Stossel takes on anti-atheism in America

[emazur]

Modern day witch hunt - I think these people would burn the girl alive if they thought they could get away with it

YouTube - Atheism in America (It can be tough) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3LY09PP_Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.squidoo.com%2FAtheist-Issues&feature=player_embedded)

[Original_Intent]

Modern day witch hunt - I think these people would burn the girl alive if they thought they could get away with it

YouTube - Atheism in America (It can be tough) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3LY09PP_Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.squidoo.com%2FAtheist-Issues&feature=player_embedded)

What in the world led you to such a conclusion?

[emazur]

History

[erowe1]

Modern day witch hunt - I think these people would burn the girl alive if they thought they could get away with it


I don't know if they would or not. But if there's no God, then burning someone alive wouldn't be a sin anyway. So in that situation she'd be stuck between a rock (having to admit there's a God) and a hard place (having no more serious charge to levy at her attackers than that they are doing something she personally dislikes).

[CCTelander]

Can't you just feel the love?

[max]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

[american.swan]

I don't care how many times you read or have read the Bible, Jesus wouldn't have treated that girl like that. That town is full of fools.

[0zzy]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

reallllly. REALLLY?
REALLLLLLLLLLLLY?

I never heard about the Atheist Crusade.

[Kludge]

I stopped at 2:05 when she responded to "Why are you an atheist?" with "I was born an atheist.".

I don't see much point in her refusing to recite a Christian prayer. I did it in school when we had "un-official" prayer time, in church, at family events, and at funeral services, as well. It's uncomfortable, but so long as no one knows their faith is being disrespected, it's the equivalent of no one being disrespected (except perhaps for God). I think it'd be more disrespectful to bother others' prayer with objection... They aren't hurting anyone.

[Steeleye]

Radioactive thread alert.

[ScoutsHonor]

I don't know if they would or not. But if there's no God, then burning someone alive wouldn't be a sin anyway. So in that situation she'd be stuck between a rock (having to admit there's a God) and a hard place (having no more serious charge to levy at her attackers than that they are doing something she personally dislikes).

You certainly take a dim view of humanity. :( Shall we conclude that you would be OK with burning someone alive if it weren't for God's disapproval. Just askin'...

[evilfunnystuff]

I stopped at 2:05 when she responded to "Why are you an atheist?" with "I was born an atheist.".

I don't see much point in her refusing to recite a Christian prayer. I did it in school when we had "un-official" prayer time, in church, at family events, and at funeral services, as well. It's uncomfortable, but so long as no one knows their faith is being disrespected, it's the equivalent of no one being disrespected (except perhaps for God). I think it'd be more disrespectful to bother others' prayer with objection... They aren't hurting anyone.

so you are going to pontificate on something you admit you dont even know the full story on

nice

[heavenlyboy34]

discrimination is bad :( I feel sorry for her, but I'm glad she got an education anyways.

[Kludge]

so you are going to pontificate on something you admit you dont even know the full story on

nice

I figured he just went into how the townspeople ostracized her and (I imagine) her family after disrupting their prayer, after that.

[Kludge]

I figured he just went into how the townspeople ostracized her and (I imagine) her family after disrupting their prayer, after that.

And, after watching the rest of the video, it turns out Stossel did just that. A sob story followed with "surprising" statistics about the US being a Christian Nation.

I was surprised that the family actually sued the school. Are families going to sue schools because kids make fun of the gays, next? This kid looks like she could do with some verbal abuse.

[max]

reallllly. REALLLY?
REALLLLLLLLLLLLY?

I never heard about the Atheist Crusade.

Ever hear about the atheist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia....which targetted MILLIONS of christians for extirmination?

Ever hear of Mao Chinese cultural Revolution...another atheistic gang of killers who targetted milliions Confucian followers.

Ever hear of the Jacobins of the French Revolution....atheists who murdered christians.

Truly religious people have never killed others in mass numbers. It is ALWAYS atheistic politicians ..sometimes USING RELIGION as a pretext that order the killimg

[heavenlyboy34]

Ever hear about the atheist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia....which targetted MILLIONS of christians for extirmination?

Ever hear of Mao Chinese cultural Revolution...another atheistic gang of killers who targetted milliions Confucian followers.

Ever hear of the Jacobins of the French Revolution....atheists who murdered christians.

Truly religious people have never killed others in mass numbers. It is ALWAYS atheistic politicians ..sometimes USING RELIGION as a pretext that order the killimg

I don't want to start another flame war, but it is important to note that the atheists you mentioned were also statists. I'm not familiar with any atheists who committed genocide in the name of atheism itself. :confused: (the State is FAR more scary than any religion, IMHO)

[swatmc]

I think there are two things that people in the Liberty movement need to drift away from: 9/11 Truth and Religion.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dr.3D]

I think there are two things that people in the Liberty movement need to drift away from: 9/11 Truth and Religion.

Just my 2 cents.
Do you mean we should give up our religion and belief that 9/11 isn't what it is purported to be or that we should just stop mentioning the subjects?

[evilfunnystuff]

And, after watching the rest of the video, it turns out Stossel did just that. A sob story followed with "surprising" statistics about the US being a Christian Nation.

I was surprised that the family actually sued the school. Are families going to sue schools because kids make fun of the gays, next? This kid looks like she could do with some verbal abuse.

if the gov sponsored school stealing their tax money does nothing to try to stop it and even endorse it by throwing them out of school activities yes

[Dr.3D]

So what is so hard about going along with the team spirit and doing as the others are doing.

It's not like doing so is in violation of some religious beliefs is it?

Remember the old saying, 'when in Rome, do as the Romans.'?

[swatmc]

Do you mean we should give up our religion and belief that 9/11 isn't what it is purported to be or that we should just stop mentioning the subjects?

I think we should all believe in "Freedom of Religion" for the individual. This includes the freedom to NOT have a religion. There is no real concrete evidence for or against the belief in God.

When it comes to 9/11, there is also no evidence one way or the other on what happened.

So both arguments are waste of time.

I like the Gerald Celente philosophy when he says that he is a "political agnostic."
He doesn't focus on left or right only what "is." I like that.

[Dr.3D]

I think we should all believe in "Freedom of Religion" for the individual. This includes the freedom to NOT have a religion. There is no real concrete evidence for or against the belief in God.

When it comes to 9/11, there is also no evidence one way or the other on what happened.

So both arguments are waste of time.

I like the Gerald Celente philosophy when he says that he is a "political agnostic."
He doesn't focus on left or right only what "is." I like that.

I thoroughly agree with what you are saying, but there are many here who like to stir the shit and hope somebody will lick the stick afterwords.

[max]

I think there are two things that people in the Liberty movement need to drift away from: 9/11 Truth and Religion.

Just my 2 cents.

what you are saying is that we should stay away from those issues that the media would find controversial....

if u play the game by the enemies' rules...you will lose for sure in the end....

9/11 is our greatest weapon because its so easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job....much easioer than explaining Austrian economics....

but we dont use the 9/11 weapon because we fear being lebeled as "conspiracy theiorists"....its such crap....

9/11 needs to be exposed and I hope Jesse Ventura runs on the issue in 2012

[evilfunnystuff]

So what is so hard about going along with the team spirit and doing as the others are doing.

It's not like doing so is in violation of some religious beliefs is it?

Remember the old saying, 'when in Rome, do as the Romans.'?

yeah cuz going along with the group regardless of whether you agree or not mentality has been very healthy for our nation thus-far

USA USA USA

[Dr.3D]

what you are saying is that we should stay away from those issues that the media would find controversial....

if u play the game by the enemies' rules...you will lose for sure in the end....

9/11 is our greatest weapon because its so easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job....much easioer than explaining Austrian economics....

but we dont use the 9/11 weapon because we fear being lebeled as "conspiracy theiorists"....its such crap....

9/11 needs to be exposed and I hope Jesse Ventura runs on the issue in 2012

That is sort of like proving Obama was born in Kenya.

It wouldn't mean anything if the media wouldn't report it.

[Dr.3D]

yeah cuz going along with the group regardless of whether you agree or not mentality has been very healthy for our nation thus-far

USA USA USA

That's the team spirit I was looking for.

When it means being a part of a sports team, it is a bit different than being part of a herd of sheep.

[swatmc]

what you are saying is that we should stay away from those issues that the media would find controversial....

if u play the game by the enemies' rules...you will lose for sure in the end....

9/11 is our greatest weapon because its so easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job....much easioer than explaining Austrian economics....

but we dont use the 9/11 weapon because we fear being lebeled as "conspiracy theiorists"....its such crap....

9/11 needs to be exposed and I hope Jesse Ventura runs on the issue in 2012

Look, I'm with you dude, but it's not out of fear that I don't use 9/11 as a weapon against the enemy, it is out of common sense.

I am all about Alex Jones and really appreciate what he did for the movement. The only reason I heard of Ron Paul is because of listening to Alex Jones religiously.

But I don't believe in any religion and I am still not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

I still support Ron Paul 100%.

[swatmc]

I thoroughly agree with what you are saying, but there are many here who like to stir the shit and hope somebody will lick the stick afterwords.

Nothing wrong with causin' trouble as long as there is hearty debate thrown in there at some point.

[Dr.3D]

Nothing wrong with causin' trouble as long as there is hearty debate thrown in there at some point.

As long as it doesn't divide the house so it falls. There is nothing healthy about religious debate. Neither side can prove anything, so why bother with the debate? I suppose it is just to stir the shit.

[Kludge]

She was never aggressed upon. She was called a "devil-worshiper" by another kid. :rolleyes: You have no "right to be respected by your peers". She made a poor choice and was punished for it.

Not everyone gets along. Grow a goddam spine and get over it.

[CCTelander]

discrimination is bad :( I feel sorry for her, but I'm glad she got an education anyways.

You're one of the good ones HB34.

[swatmc]

As long as it doesn't divide the house so it falls. There is nothing healthy about religious debate. Neither side can prove anything, so why bother with the debate? I suppose it is just to stir the shit.

That was my original point.

I am pretty sure that the Liberty movement represents "Freedom of Religion."

It's a waste of time otherwise.

And I think that there is a huge number of atheists and agnostics out there, and they are a neglected group.

If the Liberty movement is the biggest friend to atheists and agnostics, the movement grows.

[evilfunnystuff]

That's the team spirit I was looking for.

When it means being a part of a sports team, it is a bit different than being part of a herd of sheep.

a sheep is a sheep regardless if you put a jersey on it

[Theocrat]

Modern day witch hunt - I think these people would burn the girl alive if they thought they could get away with it

YouTube - Atheism in America (It can be tough) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3LY09PP_Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.squidoo.com%2FAtheist-Issues&feature=player_embedded)

That video proves one thing to me: "Atheism" is just as much of a fundamental religion as Christianity is. "Atheists" just want to push out any Christian ideas in society and replace them with their own secular ones. They are not religiously neutral.

[Dr.3D]

a sheep is a sheep regardless if you put a jersey on it

Then she didn't want to be on the team anyway.

