More pity for the atheists.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Latest example of the atheist's anger. Protesting the twisted girders pulled from the World Trade Center site that are part of

the on-site memorial. The atheists are offended because the twisted girders resemble a cross. How sad that the atheists can't show respect for all those Christians and others killed by muslim terrorists.

[Guest Guest]

Nice try but the group bringing that "case" is a radical fringe group, no more representative of atheists than the some of the radical Christian groups are of Christians. The "cross" is an historical artifact, silly though it may be, and is going to stay in the museum.

[Guest Guest]

Atheists seem to trouble you. Have you sought counseling for this?

[Guest Gadfly]

Not quite. The girders were held up as a symbol immediately following, including being blessed by a priest. The protest is about whether the state-run museum should display what had been used as a religious icon for years. To imply that they just happen to be in the shape of a cross and therefore atheists are protesting their inclusion is dishonest. I know you think lying for Jesus is the way to go, but I don't see anything in the Bible condoning it.

[Guest Guest]

Latest example of the atheist's anger. Protesting the twisted girders pulled from the World Trade Center site that are part of

the on-site memorial. The atheists are offended because the twisted girders resemble a cross. How sad that the atheists can't show respect for all those Christians and others killed by muslim terrorists.

So...will you pray for them - or just B**ch about it on here? Do you pray for the Muslim women and children killed in Syria or is your God one-dimensional sort of like a Gino (God in name only)? Your "Christianity" is as shallow as your " patriotism".

[Guest Guest]

I have to agree with 2smart4u on this one. Atheists protesting a twisted girder pulled from the WTC site by FF's because it's shaped like a cross is just wrong. I have no problem with anything the atheists believe or don't believe. I do have a problem when atheists interfere with other people's beliefs. They should mind their own business.

[Guest Guest]

I have to agree with 2smart4u on this one. Atheists protesting a twisted girder pulled from the WTC site by FF's because it's shaped like a cross is just wrong. I have no problem with anything the atheists believe or don't believe. I do have a problem when atheists interfere with other people's beliefs. They should mind their own business.

They're not protesting because it was pulled from the site. They're protesting because it's in a state-funded museum. They see it as the state interfering with their beliefs. They're going to lose the case because the district court correctly ruled that it is an historical artifact, and therefore fit for inclusion in a museum. But you're mis-stating their complaint.

[Guest Guest]

If atheists should mind their own business, will you tell the same thing to so-called Christians who pressure elected officials so that tax dollars can't be spent for certain kinds of medical care (abortions)?

[Guest 2smart4u]

I have to agree with 2smart4u on this one. Atheists protesting a twisted girder pulled from the WTC site by FF's because it's shaped like a cross is just wrong. I have no problem with anything the atheists believe or don't believe. I do have a problem when atheists interfere with other people's beliefs. They should mind their own business.

Amen, Brother.

[Guest Guest]

Seeing a cross in twisted steel is no crazier than seeing Jesus in a piece of toast or an apple or a tree trunk or a ...

[Guest Kearny Christian]

If atheists should mind their own business, will you tell the same thing to so-called Christians who pressure elected officials so that tax dollars can't be spent for certain kinds of medical care (abortions)?

I would think everyone would be against murdering babies.

[Guest Guest]

Seeing a cross in twisted steel is no crazier than seeing Jesus in a piece of toast or an apple or a tree trunk or a ...

No, or any less crazy either. They're both pretty silly.

[Guest Guest]

Of course, so-called Kearny Christian thinks every abortion is a murder. Reasonable people see a difference between murdering a baby, and aborting a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy, before it even has a brain or any awareness at all, let alone self-awareness. Thanks for making your standard clear, KC. You're as crazy as the people who brought that case about the 9/11 museum. We should find a room for you to meet with them. No doubt you'd have much to discuss.

[Guest Guest]

I would think everyone would be against murdering babies.

just babies? Shouldn't pro-life include condemning genocide, war, execution, etc. Does "thall shalt not kill" have conditions I haven't seen? or are you just pro-fetus?

[Guest Guest]

I would think everyone would be against murdering babies.

