Religious schools

[Blouman Empire]

I would prefer to send my children to somewhere more secular and open minded.

I gotta laugh at the open minded bit, well I shouldn't actually that is what you want and nothing wrong with that. What I would laugh at is that people would think that a public school means it is open minded what it really depends on is the teacher(s) that your child gets

[Bowquiver]

I would prefer to send my children to somewhere more secular and open minded.

I gotta laugh at the open minded bit, well I shouldn't actually that is what you want and nothing wrong with that. What I would laugh at is that people would think that a public school means it is open minded what it really depends on is the teacher(s) that your child gets

I agree, I just feel that a Religious school would not encourage a child to be open minded, I am not saying that Public schools will ALWAYS encourage children to be open minded, hope you understand now.

[Cabra West]

I would prefer to send my children to somewhere more secular and open minded.

I gotta laugh at the open minded bit, well I shouldn't actually that is what you want and nothing wrong with that. What I would laugh at is that people would think that a public school means it is open minded what it really depends on is the teacher(s) that your child gets

I agree, I just feel that a Religious school would not encourage a child to be open minded, I am not saying that Public schools will ALWAYS encourage children to be open minded, hope you understand now.

I think that might depend on the religious school.
Having been to Catholic school myself in Germany, I'm finding it rather astounding to read about some of the things going on in public schools in the US that I read about here. It seems to be a cultural thing rather than a religious one.

I'm in two minds... I'm not happy with the thought of sending my future kids to a religious school, but living in Ireland I'm painfully aware that I might not have that much choice.
On the other hand, I think that me and my BF would provide a good background to allow the children to learn about religion but still be critical... and I do think that knowledge about religion is vital in today's world, where it seems to be a growing rather than shrinking influence.

[Blouman Empire]

I agree, I just feel that a Religious school would not encourage a child to be open minded, I am not saying that Public schools will ALWAYS encourage children to be open minded, hope you understand now.

Yeas I understand what you are saying and as Cabra says it does depend on the religious school after all I think the school I went was fairly open minded and I do remember having long discussions in reilgious education as well as other classes again depending on the teacher just like any public school.

[Mathematica Numerica]

Are you mocking private schools as well?

[Lycandom]

(All quotes by Grave_n_idle)

Actually read your bible.

I did and I interpret it differently than you.

They constructed the calf as an IMAGE of Jehovah God, not as a separate god in it's own right. Theyw ere disappointed at no longer having a form of God to look upon (the pillar of fire), and they constructed something they COULD look upon - the exact same purpose as your wooden cross.

That is an idol. So maybe you do understand, but I didn't say that I use the cross to remind me of God. No in fact, I use the cross as a symbol not an idol. It is a symbol of my faith, my faith not an image of God. They shouldn't have made the cow to look upon. That was wrong. They should have had faith.

Then you are not a true believer

According to who's definition? No one knows what a true believer is. Only God can judge that. If you follow the rules and ideals of the Bible you'll get very close, but no one is perfect.

The text is stil lthe text, no matter what my religion is.

Right, but depending upon your religion and outlook it can change what the text means to you.

I'm not trying to insult you. People in the Bible who bend the knee to images, are idolators. You swear allegiance to a piece of cloth. You are an idolator.

I don't think you get it. If I prayed to the cross or I said the cross was the image of God then yes I would be, but I don't do that. It is just a symbol of my Christianity and remembrance of what Jesus did for me. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with God or being an image of God. In addition, the flag is not an image of God or a false image of a false god. It is simply a flag and it isn't a piece of cloth, it is the symbol of America and freedom. I swear allegiance to it because I want freedom to live on for everyone. I don't bend a knee to any idol. Saying you stand for what the flag stands for isn't idolizing anything. It is saying, hey guess what I stand for what this flag stands for. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It actually isn't insulting to me that you said that, it is your opinion. Another thing, I don't even really need my cross. I barely ever wear it.

You should really be thanking me for offering you the benefit of my knowledge without charge.

If that is what you call it. All of this is your opinion, not a proven fact. I don't pretend to know everything. Your knowledge is what you've collected over your years and that might satisfy you, but I search on. You can never stop learning and being open-minded to others and tolerant of them. That's funny that you say that. I will thank you for giving me your opinion. I won't ask you to thank me for telling you my opinion, because you seem to think that my beliefs and opinions are, how did you say it...What 'makes sense' to YOU is irrelevant. Whatever you want to think.

I don't come here to get fluffy bunny fuzzies off of agreeing with people...

No offense, but one more thing, I'm kind of glad that you don't agree with me.

by Muravyets
This is a debate forum, not a support group. I do understand the words you posted. I'm trying to tell you that basing and pursuing an argument that is 100% subjective and personal to you and only you, when you know perfectly well that you are arguing a point with people who do not share your beliefs renders your argument moot, because it is so alien to the viewpoint of the people you are debating with that there is no way it will ever make your position seem reasonable to them. I'm not talking about converting people over to your belief. I'm talking about carrying your points in this debate.

I'm glad that you understand what I posted, but it perplexes me as to why what I posted is irrelevant. If you understand it and everyone else does to then why is it so foreign to you. I don't sit here and pretend to understand why people don't believe in something greater and more powerful then themselves. Or why people get absorbed into science and don't realize that it aligns with religion. Or why people don't realize that the Bible is up for interpretation and you find your own love with God. I don't and yet you all talk about your non-beliefs and I discuss them with you. I don't sit here and say everything you are saying isn't fact because I don't agree with you. What I am saying isn't alien to you and you just admitted it above. We are in a religious school topic forum did you not expect religion to be brought up. It is kind of the topic. I can carry my points as well as you can. You talk about your points and I follow them without claiming that I don't get it and that your argument is moot because you believe what you are saying is true. That's ridiculous. You know perfectly well that you are arguing with someone that doesn't agree with you and yet you continue posting your opinions on the matter. I don't appreciate your intolerance or your attitude, but I understand what you are saying to me. You aren't helping however. I don't want to convert anyone on here, if I wanted to convert people I would go on a mission. If it does convert someone or peeks someone interest than that is a bonus. You said this: it is so alien to the viewpoint of the people you are debating with that there is no way it will ever make your position seem reasonable to them I'm glad that you pointed that out because do you think that I completely accept everything that you are saying to be reasonable? If I wanted a support group, I don't think I would go somewhere like this where everyone gives me cruel accusations and the evil eye because I'm different then them.

Everyone else here is doing this exact thing that you pointed out - I'm trying to tell you that basing and pursuing an argument that is 100% subjective and personal to you and only you...

