My U.S. Constitution Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

Oh wow --- even though I made it clear ---You're really struggling with this, aren't you, Gaara?

You seem to think that a nation using the KJV Bible as its sole source of Law would be capable of committing genocide.

Oh, I have no doubt they'd be extremely willing (Many fundies are quick to push the genocide button if they think they can get away with it), but able? Such a nation would be so far down the geopolitical ladder, I doubt they'd be able to muster up the resources to kill a beehive.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, so seems like AV is leveraging the whole "Dispensationalism" thing as an analogue for "reinterpreting the constitution".

I know what you're thinking: What's he waiting on --- Christmas?

I'll address this later on --- in the meantime --- cogitate on these:

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The Dispensation of Law goes from the giving of the Ten Commandments (added to the previous dispensation), to the rending of the veil of the Temple from top to bottom; and I'll BBL to answer your post in more detail.

 

[tanzanos]

No, no no, man! The real difference would be Jesus was blue and had six arms! (Just think how interesting crucifixes on church walls would be then!)

(Man this theology stuff is wicked easy!)

Six arms??? You heathen!!!! FSM has eight (8) holly tentacles! May his holly pastaness forgive you your ignorance!

 

[TeddyKGB]

This thread is a testament to the great heights to which this science forum is eponymously dedicated.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Nathan points out, the Constitution never claims inerrancy and has built into it the opportunities to re-craft it as needed.

I actually got the idea for this thread some time ago. It's from the old Star Trek episode where, I believe, a starship visited a planet and left behind a book about early 20th century mobs in America. (I believe the name of the episode was, A Piece of the Action.)

When Kirk and crew show up, they have built an elaborate civilization based on this book.

In my scenario, the Bible has been left behind, and the Atheists on this website have found It, and built an elaborate civilization based on how I percieve they/you interpret It.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'll address this later on --- in the meantime --- cogitate on these:The Dispensation of Law goes from the giving of the Ten Commandments (added to the previous dispensation), to the rending of the veil of the Temple from top to bottom; and I'll BBL to answer your post in more detail.

NOTE: I am not questioning Dispensationalism per se, I am merely asking how other Christians seem to feel at least some of the laws in the O.T. are still in effect? Why on earth would some people want the 10 Commandments put up in U.S. Courthouses? Are they still in effect?

Remember, you are asking how atheists would interpret some strange thought-experiment Bible-Constitution but you haven't yet really addressed why many Christians, feeling that they were following the words of the Bible itself, seem to make interpretations utilizing O.T. laws and why that has been a commonality throughout history. Certainly more than a millenium into this "Age of Grace".

 

[Nathan Poe]

I actually got the idea for this thread some time ago. It's from the old Star Trek episode where, I believe, a starship visited a planet and left behind a book about early 20th century mobs in America. (I believe the name of the episode was, A Piece of the Action.)

Fascinating -- want to try for relevent next?

When Kirk and crew show up, they have built an elaborate civilization based on this book.

Which was still a lot more progressive than a civilization based on the Bible would be. I'll take gangsters with tommy guns over stoning heretics any day.

In my scenario, the Bible has been left behind, and the Atheists on this website have found It, and built an elaborate civilization based on how I percieve they/you interpret It.

AV, I know you're kind of slow/unwilling on the uptake on this sort of thing, but have you considered the possibility that atheists might not build an entire civilization on a Book that deals with Man's relationship with a God?

You know, just spitballing here, but really...

 

[AV1611VET]

Now the key point for the Bible side under contention seems to be "Do the Old Testament Laws" hold today?

Yes and no --- it gets back a proper definition of "morals" and "ethics".

When the Israelites were led to the foot of Mt Sinai, God told Moses that if they would obey His voice, they would be a peculiar treasure --- above anyone else on earth.

1 ¶ In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Notice in Verse 6, that He wants a kingdom of PRIESTS --- not KINGS.

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

It was clearly NOT God's intention that these people pattern themselves after the manner of the Canaanites, and be led by kings.

But, in Samuel's time, the priests had gotten so corrupt, that the people had gotten fed up with them, and they demanded a king.

Notice God's vehement protest:

Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

But to no avail:

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

Okay --- back to the foot of Mt Sinai.