[swatmc]

That video proves one thing to me: "Atheism" is just as much of a fundamental religion as Christianity is. "Atheists" just want to push out any Christian ideas in society and replace them with their own secular ones. They are not religiously neutral.

You either believe in Freedom of Religion or you don't.

You cannot force Christian beliefs on another person and you cannot force Non-Christian beliefs on someone else.

This isn't hard, right?

[evilfunnystuff]

:rolleyes: You have no "right to be respected by your peers". .

this govt funded school has the responsibility to stop harassment of students when they are at school or school related events

[heavenlyboy34]

You're one of the good ones HB34.

thanks! :) ~hugs CCT~ :D

[CCTelander]

thanks! :) ~hugs CCT~ :D

My pleasure.

[Bman]

Ever hear about the atheist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia....which targetted MILLIONS of christians for extirmination?

Ever hear of Mao Chinese cultural Revolution...another atheistic gang of killers who targetted milliions Confucian followers.

Ever hear of the Jacobins of the French Revolution....atheists who murdered christians.

Truly religious people have never killed others in mass numbers. It is ALWAYS atheistic politicians ..sometimes USING RELIGION as a pretext that order the killimg

Oh yeah. Those were all atheist causes.:rolleyes:

Now lets see some actual religious causes that were all about killing huh?

The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem witch trials, Hell everwhere in Europe for about 800 years.

HB34 put it best earlier. I'd give you some advice on how to prevent yourself from sticking your foot in your mouth, but having seen the messages behind most of your posts I know I'd be wasting my time.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Well, the girl is better off being educated at home anyway. She'll actually learn something instead of going to a public school that will turn her into one of the mindless sheeple. Someone needs to steer her to Stefan Molyneux and FreeDomainRadio.

As for the rest......Fuck Richard Dawkins. He's a deluded asshole who pushes the religion known as Anthropogenic Global Warming. He can claim he is a rational scientist all he wants. He's a fucknut and a hypocrite to boot for advising people to watch An Inconvenient Truth. He also pushes the asinine belief that the planet is overpopulated, which would be hysterical if it weren't for the Eugenics aspect.

[Kludge]

this govt funded school has the responsibility to stop harassment of students when they are at school or school related events

They have an obligation to prevent aggression. I've never heard of preventing name-calling unless it was disrupting class. Being called a "devil-worshiper" is nothing to cry about.

[Reason]

Truly religious people have never killed others in mass numbers.

http://raoworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/facepalm_implied.jpg

[PaulaGem]

This girl litterally stood up for her religious beliefs, anyone who doesn't think that this is a Constitutionally protected right has no business pontificating about rights of any sort on this board.

[Bman]

This girl litterally stood up for her religious beliefs, anyone who doesn't think that this is a Constitutionally protected right has no business pontificating about rights of any sort on this board.

+1

[Dr.3D]

Well, the girl is better off being educated at home anyway. She'll actually learn something instead of going to a public school that will turn her into one of the mindless sheeple. Someone needs to steer her to Stefan Molyneux and FreeDomainRadio.

As for the rest......Fuck Richard Dawkins. He's a deluded asshole who pushes the religion known as Anthropogenic Global Warming. He can claim he is a rational scientist all he wants. He's a fucknut and a hypocrite to boot for advising people to watch An Inconvenient Truth. He also pushes the asinine belief that the planet is overpopulated, which would be hysterical if it weren't for the Eugenics aspect.

Wow, I guess you would like this little video then. :D

YouTube - Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw)

[PaulaGem]

DeKalb starts probe of suicide
Superintendent says one parental visit should have sufficed to fix problem.
By Kristina Torres

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

DeKalb County school officials have started their own internal review about the events surrounding the suicide of a fifth-grader, with Superintendent Crawford Lewis meeting with the boy’s principal “to make sure something like this never happens again.”

Lewis on Monday talked for the first time about the death of 11-year-old Jaheem Herrera. He took his life, his family says, because he was being bullied in school.

Jaheem, who attended Dunaire Elementary School, hanged himself on April 16.

His death became public last week, but Lewis was in North Carolina until Friday night at a leadership conference.

Jaheem’s mother, Masika Bermudez, said she had complained to school officials about the bullying and taunts Jaheem endured. On one occasion, Jaheem was choked in the bathroom, she said.

“If she came one time, that should have been sufficient,” Lewis said.

Administrators are now piecing together a timeline that documents how often Bermudez met with school officials, and what they did to follow up.

The system’s review, Lewis said, will coincide with talks that DeKalb District Attorney Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming will hold with parents and educators involved in the case. The system will cooperate fully, Lewis said.

He also said he would like to meet with Jaheem’s family, which has hired a lawyer to investigate their son’s death.

Other Dunaire families have also stepped forward to complain that bullying is a problem at the school.

The school has in the past used an anti-bullying program called “No Place for Hate,” which is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.

Bill Nigut, the league’s regional director, said Monday that he has offered free a more intensive version of that training for staff and students at Dunaire.

Lewis said the system has also invited back Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center, who has worked with DeKalb in the past on refining their code of conduct.

System officials announced last week that they will review how all DeKalb schools deal with bullying and how staff is trained because of the case’s seriousness.

Staff members this week will be asked to talk with students about bullying to remind them to “be careful about what you say. Words hurt. You need to be a better friend and a better classmate,” Lewis said.

The case has caused parents at other schools to also speak out.

One, Mike Wilson, interrupted Lewis’ news conference Monday to complain of a “cover-up” in the treatment of his daughter.

Wilson said she was bullied over a three-year period as she attended Evansdale Elementary and Henderson Middle schools.

One of Lewis’ top aides took down Wilson’s information as Lewis said the complaint would be reviewed.



http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2009/04/28/dekbully0428.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

[Kludge]

This girl litterally stood up for her religious beliefs, anyone who doesn't think that this is a Constitutionally protected right has no business pontificating about rights of any sort on this board.

The government did nothing wrong except to host students in a one-size-fits-all socialist school. The government didn't bully the girl -- the kids did. The government didn't force her to pray. She refused. I doubt the girl didn't understand the consequences of objecting to a harmless prayer. Given how one-sided the expose was, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the girl publicly made her atheism known before and after. It isn't government's place to regulate students' behavior in such an intrusive way as others suggested.

I've never found anything as frustrating as self-made martyrs.

[PaulaGem]

Religious bullying is a problem around the world
Vigilante enforcement of theocratic codes can crop up when a minority group doesn't conform.
By Walter Rodgers
from the May 7, 2009 edition


Oakton, Va. - A friend, a Pakistani journalist, recently came out of the troubled Swat valley in northwest Pakistan and told a chilling tale. He said, "It is now halal [religiously sanctioned] to kill journalists."

The tribal Muslim clerics in Swat, he said, have declared open season on reporters whose writings they disapprove of. My friend, a brave and devout Sunni Muslim, seemed quite shaken, having spent two weeks reporting under threat in Swat, an area once called the Switzerland of Pakistan. Several journalists have already been murdered for a perceived breach of theocratic codes.

Such violence is religious "correctness" in the extreme, but vigilante enforcement of theocratic codes can crop up whenever and wherever an individual or minority does not conform to the religious tenets of the majority.

In the United States, when Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D) of Minnesota asked to be sworn in using the Koran, the personal attacks on him from the Christian right were just short of poisonous.

In areas such as the Balkans and Iraq, religious intimidation has taken the form of ethnic cleansing, forcibly coercing religious minorities to emigrate.

In the West Bank a decade ago, I witnessed Hamas activists taunting Christian women for wearing crosses around their necks. Though Palestinian officials deny religious coercion, the exodus of Christian Arabs from the West Bank suggests otherwise.

Another form of religious intimidation worms its way through US high schools. Teenagers complain of being verbally assaulted by "God squads," whose members roam corridors demanding to know if their fellow students share their messianic religious visions – and if not, why not?

Religious bullying is "a great concern," says Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League. "It does happen a lot … we believe it's a pervasive problem." Daniel Mach of the American Civil Liberties Union agrees: "It's clear this problem is not going to go away soon."

The ACLU is representing a group of anonymous students in Santa Rosa County, Fla., who allege that school officials created a coercive environment in promoting their personal religious beliefs in school and at school events. "The students are proceeding anonymously to avoid intimidation and threats of violence…," Mr. Mach said. Indeed, the list of complaints from those who are unwilling to go forward for fear of intimidation and possible violence "is far longer [than] the list of cases filed," according to Art Spitzer, another ACLU attorney. He said it is easier to win these cases in the courts, but religionist partisans win in the schools because "there are no judges in the principals' offices."

A friend in a northern Virginia high school said religious hectoring by students is "very aggressive and sometimes involves physical threats." He told of a young Jewish friend who is frequently told by other students that her religion is "wrong because you don't believe in God."

Judaism can be no less bullying, however, when it finds itself in the majority. Walk through Mea Shearim, an Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem. If you are a nonobservant Jew, or worse, a gentile, you risk being cursed or stoned. I was spat upon eight years ago for merely walking through the area once (no, it wasn't a Jewish holiday or Sabbath).

These incidents are rarely discussed because we fear giving offense. It's disingenuous, however, to pretend they do not occur. Intimidation is intimidation, whether it's found in Pakistan, Jerusalem, Florida, or northern Virginia.

Western civilization has become far too tolerant of religious intolerance that masquerades as freedom of religion. Young people today are taught not to be "judgmental," but without making critical judgments, how can we curtail threats to individual liberty? And amid such intellectual tapioca learning itself becomes irrelevant.

Zoe Oldenburg, a scholar of a most horrific outbreak of religious violence, the Roman Catholic Church's Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of the 13th century, wrote, "the essential value of any faith must be judged by the effect it produces in the lives of its devotees.…"

Religion should have a humanizing effect on its adherents. Civilizing barbarians was an original aim of Islam. Christianity is supposed to cultivate charity for all mankind. The original idea of loving thy neighbor as thyself was first articulated in Jewish Scripture. Yet when religion loses sight of its potential civilizing leaven, it risks merely becoming tyranny in subtler guise.

Thomas Jefferson swore "eternal hostility toward every tyranny over the mind of man." Today, however, political and religious leaders tend to snooze their way through the various manifestations of religious coercion and intimidation reminiscent of a darker medieval world.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.





http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0507/p09s01-coop.html

[Bman]

The government did nothing wrong except to host students in a one-size-fits-all socialist school. The government didn't bully the girl -- the kids did. The government didn't force her to pray. She refused. I doubt the girl didn't understand the consequences of objecting to a harmless prayer. Given how one-sided the expose was, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the girl publicly made her atheism known before and after. It isn't government's place to regulate students' behavior in such an intrusive way as others suggested.

I've never found anything as frustrating as self-made martyrs.

You're right, but this video is about the militant christian right and exposing the aggresion their ideas promote. These ideas need to be challenged. Of course so do all ideas. However the more aggressive the more you need to challenge it.

[PaulaGem]

The government did nothing wrong except to host students in a one-size-fits-all socialist school. The government didn't bully the girl -- the kids did. The government didn't force her to pray. She refused. I doubt the girl didn't understand the consequences of objecting to a harmless prayer. Given how one-sided the expose was, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the girl publicly made her atheism known before and after. It isn't government's place to regulate students' behavior in such an intrusive way as others suggested.