You can't avoid it in a discussion or an argument. You represent your own opinions and beliefs, if you didn't then you would be a shell of contradictions and a very sad person who is absorbed into themselves and thinks that if it pleases others they'll say it. No, I'm not like that. If religion doesn't make sense to you then that's your problem. If you don't understand the subject then you shouldn't be posting in an area where we are talking about the subject. It just doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell me that everything you have posted on here have been pure facts and none of your opinion? If you are then you are lying to yourself. I doubt you posted anything that you didn't personally believe. I don't deny that my religion and relationship with God are personal to me and everyone has to find their own, but we are having a discussion about religion. What I'm saying is completely relevant.

[Grave_n_idle]

What I would laugh at is that people would think that a public school means it is open minded what it really depends on is the teacher(s) that your child gets

Which is an improvement over partisanship by policy.

[Grave_n_idle]

I use the cross as a symbol not an idol. It is a symbol of my faith... They shouldn't have made the cow to look upon. That was wrong. They should have had faith.

They used a golden calf as a symbol of their faith.

You should have a cross to look at, that's wrong. You should have faith.

Right, but depending upon your religion and outlook it can change what the text means to you.

Nope. The text still means the same thing.

In addition, the flag is not an image of God or a false image of a false god.

A graven image doesn't have to be - it's still prohibited.

Saying you stand for what the flag stands for isn't idolizing anything.

I've read the pledge - you don't say "I stand for what the flag stands for", you say "I swear allegiance to the flag".

That's bowing the knee to an image - that makes you an idolator.

[Muravyets]

I'm glad that you understand what I posted, but it perplexes me as to why what I posted is irrelevant. If you understand it and everyone else does to then why is it so foreign to you. I don't sit here and pretend to understand why people don't believe in something greater and more powerful then themselves. Or why people get absorbed into science and don't realize that it aligns with religion. Or why people don't realize that the Bible is up for interpretation and you find your own love with God. I don't and yet you all talk about your non-beliefs and I discuss them with you. I don't sit here and say everything you are saying isn't fact because I don't agree with you. What I am saying isn't alien to you and you just admitted it above. We are in a religious school topic forum did you not expect religion to be brought up. It is kind of the topic. I can carry my points as well as you can. You talk about your points and I follow them without claiming that I don't get it and that your argument is moot because you believe what you are saying is true. That's ridiculous. You know perfectly well that you are arguing with someone that doesn't agree with you and yet you continue posting your opinions on the matter. I don't appreciate your intolerance or your attitude, but I understand what you are saying to me. You aren't helping however. I don't want to convert anyone on here, if I wanted to convert people I would go on a mission. If it does convert someone or peeks someone interest than that is a bonus. You said this: it is so alien to the viewpoint of the people you are debating with that there is no way it will ever make your position seem reasonable to them I'm glad that you pointed that out because do you think that I completely accept everything that you are saying to be reasonable? If I wanted a support group, I don't think I would go somewhere like this where everyone gives me cruel accusations and the evil eye because I'm different then them.

Everyone else here is doing this exact thing that you pointed out - I'm trying to tell you that basing and pursuing an argument that is 100% subjective and personal to you and only you...

You can't avoid it in a discussion or an argument. You represent your own opinions and beliefs, if you didn't then you would be a shell of contradictions and a very sad person who is absorbed into themselves and thinks that if it pleases others they'll say it. No, I'm not like that. If religion doesn't make sense to you then that's your problem. If you don't understand the subject then you shouldn't be posting in an area where we are talking about the subject. It just doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell me that everything you have posted on here have been pure facts and none of your opinion? If you are then you are lying to yourself. I doubt you posted anything that you didn't personally believe. I don't deny that my religion and relationship with God are personal to me and everyone has to find their own, but we are having a discussion about religion. What I'm saying is completely relevant.

I think the problem is that you are telling us your beliefs over and over and over again. It creates the impression that you expect us to respond to them in some way.

It goes like this: Topic: Religious schools, good or bad -- debate! You: I'm kind of on the fence about religious schools, but I think it's a mistake to try to remove religion from public schools. (Yes, I am drastically oversimplifying for the moment.) Other debaters who are either atheists or followers a different religion than you: Explain your reasoning as to why religion is good in schools. You: Because I believe in my religion. Others: That reason is entirely subjective and applicable only to you. You: Three days of argument over whether other people understand religion properly.

That is the essence of the discussion as experienced by a poster other than you. Do you see where the disconnect happened? It's where you are asked to explain the reason and logic behind your argument, and you respond only with subjective feelings and then criticize us for not accepting that as a persuasive argument for why a thing is good.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm glad that you understand what I posted, but it perplexes me as to why what I posted is irrelevant. If you understand it and everyone else does to then why is it so foreign to you. I don't sit here and pretend to understand why people don't believe in something greater and more powerful then themselves. Or why people get absorbed into science and don't realize that it aligns with religion. Or why people don't realize that the Bible is up for interpretation and you find your own love with God. I don't and yet you all talk about your non-beliefs and I discuss them with you. I don't sit here and say everything you are saying isn't fact because I don't agree with you. What I am saying isn't alien to you and you just admitted it above. We are in a religious school topic forum did you not expect religion to be brought up. It is kind of the topic. I can carry my points as well as you can. You talk about your points and I follow them without claiming that I don't get it and that your argument is moot because you believe what you are saying is true. That's ridiculous. You know perfectly well that you are arguing with someone that doesn't agree with you and yet you continue posting your opinions on the matter. I don't appreciate your intolerance or your attitude, but I understand what you are saying to me. You aren't helping however. I don't want to convert anyone on here, if I wanted to convert people I would go on a mission. If it does convert someone or peeks someone interest than that is a bonus. You said this: it is so alien to the viewpoint of the people you are debating with that there is no way it will ever make your position seem reasonable to them I'm glad that you pointed that out because do you think that I completely accept everything that you are saying to be reasonable? If I wanted a support group, I don't think I would go somewhere like this where everyone gives me cruel accusations and the evil eye because I'm different then them.

Everyone else here is doing this exact thing that you pointed out - I'm trying to tell you that basing and pursuing an argument that is 100% subjective and personal to you and only you...

You can't avoid it in a discussion or an argument. You represent your own opinions and beliefs, if you didn't then you would be a shell of contradictions and a very sad person who is absorbed into themselves and thinks that if it pleases others they'll say it. No, I'm not like that. If religion doesn't make sense to you then that's your problem. If you don't understand the subject then you shouldn't be posting in an area where we are talking about the subject. It just doesn't make sense to me. Are you trying to tell me that everything you have posted on here have been pure facts and none of your opinion? If you are then you are lying to yourself. I doubt you posted anything that you didn't personally believe. I don't deny that my religion and relationship with God are personal to me and everyone has to find their own, but we are having a discussion about religion. What I'm saying is completely relevant.

I think the problem is that you are telling us your beliefs over and over and over again. It creates the impression that you expect us to respond to them in some way.

