Terri Schiavo's Parents Seek Divorce on Her Behalf

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The anti-christian zealots aren't worried about religious tenets being codified into US law. They throw a fit anytime God is mentioned, whether it be a schoolkid praying at lunch or a cross on a roadside memorial on a federal highway.

Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?

What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."

Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.

[OnyxCougar]

All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event. But I don't have a timeline on that, it's not something I've researched at all.

But this brings up a question I have:

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

Lee Strobel brought this up in the Case for Christ, and I find it terribly interesting.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

They are seeking divorce on Terri's behalf while claiming she wouldn't go against the Pope's decree about withholding food and hydration.

Most non-Catholics don't get this ... divorce is not technically "illegal" under catholic canon law. You're allowed to get divorced.

What you're NOT allowed to do is receive communion if you remarry or marry someone who is divorced without first obtaining an annullment (church divorce). Excommunication doesn't throw you out of the church in it's entirety, it does restrict your access to the sacrements, which, I suppose is pretty much the same thing. You can still confess your sins, receive absolution, and so on, but you're out on marriage and taking holy orders, I believe.

There is a similar process, called a get in Jewish Law. You have to go through the civil and the religious ceremonies.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by vsp

Horseshit. When I was in school, I could sit in the lunchroom and pray if I wanted to pray. Who could stop me even if they wanted to do so? Who could get into my head, figure out what I was thinking about and somehow prevent me from having a little private chat with God?

What _couldn't_ and _shouldn't_ have happened was for my day to begin with the loudspeaker saying "Let us now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by our daily prayer."

Religion practiced on an individual basis is one thing. Religion specifically endorsed in public forums, such as public schools and courthouses, is a _very_ different concern.

They had a "moment of silence" in my schools every morning. If you wanted to pray you could, but most kids just stood there and were bored.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

All the estimates I've seen on the dating lead me to believe it's after the 10 commandments event.

The code of Hammurabi was published around 1750 BC.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

The code had one author and the original printing still exists. There is nothing to question.

[OnyxCougar]

As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG. This is what they say about hammurabi (keep in mind this is a literal creationist website, so that's why the reference it biased that way):

Morality and history
From very early records we see that man has shown a high degree of culture and understanding in law and moral/societal behaviour. Dating from the 17th century before Christ is the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king who, according to secular historians, came to power about 1750 bc. This set of laws, governing situations such as marriage, commerce and theft is generally regarded as one of the best and earliest written codes of law for a society. The proper functioning of law depends on the existence of an ultimate authority. Speaking of a society which was crumbling because of a lack of authority, the Bible says: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).

The Ten Commandments are considered, even by many non-Christians, to be a foundational set of rules for moral and ethical living. But if they were written by only a man, then they are no more ‘right’ than someone else’s opposite view. In rejecting Biblical absolutes, will modern law eventually cease from allowing criminals to be branded with ‘wrong-doer’ in favour of the more evolutionarily consistent concept of a ‘socially-unacceptable choice’? Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Why is it that no one questions the legitimacy of the Hammurabi Code, even tho only a few copies survive and were rewritten over and over, but we have more fragments and copies of the books of the bible, but it's authenticy is questioned?

The Bible has been translated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and retranslated and interpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted over and over and over and over and over for centuries.

It passed through time periods where the only ones trained to read and write Latin (and, thus, the only ones capable of reproducing the Latin Vulgate and telling everyone else what it said and what that meant) were the churches themselves.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of variations of the Bible out there today.

Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?

[mrnoodle]

Time for links!

I was trying to find the story from my hometown where one of our local atheists defaced a memorial to a kid lost in the mountains because it was on state forest land. I can't find it at the moment. But it's silly for me to have do to that. You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by vsp

Which one is the most correct, and how literally should we interpret the contents of the version in which we choose to believe?

And don't forget that entire sections of the bible were completely deleted by a few pea-brained popes who decided that "we don't need to know that."

[vsp]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You know good and well that the anti-god people aren't concerned about state-run religion. They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

I _am_ one of those "anti-god" people, one of those dirty heathen atheists you read about in the news. Don't tell me what I want to do and what I don't.

Let's see...

Link one: a case that ended up being decided correctly, where the kindergarten girl _was subsequently allowed_ to say Grace on an individual basis. This was personal religious expression, not school endorsement, and thus the court came down on the individual's side.

Link two: a case of abused and vandalized crosses that even the article assumes wasn't due to disgruntled atheists (who probably wouldn't have jumped to use Satanic or KKK imagery), a cross removed by a self-identifying Christian, and the ACLU spokesman saying "If you allow roadside crosses, you'll have allow atheist roadside memorials as well" -- as if _that_ would be such a horrible fate.

Link three: a controversy over whether a church pastor (accused of "indoctrination" and evangelism, true or not) could lead a school-endorsed discussion group about Bible study on school grounds and on school time. Those last two clauses are important.

I don't see anything in any of those links worth getting upset about.

[Kitsune]

They're after EVERYONE who practices Christianity, trying to force them into little boxes where it's "acceptable" to practice their faith.

Wow, you must be referring to extremists groups (every side has 'em!) because I know most people who are for the seperation of church and state do not operate under those principles.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

*insert speech about the 10 commandments being about 4000 years old, and therefore predating just about every civilization that we still have records for*

And before that, theft and murder were A.O.K.!

Come on. Theft and murder are as close to universal crimes as you can get. Different civilizations and different religions differ over where the line is between killing and murder or taking and theft, but just about every (or maybe every? not sure) human society has rules against killing without justification and taking what you aren't entitled to.

[OnyxCougar]

Agreed. That's exactly my point.

In this country, there are laws that say you can't do those things, and oh! just so happens that that happens to be Christian Law and Judiasm Law too! Whodathunkit??

So we agree then! Good! Yay!

[Happy Monkey]

Some evolutionists have excused even rape on the grounds that males’ genes and ‘less civilized’ evolutionary past predispose them to such actions.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

As usual, when I have theological questions, I turn to the scientists and theologians at AiG.

Perhaps you shouldn't. Explaining rape doesn't excuse it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Agreed. That's exactly my point.

Ah. You were saying that a few rules happen to match up between the Bible and the law. I assumed you were implying that those laws were there because of the Bible. Sorry.