I've never found anything as frustrating as self-made martyrs.

And every thing you've ever said about any sort of "right", natural or political on this board is pure crap. You're just here to yank people's chain and mouth off.

[PaulaGem]

Letter: Anti-Discrimination Law Would Cut School Bullying, Suicides (Daily Gazette)
April 19, 2009


To to Editor:

The rash of student suicides at Schenectady High School demonstrates the urgent need for the Dignity for All Students Act [DASA], legislation that would empower educators in Schenectady and throughout the state to provide all students a safe, comfortable learning environment.

DASA, which the Assembly passed April 8, would amend state education law to protect public school students from harassment and discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ethnicity, religion, religious practice, weight, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. The bill's protections are not limited to these categories, as it aims to protect students from any harassment that substantially interferes with their education.

The bill would require teachers and staff to be trained to properly address instances of harassment and discrimination. It would require monitoring and reporting of such incidents.

School is a nightmare for students facing daily harassment. Victims of persistent harassment lose focus on class work, skip school, engage in drinking, drugs and other high-risk behaviors, and, most tragically, often contemplate suicide.

Gov. Paterson has endorsed DASA. The state Senate must quickly pass this important legislation.

The tragic suicides that rocked Schenectady High School demonstrate the terrible toll persistent bullying exacts on children. We can't wait another day.

Melanie Trimble
Director, Capital Region Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union


http://www.nyclu.org/node/2370

[american.swan]

This argument is a bit sad.

In this corner we have selfish self-righteous secular humanist arguing there is no God and the greatness of reason, insisting on moral principles because it's reasonable.

And in this corner we have selfish self-righteous Bible thumpers who feel special because they sit on a pew for a few hours a week, quote memorized prayers, and generally don't follow anything Christ told them to do.

Who will win?

If your beliefs are so "better than the rest", then put it into practice, be an example and shut up.

[PaulaGem]

Situational Interpretation

Legislation sounds like an excellent idea until you have to decide, what is normal kid behavior and harassment? What is free speech and where is the line drawn that allows a kid to be a kid and the labeling of the kid a criminal?

Free speech in schools has been a controversial question for decades. During the Vietnam War, the question went to the Supreme Court in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969. The case in question involved the suspension of students from a public high school because they wore black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Tinker Court held that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”. The court found that schools cannot repress free speech because it does not fall in line with the opinions of the school. The Supreme Court found that the school needs to have the ability and authority to keep peace in the school, but that free speech must be allowed. The Court determined that there must be a balancing act between free speech and expression that materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school…or impinge upon the rights of other students (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969).

The Supreme Court found that freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and the First Amendment, even within the confines of the schoolhouse.

Under the Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the states) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. The court properly reads it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But the court does not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969).

The Supreme Court did realize, though, that free speech does not mean anarchy. Free speech which impinges on the rights of others is not covered under the First Amendment and must be addresses in kind. The First Amendment does not allow a student to inflict emotional pain upon another student or encourage violence, verbal or physical, upon another student.
A student’s rights do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969).

The Court applied a rule known as the Substantial Disruption Standard to school free speech questions. Is the disruption substantial enough to warrant school intervention (Hart, 2005)? An example would be if a student advocated to others that they abuse another student. This would be a behavior that stands up to the Substantial Disruption Standard and the student who advocated the abuse would be punished. This is also an example of bullying by proxy.

A recent ruling in Saxe v. State College Area School District (3d. Circuit) found that a school’s anti-harassment rules were too broad and infringed upon the free speech rights of the student’s. The decision held that “damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children”. The plaintiff was seeking damages from the school for harassment suffered by a student under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The plaintiff felt that the school should have done more to stop the harassment. The Circuit Court felt that the act was not egregious enough to warrant holding the school responsible. The Circuit Court stated “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable” (Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d, 2001).

The Circuit Court did state:

Regulation of student speech is generally permissible only when the speech would substantially disrupt or interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students. This substantial disruption test requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance (Saxe v. State College Area School District, 2001).

This means that the disruption must be substantial enough to cause more than a mild case of hurt feelings. The school cannot punish a student for a remark with the fear that the remark will be substantially disruptive.

Do the State anti-bullying statutes inhibit free speech or allow for free speech until someone gets hurt?


The New Jersey harassment and bullying prevention statute defines the problem as:

“Harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory handicap, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school property, and at any school-sponsored function or on a school bus (New Jersey, 2007).

The statement above is representative of the State’s legislation. The legislative acts go on to emphasize that the harassment must be substantial, in keeping with the court’s rulings and allowing free speech to continue. The New Jersey statute goes onto state that “reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of harming the student…” This is an important point because it shows that the student intended harm and will weed out those students who are just insensitive and can be counseled on proper behavior (New Jersey, 2007).

Anti-stalking laws are very close to the anti-bully legislation passed. The Colorado Anti-stalking statute reads as:

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or

(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(d) Repealed.

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; or

(f) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another’s home or private residence or other private property; or

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response (Colorado, 2004).

The stalking statute is intended to protect the victim from unwanted attention from the stalker and any form of aggressive actions, whether they are verbal (obscene language) or physical. It is not affecting free speech as long as the speech or actions of one individual does not impede the physical, emotional, or mental safety of another. When free speech becomes aggressive or oppressive upon another, it is no longer worthy of freedom.

The stalking statute is excellent in identifying what constitutes harassment, but the basic difference between the stalking laws and anti-bullying laws is that the stalking laws demand that the perpetrator remain away from the victim at all times. In a school setting, this is not possible. The victim must see the tormentor every day and, often, in unsupervised areas. The best use of the stalking laws is in dealing with any bully behavior that occurs outside of school, especially cyber-stalking, which is stalking by computer.

Criticism of the anti-bullying legislation is that the legislation emphasizes regulation and punishment of the behavior instead of prevention. The Olweus Bully Prevention program emphasizes pro active interaction before the behaviors can lead to damage to the students or the school.

The Bully Prevention Program targets students in grade, middle, and junior high school levels. The entire student population is involved in the program with special interventions for identified bullies or victims. The program is implemented at three levels (D. Olweus et al., 1999):

1.School-wide level - Anonymous questionnaire is sent to students and used to assess the prevalence of bullying. Intervention is planned and the formation of a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee to run the program and identify areas of most concern.
2.Classroom level - Establishment and enforcement of rules against bullying and holding regular meetings with students to discuss areas of concern and teaching coping skills.
3.Individual level - Interventions with identified bullies and victims with the involvement of their parents of students involved.
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program concentrates on early intervention and the observation of the school staff. Early intervention can help the bully to deal with his anger and his reason for his behavior, whether it is behavioral or psychological. Early intervention can also help the victim of bullying to be protected from the constant harassment and future emotional and psychological issues. Identification of children prone to harassing behavior will allow for intervention in the behavior of the bully and allow for psychological evaluation and therapy. Early identification and intervention will be beneficial to the bully/victim, the other students, the staff, and in the future the general population (Marano, 1995).




http://www.conniewrite.com/?page_id=15

[Optatron]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

numbers game?

what's next? we take a vote who gets to be thrown in prison?

[max]

i have no sympathy for this little brat.

whats the big deal? She could have just remained silent and zone out.

Respect the traditions of those among you without making some "statement."...

I hate the national anthem being played before baseball games...I think its stupid and out of place....

but I still stand...I'm not gonna sit down and insult those people who worship the song. Just go with the flow

[Athan]

This whole topic does not help our cause of liberty. I'm an atheist trying to unite with pro-Constitutional Americans (the LAST REAL Americans left) of all faiths.

[Dr.3D]

This whole topic does not help our cause of liberty. I'm an atheist trying to unite with pro-Constitutional Americans (the LAST REAL Americans left) of all faiths.

You are absolutely correct. This is why I object to these kinds of threads being on the Liberty Forest forums. Ahhh... but alas, no one seems to know how to put an end to this type of behavior.

Emmm.. you better watch the Constitutional part though, there are around 40% here who believe we shouldn't have a Constitution.

[coyote_sprit]

i have no sympathy for this little brat.

whats the big deal? She could have just remained silent and zone out.

Respect the traditions of those among you without making some "statement."...

I hate the national anthem being played before baseball games...I think its stupid and out of place....

but I still stand...I'm not gonna sit down and insult those people who worship the song. Just go with the flow

You have every right to object to something by simply abstaining, fitting kills individuality IMHO. However don't get mad because someone voluntarily does what you are abstaining from.

[nbhadja]

i assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

bull shit.

[PaulaGem]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

Statistically speaking - that is absurd.



Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, in former and present Communist states, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[James Madison]

This argument is a bit sad.

In this corner we have selfish self-righteous secular humanist arguing there is no God and the greatness of reason, insisting on moral principles because it's reasonable.

And in this corner we have selfish self-righteous Bible thumpers who feel special because they sit on a pew for a few hours a week, quote memorized prayers, and generally don't follow anything Christ told them to do.

Who will win?

If your beliefs are so "better than the rest", then put it into practice, be an example and shut up.

Thread won.

[haaaylee]

And, after watching the rest of the video, it turns out Stossel did just that. A sob story followed with "surprising" statistics about the US being a Christian Nation.

I was surprised that the family actually sued the school. Are families going to sue schools because kids make fun of the gays, next? This kid looks like she could do with some verbal abuse.


seriously?

yeah, she needs some abuse. how dare a young teen have an opinion and hate being judged for it. what a brat!


ugh.

[haaaylee]

Ever hear about the atheist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia....which targetted MILLIONS of christians for extirmination?

Ever hear of Mao Chinese cultural Revolution...another atheistic gang of killers who targetted milliions Confucian followers.

Ever hear of the Jacobins of the French Revolution....atheists who murdered christians.

Truly religious people have never killed others in mass numbers. It is ALWAYS atheistic politicians ..sometimes USING RELIGION as a pretext that order the killimg

are you really attempting to say that Christians have never mass murdered?
maybe you need a history book ...


like was said below your comment, when atheists kill they don't kill 'cos they are atheists-- who are they killing for? they worship no higher being. so, you must look at their political views. however, i think i may have heard of many wars & battles fought in the name of god, by christians.

hmmm

[James Madison]

are you really attempting to say that Christians have never mass murdered?
maybe you need a history book ...


like was said below your comment, when atheists kill they don't kill 'cos they are atheists-- who are they killing for? they worship no higher being. so, you must look at their political views. however, i think i may have heard of many wars & battles fought in the name of god, by christians.

hmmm

I think he's trying to say that "Christian" mass murderers weren't really Christians. True Christianity does not advocate violence except in self defence.

[t0rnado]

Sure, she could have just joined the prayer since it was harmless, but sitting in the back of the bus doesn't cause any harm either. Letting the government wiretap your phones doesn't hurt anyone. Just go with the flow, right?

I remember seeing this video 3 or 4 years ago. The issue here wasn't that she was being castigated by her peers, but that she was removed from the basketball team because being and atheist wasn't good for morale. She stated that she was suspended for one day, but there has to be more to this story.