It goes like this: Topic: Religious schools, good or bad -- debate! You: I'm kind of on the fence about religious schools, but I think it's a mistake to try to remove religion from public schools. (Yes, I am drastically oversimplifying for the moment.) Other debaters who are either atheists or followers a different religion than you: Explain your reasoning as to why religion is good in schools. You: Because I believe in my religion. Others: That reason is entirely subjective and applicable only to you. You: Three days of argument over whether other people understand religion properly.

That is the essence of the discussion as experienced by a poster other than you. Do you see where the disconnect happened? It's where you are asked to explain the reason and logic behind your argument, and you respond only with subjective feelings and then criticize us for not accepting that as a persuasive argument for why a thing is good.

Taking the oversimplifying one Astronaut Step further, if I may:


Topic: Pie in schools, good or bad -- debate!


Lycandom: Good

Someone else: Why?

Lycandom: Becuse I like pie!

Someone else: Yeah... but not everyone does

Lycandom: Yeah, but I really do like pie. Sometimes it's got berries in it, and sometimes bits of cow.

Someone else: Um... yeah, but... not everyone likes pie, yes?

Lycandom: I don't think you understand... I really fucking like pie, man. That scene in "American Pie"? That's totally me.

Someone else: ...

[Lycandom]

Grave_n_idle you would say Pie I can't tolerate pie because it is different than me. And pie is an idolator...arrghhhhh...

by Grave_n_idle
The text still means the same thing.

Does it? So all Christians are the same? All Christians read the same Bible and have the same religion right? Wrong. There are Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. I could keep going. And for the sake of pointing something out. The Jesus wanted you to eat him and drink him is I believe a Catholic belief specifically. So, the text isn't the text. It is a text, but it isn't all used the same in each religion that uses it. In addition, you said that you used to be a believer, that means you probably had a sect that you were closer to than others. Or maybe you were part of a specific sect, I don't know. Well, just because I don't believe what you used to believe doesn't make me an idolator or some kind of non-true believer or whatever you want to call me. It makes me different than you. It seems that you don't even believe what you used to believe anyway, so how does that make me not a true believer if I don't believe that stuff, you don't believe it either. So, to you it isn't true anyway. I just don't get that, but the fact remains the same, not all religions that use the Bible use it the same way.

Muravyets
I think the problem is that you are telling us your beliefs over and over and over again. It creates the impression that you expect us to respond to them in some way.
It goes like this: Topic: Religious schools, good or bad -- debate! You: I'm kind of on the fence about religious schools, but I think it's a mistake to try to remove religion from public schools. (Yes, I am drastically oversimplifying for the moment.) Other debaters who are either atheists or followers a different religion than you: Explain your reasoning as to why religion is good in schools. You: Because I believe in my religion. Others: That reason is entirely subjective and applicable only to you. You: Three days of argument over whether other people understand religion properly.
That is the essence of the discussion as experienced by a poster other than you. Do you see where the disconnect happened? It's where you are asked to explain the reason and logic behind your argument, and you respond only with subjective feelings and then criticize us for not accepting that as a persuasive argument for why a thing is good.

I see what you are saying, but you guys are asking me questions and some of you are making claims that I need to answer. I'm not going to ignore you. You can respond in anyway you like.
(Just as a disclaimer: I understand that you are simplifying.)

You (a.k.a. Me): I'm kind of on the fence about religious schools, but I think it's a mistake to try to remove religion from public schools.
Other debaters who are either atheists or followers a different religion than you: Explain your reasoning as to why religion is good in schools. - I'm not on the fence about religious schools, I've said plenty of times that they should exist privately funded. It is a mistake to remove religion in the sense of erasing it. We've been over this and I thought we all agreed that religion being taught from a historical aspect is important academically. Spiritually you can learn it elsewhere, but to understand history and people's motives back in the day, the religion of the time is important. Like Egypt, Greece, and Rome, etc. I understand that others aren't like me, I'm not condemning them or saying that they're wrong. They're different than me and I embrace that. LIterature inevitably has religious aspects such as Greek mythological poems or plays or tragedies. Those are the reasons not to remove it. As well as public schools should be tolerant of people's religions as well. If people want to have religious after school programs or talk about religious topics while at school that should be allowed as well as not wanting to. It is a PUBLIC school meaning that it shouldn't take a position, it should teach kids which is its purpose, and it shouldn't oppress any child no matter what they believe, in fact a school should nurture a child and not force them one way or the other. That's my opinion, I understand that isn't usually reality, but it should be the goal of a PUBLIC school.
You (Me again): Because I believe in my religion. - Once, again, if you don't believe something you shouldn't say it. I don't see anything wrong with me saying that I believe in my religion. That's a no brainer. But, I did state before why and I have restated it above.
Others: That reason is entirely subjective and applicable only to you. - Once again restated above for all of those who didn't catch that post that I made about it.
You (thrice Me): Three days of argument over whether other people understand religion properly. - That was Grave, not me. I don't want to argue about religion being properly accepted or not. You find your own path with religion, that's up to you. I don't shun people who are different from me. I wouldn't be here discussing with you guys if I thought I was so superior and you guys couldn't get what I was saying because my brain is so vast. No, this is NS1 and this is a discussion between different types of people. A good thing if you ask me.

Grave is the one making claims that I don't understand religion properly when in fact I understand religion it just is in a different way.

Do you see where the disconnect happened? It's where you are asked to explain the reason and logic behind your argument, and you respond only with subjective feelings and then criticize us for not accepting that as a persuasive argument for why a thing is good.

I see exactly where the disconnect happened. It happened when you guys didn't understand what I was saying. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, but my message seemed to have gotten lost. I hope that my above comments are somewhat helpful. I don't think saying that religion is a part of history (all religions mind you) is a personal thing to me. I don't believe in all religions, they have varying aspects that makes that impossible, but I don't go around calling people wrong and screaming that they're going to hell or something. They're just different from me, that doesn't make them better or worse, just different. I'm not criticizing you guys, you seem to criticize me an awful lot and I don't really care, it doesn't hurt my feelings or anything. You guys don't agree and you guys ask questions, which is a good thing, and I answer and we talk, but to say that I criticize you like I'm waging some kind of Jihad or something on you is not right (I'm exaggerating). I'm just stating my opinions. If you guys don't think that your opinions are subjective to you than you have another thing coming. While I agree with a lot of things you guys say that doesn't mean that everything seems reasonable to me. I state when I don't think something is reasonable. That is what a discussion is about, back and forth about a topic. This topic just means different things to different people and thus the depth of the topic might not reach quite as far for some people. I've stated many things that aren't subjective, so I have explained and I bolded it above once again in your simplified argument as to why religion shouldn't be banned from schools. As well as the money thing for removing statements from money and taking the pledge words out or the whole pledge for some people and I think we talked about the seizure thing. I've stated many reasonable and open reasons that don't have anything to really do with God as to why those things don't make much sense. So, no not everything I say has to do with my religion, it is an important aspect of my life, but I am a reasonable, open-minded person. I have exhibited that many times on here. And just because I say one thing that you don't agree with (you've said things that I don't) doesn't make me irrelevant or whatever you want to say.

