are healthful on so many levels. And we have a Provision to get back right when we fail to do so.

God is not looking to destroy us with each misstep. He is saying that living in sin, itself, will destroy us if we don't let Him intervene in our lives, which He would prefer to do (rather than judge us).

 

[Pommer]

That is where you are wrong. God's Laws are like the "law" of gravity. They are in effect whether you abide by them or not.

Generally, one cannot oppose the law of gravity by jumping out of a window. They can only demonstrate it. (Or one can acknowledge that law and be careful around such dangers.)

After getting Saved (which is a necessary and free Gift and an initiation), Christians learn to abide by God's Laws because they are healthful on so many levels. And we have a Provision to get back right when we fail to do so.

God is not looking to destroy us with each misstep. He is saying that living in sin, itself, will destroy us if we don't let Him intervene in our lives, which He would prefer to do (rather than judge us).

All because He got surprised by what we did with “free will”?

 

[Sabertooth]

All because He got surprised by what we did with “free will”?

Does that rationale work for the law of gravity?

Free will allows one to choose an action, not its consequences. That actions have such predictable consequences is not a violation of one's free will.