We need to remember that government will overstep it's bounds and tax you regardless of your views on religion. This crap is just avoiding the issue that public schools shouldn't exist in the first place. If there were no government run schools, this wouldn't even have been an issue.

[muh_roads]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only atheist who dislikes Dawkins. He wants to wage a war against those with religion and he is on a mission to ban their beliefs. What an asshole. A true atheist doesn't care about any of this shit and minds his/her own business.

It sucks they kick the girl out of the b-ball team though. They should be allowed to pray in their circle just as much as she should be allowed to refuse to join into it without the worry of getting kicked off the team. They technically have a case but they shouldn't pursue wanting to remove the fabric of religion from the majority who still want to hang onto it.

[literatim]

Assuming she wasn't just causing trouble as teenagers do.

[erowe1]

You certainly take a dim view of humanity. :( Shall we conclude that you would be OK with burning someone alive if it weren't for God's disapproval. Just askin'...

What do you mean by "OK"? If you mean, "not a sin," then, yes, as I said, if there were no God, then burning someone alive would not be a sin. It would not be morally wrong, there would not exist an absolute law according to which something like that could be judged right or wrong. There would be no way by which societies that practice human sacrifice could be deemed morally superior to those that do not. Their differing concepts of morality would be equally invalid. So really, if this girl wants to be an atheist, and stay consistent, then she has nothing to complain about of any greater weight than simply that these other people did something she personally didn't like.

[erowe1]

This girl litterally stood up for her religious beliefs, anyone who doesn't think that this is a Constitutionally protected right has no business pontificating about rights of any sort on this board.

The first 3 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law..." not "states..." or "school districts..." In fact, part of the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to protect the power of the states to establish whatever religion they wanted without fear of federal interference, which most of the original 13 did.

You can be against any and all establishment of religion at every level of government, but you can't play the Constitution card on that, unless you were referring to her state constitution.

[erowe1]

As for the body count argument, I agree with what someone else said, putting up the numbers of Christians killed in the name of atheism (millions) against the numbers of atheists killed in the name of Christianity (hundreds, maybe thousands), is kind of silly. I don't know what it is supposed to prove.

But the fact that some people are actually arguing against that on the basis of the facts of history is also ridiculous. Did someone really say that the murder of Christians in China and the Soviet Union, and other communist countries were not atheist causes? Literally killing someone for being a Christian instead of an atheist doesn't count as an atheist cause?

[PaulaGem]

What do you mean by "OK"? If you mean, "not a sin," then, yes, as I said, if there were no God, then burning someone alive would not be a sin. It would not be morally wrong, there would not exist an absolute law according to which something like that could be judged right or wrong. There would be no way by which societies that practice human sacrifice could be deemed morally superior to those that do not. Their differing concepts of morality would be equally invalid. So really, if this girl wants to be an atheist, and stay consistent, then she has nothing to complain about of any greater weight than simply that these other people did something she personally didn't like.

Please reference the Federal Court decisions in post 55.

Also see the other two articles about children committing suicide over bullying. In Colorado (since Columbine) schools have a very firm "zero tolerance" standard concerning bullies.

[erowe1]

Please reference the Federal Court decisions in post 55.

Also see the other two articles about children committing suicide over bullying. In Colorado (since Columbine) schools have a very firm "zero tolerance" standard concerning bullies.

I don't get it. Did you mean to reply to some other post? What does any of what you said have to do with the quote you included from me?

[PaulaGem]

The first 3 words of the 1st Amendment are, "Congress shall make no law..." not "states..." or "school districts..." In fact, part of the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to protect the power of the states to establish whatever religion they wanted without fear of federal interference, which most of the original 13 did.

You can be against any and all establishment of religion at every level of government, but you can't play the Constitution card on that, unless you were referring to her state constitution.



The Supreme Court found that freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and the First Amendment, even within the confines of the schoolhouse.

Under the Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact. Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots. The Constitution says that Congress (and the states) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. The court properly reads it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But the court does not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969).

The Supreme Court did realize, though, that free speech does not mean anarchy. Free speech which impinges on the rights of others is not covered under the First Amendment and must be addresses in kind. The First Amendment does not allow a student to inflict emotional pain upon another student or encourage violence, verbal or physical, upon another student.
A student’s rights do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and without colliding with the rights of others. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech (Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 1969).

The Court applied a rule known as the Substantial Disruption Standard to school free speech questions. Is the disruption substantial enough to warrant school intervention (Hart, 2005)? An example would be if a student advocated to others that they abuse another student. This would be a behavior that stands up to the Substantial Disruption Standard and the student who advocated the abuse would be punished. This is also an example of bullying by proxy.



From post #55

[PaulaGem]

I don't get it. Did you mean to reply to some other post? What does any of what you said have to do with the quote you included from me?

Sorry, just got up. It was in reply to your post #71.

[RevolutionSD]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

How about some numbers/stats to back this up?

I don't think it's even close. Religion has been the source of most wars and far more deaths than atheism. When have people been crusading for atheism? I can't remember that ever happening.

[erowe1]

Oh, yeah, I don't deny that the Supreme Court is on your side. I was just pointing out that the U.S. Constitution clearly isn't, provided it's not some living document whose meaning changes according to whatever is necessary to let government do what the Cosntitution formerly said it couldn't. That's not debatable.

Surely you don't expect Ron Paul supporters to let a bunch of liberal Supreme Court justices tell them how they're supposed to read the Constitution do you?

[PaulaGem]

As for the body count argument, I agree with what someone else said, putting up the numbers of Christians killed in the name of atheism (millions) against the numbers of atheists killed in the name of Christianity (hundreds, maybe thousands), is kind of silly. I don't know what it is supposed to prove.

But the fact that some people are actually arguing against that on the basis of the facts of history is also ridiculous. Did someone really say that the murder of Christians in China and the Soviet Union, and other communist countries were not atheist causes? Literally killing someone for being a Christian instead of an atheist doesn't count as an atheist cause?

The point is that actual athiests are a very small percentage, to believe that they have overpowered and murdered millions of Christians is the abusurdity.

Christians however, don't play favorites. The Roman Christians started killing other Christians in the second century and Christians have been murdering indiscriminately ever since. The argument that they weren't really Christians because real Christians wouldn't kill is stupid. The murdering was done under the full power and authority of the official church, complete with Biblical arguments as to why it was OK. The Bible is the SAME BIBLE used by all Christians today, canonized under the direction of the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine.

[PaulaGem]

Oh, yeah, I don't deny that the Supreme Court is on your side. I was just pointing out that the U.S. Constitution clearly isn't, provided it's not some living document whose meaning changes according to whatever is necessary to let government do what the Cosntitution formerly said it couldn't. That's not debatable.

Surely you don't expect Ron Paul supporters to let a bunch of liberal Supreme Court justices tell them how they're supposed to read the Constitution do you?

The Constitution says that they are the ones who have the responsibility of judicial interpretation of the laws of the land. That includes the Constitution.

If Ron Paul Supporters claim to uphold the Constitution they need to uphold that part of it too. I am certain Mr. Paul would agree.

He may want to see different judges and a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean that he has a legal right to interpret the law in any other way. That's why the changes have to come from the bottom up, or we have to scrap the whole system.

We have people from all over the country here saying Ron Paul this, Ron Paul that. What about in your own back yard? Do we have people running for city council that will take a stand for Constitutional law enforcement on the local level? Where are they?

And I keep asking this, but no one answers.... What are you doing about getting an honest vote so you can get the people in congress and the presidency that would support your interpretation of the Constitution?

[erowe1]

How about some numbers/stats to back this up?

I don't think it's even close. Religion has been the source of most wars and far more deaths than atheism. When have people been crusading for atheism? I can't remember that ever happening.

That's ridiculous. Various religions (including atheism) have been the sources of certain deaths and oppressions. But I doubt that religions themselves (including atheism) have ever been the cause of any wars, including the crusades. Wars are fought over the control of land, people, and capital. The crusades were no exception. And in the crusades there was no atheist party being oppressed. It was the peoples of one area against the peoples of another area, and as is often the case when you have peoples of different areas, they were of different religions (Islam and Christianity). I also don't see how any fair history of the crusades can paint the Arab side as always (or even usually) innocent victims and the European side as always (or even usually) blatant aggressors.

As for atheists killing people of other religions for their religious views, the 20th century is full of examples, numbering in the millions. Here's something to get you started:
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/05/atrocities-of-atheism-episode-ii.html

Again, the argument of comparing body counts is really pointless. But if you want to argue the facts, atheism far outnumbers all other religions in the number of people whom its adherents killed on religious grounds, especially over the past century.

[erowe1]

The Constitution says that they are the ones who have the responsibility of judicial interpretation of the laws of the land. That includes the Constitution.


No it doesn't. They and every other federal official take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes they break those oaths. It is not OK for them to do that. But they do, as in the example you gave, where they overturned the 1st Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the federal government from enacting laws respecting (i.e. having anything to do with) the establishment of religion. So preventing states from establishing religions as they choose is clearly against that, and it was to prevent that very threat that the 1st Amendment was even included. The justices who rule that way should be impeached for it (which is in the Constitution).

[Dr.3D]

The point is that actual athiests are a very small percentage, to believe that they have overpowered and murdered millions of Christians is the abusurdity.

Christians however, don't play favorites. The Roman Christians started killing other Christians in the second century and Christians have been murdering indiscriminately ever since. The argument that they weren't really Christians because real Christians wouldn't kill is stupid. The murdering was done under the full power and authority of the official church, complete with Biblical arguments as to why it was OK. The Bible is the SAME BIBLE used by all Christians today, canonized under the direction of the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine.

B.S.


Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible
By Richard M. Fales, Ph.D.

No other ancient book is questioned or maligned like the Bible. Critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span between the time the events in the New Testament occurred and when they were recorded. They claim another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made and the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and so called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.

Manuscript Evidence.

Aristotle’s Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 B.C. The earliest copy of this work dates A.D. 1100, and there are only forty-nine extant manuscripts. The gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1,400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato’s Tetralogies, written 427–347 B.C. The earliest copy is A.D. 900—a gap of over 1,200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. The New Testament was written between A.D. 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest A.D. 125. This gives us a narrow gap of thirty-five to forty years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. So the bottom
line is, there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies.

With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2,000 years ago. Corroborating Writings. Critics also charge that there are no ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings confirming His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70–200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115–117), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after A.D. 73), and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (A.D. 120).
Another point of contention arises when Bible critics have knowingly or unknowingly misled people by implying that Old and New Testament books were either excluded from or added into the canon of Scripture at the great ecumenical councils of A.D. 336, 382, 397, and 419. In fact, one result of these gatherings was to confirm the Church’s belief that the books already in the Bible were divinely inspired. Therefore, the Church, at these meetings, neither added to nor took away from the books of the Bible. At that time, the thirty-nine Old Testament books had already been accepted, and the New Testament, as it was written, simply grew up with the ancient Church. Each document, being accepted as it was penned in the first century, was then passed on to Christians of the next century. So, this foolishness about the Roman Emperor Constantine dropping books from the Bible is simply uneducated rumor.