[Grave_n_idle]

Does it? So all Christians are the same? All Christians read the same Bible and have the same religion right? Wrong. There are Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. I could keep going. And for the sake of pointing something out. The Jesus wanted you to eat him and drink him is I believe a Catholic belief specifically.

No - that's explicit in the text.

Catholics are just the ones that actually make a big deal about following it.

So, the text isn't the text. It is a text, but it isn't all used the same in each religion that uses it.

No, the text IS the text - the difference between Baptists and Methodists ISN'T the text - it's what they each CHOOSE to take from it.

In addition, you said that you used to be a believer, that means you probably had a sect that you were closer to than others. Or maybe you were part of a specific sect, I don't know.

I was raised (nominally) C of E.

Well, just because I don't believe what you used to believe

I don't believe what I used to believ, either - that's not the point.

...doesn't make me an idolator

No, bending the knee before graven images makes you an idolator.

...or some kind of non-true believer or whatever you want to call me.

Failing to actually observe the scriptural ritual requirements is your problem there, not disagreeing with me.

It makes me different than you.

And wrong.

Don't worry, I was wrong, too.

It seems that you don't even believe what you used to believe anyway, so how does that make me not a true believer if I don't believe that stuff, you don't believe it either. So, to you it isn't true anyway.

But to you - it is, no?

If you believe, but you don't DO what it is required for you to do - can you REALLY say you believe?

I just don't get that, but the fact remains the same, not all religions that use the Bible use it the same way.

Which is irrelevant - that's the problem with the churches, not the book.

[Lycandom]

(All to Grave)

No, the text IS the text - the difference between Baptists and Methodists ISN'T the text - it's what they each CHOOSE to take from it.

So which one is right? Just the ones that follow what you think the text says? How do we know that part said by Jesus was to be taken literally and not figuratively? We aren't Jesus and we weren't there, so I'm not sure anyone can say definitively that is what it is actually saying. That, what you said above was my point, but you need to see the rest of it. What they TAKE from it COULD be what it is actually saying. No one can prove that someone isn't a true believer because they don't do what you do. That's just not right. If you believe in God than you are a believer. If you follow the rules in the Bible and believe in God you are a believer also. Just because people differ in their interpretations of the text doesn't mean any of them are right or wrong. Everyone worships or doesn't worship God in their own way.

...bending the knee before graven images makes you an idolator.

Not true. Just because you bend your knee doesn't mean that you believe it is an idol. If I got down on one knee in front of a coffee table to pray to God does that make the coffee table an idol? No, of course not. Just because you align yourself with your nation and make an oath while holding your hand on heart to that nation's flag doesn't make you an idoler. It is actually, at least what it means to me, is respect for those who have fallen for our great nation of America and that I will always fight for what America is founded on, freedom. The American Flag is not a graven image and is not an idol. And neither is the cross that I wear. I do not worship them or use them as symbols of God or false gods. They are thus not idols and thus I am not an idoler. You may think as you wish, you may judge me. But it is a plain fact that just because an object is material doesn't mean it is an idol. You have to THINK it is an idol or BELIEVE it is an idol before it is one.

Failing to actually observe the scriptural ritual requirements is your problem there, not disagreeing with me.

The scripture according to...YOU. You forgot that part.

Lycandom wrote:
It makes me different than you.

And wrong.
Don't worry, I was wrong, too

You still are, but that's for different reasons. In this case, you are wrong for your intolerance. It is not a good trait in a person to exhibit disdain for another who is different than them. You should accept other people who are different than you without judging them. Everyone is unique and you shouldn't oppress.

But to you - it is, no?
If you believe, but you don't DO what it is required for you to do - can you REALLY say you believe?

I do what is REQUIRED as you put it, in my religion. If that doesn't match up with you than so be it. I'm not judging you.

Lycandom wrote:
I just don't get that, but the fact remains the same, not all religions that use the Bible use it the same way.

Which is irrelevant - that's the problem with the churches, not the book.

No, that is a problem with you. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the way that you USED to interrupt the Bible isn't the way others do and is thus not necessarily correct. I mean you even thought it was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with me believing that Jesus doesn't endorse cannibalism. Absolutely nothing. I don't believe that the text says that. So, the Book doesn't have problems, some of the churches do, but that's another discussion...

The Book wasn't written to be used in the fashion you are using it. Which is to judge others and say that they aren't true believers because they don't believe something that you don't even believe anymore. And no, I don't agree with everything that you believe, so no I would have to say that what you THINK the Bible says is in fact not what it says. Just because I see something different in the text doesn't mean that it is wrong or what you used to see was wrong. Just different and I'm sorry if that makes you mad. The text is the text, but when you read it it becomes the text that you see. A complete literal interpretation of the Bible (which is what it seems like you are doing) is something that I don't believe in.

[Krypton-Zod]

On the other hand, I think that me and my BF would provide a good background to allow the children to learn about religion but still be critical... and I do think that knowledge about religion is vital in today's world, where it seems to be a growing rather than shrinking influence.

Kids do need to be taught the malign influence religion has and has had. Particulary the 2 most deadly of them all, islam and christianity.

[Blouman Empire]

Kids do need to be taught the malign influence religion has and has had. Particulary the 2 most deadly of them all, islam and christianity.

Cause that is opn minded and all

[Anemos Major]

Well, my school is predominantly Christian, having been founded by King Henry VI in order to promote Christian virtues and obedience to the Lord and such, but it also offers an array of chaplains for many different religions. It doesn't have to be brainwashing.

[Colonic Immigration]

You're only 12? I'm impressed. But then, you're in the right club. NS General has a history of attracting very smart young teens who rhetorically put their elders in their places.

RoI is the exception.

(And no posters he won't mind me saying that)

Why would I? It's a fact.

[Lycandom]

by Krypton-Zod » Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:57 am

Cabra West wrote:
On the other hand, I think that me and my BF would provide a good background to allow the children to learn about religion but still be critical... and I do think that knowledge about religion is vital in today's world, where it seems to be a growing rather than shrinking influence.

Kids do need to be taught the malign influence religion has and has had. Particulary the 2 most deadly of them all, islam and christianity.

Krypton, with a name like that I'm surprised at your answer. First, Krypton was Superman/Clark Kent's home world. I don't think Superman, if he were real, would be so intolerant of others. He is a selfless person/character.

You seem to be afraid of things you don't understand. If your hatred for Islam stems from terrorism then you don't get it. Terrorists aren't Islamic, they use it as a tool for their tirades and tyranny. They use it as a scare tactic and a way to recruit others. They use it to their whim, they don't use what it actually says. They use it to excuse their unfounded hatred for America and the rest of Western civilization. If you read the texts of Islam, you will find that no where in there does it say Death to Infidels or whatever crazy mottos they are using everyday. It is a scapegoat for their psychoticness. Reminds me of Hitler. He used Success to Germans kind of mentality to destroy all the groups he didn't like. He didn't really care about people, only what he wanted. That's what is happening there.

