Some of the arguments that some of God's people take up confuse me.

[LiberalAndProud]

Commandment 2: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"


Although the commandment doesn't seem to me the second most important moral precept in the universe, those who would have us live by them maybe should rethink the whole courthouse monument question.

[cbayer]

1. What do you think that means?

Do you think there is a historical and cultural context that influenced it? How could it be interpreted now?

[cleanhippie]

2. Are you suggesting that believers should recognize their own rank hypocrisy?

Good luck with that.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. I am simply puzzled that fundamentalists haven't taken up common cause with

those of us who think that this monument should have no place in our public square. I have been unable to find either Biblical or secular justification for such a thing.

[cleanhippie]

4. Have you asked one? I'm sure they've found plenty of justification.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. No. I've been paying attention to the judges' opinions.

Which also make no sense.

The Texas decision rested on the fact that the monument had been there a long time and nobody complained before, so is just fine. The Oklahoma decision cited the Texas decision. To paraphrase, What's good enough for Texas is good enough for Oklahoma.

As a rule, I avoid talking with fundamentalists about their religion. They get all offended and stuff.

[Politicalboi]

27. They're going to pretty soon

With all these religious freedom bills, it will allow ANYONE to start their own religions and they'll want their monument up there right along side of the 10 commandments. I'm not sure if those bills raised up the fringe religions or lowered them all to the fringe level. All I know is this is going to be good.

[okasha]

6. I can't see the image on my phone.

Is this one of the ten commandments "monuments?"

[cbayer]

7. Yes. It is the one in OK City.

[Igel]

8. I find when an argument confuses me I'm missing something.

Most of the time.

Sometimes it's a definition that's at issue. Context can matter, as can unspoken assumptions. The more explicit an argument or theory the more easily understood it is.

Sometimes there's a flaw in the logic. A definition may change meanings mid-discourse or what appear to be facts or reasonable premises aren't. Often a quantifier is misplaced or missing or assumed to be present when it isn't. A fact can be misrepresented, a quote or assertion truncated in a way that changes its meaning and import. Some such flaws are easily fixed; some are fatal.

On occasion the flaw in logic is meaningless; the argument carries through anyway because the flaw doesn't affect more than a detail or can be readily repaired. Good arguments typically follow numerous lines of reasoning, and the failure of just one is pretty pointless.

At times if an argument confuses me I merely misunderstood it. At times the logic flaws are fatal and clarity involves acknowledging that what I'm reading is gibberish. (That's not usually my assumption.)

It can require a lot of practice to get good at locating the nexus of the confusion, the one word (or the set of words), syntax, or logical leap.

Take this. "Graven image" isn't words. That was the typical way of writing at the time in papyrus-deficient areas. The narrative says to write the words on tablets, in other words, to engrave them, but "to engrave" meant something different from "to grave" (explicit definition). A graven image would be a sculpture of a critter, person, etc., as the following part of the text itself says (partial quote). The first occurrence of a violation reinforces this. The motivation also matters: To bow down to them.

The real problem isn't consistency when it comes to a mini-obelisk or stela like this (although one could image doing obeisance to such a thing, then it would become a problem), but consistency where it applies elsewhere. A favorite trope is that many of these sects have various graven symbols and images that they use in services--crucifixes, for instance. Statues.

One can get into metaphorical extensions, but that's enough.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. Do you think, by placing this monument on courthouse grounds

that expected obeisance is implicit?

[cbayer]

16. In pre-Katrina New Orleans, there were these billboards in certain parts of town:

What do you think of them? Would there be more of an expected obeisance on the grounds of a courthouse?

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I think it's arrogant, paternalistic and demeaning to put those signs in "certain" parts of town.

I can't stop them, freedom-of-expression-wise, but I doubt they inspire the desired effect. Since there are established secular laws prohibiting murder, I don't have a problem with that commandment on courthouse grounds. There are others that are more problematic state-established-religion-wise.

[cbayer]

18. Those neighborhoods were where people were being killed in significant numbers,

including innocent bystanders and children.

The people in those neighborhoods were fully in support of the groups who were underwriting this project and did not feel at all that it was arrogant, paternalistic or demeaning. The groups and individuals behind it were their neighbors.

Assuming that you are white and likely not severely impoverished, I suspect you would have never seen the signs or really are in a position to judge them.

And I do believe that it had a positive effect. Some in those certain parts of town felt empowered and began to push back against the criminals who were terrorizing them.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/25/us/new-orleans-s-hopes-rise-as-crime-rate-decreases.html

I am strongly opposed to putting religious paraphernalia on government property, period.

Which commandments other than this "idolatry" thing do you have trouble with?

[LiberalAndProud]

21. It would be less arrogant if those same signs would show up across the street from the local PD.

You won't convince me that I wouldn't be offended if I saw that sign every time I visit my local convenience store.

[cbayer]

22. I think you had to have been there. If you had, I think you would feel differently.

If you were offended, it would most likely be perceived as the height of privilege.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. You were there, then?

I take it all back.

[cbayer]

26. Yes, I lived there for 22 years and left after Katrina.

It's my favorite place in the country, despite it's difficulties.

[beam me up scottie]

10. It's all about interpretation.

Just like everything else in the bible.

Ask the nearest Real™ christian for clarification.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. I didn't have to.

It's already been explained to me. Maybe I should have asked about the first.

[beam me up scottie]

14. That's a whole other can o' worms.

Historically christians have always been pacifists.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. I knew that.

That's why John Brown's body lies mouldering in the grave. Pope Urban II was such a peace monger, don't you know. Onward Christian Pacifists is the best song ever.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Onward Christian Pacifists

Don't forget Torquemada and Pope Innocent III.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. And we're all familiar with the oft repeated phrase

There are no Real Christians™ in foxholes. amIright?

[beam me up scottie]

24. That deserves its own website.

Remember the slogan 'Kill a commie for Christ'?

[safeinOhio]

11. Here would be a good one

No pizza for gays on Sunday, because they are suppose to be at home resting.

[Mariana]

12. I remember when they hauled off Roy Moore's monument

in Alabama, way back when, some guy that was there protesting the removal screamed, "Get your hands off our God!" If that isn't an example of idolatry, I don't know what is.

[okasha]

15. It absolutely is.

So, for non-fundamentalists, is Bibliolatry-- worship of/total reliance on the Bible.

[spin]

28. A graven image is an object of worship. ...

I don't beleive that many people, if any, worship the Ten Commandments as they would a god.

Perhaps a better question is if statutes or pictures of Jesus or Mary violate the second commandment.