The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[Roy]

Right, so Christian Common law and Christian law are not biblically based.

I did not say that. I did not even say anything remotely resembling that. Seer is lying.

Seer's claim that Alfred "took most of the principles directly from Scripture" is (still) factually incorrect.

Roy

[seer]

I did not say that. I did not even say anything remotely resembling that. Seer is lying.

Seer's claim that Alfred "took most of the principles directly from Scripture" is (still) factually incorrect.

Roy

No you said:

Being called Christian law is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.
Reflecting Christian beliefs is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.
Being already blended with Christian principles is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.



So Christian law is not taken from scripture, Christian beliefs do not come from scripture? Christian common law does not come from scripture?

[Roy]

Emphasis mine:

No you said:

Being called Christian law is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.
Reflecting Christian beliefs is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.
Being already blended with Christian principles is not the same as being taken directly from scripture.

So Christian law is not taken from scripture, Christian beliefs do not come from scripture? Christian common law does not come from scripture?

Those are mischaracterisations. Seer is lying again.

Seer's claim that Alfred "took most of the principles directly from Scripture" remains factually incorrect.

Roy

[seer]

Emphasis mine:Those are mischaracterisations. Seer is lying again.

Seer's claim that Alfred "took most of the principles directly from Scripture" remains factually incorrect.

Roy

Ok, so we saw that the Saxon laws were called Christian Common Law. Now Roy were the 48 Dooms of Alfred (the actual laws that he added, not his commentaries) taken from Scripture?

[Tassman]

This does not change the fact of Christianity's influence on the Founding and character of this nation. And there is zero reason why the Ten Commandment should not be on state property, even if only as an historical marker. And I'm not sure what your problem is with religious law, is secular law somehow more desirable? And whose secular law?

. The USA is a secular nation where Church and State are kept separate. Conversely, the Ten Commandments is a religious monument and has no place on state property in a secular, multi-cultural state such as the USA.

[seer]

Again Tass, the Founders did not want a Federal Church, like the Church of England. And they did not always oppose preference for the Christian religion. That is why they did use tax dollars to support the Christian religion, as my past links showed.

No Tass, that is internet nonsense. Many of the "prominent founders" were not deist. I only know of one of the signers that was, and of course Pane. Most of the signers were Christian, we know that by church records. You should read about other Founders like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, John Witherspoon, etc, instead of cherry picking two you like. And Adams belief was a bit more complicated:

David L. Holmes has argued that John Adams, beginning as a Congregationalist, ended his days as a Christian Unitarian, accepting central tenets of the Unitarian creed but also accepting Jesus as the redeemer of humanity and the biblical account of his miracles as true.[140] In common with many of his Protestant contemporaries, Adams criticized the claims to universal authority made by the Roman Catholic Church.[141] In 1796, Adams denounced political opponent Thomas Paine's Deistic criticisms of Christianity in The Age of Reason, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."[142]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A...eligious_views

Thus, so much for your: . The USA is a secular nation where Church and State are kept separate. Conversely, the Ten Commandments is a religious monument and has no place on state property in a secular, multi-cultural state such as the USA.

Again pure nonsense. Religion was key to the founding of this nation from the Pilgrims forward. The Founders themselves, in Congress, supported the Christian Religion. Many of these same men instituted taxes to support churches in their state. Their view of separation was not your view.

And let me quote Adam's 1813, June 28 letter to Jefferson again:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

So according to Adam's it was the general principles of Christianity that achieved Independence. That is historical and should be recognized.

[Roy]

Ok, so we saw that the Saxon laws were called Christian Common Law.

Irrelevant, even if true. Seer claimed Alfred took most of the principles directly from Scripture. The law codes of Saxon kingdoms are not scripture.

Now Roy were the 48 Dooms of Alfred (the actual laws that he added, not his commentaries) taken from Scripture?

Those do not comprise most of Alfred's law principles.

Seer's claim that Alfred "took most of the principles directly from Scripture" is factually incorrect, and his interminable lying and goalpost moving will not change that.

Roy

[seer]

Irrelevant. Seer claimed Alfred took most of the principles directly from Scripture. The law codes of Saxon kingdoms are not scripture.Those do not comprise most of Alfred's principles.


Roy

Really Roy, those are the actual laws he added to the code. Can you show what other laws that he added to the code? And where they came from?

[Roy]

Seer's goalposts are moving so fast they experience redshift:

Really Roy, those are the actual laws he added to the code. Can you show what other laws that he added to the code? And where they came from?