Christianity as an idea isn't bad. See you are confused, it is the people that are bad not the ideals that are taught. As a Christian, I know that when I read the Bible it never said anything about killing others, it actually says not to. So what kind of malign influence does religion teach exactly? I can see where people use it for malign things, but I've said this before. If you remove it, you'll just get another scapegoat. And eventually, by removing all the scapegoats you won't have any freedom, ideals, or life. You won't be able to do anything. Evil people will always find an excuse to hurt others. That's a fact.

Your blinded by your own false beliefs. If you opened your eyes, you would see that it isn't the religion, it is the people using the religion for their own ends. There are millions of religious people across the world who are not bad people because they actually believe what they are reading and don't take what they want for some kind of murder campaign. Get your facts straight Krypton. Religion doesn't teach malign things. People teach other people malign things. People who use religion to their own will and twist it from its original message are the malign influence here. And to take people's freedom away like that by removing religion would be unjust because it isn't fair. I never used my religion to hurt others. I am not a malign person. My children should be able to learn religion if they want. That's called freedom and tolerance.

[Krypton-Zod]

You seem to be afraid of things you don't understand. If your hatred for Islam stems from terrorism then you don't get it. Terrorists aren't Islamic, they use it as a tool for their tirades and tyranny.

Really? The quran and other islamic writings disagree with you.

If you read the texts of Islam, you will find that no where in there does it say Death to Infidels or whatever crazy mottos they are using everyday.

Care for a long list of quoted verses that contradict your ridiculous statement? Send me your e-mailadress and I'll be happy to prove you extremely wrong.

Religion doesn't teach malign things.

I can supply an equally long list of bible verses that disagree with you.

That's called freedom and tolerance.

Which religious folks always demand but in the end, never give.

In the end, it's always funny, because the religious crowd always makes claims with blatantly contradict their own 'holy' books which they are commanded to obey completely, and not pick and choose. Matthew 4, verse 4 for example clearly states: Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

That's every word, not just the bits you like or feel comfortable with. And if this 'god' really existed (which he does not, neither does allah) then I would assume this 'god' would tell you if he cared to change his commands. Which in the end means, all that bible and quran stuff was made up by mortal men.

[Lycandom]

Care for a long list of quoted verses that contradict your ridiculous statement?

Your intolerance and misunderstandings abound. Please put the direct quotes here so that we may discuss them.

Lyc wrote: That's called freedom and tolerance.

Which religious folks always demand but in the end, never give.

You are stereotyping. You don't know every single millions upon millions of religious people. I don't sit here and say that all people that don't believe in what I believe are dangerous and malign. You'll always get wackos like I said before that use any excuse to do what they want to do.

You are sitting there insulting millions of people (most of which don't care, but still) about their personal beliefs because you don't believe it nor understand it. You are making blanket statements. Evil people come from all walks of life and to say that all malign influences stem from religion is incorrect. You don't know those people and you have no idea how nice they are. You certainly don't know me. I've never met you in my life. I would have known because you would have apparently automatically thought that I was some kind of malign influence on others. Was Mother Theresa malign? Or did she just not follow the verses you are quoting?

It is called freedom and tolerance and I do give it because I believe in it. That's why you are allowed to sit where you are and make outrageous comments about millions of people that you don't know and I'm allowed to sit here and say be more tolerant.

In the end, it's always funny, because the religious crowd always makes claims with blatantly contradict their own 'holy' books which they are commanded to obey completely, and not pick and choose. Matthew 4, verse 4 for example clearly states: Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
That's every word, not just the bits you like or feel comfortable with. And if this 'god' really existed (which he does not, neither does allah) then I would assume this 'god' would tell you if he cared to change his commands. Which in the end means, all that bible and quran stuff was made up by mortal men.

I've said this millions of times before to Grave. Each religion is different. You shouldn't just believe what one has said. You should read the Holy books yourself and make your own accordances. It seems that you may have with the quoting, but I stated that just in case.

So what: Man should "eat" every word of God, you mean like don't kill or cheat on your parter, or steal, or talk bad about your parents, or what?

I feel absolutely comfortable with every single bit in the Bible. I never stated that I didn't. I don't pick and choose THEY do that's the point. You seemed to have completely missed it.

I say it again: The malign influence is people using the excuse and the scapegoat of religion to pull people into their world so that they can have their own ends met. No where in the Bible does it say that you can take the book and use as you wish for your own selfish reasons. Terrorists do this with Islam. And cult leaders do this with Christianity. And others do it to. It is just an excuse they are using, picking what they want and touting it so that they can do whatever they wish. It is wrong and I'm glad that you recognize that. Not every religious person does this and for you to be blinded by that is ridiculous. Religion doesn't breed malign people, malign people are malign people no matter what excuse they use.

I would assume this 'god' would tell you if he cared to change his commands.

It seems to me like you think it doesn't exist so it doesn't. You can't explain everything in the universe, you shouldn't discount possibilities, that stunts your knowledge growth. You also shouldn't say things like what I italicized above. That makes no sense. He didn't change the commandments that's why things like these: (riddled with sarcastic and meaningful notes)
I am the Lord your God So malign and scary, oh my...
You shall have no other gods before me Also very malign, this teaches people to do what? Believe in something more than themselves, dangerous...
You shall not make for yourself an idol Same as above
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God This just means don't swear with God's name.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy Sundays, good day of the week.
Honor your father and mother Don't talk back mister...
You shall not murder So malign I can't stand it...
You shall not commit adultery This is the worst of them I mean don't cheat and use another person like that...
You shall not steal Doesn't belong to you, hands off. That sounds like a really bad policy doesn't it?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor Don't lie about people.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife Same as the adultery one.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor Don't want what other people have. Love what you have, cherish it.

Which one of those is malign again? and which one could possibly teach anyone anything that is malign? That's ridiculous, those statements are not malign, they are meant to keep people from doing malign things, but of course there are those people that you apparently think every religious person is like. Terrorists, not everyone is a terrorist. Not everyone is some sort of crazy cult leader. You shouldn't use religion to oppress people and people shouldn't use religion to kill others. It is an excuse and there are many others. No truly religious person does mass killings unless there is something seriously wrong with them in the head. People USE religion to their whim. None of the commandments are malign and none of them will be changed by God because of that.

You're hatred and intolerance is what is wrong with this world whether it comes from someone who doesn't believe or it comes from someone who says they do. It is all the same. You are what is wrong here. Your intolerance and cruelty of others that you don't understand nor know is impeccably rude and there are no words for the injustice you do to others with your hate outlook.