It is clear that God doesn't want a kingdom of KINGS --- He wants a kingdom of PRIESTS.

Obediently, Moses takes God's word to the people:

And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And, as Scofield points out, the people made one of the biggest mistakes of their lives --- they agreed!

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

ERROR!

They should have fallen on their faces and humbly admitted their INABILITY to keep such a holy proposition, but instead foolishly pronounced that all that the LORD hath spoken, they will do.

Notice what happens now after Moses returns those words to the LORD.

10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,
11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

Now all of a sudden the people are under threat of death, and have to keep their distance from the mount.

This is what the Law does --- it only brings death and threats of death.

I'll wrap this up and answer your question now in my next post.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll wrap this up and answer your question now in my next post.

When God gave the Law, the Law came embedded with moral and ethical rules and regulations.

• Moral rules pertaining to their relationship to God.
• Ethical rules pertaining to their relationship to each other.

In addition, the Law contains prescriptions on how to make certain oils, when to burn incense, when and how to prepare what sacrifice, how to build God's edifices, how to erect and take down the Tabernacle, where to put what, and how to carry it, and so on and so forth.

This all was in effect until Jesus came on the scene and removed all of these rules and regulations, as they were no longer needed --- they were fulfilled in Him.

No more Tabernacle, no more Temple, no more sacrifices, no more anointing oils, no more nothing.

HOWEVER, the ethical rules can still apply, if they so choose.

By way of example, my wife was given a 10-dollar bill (by a little boy) that was found on church property, and didn't know what to do with it. I suggested we look into the Scriptures and see how to handle this, and we found where, if someone finds something, he is to keep it for 30 days, and if no one claims it, it's theirs. So she gave it back to the little boy after 30 days.

So yes, [some of] the Law can still apply today, but definitely the Law has been superseded by Grace.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[AV1611VET]

NOTE: I am not questioning Dispensationalism per se, I am merely asking how other Christians seem to feel at least some of the laws in the O.T. are still in effect? Why on earth would some people want the 10 Commandments put up in U.S. Courthouses? Are they still in effect?

Remember, you are asking how atheists would interpret some strange thought-experiment Bible-Constitution but you haven't yet really addressed why many Christians, feeling that they were following the words of the Bible itself, seem to make interpretations utilizing O.T. laws and why that has been a commonality throughout history. Certainly more than a millenium into this "Age of Grace".

Since the Ten Commandments were directly written by God, Himself, in His own handwriting, I'm assuming they carry an extra special connotation.

In verbal plenary inspiration, God's Word comes to us in the language of the various secular authors --- but in the Ten Commandments --- we have God, Himself writing them.

When you see the Ten Commandments, you are looking right into the very mind of God, Himself.

By way of example, suppose a man hires a professional photographer to photograph his son's wedding; but later, he takes the camera and takes ten pictures that are dear to him.

Wouldn't those ten pictures be more [for lack of a better term] sentimental than the other pictures?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I know you're kind of slow/unwilling on the uptake on this sort of thing, but have you considered the possibility that atheists might not build an entire civilization on a Book that deals with Man's relationship with a God?

That's what I'm hoping, Nathan --- that'll you'll find this little exercise anathema, ridiculous, and just plain folly.

Then maybe you'll think of this the next time you claim the Bible supports --- oh --- say ---

• the Crusades
• flat earth
• stoning of witches for today
• genocide
• geocentrism
• etc.

 

[thaumaturgy]

When God gave the Law, the Law came embedded with moral and ethical rules and regulations.

• Moral rules pertaining to their relationship to God.
• Ethical rules pertaining to their relationship to each other.

That sounds like post hoc justification. Take the rules that are uncomfortable or appear pointless (the circumcision stuff and the burning incense and wearing different fibers, and keeping kosher) and unilaterally decree them "Ethical" rules so you can ignore them?

I don't believe Jesus said he was a "fulfillment" of the "Ethical Rules" only did he? I didn't see him make such a distinction.

I hope this answers your question.

Well, you answered only part of it: why is Age of Grace after the fulfillment of the Law so incredibly long? Especially in light of Jesus' eschatologies?