[PaulaGem]

B.S.


Introduction:

1. 303 AD the Roman Emperor, Diocletian calls for the destruction of all the scriptures of the Christians. Obviously there must have been a set of books (a canon) so well defined and universally accepted, that even outsiders knew which books the Christians considered as scripture.
2. The edict of Diocletian, therefore shows that long before the first extant "canon lists" came along, a canon already existed. It also forced the Christians to meditate on the subject of which books were most sacred and inspired.
3. So with the solders knocking at the door and the Christian inside, as Everet puts it: "for the most part they knew what books the soldiers were looking for". (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 317, 2002)
4. There must have been a well defined canon at this time.
5. In a most providential twist of events, Roman Emperor Constantine a few years later, enlisted the help of Eusebius, to create 50 copies in codex form, of the entire Bible. Although know one knows for sure what was in this Bible and no definite copies have been located, it proves a definite canon existed in the time period of 275 - 315 AD.


http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-diocletians-destruction-constantines-production-scripture.htm

[erowe1]

http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-diocletians-destruction-constantines-production-scripture.htm

I don't get it, earlier you said the canon was created under the authority of Constantine. And now you're trying to support that by quoting a source that explains how it already existed before that. Which do you think it is?

Incidentally, I didn't even bother arguing with all the historical inaccuracies in that post that Dr.3D replied to. But, as your name suggests, they really are some gems. Roman Christians began killing other Christians in the 2nd Century AD? Really? I don't suppose you can point to any primary source documents (i.e. ancient texts) that talk about this can you? And Christians have been killing indiscriminately ever since? Really? Wow.

I don't deny that there are historical cases of Christians killing on religious grounds (although, as I said above, this doesn't include the Crusades any more than it does the American Civil War). You might even be able to show that over history Christians (using the term in its broadest sense) have overseen the murder of thousands of people on the basis of their religion, including other Christians, such as one of my heroes, John Huss. But this pales in comparison to the millions of religious people who were murdered by atheist regimes on account of their religion, just in the 20th century.

[PaulaGem]

No it doesn't. They and every other federal official take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Sometimes they break those oaths. It is not OK for them to do that. But they do, as in the example you gave, where they overturned the 1st Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the federal government from enacting laws respecting (i.e. having anything to do with) the establishment of religion. So preventing states from establishing religions as they choose is clearly against that, and it was to prevent that very threat that the 1st Amendment was even included. The justices who rule that way should be impeached for it (which is in the Constitution).


To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html

[PaulaGem]

I don't get it, earlier you said the canon was created under the authority of Constantine. And now you're trying to support that by quoting a source that explains how it already existed before that. Which do you think it is?

OK - I'll rephrase - Constantine made the first Bibles. There was an informal canon in existance before that that was generally accepted, but he is the one that first put it down in one book and made if formal. There may have been some adjustments after that, but Constantine is the one who gave the Roman Church and the "Bible" its power and authority. Not God.

[erowe1]

OK - I'll rephrase - Constantine made the first Bibles. There was an informal canon in existance before that that was generally accepted, but he is the one that first put it down in one book and made if formal. There may have been some adjustments after that, but Constantine is the one who gave the Roman Church and the "Bible" its power and authority. Not God.

So what about all the Christians who quoted the books of the Bible as the word of God before Constantine (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., to say nothing of the quotes of the Old Testament as the word of God all throughout the New Testament)? And what about manuscripts like P46 and dozens of others from the 2nd and 3rd centuries that already had multiple books bound together? Do you think they saw the Bible as less authoritative than Christians after the time of Constantine just because it hadn't gotten a formal stamp of approval from the government? Why would Diocletian have wanted to destroy Bibles if that were the case?

[RevolutionSD]

That's ridiculous. Various religions (including atheism) have been the sources of certain deaths and oppressions. But I doubt that religions themselves (including atheism) have ever been the cause of any wars, including the crusades. Wars are fought over the control of land, people, and capital. The crusades were no exception. And in the crusades there was no atheist party being oppressed. It was the peoples of one area against the peoples of another area, and as is often the case when you have peoples of different areas, they were of different religions (Islam and Christianity). I also don't see how any fair history of the crusades can paint the Arab side as always (or even usually) innocent victims and the European side as always (or even usually) blatant aggressors.

As for atheists killing people of other religions for their religious views, the 20th century is full of examples, numbering in the millions. Here's something to get you started:
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/05/atrocities-of-atheism-episode-ii.html

Again, the argument of comparing body counts is really pointless. But if you want to argue the facts, atheism far outnumbers all other religions in the number of people whom its adherents killed on religious grounds, especially over the past century.

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's the lack of belief in a god.

So where are your examples of atheism being responsible for a significant number of deaths?

[RevolutionSD]

Communists who suppress religion, btw, do so because they want everyone worshiping the state. They do not do so in the name of atheism itself!

When have their been mass killings in the name of atheism?

[erowe1]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html

Well at least you admit to believing in a living document version of the Constitution.

I won't bother refuting that now. I take for granted that other RP supporters already reject that. But just notice that you started out by saying the public school in the OP clearly acted against the Constitution. And then when I showed you that that wasn't the case, and that not only does the Constitution not clearly prohibit that, but it does clearly prohibit the federal government from intervening, you had to resort to a Supreme Court case. If the Constitution were so clear, you wouldn't have needed some lawyers to tell you how to make it say what you wanted, you'd just be able to point to it. And now, again rather than pointing to the Constitution itself, you point to a pro-living document web site to support that view so that people, on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling might then agree that the Constitution has changed its meaning so that nowadays states can't establish religions any more like the Constitution originally said they could.

I won't say you can't believe all that. But it is strange that you would resort to such circuitous argumentation to support something you originally said was "clearly" in the Constitution.

[erowe1]

Communists who suppress religion, btw, do so because they want everyone worshiping the state. They do not do so in the name of atheism itself!

When have their been mass killings in the name of atheism?

Same thing. They want people to give total allegiance to the state. The state religion is set up as atheism to support that goal and prevent people from having other religions that would take the place of the state. And to that end they killed members of other religions for not being atheists by the millions.

If you can't count that as killing in the name of atheism, then you can't count any examples at all of Christians killing in the name of Christianity either.

[PaulaGem]

So what about all the Christians who quoted the books of the Bible as the word of God before Constantine (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., to say nothing of the quotes of the Old Testament as the word of God all throughout the New Testament)? And what about manuscripts like P46 and dozens of others from the 2nd and 3rd centuries that already had multiple books bound together? Do you think they saw the Bible as less authoritative than Christians after the time of Constantine just because it hadn't gotten a formal stamp of approval from the government? Why would Diocletian have wanted to destroy Bibles if that were the case?


I think it is important to deal with this question not only from the standpoint of literary, form, or rhetorical criticism, but also from the standpoint of textual criticism. I think the days when any NT text critic would publish an edition of the Greek Testament with the title The NT in the Original Greek, as Westcott and Hort did, are long gone. We don't have "the original Greek." We have a scholarly reconstruction of the Greek text that circulated in the church in, generally speaking, somewhere between the 2nd and 4th centuries C.E. at the very earliest. I don't know of any dating of P46 earlier than 200 C.E. And Zuntz showed that P46 was a corrected text. So, since Paul generally wrote in the 50s, and our earliest MS. of most of the corpus paulinum can be dated as early as 200, we have a considerable length of time, well over a century, for various things to happen to the Greek text.
Given what Koester showed in his dissertation, Synoptische Ueberlieferung bei den Apostolischen V?ter, namely that the 2nd century quotes of the synoptic gospels don't match the Greek NT text that we now reconstruct, I often wonder whether, if we had MSS. of the Pauline corpus dating before 200 C.E., we would really have a firm text, or whether we would have rather different texts of Paul perhaps in different regions or among church people of different theological persuasions.
There are a lot of partition theories of both 1 and 2 Corinthians, going back as far as Johannes Weiss in his brilliant 1910 Meyer-Kommentar on 1 Corinthians. Betz gives a lengthy history of partitioning of 2 Corinthians in the intro. of his 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 (Hermeneia). So the answer to your question, Liz, is that there have been a lot of very respectable scholars who have proposed partition theories of both 1 and 2 Corinthians or of 2 Corinthians. These include Johannes Weiss, G?nther Bornkamm, Wolfgang Schenk, Walter Schmithals, Rudolf Bultmann, Philipp Vielhauer, Gerhard Sellin, Dieter Georgi, and Robert Jewett. Quite a number of people have proposed partitioning Philippians (I'm not convinced one way or the other on Philippians). A few people would like to cut 2:14-16 out of 1 Thessalonians, but the strong consensus (which I have joined) is against this. T. W. Manson and others wanted to hack off the 16th chapter of Romans, but Kurt Aland and Harry Gamble quite independently have confirmed the original 16 chapter form of that letter.
So to make a long story short, I think it's an open question, and should be explored on a letter-by-letter basi

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990516/000710.html

As I stated in an earlier post, the Roman Church was gathering power, redacting the Bible and murdering Christians for a century or two before Constantine. Why would Diocletian wanted to destroy the Christian books? Because they were getting too powerful.

Constantine adopted the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.

[erowe1]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's the lack of belief in a god.

So where are your examples of atheism being responsible for a significant number of deaths?

I won't waste time nitpicking whether we define the word "religion" in such a way as to include atheism or not. Some of the numbers of just one of many examples are in that link I gave in the post you replied to. These are cases of people being killed because of not being atheists. If those don't count as killings in the name of atheism, then you have restricted the criteria so much that we must now conclude that nobody has ever been killed in the name of any religion anywhere ever.

[erowe1]

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990516/000710.html

The person who wrote that must not be a NT scholar. There has been plenty of work on P46, including multiple paleographers who date it prior to 200 AD. And that's beside the point. It and many other manuscripts are well older than Constantine anyway.

And as for the rest of that quote, it's pointless. Of course we don't have the original documents, just like we don't have originals of Homer, or Plato, or any other ancient text. But we have the text in thousands of copies, including dozens from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (a very short span of time after the originals, much less than any other well-known ancient texts). This text does not result either from the work of Constantine or of the modern New Testament textual critics. It results from the original authors who wrote the various books and the scribes who copied them.

The idea that the Roman church was redacting the text, or even had the power to do that before Constantine is also false. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries there was no central church that could dictate what the Bible would be for other churches, not in Rome or anywhere else. So there would be no way to get rid of all the unredacted Bibles, and we would be forced to conclude that our early extant manuscripts reflect the range of differences that actually existed at that time, and not some redacted version. Nor does anything in what you quoted support your claim about Rome, including the reference to Koester's work, with which I'm quite familiar, whose chief claims are only accepted by a minority of text critics anyway.

[PaulaGem]

Well at least you admit to believing in a living document version of the Constitution.