[Tunizcha]

It seems to me like you think it doesn't exist so it doesn't. You can't explain everything in the universe, you shouldn't discount possibilities, that stunts your knowledge growth. You also shouldn't say things like what I italicized above. That makes no sense. He didn't change the commandments that's why things like these: (riddled with sarcastic and meaningful notes)
I am the Lord your God So malign and scary, oh my...
You shall have no other gods before me Also very malign, this teaches people to do what? Believe in something more than themselves, dangerous...
You shall not make for yourself an idol Same as above
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God This just means don't swear with God's name.
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy Sundays, good day of the week.
Honor your father and mother Don't talk back mister...
You shall not murder So malign I can't stand it...
You shall not commit adultery This is the worst of them I mean don't cheat and use another person like that...
You shall not steal Doesn't belong to you, hands off. That sounds like a really bad policy doesn't it?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor Don't lie about people.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife Same as the adultery one.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor Don't want what other people have. Love what you have, cherish it.

So sarcastic remarks aside, the commandments seem alright at face value. But allow me to delve deeper. The first is self-speaking, so I'm going to skip it.

The second, "You shall have no other gods before me". This seems fine on the outside, but wait, Believe only in me and "I am your Lord"? Doesn't that seem oh-so reminiscent of North Korea? It's simply a control mechanism that completely contradicts that he supposedly gave us free will.
The third, "You shall not make for yourself an idol". That, again is a control mechanism to force you into a full belief.
The fourth, again forces the impression that for some reason, he is greater than you. So great that you are not allowed to speak his name in a unworthy manner.
The fifth, I have no qualms with. Take a day off. Perfectly fine.
The sixth, honor your parents. I don't know why this is in the set of biggest rules, but alright.
The seventh, "You shall not murder". Now this gives the false impression that humans are so incredibly simple minded that they would kill each other unless they were told not to. Tell me this. If you have rational humans who actually use common sense, do you think it would make sense that they would kill each other? No, of course it doesn't. It is an evolutionary trait for humans not to want to kill each other, since humans were the first to create large groups in which they worked with each other to survive. Humans no longer needed the "survival of the fittest" mentality because they had created community. And what defines a murder? One human killing another? Than what about an eye for an eye? Would exacting revenge not also be murder?
The eighth, "You shall not commit adultery". Do you know what was considered adultery in the Bible? Men could sleep with whomever they wished, but women who were married, or even divorced, were not allowed to touch a man besides her husband sexually. Ignoring this, there are verses that contradict this completely.
Hosea 1:2
And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms....
Hosea 3:1
Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.
The ninth, "You shall not steal". Now this defies the "Poor are more moral than the rich" preachings of Jesus. How? Would a rich man wish to steal from a poor man? Of course not, what would a poor man have to offer? Now, a poor man stealing from a rich man, doesn't that help him quite a bit?
The tenth, you shall not lie. Alright, fine.
The eleventh, do not want to have sex with another man's wife. Eh, alright. But doesn't this seem to want to change human nature? In nature, we had to have sex as much as possible to keep the human race going, since young were often easily killed, gestation periods were long, and we had a small clutch size. But in civilization, I can sort of see the reason behind this.
The last, don't want what someone else has. This has the same problems as the stealing one.

Overall, these rules seek to lessen the value of a human mind by patronization and control. Even the ones that seem alright are seeking to control you. You can have rules, but you must also have the mind to judge a situation yourself. The bible doesn't allow you to do so, as it makes it seem like if you don't follow these, then you won't be saved. But yes, the bible says you don't have to follow certain ones*, but what good is having a set of rules if you are allowed to pick and choose?

*If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. -- Matthew 19:17-19

[Lycandom]

(All to Tunizcha)

Well just to keep this straight before continuing with the conversation. I still hold to the statement that I made that people with the attitude that Kryp has are malign influences on children because they teach intolerance, centrism, and seek to stamp out part of individualism. As well, as to extinguish the freedoms of others to practice what they believe. Those are malign influences, people with bad attitudes to be frank, simplistic, and a little kind about it.

I made my comments within the below quote:

The second, "You shall have no other gods before me". This seems fine on the outside, but wait, Believe only in me and "I am your Lord"? Doesn't that seem oh-so reminiscent of North Korea? It's simply a control mechanism that completely contradicts that he supposedly gave us free will. I don't think it is a control mechanism. You don't believe it and no one is doing anything to stop that. Freedom and free will allow you to do as you wish. I don't think God is anything like North Korea because N.K. would beat you and lock you up for not listening to them, God doesn't come down here and say anything because you have free will.

The third, "You shall not make for yourself an idol". That, again is a control mechanism to force you into a full belief. Actually, it doesn't force you into full belief. Idols have nothing to do with believing. It tries to nurture a sense of faith. So that you do not need material objects to know that God is there. You don't need the statues, etc. You just need yourself. You don't even need the Bible to have faith. That is what that means. That has nothing to do with control just fostering a sense of faith. Which is applicable in other areas other than religion. It also fosters a sense of belief. To learn how to believe in something fully, you need to understand what belief is and to understand you need to learn it. Belief is a large part of our lives. If you don't believe you can do something than you won't. If scientists didn't believe there was stuff in the universe that we could use do you think we would waste time out there?
The fourth, again forces the impression that for some reason, he is greater than you. So great that you are not allowed to speak his name in a unworthy manner. Your not supposed to speak anyone's name in a bad manner. That's just not a good thing to do. You aren't unworthy as you put it. That would only be the case if you have some kind of complex issue. It isn't that you are unworthy, it is that it is wrong to take your Father's name in vain. That would be God, in this instance. Taking someone in vain is not a nice thing to do. Have you ever heard: don't speak ill of the dead? Same principle.
...
...
The seventh, "You shall not murder". Now this gives the false impression that humans are so incredibly simple minded that they would kill each other unless they were told not to. Tell me this. If you have rational humans who actually use common sense, do you think it would make sense that they would kill each other? No, of course it doesn't. It is an evolutionary trait for humans not to want to kill each other, since humans were the first to create large groups in which they worked with each other to survive. Humans no longer needed the "survival of the fittest" mentality because they had created community. And what defines a murder? One human killing another? Than what about an eye for an eye? Would exacting revenge not also be murder? Um...well we kind of still do despite being told, so yes we need to be told. Don't you teach children from a young age that violence isn't right? Don't teachers tell kids not to hit each other? Don't parents teach kids not to fight and not to be violent? Same principle here.
Well, some people kill each other not for a lack of rationality, but just because they can and because the person is in their way in some way. There are perfectly rational, sane, people who kill others. That isn't the problem. It does happen in every nation around the world. Despite being told by many sources that killing is a bad thing to do.
A murder is defined as this I would think: The unlawful (both Biblically and regular law) killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). Or in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death. (Eye for an Eye kind of thing)
Take the first murder that ever occurred, Cain and Abel. That is where you can get the best definition for murder. He did it on purpose, he ended another life on purpose. That's the definition. It is right there in the Bible along with the commandment saying don't do it.
Capital punishment is technically murder yes.