If you would think, you wouldn't make a remark like that.

[Guest Guest]

Don't you just love how these so-called conservative Christians claim that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is absolute but then support capital punishment, war and killing in self-defense. Obviously, they don't consider the commandment to be absolute either. But you'll never get them to admit that, because reason does not matter to them. All they care about is living in the fantasy world they've made for themselves. So they make the commandment absolute for everyone else, while they can make any exceptions they like for themselves. They should read what Jesus had to say about hypocrites.

[Guest Guest]

Don't you just love how these so-called conservative Christians claim that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is absolute but then support capital punishment, war and killing in self-defense. Obviously, they don't consider the commandment to be absolute either. But you'll never get them to admit that, because reason does not matter to them. All they care about is living in the fantasy world they've made for themselves. So they make the commandment absolute for everyone else, while they can make any exceptions they like for themselves. They should read what Jesus had to say about hypocrites.

Of course the Bible itself actually doesnt say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that is a translational error. The Original text reads "Commit murder" and as far as the Sayings of Christ he also said in Luke 22:16 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." And before you statrt, here is what Ghandi who believed in Non-violent POLITICAL Protest said about Self-defense “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully” And if Ghandi doesnt work for you we also have the Dailai Llama who said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

​A little diligence and research on your part might save you from looking so foolish.

[Guest 2smart4u]

If you would think, you wouldn't make a remark like that.

So you support murdering babies ? How democratic of you.

[Guest Guest]

Of course the Bible itself actually doesnt say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that is a translational error. The Original text reads "Commit murder" and as far as the Sayings of Christ he also said in Luke 22:16 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." And before you statrt, here is what Ghandi who believed in Non-violent POLITICAL Protest said about Self-defense “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully” And if Ghandi doesnt work for you we also have the Dailai Llama who said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

​A little diligence and research on your part might save you from looking so foolish.

What original text? And if that's what it says, then why do so many of the translations have it wrong? Shall we just take your word for it?

In the end, it doesn't matter anyway. The original text has no more claim to authority than any other writing.

[Guest Guest]

Of course the Bible itself actually doesnt say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that is a translational error. The Original text reads "Commit murder" and as far as the Sayings of Christ he also said in Luke 22:16 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." And before you statrt, here is what Ghandi who believed in Non-violent POLITICAL Protest said about Self-defense “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully” And if Ghandi doesnt work for you we also have the Dailai Llama who said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

​A little diligence and research on your part might save you from looking so foolish.

A little more reading skill might have saved you from completely distorting the statement you comment on. The statement was about what "so-called conservative Christians claim," not about what the original biblical text says, even assuming that an original biblical text can be identified.

What a conundrum this poses for the Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian. He can use the word "kill," which is more conducive to his claim that the biblical ten commandments are absolute, even though nothing in his conduct supports a view that he truly believes this; or he can use the word "murder," which employs the very situational ethics he decries. A little history research might have made you aware that this probably is what this persistent indecision about the Bible's meaning (a ridiculous concept to begin with) has its genesis.

[Guest Guest]

So you support murdering babies ? How democratic of you.

So you think if you just say it, it's true. How stupid of you.

[Guest Guest]

Of course the Bible itself actually doesnt say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that is a translational error. The Original text reads "Commit murder" and as far as the Sayings of Christ he also said in Luke 22:16 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." And before you statrt, here is what Ghandi who believed in Non-violent POLITICAL Protest said about Self-defense “I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully” And if Ghandi doesnt work for you we also have the Dailai Llama who said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

​A little diligence and research on your part might save you from looking so foolish.

Your quotations from Gandhi and the Dalai Lama have nothing to do with the point being made in the comments you try so ham-handedly to belittle. The point isn't about choosing sides between violence and non-violence, it's about absolutism vis-a-vis biblical commandments. A little thinking on your part may or may not have helped you. Oh, and if you don't know what "vis-a-vis," means, you can easily find out with a little research.