I won't bother refuting that now. I take for granted that other RP supporters already reject that. But just notice that you started out by saying the public school in the OP clearly acted against the Constitution. And then when I showed you that that wasn't the case, and that not only does the Constitution not clearly prohibit that, but it does clearly prohibit the federal government from intervening, you had to resort to a Supreme Court case. If the Constitution were so clear, you wouldn't have needed some lawyers to tell you how to make it say what you wanted, you'd just be able to point to it. And now, again rather than pointing to the Constitution itself, you point to a pro-living document web site to support that view so that people, on the basis of a Supreme Court ruling might then agree that the Constitution has changed its meaning so that nowadays states can't establish religions any more like the Constitution originally said they could.

I won't say you can't believe all that. But it is strange that you would resort to such circuitous argumentation to support something you originally said was "clearly" in the Constitution.

The parents and the girl had the right to appeal to the courts (sue) and have them determine if the harassment was sufficient meet the standard set by the court.


First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The girl had the right to say she was an atheist and stand on the sidelines during the "official prayer" without getting kicked out of school.

Oklahoma State Constitution:


§51-255. Construction.

A. Nothing in this act shall be construed to:

1. Authorize any government entity to substantially burden any religious belief;

[PaulaGem]

Original and Early State Constitutions
(Regarding religion)

The struggle for religious freedom began with the states. It was a roller coaster type struggle: frequently provisions in newly written Constitutions and statutes were in conflict with each other and actual practice.

Research and writing by Jim Allison
I

When the original thirteen colony/states began writing their own constitutions in 1776, four of those colony/states [Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania]had never had an establishment of religion. The greater part of New York, had never had an establishment of religion. However, there were four counties in the area around New York City that did have an establishment. The other eight colony/states did have some form of an establishment of religion.

An establishment of religion, in terms of direct tax aid to churches, was the situation in nine of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the American revolution. (1)

Within a period of seventeen years, that had been reversed. By approximately 1791, nine of eleven states that ratified the amendments of 1789 had ended that support.

As Leonard Levy sums it up:

The First Amendment bans laws respecting an establishment of religion. Most of the framers of that amendment very probably meant that government should not promote, sponsor, or subsidize religion because it is best left to private voluntary support for the sake of religion itself as well as for government, and above all for the sake of the individual. Some of the framers undoubtedly believed that government should maintain a close relationship with religion, that is, with Protestantism, and that people should support taxes for the benefit of their own churches and ministers. The framers who came from Massachusetts and Connecticut certainly believed this, as did the representatives of New Hampshire, but New Hampshire was the only one of these New England states that ratified the First Amendment. Of the eleven states that ratified the First Amendment, New Hampshire and Vermont were probably the only ones in which a majority of the people believed that the government should support religion. In all the other ratifying states, a majority very probably opposed such support. But whether those who framed and ratified the First Amendment believed in government aid to religion or in its private voluntary support, the fact is that no framer believed that the United States had or should have power to legislate on the subject of religion, and no state supported that power either.(2)

The process of formal disestablishment would be quick and fairly painless is some states while in others, such as Virginia, the process would require a much longer fight--approximately ten years, and in still others (in the New England area) the process would go on well into the 1800s. Connecticut would disestablish in 1818, New Hampshire would disestablish in 1819 and Massachusetts would disestablish in 1833]

In 1776, eight states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia) wrote constitutions. These were followed by New York, and Georgia in 1777, and Massachusetts in 1780. Connecticut and Rhode Island elected to continuing operating under their charters and (until 1818 in the case of Connecticut and 1843 in the case of Rhode Island). The fourteenth state, Vermont, actually wrote its first constitution in 1777.

The learning curve for constitution writing and application coupled with the events of the War for Independence, the experiment under the Articles of Confederation, the formation of the new central government and finally the amendments added to that national constitution would cause many of these original constitutions to be rewritten and revised at least once and in some cases more then once by 1800:

* In 1778 South Carolina wrote its second constitution.
* In 1784 New Hampshire revised its original constitution, which had only been an outline.
* In 1786 Vermont revised its original constitution.
* In 1789 Georgia revised its original constitution.
* In 1790 South Carolina revised its second constitution.
* In 1790 Pennsylvania revised its original constitution.
* In 1792 Delaware revised its original constitution.
* In 1792 Kentucky wrote its first constitution.
* In 1793 New Hampshire extensively amended, rearranged and clarified its 1784 constitution.
* In 1796 Tennessee wrote its first constitution.
* In 1798 Georgia revised its revised constitution.
* In 1799 Kentucky revised its original constitution.

http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm

[Krugerrand]

Just think how much less arguing we would have if we just got rid of public schools entirely.

[erowe1]

Oklahoma State Constitution:

Which is why my first response to you included the caveat "unless you meant the state, and not federal, constitution."

Obviously that wasn't what you originally meant, though, or else you wouldn't have gone through all those gymnastics trying to make a case based on the federal Constitution being a living document.

As for the treatment of the girl being against her state constitution, I concede that point.

[erowe1]

http://candst.tripod.com/cnstntro.htm

Exactly my point. When the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had established religions and the 1st Amendment explicitly protected their right to have them without risk of federal interference.

[PaulaGem]

The idea that the Roman church was redacting the text, or even had the power to do that before Constantine is also false. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries there was no central church that could dictate what the Bible would be for other churches, not in Rome or anywhere else. So there would be no way to get rid of all the unredacted Bibles, and we would be forced to conclude that our early extant manuscripts reflect the range of differences that actually existed at that time, and not some redacted version. Nor does anything in what you quoted support your claim about Rome, including the reference to Koester's work, with which I'm quite familiar, whose chief claims are only accepted by a minority of text critics anyway.

You named several of the proto-orthodox church fathers in an earlier quote. This was the Roman Church that I referred to and they were the ones doing the redacting.


Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.” “…For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind …” “And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.” (Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).

The Manichean, anti-Augustine Bishop Faustus himself noted that :”Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since � as already it has been often proved � these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.”

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) founder of the Jesuits, writes: “We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.”

Martin Luther, in private correspondence, argued: “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossm�thigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia even makes a few admissions: “The accounts given … concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor’s gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary.”

http://thephilsopherprophetoftheeden...right-to-know/

Originally posted and argued in the thread below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197315&highlight=bible&page=9

[PaulaGem]

Exactly my point. When the Constitution was ratified, most of the states had established religions and the 1st Amendment explicitly protected their right to have them without risk of federal interference.

But shortly thereafter they amended their constitutions to be in agreement with the first amendment and in support of the individual rights outlined in the first amendment.

[Andrew-Austin]

Fallacies:

1. _____ mass murderer was a theist.
2. Therefor, theists are bad.

1. _____ mass murderer was an atheist.
2. Therefor, atheists are bad.

Cut this moronic shit out already.

[InterestedParticipant]

Herbert Marcuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse) of the Frankfurt school of Social Research would be so proud to see his techniques being so effectively utilized.


Basically, they found that Marx's theory of social change through middle class revolution did not work, as they could not get the middle classes to revolt, giving the elite an opportunity to "change" society to their liking through the leverage of dialectics. So, along comes Markuse who finds that the same outcomes can be accomplished by creating small "victims groups" who can create revolution that places the sufficient pressures on society to create the desired change.

Here, we have a new victim group being created and publicized, and that is the atheist victims group. Watch for it, and watch for how they leverage it to create some sort of dialectic synthesis, which will most likely focus on containment of individuals of faith, who must be destroyed as part of their plans for ultimate control over the individual.

[angelatc]

I think there are two things that people in the Liberty movement need to drift away from: 9/11 Truth and Religion.

Just my 2 cents.

Well, I'm not religious, but I don't want to hang out with a bunch of intolerant athiests. I"ll hang with Ron Paul while you drift away without me.

[CCTelander]

Well, I'm not religious, but I don't want to hang out with a bunch of intolerant athiests. I"ll hang with Ron Paul while you drift away without me.

In my experience, most atheists I know are much more tolerant than most of the Christians I know, but I don't claim that one could generalize that to the entire populations of either Atheists or Christians.

[ScoutsHonor]

What do you mean by "OK"? If you mean, "not a sin," then, yes, as I said, if there were no God, then burning someone alive would not be a sin. It would not be morally wrong, there would not exist an absolute law according to which something like that could be judged right or wrong. There would be no way by which societies that practice human sacrifice could be deemed morally superior to those that do not. Their differing concepts of morality would be equally invalid. .

I doubt that you really believe this, it's too glaringly wrong. I think only the most barbaric society could calmly accept burning someone alive as a neutral act. It doesn't take a gigantic IQ (or a commandment) to realize that life is precious, and I'm sure most of us realized that at a very early age. (If such a backward group did exist, I doubt they' be able to maintain any kind of workable society for any length of time anyway, so they would not last long.)


"So really, if this girl wants to be an atheist, and stay consistent, then she has nothing to complain about of any greater weight than simply that these other people did something she personally didn't like."


Being an atheist doesn't mean being without values. She is still a thinking, reasoning human being and LIFE is a precious value. Thus, the girl's right to
complain (about being burned alive) is based upon the claim that she (as does everyone) has the right to life. That seems like a mighty powerful, legitimate
argument to me.

[gls]

solution: abolish public schools

[coyote_sprit]

Fallacies:

1. _____ mass murderer was a theist.
2. Therefor, theists are bad.

1. _____ mass murderer was an atheist.
2. Therefor, atheists are bad.

Cut this moronic shit out already.

Problem
Reaction
Solution

[Krugerrand]

solution: abolish public schools

agreed

[angelatc]

In my experience, most atheists I know are much more tolerant than most of the Christians I know, but I don't claim that one could generalize that to the entire populations of either Atheists or Christians.

There is blatant hate of CHristians in this country, and I want nothing to do with it. Attacking political candidates because they have faith is routine.

Stumbling around the internet, I see a plethora of atheist-run Christian bashing sites. I never see the opposite.

I'm not religious, but the atheists are as hostile and aggressive as the socialists. I tolerate them, but I'd never advocate changing the platform to suit them. They represent the worst of humanity.

[erowe1]

You named several of the proto-orthodox church fathers in an earlier quote. This was the Roman Church that I referred to and they were the ones doing the redacting.



http://thephilsopherprophetoftheeden...right-to-know/

Originally posted and argued in the thread below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197315&highlight=bible&page=9

First, you explicitly said you were talking about the Roman church redacting the Bible prior to the time of Constantine, and even as early as the 2nd century. Not a single thing in the quote you posted mentions any of that. None of the examples are prior to Constantine. And some aren't even about the Bible at all. And the so-called Roman church in those examples is the Roman Catholic Church, which is something that didn't even exist in the 2nd century AD. Back then the church in Rome was just a church in Rome.

Second, when talking about early Christianity, the term "proto-orthodox" includes all of apostolic Christianity, as opposed to heretical groups, and the Church in Rome, more than any other place, is considered an example of proto-orthodox Christianity. Furthermore, the very list of Church Fathers I gave included Clement of Rome. The "of Rome" means exactly that.