The eighth, "You shall not commit adultery". Do you know what was considered adultery in the Bible? Men could sleep with whomever they wished, but women who were married, or even divorced, were not allowed to touch a man besides her husband sexually. Ignoring this, there are verses that contradict this completely. Adultery is when you are unfaithful to your spouse in any way. It can also apply to relationships other than marriage (courtship kind of thing), but not all believe that. Well, the Old Testament is vastly different than the New Testament. We must keep in mind that the New Testament is a more up to date version of the Old one and takes into account the progression of man and the death of Jesus. Divorcing is definitely considered adultery, but only if the divorce has not resulted from a commitment of adultery. See if there was adultery, then the marriage is automatically annulled in the eyes of God even if you have to do a bunch of paperwork here.

Hosea 1:2
And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms.... Old Testament texts. The Ten commandments can be found in the New Testament (as well as the old). They recant older beliefs of the Old Testament are worded differently because of the things I said above and they are better explained as well.
...
The ninth, "You shall not steal". Now this defies the "Poor are more moral than the rich" preachings of Jesus. How? Would a rich man wish to steal from a poor man? Of course not, what would a poor man have to offer? Now, a poor man stealing from a rich man, doesn't that help him quite a bit? Yes it helps, but at the expense of someone else. If you wish to "earn" your living that way it is your business. You should earn it the honest way. That's what this means. It isn't saying that the poor are more moral, it is saying that people need to be told not to steal. Jesus' whole thing on the rich was that if you become rich, but at the expense of others or you don't give back that you are doing something wrong. Seems fair and true to me regardless of whether you believe in a higher power.
...
The eleventh, do not want to have sex with another man's wife. Eh, alright. But doesn't this seem to want to change human nature? In nature, we had to have sex as much as possible to keep the human race going, since young were often easily killed, gestation periods were long, and we had a small clutch size. But in civilization, I can sort of see the reason behind this. Well, the reason behind this applies with the adultery commandment as well as common sense. It is common sense to want a variety in your species. You don't want to have one guy having all the children because they dilutes the gene pool. In addition, human nature as you call it is also to be thoughtful and if you were thoughtful then you would understand that having sex with everyone else is not exactly good for the population nor yourself. (Gotta watch for those pesky diseases and things too.)

The last, don't want what someone else has. This has the same problems as the stealing one. How about you get one for yourself? Don't want what someone else has is a variety of reasons. First, the coveting the spouse thing explained above. Secondly, is material objects, don't want what they have means that you can want the object, but not the one that they have. It is tricky, but take this as my example:

You see a commercial on television, a product that you want. You see that a friend of yours has it. You can want the object for yourself, but no their copy. Your own copy. See, mass production didn't exist in those days, so their are multiple copies of everything now. Not wanting what someone else has means you can't want (or steal) the vase they have or the painting they have or the t.v. they have or anything like that. You should WANT to get one for yourself, but not theirs. I hope I explained that well enough. There is nothing wrong with wanting something, that's human nature, but you can't want THEIRS.

Overall, these rules seek to lessen the value of a human mind by patronization and control. Even the ones that seem alright are seeking to control you. You can have rules, but you must also have the mind to judge a situation yourself. The bible doesn't allow you to do so, as it makes it seem like if you don't follow these, then you won't be saved. But yes, the bible says you don't have to follow certain ones*, but what good is having a set of rules if you are allowed to pick and choose?

No, they don't seek to patronize you. God thinks that you are smart enough to get a set of rules and follow them without your hand being held. That's called trust. Kind of like when your parents finally let you get your own pet or your driver's license so you can drive the car... You do have a mind to judge the situation yourself. Which ones are stopping you from judging the situation? That's interesting to me, because if you go commandment to commandment they seek to protect people from other people not to limit you unless you think in some situation it is okay to premeditate murder or to have sex with someone else's wife or husband. I don't think there is a situation where that is necessary. You aren't ALLOWED to pick and choose the ones that you want. Every set of laws has exceptions. Would you say that law made by people is no good because there are exceptions and processes to following those rules? No because they keep society in line. Same thing here. It seeks to keep you civilized, out of trouble, and protected.

Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. -- Matthew 19:17-19

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between the New and Old Testament. Just like people's laws, they change to adapt to new times and new problems. Here we see Jesus, son of God, recanting and revamping the laws to match the new civilization of man. It isn't patronizing, it is recognizing that people don't need to be told all of them, they know some of them because they're smart. They need to follow these ones particularly closely because they are the current and future dilemmas. Do you see what I mean? God isn't patronizing you with rules, unless you think governments do that too. Same thing. It is a set of laws to protect people from people and themselves. Governments do it to keep order. Same deal. They even echo each other sometimes (don't steal, don't murder, etc.). You don't pick and choose, but if you believe in Jesus as being the son of God then you understand that he had a better understanding of what God wanted and he was sent to us not only to save us, but to spread the word of God. The New Testament is the new law, the Old Testament the old. It doesn't mean you can't read both and understand both, but when there is a discrepancy in the New one from the Old one then the New one reigns.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

(All to Tunizcha)

Well just to keep this straight before continuing with the conversation. I still hold to the statement that I made that people with the attitude that Kryp has are malign influences on children because they teach intolerance, centrism, and seek to stamp out part of individualism. As well, as to extinguish the freedoms of others to practice what they believe. Those are malign influences, people with bad attitudes to be frank, simplistic, and a little kind about it.

I made my comments within the below quote:

The second, "You shall have no other gods before me". This seems fine on the outside, but wait, Believe only in me and "I am your Lord"? Doesn't that seem oh-so reminiscent of North Korea? It's simply a control mechanism that completely contradicts that he supposedly gave us free will. I don't think it is a control mechanism. You don't believe it and no one is doing anything to stop that. Freedom and free will allow you to do as you wish. I don't think God is anything like North Korea because N.K. would beat you and lock you up for not listening to them, God doesn't come down here and say anything because you have free will.