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's what I'm hoping, Nathan --- that'll you'll find this little exercise anathema, ridiculous, and just plain folly.

Then maybe you'll think of this the next time you claim the Bible supports --- oh --- say ---

• the Crusades
• flat earth
• stoning of witches for today
• genocide
• geocentrism
• etc.

You know, AV what I find most amazing about your post is that you seem to be completely unaware that the Bible was, indeed used by Christians in centuries past to support many of those very things!

You seem to confuse your "disagreement" with that justification and your intense wish that no Christian had ever used the Bible to justify those beliefs.

The Church put Galileo under HOUSE ARREST for calling geocentrism into question:

From antiquity, the majority of people subscribed to the Ptolemaic theory of geocentrism that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. This theory accorded with available scientific knowledge at the time, agreed with a literal interpretation of scripture in several places, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Further, since in the Incarnation the Son of God had descended to the earth and become man, it seemed fitting that the earth be the center around which all other celestial bodies moved. Heliocentrism, the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory.(SOURCE)

You clearly feel the Church was in error, but don't for a second think that the Bible was not used to support geocentrism.

Tommaso Caccini, a Dominican friar, appears to have made the first dangerous attack on Galileo. Preaching a sermon in Florence at the end of 1614, he denounced Galileo, his associates, and mathematicians in general (a category that included astronomers). The biblical text for the sermon on that day was Joshua 10, in which Joshua makes the Sun stand still; this was the story that Castelli had had to interpret for the Medici family the year before. It is said, though it is not verifiable, that Caccini also used the passage "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?"(ibid)

As for slavery, well, you need look only at some of the quotes from American history:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

As has been pointed out numerous times, we all agree that Slavery is Bad. But you cannot deny that the Bible has been used to justify slavery. Right or wrong. It has been read by some actual Christians to justify slavery.

Stoning of Witches "for today"? What does that mean? Are you allowing that at some point The Bible did teach that witches should be put to death? Why indeed it did! Ex [/FONT]22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

So, when, exactly did the Bible remove this rule? Certainly not with the "Fulfillment of the Law" as witches were being burned all across Europe and the American Colonies during the 15-17th centuries! As late as 1692 in Salem, MA.

So when did the Bible say witches should be allowed to live?

You know what really helped stopped the killing of witches? When people realized there aren't any real witches, thanks to scientific understanding of how the world works!

I don't recall the Bible saying "Hey, dudes, don't kill the little old lady, she didn't sicken your cows, she's just an old lady and the cows ate some bad weeds or caught a disease!"

No, the Bible helpfully just tells us not to suffer a witch to live.

Sorry, AV, but The Bible says what it says. It can be intepretted in a number of different ways. Clearly you favor a modern appreciation that slavery is wrong and that the earth isn't the center of the universe, but I'd be interested in how you came to those conclusions based on the Bible.

But more interestingly still; you never even seem to acquiesce that indeed the Bible was used to justify these very beliefs at some point by actual Christians.

That is what I find most frustrating. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between your disagreement with others and their actual thoughts.

Right or wrong, some christians have had those thoughts and used the Bible to support them with no small amount of success for a time.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[AV1611VET]

That sounds like post hoc justification.

Say what???

Take the rules that are uncomfortable or appear pointless (the circumcision stuff and the burning incense and wearing different fibers, and keeping kosher) and unilaterally decree them "Ethical" rules so you can ignore them?

Um ---

1. Circumcision came before the Law, and is not part of it --- and it has a medical advantage attached to it.
2. Burning incense has a cleansing effect. Can you imagine what it would have smelled like around the Temple area w/o it?
3. The prohibition on wearing different fibers was just plain common sense back then.
4. Ditto for keeping kosher.

I don't believe Jesus said he was a "fulfillment" of the "Ethical Rules" only did he? I didn't see him make such a distinction.

Nope.

Well, you answered only part of it: why is Age of Grace after the fulfillment of the Law so incredibly long? Especially in light of Jesus' eschatologies?

Perhaps He's waiting for the punishment to fit the crime?

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, AV what I find most amazing about your post is that you seem to be completely unaware that the Bible was, indeed used by Christians in centuries past to support many of those very things!

Thank you --- in centuries past --- not today.