Third, you apparently don't even grasp the logic of the very argument you're reciting. When you say that this one little church in Rome redacted the Bible, so as to make a difference on the Bibles that we now use, then you must imagine that one church to have had some kind of authority to affect the Bibles of other churches outside Rome. This is clearly contrary to history. The church in Rome in the 2nd century had no authority over any other churches, and certainly no ability to make them use a Bible it had redacted. Our manuscript evidence for the New Testament on which modern editions are based includes dozens of manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries from churches other than Rome. But if you think our Bible is based on some Roman redaction, then why don't these manuscripts from all over the Eastern Mediterranean (i.e. the territory of most of the Church Fathers I listed) have significantly different readings than this Roman redaction you imagine to have been so important?

And you additionally asserted that the Bible was not read by Christians as the word of God until after Constantine formalized it. The whole point of that list of Church Fathers was to list examples (and I can easily lengthen the list if you need more) of Christians before Constantine, both in Rome and everywhere else that Christianity existed, who read the Bible as the Word of God.

[erowe1]

I doubt that you really believe this, it's too glaringly wrong. I think only the most barbaric society could calmly accept burning someone alive as a neutral act. It doesn't take a gigantic IQ (or a commandment) to realize that life is precious, and I'm sure most of us realized that at a very early age. (If such a backward group did exist, I doubt they' be able to maintain any kind of workable society for any length of time anyway, so they would not last long.)


"So really, if this girl wants to be an atheist, and stay consistent, then she has nothing to complain about of any greater weight than simply that these other people did something she personally didn't like."


Being an atheist doesn't mean being without values. She is still a thinking, reasoning human being and LIFE is a precious value. Thus, the girl's right to
complain (about being burned alive) is based upon the claim that she (as does everyone) has the right to life. That seems like a mighty powerful, legitimate
argument to me.

I never said that atheists can't think that burning someone alive is wrong. I just said that if there is no God, then burning someone alive can't actually be wrong. If there is no God, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong by which you can judge those societies that burn people alive and declare them barbaric and thus wrong (as opposed to merely "not workable"), nor a standard by which you can say that life is precious in an absolute sense (precious to you, sure, but not in any absolute moral way).

This doesn't mean that atheists can't believe the truth that there is an absolute moral law. They can. After all they are made in God's image just like the rest of us. It's just that such a belief does not comport with their world view.

[Feenix566]

If there is no God, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

[erowe1]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

By the definitions of the words "absolute," "right," "wrong," and "God." The concept of an absolute moral law is one that cannot simply be a social convention or a personal preference, nor even can it depend on the existence of human beings at all. It is, again, by the simple ordinary definition of those words, a law that exists independently of human beings, and is, like the laws of math and logic, universal (i.e. absolute, separate). Its lawgiver, thus, can't be a human being or a society or even the sum of all humans ever living agreeing in total unison. It must be a moral agent of universal authority, which is, by definition, God.

None of this, of course, proves that an absolute moral code, and thus also a God who gave it, exists, just that the former can't exist if the latter doesn't also.

[ChickenHawk]

The worst people I've ever met were either very religious or atheists. The best people I've ever met were either religious or agnostic. Although there are a lot of real jackasses out there that are religious many of the most snug, arrogant, intolerant bastards I've ever met were atheists. Almost everyone I've ever met that claimed to be agnostic seemed to be a decent honest person. I think that there is something inherently honest and humble about being agnostic. Most people aren't willing to admit that they just don't know. I consider myself an honest person and I am a Christian. However, I openly admit that I cannot prove there is a god. That's why it's called faith.

[Objectivist]

I assure you...the number of believers who have been persecuted and murdered by intolerant atheists is far greater than vice versa...

The interesting thing about this comment is that it is a lie. Are you a christian?

[PaulaGem]

First, you explicitly said you were talking about the Roman church redacting the Bible prior to the time of Constantine, and even as early as the 2nd century. Not a single thing in the quote you posted mentions any of that.

The quote shows a Christian tradition of lying to the people and calling it "Biblical".


The Manichean, anti-Augustine Bishop Faustus himself noted that :”Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since � as already it has been often proved � these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.”

This guy was much closer in time to the facts and a member of the Church. Just because he was declared a heretic by the Romans doesn't mean that his testimony is to be discounted. "Our Ancestors" would be between his time and the time of Yeshua - prior to Constantine.


And the so-called Roman church in those examples is the Roman Catholic Church, which is something that didn't even exist in the 2nd century AD. Back then the church in Rome was just a church in Rome.

The proto-orthodox Roman Church deified Christ and developed the doctrine of the Trinity. It became the "Roman Catholic" vial a political process, but the development is clear.


Second, when talking about early Christianity, the term "proto-orthodox" includes all of apostolic Christianity, as opposed to heretical groups, and the Church in Rome, more than any other place, is considered an example of proto-orthodox Christianity. Furthermore, the very list of Church Fathers I gave included Clement of Rome. The "of Rome" means exactly that.

And "apostolic Christianity", "heretical groups" were defined by those powerful Roman Bishops who allied with Constantine to create the mix of paganism and original Christian beliefs that were declared "orthodox".




Third, you apparently don't even grasp the logic of the very argument you're reciting. When you say that this one little church in Rome redacted the Bible, so as to make a difference on the Bibles that we now use, then you must imagine that one church to have had some kind of authority to affect the Bibles of other churches outside Rome.


This is why the Nag Hammadi scrolls were hidden.

The redaction came early, they brought the hammer down when they became strong enough politically. Why do you think we don't have any of the early manuscripts?


This is clearly contrary to history. The church in Rome in the 2nd century had no authority over any other churches, and certainly no ability to make them use a Bible it had redacted. Our manuscript evidence for the New Testament on which modern editions are based includes dozens of manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries from churches other than Rome. But if you think our Bible is based on some Roman redaction, then why don't these manuscripts from all over the Eastern Mediterranean (i.e. the territory of most of the Church Fathers I listed) have significantly different readings than this Roman redaction you imagine to have been so important?

Check the dates.... All the earlier ones with a non-Roman "Christology" were destroyed.





And you additionally asserted that the Bible was not read by Christians as the word of God until after Constantine formalized it. The whole point of that list of Church Fathers was to list examples (and I can easily lengthen the list if you need more) of Christians before Constantine, both in Rome and everywhere else that Christianity existed, who read the Bible as the Word of God.

Paul did not mean the "Bible" when he referred to the scriptures. There is no recorded publication of the "Bible" as a whole before Constantine, and we do not even have a copy of that so there were likely to be redactions after that time too.

The Word in the Gospel of John means something totally different and it reflects more ancient Jewish traditions that did not occur in the Synoptics.

[PaulaGem]

By the definitions of the words "absolute," "right," "wrong," and "God." The concept of an absolute moral law is one that cannot simply be a social convention or a personal preference, nor even can it depend on the existence of human beings at all. It is, again, by the simple ordinary definition of those words, a law that exists independently of human beings, and is, like the laws of math and logic, universal (i.e. absolute, separate). Its lawgiver, thus, can't be a human being or a society or even the sum of all humans ever living agreeing in total unison. It must be a moral agent of universal authority, which is, by definition, God.

None of this, of course, proves that an absolute moral code, and thus also a God who gave it, exists, just that the former can't exist if the latter doesn't also.

But Yeshua taught about a loving forgiving heavenly Father. He didn't teach about an "absolute standard" (law). He taught about Spiritual rebirth and reconciliaton with the One. He hung out with people who were considered "immoral" by the religious folks in power.

Absolute moral law is an oxymoron.

[erowe1]

But Yeshua taught about a loving forgiving heavenly Father. He didn't teach about an "absolute standard" (law). He taught about Spiritual rebirth and reconciliaton with the One. He hung out with people who were considered "immoral" by the religious folks in power.

Absolute moral law is an oxymoron.

Jesus did teach about God given law as a major theme of his teaching. He frequently quoted it and upheld its authority. He just didn't believe that "Thou shalt not hang out with immoral people" was a part of that law.

[PaulaGem]

Jesus did teach about God given law as a major theme of his teaching. He frequently quoted it and upheld its authority. He just didn't believe that "Thou shalt not hang out with immoral people" was a part of that law.

I will correct that to "absolute moral standard". He didn't teach legalistic morals and he didn't teach religion.

[erowe1]

Paul did not mean the "Bible" when he referred to the scriptures. There is no recorded publication of the "Bible" as a whole before Constantine, and we do not even have a copy of that so there were likely to be redactions after that time too.


Yes, we do have copies from before Constantine, as I have repeated multiple times. I have checked the dates. I know this material well, as well as the Nag Hamadi material (which is later than the earliest manuscripts of our Bible). I'm working on my PhD in Ancient Christianity and Judaism at Notre Dame right now. We also have quotes from many Christians about their views of scripture from before Constantine. If you are now resorting to nitpicking about the physical form of the Bible and trying to say it's only exists if it exists as a single volume with all 66 books included, then of course you are right. Such books didn't exist in the earliest period. The ones that finally were made they were enormous and incredibly expensive. But the constituent scriptures that comprise what we call the Bible did exist before Constantine. They existed in the textual form that we now know in what we today call the Bible. The books Paul and the other New Testament writers referred to were the books of the Bible (what is now called the Old Testament). The books the early Christians from the 2nd century referred to were the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. And the books contained in all these manuscripts I've been talking about, such as the biblical texts from Qumran, or Nahal Hever, or P45 or, P46, or P75, or any one of dozens of others, are the same as the books in Bibles today. And these manuscripts are from well before Constantine and entirely separate from any authority that anyone in the Roman Church had at that time. They also existed in volumes including multiple books (just not all 66 in one volume). We have many pre-Constantine volumes including the 4 Gospels, many including the epistles of Paul, many including the Pentateuch, many including the Minor Prophets, etc. If you doubt it, you check the dates. And don't check them in some website that exists for the purpose of hawking some conspiracy theory about the lost books of the Bible or some such nonsense, take the time to learn early Christian history on its own right in detail. Study the primary texts themselves, and study the modern scholarship not just from some fringe segment like Elaine Pagels, but from authors who espouse the views that hold sway in the guild of scholarship today.

If you're not willing to do that, then stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

[erowe1]

I will correct that to "absolute moral standard".

Correct it if you want. But he called the absolute moral standard the Law. He also was perfectly willing to get specific about certain laws pertaining to matters such as marriage, divorce, ritual purity, offering sacrifices, working on the Sabbath, loving one's neighbor, forgiveness, church discipline, paying taxes, honoring one's parents, etc.

As to whether or not he was a legalist I can't comment without a definition. Usually when people speak of a legalist they define it so that it can only be a bad thing, in which case Jesus wasn't one.

[Athan]

You are absolutely correct. This is why I object to these kinds of threads being on the Liberty Forest forums. Ahhh... but alas, no one seems to know how to put an end to this type of behavior.

Emmm.. you better watch the Constitutional part though, there are around 40% here who believe we shouldn't have a Constitution.

They are simply under the impression that liberty is not helped with the Constitutional form of government. We don't disagree on the purpose, just the method. Their opinion does not bother me. Remember George Mason was very critical of it and were many of the founders because they felt it to be to centralized.

Monarchist, aristocrats, bankers, socialist, communist, and crony capitalist are the real problem. They don't care about liberty, just being lazy, a collection of irresponsible, and uneducated group that doesn't realize those governments are inherently flawed and doomed to collapse.