His original claim was this: "Alfred the Great was called the Father of English Common Law, and he took most of the principles directly from Scripture.".

It is false.

Roy

[seer]

Seer's goalposts are moving so fast they experience redshift:

His original claim was this: "Alfred the Great was called the Father of English Common Law, and he took most of the principles directly from Scripture.".

It is false.

Roy

Yes Roy, the actual new laws that Alfred added were lifted from scripture. If you know of more than the 48 dooms that I linked then please post them. Even his prologue/commentary was Biblically based, and even the laws from the three previous kings that he gathered were call "Christian laws." It seems clear to me that the greater part of this whole work is Christian. This is not moving the goal posts, I think my case has been clearly made.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, the Founders did not want a Federal Church, like the Church of England. And they did not always oppose preference for the Christian religion. That is why they did use tax dollars to support the Christian religion, as my past links showed.

No Tass, that is internet nonsense. Many of the "prominent founders" were not deist. I only know of one of the signers that was, and of course Pane. Most of the signers were Christian, we know that by church records. You should read about other Founders like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, John Witherspoon, etc, instead of cherry picking two you like. And Adams belief was a bit more complicated:

Again pure nonsense. Religion was key to the founding of this nation from the Pilgrims forward. The Founders themselves, in Congress, supported the Christian Religion. Many of these same men instituted taxes to support churches in their state.

But they made no provision for it in the most important document of all, namely the Constitution of the United States of America. What does that tell you...did they forget?

Their view of separation was not your view.

or as Jefferson put

And let me quote Adam's 1813, June 28 letter to Jefferson again:



So according to Adam's it was the general principles of Christianity that achieved Independence. That is historical and should be recognized.

[Roy]

Yes Roy, the actual new laws that Alfred added were lifted from scripture. If you know of more than the 48 dooms that I linked then please post them. Even his prologue/commentary was Biblically based, and even the laws from the three previous kings that he gathered were call "Christian laws." It seems clear to me that the greater part of this whole work is Christian. This is not moving the goal posts, I think my case has been clearly made.

Seer's original claim was that Alfred took most of the principles of his common law directly from scripture.

His current claim is merely that the greater part of Alfred's work is Christian.

Seer has not only moved the goalposts but it is painfully obvious that he has done so.

Roy

[seer]

Jefferson was never a Deist, never called himself a Deist, and believed that God actually interfered in human affairs. Something no Deist of the time believed. And again you quote Adam's when he was trying to appease the Muslims of Barbary, but you completely ignore him when he says that Christian principles were key to Independence.

But they made no provision for it in the most important document of all, namely the Constitution of the United States of America. What does that tell you...did they forget?

They didn't have too. The religious underpinnings of our Founding were already laid out in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was only meant to secure these rights in law.

or as Jefferson put

Then why did the Founders use tax dollars to support the Christian religion? And since when is Jefferson the only opinion that matters on this? How about Washington? Adams? John Jay, Henry, Rush, Witherspoon, et al?



Wrong.

Frazer (2004) notes that, while Adams shared many perspectives with deists, "Adams clearly was not a deist. Deism rejected any and all supernatural activity and intervention by God; consequently, deists did not believe in miracles or God's providence....Adams, however, did believe in miracles, providence, and, to a certain extent, the Bible as revelation."[138] Frazer argues that Adams' "theistic rationalism, like that of the other Founders, was a sort of middle ground between Protestantism and deism."[139] By contrast, David L. Holmes has argued that John Adams, beginning as a Congregationalist, ended his days as a Christian Unitarian, accepting central tenets of the Unitarian creed but also accepting Jesus as the redeemer of humanity and the biblical account of his miracles as true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A...eligious_views

[Mountain Man]

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/oklahoma-supreme-court-orders-removal/index.html

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state must remove a 6-foot tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments from its capitol because it violates the state's constitutional ban against the use of public funds or property to benefit a religion.

© Copyright Original Source

As Jerry Falwell once said, "What are they afraid of? That someone might read the 10 Commandments, take them to heart, and start living their life accordingly? Would that be so bad?"

[shunyadragon]

This does not change the fact of Christianity's influence on the Founding and character of this nation. And there is zero reason why the Ten Commandment should not be on state property, even if only as an historical marker. And I'm not sure what your problem is with religious law, is secular law somehow more desirable? And whose secular law?

Whose secular law?!?!? The secular law of the United States of America based on the Constitution.