There was a proper time and place for [some of] that stuff --- it's called context.

You seem to confuse your "disagreement" with that justification and your intense wish that no Christian had ever used the Bible to justify those beliefs.

Just as you atheists are doing --- making the same mistake as those who interpret It in spite of Itself, not in respect to Itself.

I get the impression you guys think we're hypocrites because you think we should be out looking for witches to burn, slaves to purchase, and heretics to torture.

As has been pointed out numerous times, we all agree that Slavery is Bad. But you cannot deny that the Bible has been used to justify slavery. Right or wrong. It has been read by some actual Christians to justify slavery.

So? What's your point? Hitler used genetics to justify the creation of a supreme race of individuals. Should we throw Mein Kampf out? (That was a joke.)

Stoning of Witches "for today"? What does that mean? Are you allowing that at some point The Bible did teach that witches should be put to death? Why indeed it did! Ex [/font]22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

That's right --- today's witches aren't even close to what they were back then. Back then, they had the ability to call people up from Paradise, before Paradise was taken to Heaven (remember: dispensation, dispensation, dispensation); as the Witch of Endor did with Samuel.

By comparision, today's witches --- pffft. Give me a break --- (remember: dispenstion, dispensation, dispensation) --- and we don't need to go around on witch hunts.

So, when, exactly did the Bible remove this rule?

When the Holy Ghost came and broke their power --- (remember: ontological subordination, ontological subordination, ontological subordination).

So when did the Bible say witches should be allowed to live?

When they went under the protection of the Ten Commandments (THOU SHALT NOT KILL).

Take this simple test --- which passage has Verse 18 quoted correctly?

16 ¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:
17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

16 ¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:
17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the men that were with him, burn this woman!

---

You know what really helped stopped the killing of witches? When people realized there aren't any real witches, thanks to scientific understanding of how the world works!

Not hardly.

 

[corvus_corax]

This thread is a testament to the great heights to which this science forum is eponymously dedicated.

Quoted for the beautiful irony it points out




Off topic bovine feces is off topic.

Frackin' duh.

AV is not the only guilty one here.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Finally, an alleged point revealed!

That's what I'm hoping, Nathan --- that'll you'll find this little exercise anathema, ridiculous, and just plain folly.

Making it virtually identical to all your other exercises/challenges.

Then maybe you'll think of this the next time you claim the Bible supports --- oh --- say ---

• the Crusades
• flat earth
• stoning of witches for today
• genocide
• geocentrism
• etc.

Think of what? That Christians who worship the magic book without understanding it are hopelessly backwards and out-of-touch with reality?

You didn't need this exercise to show us that, AV.

 

[tcampen]

Why --- all of a sudden --- is my question "incoherent"?

You "Bible experts" are constantly telling us how It should be interpreted - (not to mention my particular denomination).

Now, all of a sudden, when I turn It into the U.S. Constitution, you all start babbling like a baby that needs burped.

Like I say --- you guys are a laugh-a-minute.

No. You are setting up an incoherent situation. You are effectively talking about a "round square" here. The bible is the bible. If the bible were used for the constitution, it would not change the fact that it is the bible even if you falaciously called it a constitution. But a Governmental Constitution is a document that structures the government itself - establishes what it does and does not do, and how it does it. NOTHING in the bible sets up how a government is to be structured, elections, powers, legislation, limitations, etc. Your bible and the very definition of a governmental constitution are different things. It's like asking a bunch of chefs to use a civil engineering textbook for recipes to make a 7-course dinner. It's incoherent.

Civics lesson is now over.

 

[Split Rock]

Thank you --- in centuries past --- not today.

There was a proper time and place for [some of] that stuff --- it's called context.Just as you atheists are doing --- making the same mistake as those who interpret It in spite of Itself, not in respect to Itself.

This is exactly the point we are making, AVET. You are doing exactly what you say you shouldn't do... take what is written in scripture out of the context of the times it was written in! You do this with Genesis all the time.

Get it now?

 

[gaara4158]

Even if your absurd dispensionalism is the true interpretation (assuming there is a true interpretation), that doesn't change the fact that at one time these inexcusable laws were in effect. How can you reconcile that?