[PaulaGem]

If you are now resorting to nitpicking about the physical form of the Bible and trying to say it's only exists if it exists as a single volume with all 66 books included, then of course you are right.

Since I was referring to the selection process and the creation of the collection of 66, it is not nitpicking. Although Revelation wasn't added until much later.


But the constituent scriptures that comprise what we call the Bible did exist before Constantine.

But we don't know exactly what books comprised those constituent scriptures and there is evidence that they were not in what is now considered their final form.

I'm not a Bible scholar per se but I have read enough to clarify my personal beliefs and reconcile them with actual history.

There are a few key issues that confirm the Roman tampering with the Bible for me:

1) The divergence of the synoptics in the biographical detail of Yeshua, indicating they were later add ons. The "different perspectives" argument just doesn't cut it, they contradict each other.

2) The close parallelis of the teachings sections of the synoptics and the Gospel of Thomas indicating that they come from a common oral source.

3) The fact that there are TWO GOSPELS in the N.T. The one that Yeshua taught about a loving God and the Roman and Pauline death cult. Yeshual taught about a loving father who does not give his children a stone when they ask for bread. I studied all of this as thouroughly as I could and the God of Yeshua isn't the same as the arbitrary god of the Romans who would damn us for being born into the wrong religion. "One Way"? No way...

4) The many problems with the Pauline Epistles.Full Discussion at this link (http://www.inu.net/skeptic/epistles.html)

Martin, Michael, The Case Against God, 1991.

Page 38: The first Christian documents to characterize Jesus in a way that roughly corresponds to the accounts in the gospels (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch) were written somewhere between 90 and 110. This is after the gospels had been written and circulated. Why does no biographical information appear in the earlier documents (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and possibly also the letters of James and 1, 2, and 3 John?) The only plausible answer to this question is that Jesus’ biography is pure fiction invented late in the 1st century. It was unknown to the earlier writers such as Paul.

Page 56: An important clue against the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels is that the early and later non-Pauline epistles picture him differently. Those likely to have been written before 90 (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James,) refer to Jesus in basically the same way as do the authentic Pauline epistles. They stress the resurrection and second coming but do not refer to the ethical teachings or the miracles Jesus allegedly performed; they say nothing about his birth, baptism, trial, crucifixion, and death. On the other hand, the later epistles, those written after 90 (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus,) begins to portray Jesus as he is in the gospels placing him in a definite time period as do other late first century documents such as 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, the first epistle of Clement, and the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. They obviously were influenced by the gospels.

Ephesians, thought to have been written between 80 and 90, is one of the earlier Pauline forgeries. It gives no detail of Jesus’ life and teachings and consequently provides no conformation that Jesus lived in the early part of the first century. In 2:8-9 we read "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works". In 4:25-32 the author advocates speaking the truth, controlling anger, doing honest work, and being mutually forgiving and kind, yet he never cites the teachings of Jesus. One can only infer that he had no knowledge of them.



Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist?, 1986.
Pages 17-18: Colossians and Ephesians are considered forgeries. They present an ecclesiastical organization of a far more advanced kind than existed in Paul’s day. For example, according to Ephesians 2:20-21 the faithful are said to be dependent for salvation not directly on Jesus but on officers of the Church. This is a clear contradiction of 1 Cor. 3:10-11 which reads: According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


5) The teachings of Yeshua are inherently gnostic - he teaches that all we have to do to attain the Kingdom is recognize that which is already within. He never teaches religion or tells anyone to convert.



The basis of my disbelief in the "Sacred" nature and even historic validity of the N.T. is internal evidence that can not be explained away.

[erowe1]

1) The so-called synoptic problem has been a major area of scholarly study for a century. You can read a good summary of it in any number of standard New Testament introductions, or any number of books on the subject itself. Whether the differences are true contradictions or not has nothing to do with the idea of later redactions of the gospels, much less the imaginary Roman church redaction you keep talking about. And no serious treatment of the synoptic problem claims they are. All of those differences you notice when you read them are differences you will find in the very earliest manuscripts, including many that are well before Constantine. In fact, any later editorial work that was done on manuscripts the Gospels is best identified by how it cleans up the contradictions, and makes the Gospels more alike, quite the opposite of adding in new contradictory details.

2) It is possible that some portions of the Gospel of Thomas are based on an oral source that contains parallels with the canonical Gospels. But clearly most of Thomas is not. And the parallels that do exist can also be explained by the author of the Gospel of Thomas actually being dependent on the canonical Gospels themselves. This is especially likely when some of the parallels include phrases that we can identify as the redactional work of Matthew or Luke (not so much for Mark). This is also an area that has been subjected to immense study. If you want to read a solid readable overview of the value of Thomas (or lack thereof) for the study of the historical Jesus, check out the treatment of the issue in the 1st volume of John Meier's set of books on the historical Jesus called, A Marginal Jew.

3) Paul said a ton about the love of God. Take, for example, Romans 8:38-39, "For I am convinced that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord." And Jesus (at least as he's presented in the Gospels) said a ton about repentance and conversion. He did depict God as a father who loves His children, but Jesus doesn't say that just everyone is God's child, but only those who have been born again. When Paul gives the epitome of the Gospel he teaches in 1 Corinthians 15, he emphasizes that it is the same as what the apostles who were with Jesus in his earthly ministry teach. The points he emphasizes are that Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again on the 3rd day, and was seen by witnesses after that. This is practically a summary of the synoptic Gospels, and not one point of it is a matter of textual dispute where it might have been absent from the original versions of the Gospels. Each point is a major point of emphasis in all of them. At the same time, Jesus taught far more about the threat of damnation than Paul ever did. And it was Jesus himself who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," and also, said that the way to life is narrow and few are those who find it but the way to destruction is wide and many are those who find it.

4) You can provide all kinds of problems with every part of the Bible, including Paul. Some are more easily resolved than others. But there's no use in just dumping on someone some copy and paste job of problems and saying, "here, deal with these." I don't see the significance of anything in that quote for this discussion.

5) Gnosticism didn't exist yet in the time of Jesus. The verse you're apparently referring to doesn't say anything about anybody recognizing what's already within them. Rather, Jesus tells the Pharisees (i.e. legalistic religious people you wouldn't like, who ardently opposed Jesus' teachings) that the kingdom of God was in their midst (i.e. He Himself was presenting it to them).

If you want to read the Bible as a disjointed list of absolute maxims and claims about facts of history to be compared with one another for the purpose of identifying problems, then you'll find all the internal problems you could want. But if you're a Christian who wants to read the Bible as the word of God, and who believes it presents a systematic body of truth that centers around Jesus Christ, then you will be able to read it as that, just as all Christians from His first disciples until now have done. And if you were to sift through the Nag Hammadi library looking for internal consistencies and other problems between and within the books in it, you would have no trouble finding more than your fair share.

[Freedom 4 all]

I think he's trying to say that "Christian" mass murderers weren't really Christians. True Christianity does not advocate violence except in self defence.

As far as I'm concerned that statement is 100% accurate. True Christianity does NOT advocate violence except in self defense. However, that doesn't mean that a truly giant proportion of history's assholes never killed in the name of religion. I think it's downright silly to believe that atheism caused more deaths, as "religious" leaders have been the driving force of genocide for thousands of years. However, despite what the atheists claim that fact does not make religion bad, it only makes the historical figures professing to be religious bad. As was already pointed out, that kind of shit can happen just as easily when the assholes in charge are not religious (ex. Stalin).

[PaulaGem]

1)
Gnosticism didn't exist yet in the time of Jesus. The verse you're apparently referring to doesn't say anything about anybody recognizing what's already within them. Rather, Jesus tells the Pharisees (i.e. legalistic religious people you wouldn't like, who ardently opposed Jesus' teachings) that the kingdom of God was in their midst (i.e. He Himself was presenting it to them).

The source below is higly controversial - but what if the points it makes are accurate and reflect the original Aramaic of Yeshua's words? We will never know because those manuscripts were destroyed by the Roman Church.


The Be-Attitudes From The Aramaic


Touveyhoun, the first word in Aramaic of each Be-Attitude, is historically interpreted as a bestowed "Blessing." Jesus' words spoke of an earned reward. He delivered simple and practical teachings in His native tongue, Aramaic. In the sixth century, all known Aramaic bibles were burned and many foreign ideas, unsupported by His actual words, were put into His mouth. As Jesus' teachings passed from Aramaic to Greek, Latin, Old English and finally to modern English, increasing numbers of distortions occurred.

The following explanation of the Be-Attitudes is based on Aramaic and is as faithful as possible to the actual words of Jesus. It shows that the Be-Attitudes are in truth instructions and methods for evaluating progress and supporting us in achieving an exciting, reachable goal. Here Jesus provided the "how to's" for living the "Greatest" and "Second" Commandments_ the keys to peace and life and health. His objective was so urgent that He used the word Touveyhoun repeatedly in this, His first public teaching!

This statement before each Be-Attitude more accurately carries the lost meaning of Jesus' word - TOUVEYHOUN: God implanted in your mind neural structures which will guide you when they are active. If they are active, you who follow these instructions will come into conscious possession of and be able to use this latent guidance system, designed to make available thoughts and actions that will increase your happiness and well-being:

You who have a maskenii (home) in Ruhka (the active forces from God), yours is a malkoota d'shmeya (heavenly estate). Historically interpreted as - Blessed are the poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

You abili (who love Truth and profess your errors and the errors of your society), you shall be nitbeyoon (freed of mental stress). Historically interpreted as - Blessed are those mourning their wrongs, they will be comforted.

You who have makikh (humility - the mental quality of perceiving and cooperating with the good desires of others), you shall nartoun (gain the earth). Historically interpreted as - Blessed are the meek, they shall inherit the earth.

You who hunger for kenoota (the mind structure underlying the attitude, judgment and behavior described as just or fair behavior between people), you shall attain it. Historically interpreted as - Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they shall be filled.

You who have rakhma (pure love, encompassing judgment and behavior), you will therefore receive rakhma (pure love). Historically interpreted as - Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy.

You who have dadcean (a completely purified mind,) you will mikhazoun (comprehend) Alaha (the Invisible Source of Creation). Historically interpreted as - Blessed are the pure in heart, they shall see God.

You who abdey (through service, work effectively to produce) shlama (the peace and understanding under and in accord with God's Will), you will be called the children of God. Historically interpreted as - Blessed are the peacemakers, they shall be called the children of God.

The "Greatest" and "Second" Commandments: You shall tidrakhim (maintain the condition of pure love) for Alaha (the Invisible Source of Creation) in your entire mind and with your whole naphshak (true self) in all your actions and in all your thoughts. This is the greatest commandment and takes precedence over all. The second, which is like unto it, you shall tidrakhim (maintain pure love) for karebak (neighbor_anyone near or thought about) as your naphshak (true self). Upon these two Commandments hang the Law and its prophets.


http://www.whyagain.com/beatt.php

Yeshua was a gnostic Essene - the Nazoreans were a group of Essenes. The destruction of his teachings in the original language obscures the true nature of his teachings.