[Guest Guest]

But when the Biblical "Absolutism" you quote is incorrect, It leaves you with no platform for your attack. Here's a little tidbit.. the Bible wasnt written in English, it was Written (The old Testament) in Hebrew....and it does NOT say, despite your repeated contentions "Thous hall not Kill" It says "You Cannot commit Murder" Quod est necessarium est licitum...of course the fact that you are tying ti use a text which YOU believe to be fiction, and continually ridicule to Justify your point, is the equivalent of my using a Science Fiction in a Quantum Physics course as an example of of Alcubierre Theory in practice.

And if that is too Subtle...i'll simplify...... Im not ridiculing your Point, i am Ridiculing YOU. YOU are the guy that gives Atheists a bad name, YOU are the Douchebag who is so Smugly confident in your own Superiority you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron. Now, ARE There Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 year old?? Of course there are, and they ARE Delusional IMO..but that doesnt make EVERY Christian so, just like MOST Atheists are NOT Douchebags like YOU and allow people to have their own Beliefs. What is so Horrible about Christians?? or Muslims, or Buddists, or Shintoists, or Taoists..i can go on. Here's a thought...go and live YOUR Life,.....Believe what YOU will, and stop Proselytizing...because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.....you're an Atheistic Jehova's Witness Pal...trying to harass people into believing what you do.

[Guest Guest]

The most popular Bibles have it as "Thou shalt not kill," including the several King James versions (a highly popular Christian version), Douay-Rheims (traditional Roman Catholic version), American Standard, Darby, and Webster's Bible Translation. So the insistence that "the Bible" says one thing and not the other is nonsense, because there is no "the Bible"; there are many Bibles.

For purposes of this discussion, what the first Bible said does not matter. The point in post #16 is about how some self-described Christians treat biblical commandments today. By no stretch of the imagination does that post tar or "attack" all Christians.

If you consider yourself a Christian, you have a choice. You can say that the ten commandments are absolute, in which case you would have to choose "thou shalt not kill" as your commandment; if you choose "thou shalt not murder" as your commandment, that is situational and therefore not absolute. Y'all who are doing so much cyber-screaming are completely missing the point, which is about hypocrisy in popular Christian belief today, not what the original Bible said, even assuming that an original text can ever be identified. You do have to wonder, if the original text is clearly identified and clearly says "thou shalt not murder," then why do so many standard versions of the Bible have it wrong? Or perhaps we are just to take the word of anonymous posters on a community internet forum that they know more about this than well-known biblical scholars do. How that plays out in contemporary Christianity today is a complex and multi-faceted subject, which cannot be clarified with wild accusations that completely distort the points being made.

[Guest Guest]

But when the Biblical "Absolutism" you quote is incorrect, It leaves you with no platform for your attack. Here's a little tidbit.. the Bible wasnt written in English, it was Written (The old Testament) in Hebrew....and it does NOT say, despite your repeated contentions "Thous hall not Kill" It says "You Cannot commit Murder" Quod est necessarium est licitum...of course the fact that you are tying ti use a text which YOU believe to be fiction, and continually ridicule to Justify your point, is the equivalent of my using a Science Fiction in a Quantum Physics course as an example of of Alcubierre Theory in practice.

And if that is too Subtle...i'll simplify...... Im not ridiculing your Point, i am Ridiculing YOU. YOU are the guy that gives Atheists a bad name, YOU are the Douchebag who is so Smugly confident in your own Superiority you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron. Now, ARE There Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 year old?? Of course there are, and they ARE Delusional IMO..but that doesnt make EVERY Christian so, just like MOST Atheists are NOT Douchebags like YOU and allow people to have their own Beliefs. What is so Horrible about Christians?? or Muslims, or Buddists, or Shintoists, or Taoists..i can go on. Here's a thought...go and live YOUR Life,.....Believe what YOU will, and stop Proselytizing...because that is EXACTLY what you are doing.....you're an Atheistic Jehova's Witness Pal...trying to harass people into believing what you do.

No one has said that here. I challenge you to find any statement here (current through post #23 as I write this) that says, implies or even suggests that "you take every possible opportunity to try to make anyone with ANY kind of faith out to be a sub-intelligent Moron." You will find no such statement on this topic, which suggests that your post is only a reflection of your own biases and your own defensiveness about your religion.