The third, "You shall not make for yourself an idol". That, again is a control mechanism to force you into a full belief. Actually, it doesn't force you into full belief. Idols have nothing to do with believing. It tries to nurture a sense of faith. So that you do not need material objects to know that God is there. You don't need the statues, etc. You just need yourself. You don't even need the Bible to have faith. That is what that means. That has nothing to do with control just fostering a sense of faith. Which is applicable in other areas other than religion. It also fosters a sense of belief. To learn how to believe in something fully, you need to understand what belief is and to understand you need to learn it. Belief is a large part of our lives. If you don't believe you can do something than you won't. If scientists didn't believe there was stuff in the universe that we could use do you think we would waste time out there?
The fourth, again forces the impression that for some reason, he is greater than you. So great that you are not allowed to speak his name in a unworthy manner. Your not supposed to speak anyone's name in a bad manner. That's just not a good thing to do. You aren't unworthy as you put it. That would only be the case if you have some kind of complex issue. It isn't that you are unworthy, it is that it is wrong to take your Father's name in vain. That would be God, in this instance. Taking someone in vain is not a nice thing to do. Have you ever heard: don't speak ill of the dead? Same principle.
...
...
The seventh, "You shall not murder". Now this gives the false impression that humans are so incredibly simple minded that they would kill each other unless they were told not to. Tell me this. If you have rational humans who actually use common sense, do you think it would make sense that they would kill each other? No, of course it doesn't. It is an evolutionary trait for humans not to want to kill each other, since humans were the first to create large groups in which they worked with each other to survive. Humans no longer needed the "survival of the fittest" mentality because they had created community. And what defines a murder? One human killing another? Than what about an eye for an eye? Would exacting revenge not also be murder? Um...well we kind of still do despite being told, so yes we need to be told. Don't you teach children from a young age that violence isn't right? Don't teachers tell kids not to hit each other? Don't parents teach kids not to fight and not to be violent? Same principle here.
Well, some people kill each other not for a lack of rationality, but just because they can and because the person is in their way in some way. There are perfectly rational, sane, people who kill others. That isn't the problem. It does happen in every nation around the world. Despite being told by many sources that killing is a bad thing to do.
A murder is defined as this I would think: The unlawful (both Biblically and regular law) killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). Or in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death. (Eye for an Eye kind of thing)
Take the first murder that ever occurred, Cain and Abel. That is where you can get the best definition for murder. He did it on purpose, he ended another life on purpose. That's the definition. It is right there in the Bible along with the commandment saying don't do it.
Capital punishment is technically murder yes.

The eighth, "You shall not commit adultery". Do you know what was considered adultery in the Bible? Men could sleep with whomever they wished, but women who were married, or even divorced, were not allowed to touch a man besides her husband sexually. Ignoring this, there are verses that contradict this completely. Adultery is when you are unfaithful to your spouse in any way. It can also apply to relationships other than marriage (courtship kind of thing), but not all believe that. Well, the Old Testament is vastly different than the New Testament. We must keep in mind that the New Testament is a more up to date version of the Old one and takes into account the progression of man and the death of Jesus. Divorcing is definitely considered adultery, but only if the divorce has not resulted from a commitment of adultery. See if there was adultery, then the marriage is automatically annulled in the eyes of God even if you have to do a bunch of paperwork here.

Hosea 1:2
And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms.... Old Testament texts. The Ten commandments can be found in the New Testament (as well as the old). They recant older beliefs of the Old Testament are worded differently because of the things I said above and they are better explained as well.
...
The ninth, "You shall not steal". Now this defies the "Poor are more moral than the rich" preachings of Jesus. How? Would a rich man wish to steal from a poor man? Of course not, what would a poor man have to offer? Now, a poor man stealing from a rich man, doesn't that help him quite a bit? Yes it helps, but at the expense of someone else. If you wish to "earn" your living that way it is your business. You should earn it the honest way. That's what this means. It isn't saying that the poor are more moral, it is saying that people need to be told not to steal. Jesus' whole thing on the rich was that if you become rich, but at the expense of others or you don't give back that you are doing something wrong. Seems fair and true to me regardless of whether you believe in a higher power.
...
The eleventh, do not want to have sex with another man's wife. Eh, alright. But doesn't this seem to want to change human nature? In nature, we had to have sex as much as possible to keep the human race going, since young were often easily killed, gestation periods were long, and we had a small clutch size. But in civilization, I can sort of see the reason behind this. Well, the reason behind this applies with the adultery commandment as well as common sense. It is common sense to want a variety in your species. You don't want to have one guy having all the children because they dilutes the gene pool. In addition, human nature as you call it is also to be thoughtful and if you were thoughtful then you would understand that having sex with everyone else is not exactly good for the population nor yourself. (Gotta watch for those pesky diseases and things too.)

The last, don't want what someone else has. This has the same problems as the stealing one. How about you get one for yourself? Don't want what someone else has is a variety of reasons. First, the coveting the spouse thing explained above. Secondly, is material objects, don't want what they have means that you can want the object, but not the one that they have. It is tricky, but take this as my example:

You see a commercial on television, a product that you want. You see that a friend of yours has it. You can want the object for yourself, but no their copy. Your own copy. See, mass production didn't exist in those days, so their are multiple copies of everything now. Not wanting what someone else has means you can't want (or steal) the vase they have or the painting they have or the t.v. they have or anything like that. You should WANT to get one for yourself, but not theirs. I hope I explained that well enough. There is nothing wrong with wanting something, that's human nature, but you can't want THEIRS.

Overall, these rules seek to lessen the value of a human mind by patronization and control. Even the ones that seem alright are seeking to control you. You can have rules, but you must also have the mind to judge a situation yourself. The bible doesn't allow you to do so, as it makes it seem like if you don't follow these, then you won't be saved. But yes, the bible says you don't have to follow certain ones*, but what good is having a set of rules if you are allowed to pick and choose?

No, they don't seek to patronize you. God thinks that you are smart enough to get a set of rules and follow them without your hand being held. That's called trust. Kind of like when your parents finally let you get your own pet or your driver's license so you can drive the car... You do have a mind to judge the situation yourself. Which ones are stopping you from judging the situation? That's interesting to me, because if you go commandment to commandment they seek to protect people from other people not to limit you unless you think in some situation it is okay to premeditate murder or to have sex with someone else's wife or husband. I don't think there is a situation where that is necessary. You aren't ALLOWED to pick and choose the ones that you want. Every set of laws has exceptions. Would you say that law made by people is no good because there are exceptions and processes to following those rules? No because they keep society in line. Same thing here. It seeks to keep you civilized, out of trouble, and protected.

Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. -- Matthew 19:17-19

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between the New and Old Testament. Just like people's laws, they change to adapt to new times and new problems. Here we see Jesus, son of God, recanting and revamping the laws to match the new civilization of man. It isn't patronizing, it is recognizing that people don't need to be told all of them, they know some of them because they're smart. They need to follow these ones particularly closely because they are the current and future dilemmas. Do you see what I mean? God isn't patronizing you with rules, unless you think governments do that too. Same thing. It is a set of laws to protect people from people and themselves. Governments do it to keep order. Same deal. They even echo each other sometimes (don't steal, don't murder, etc.). You don't pick and choose, but if you believe in Jesus as being the son of God then you understand that he had a better understanding of what God wanted and he was sent to us not only to save us, but to spread the word of God. The New Testament is the new law, the Old Testament the old. It doesn't mean you can't read both and understand both, but when there is a discrepancy in the New one from the Old one then the New one reigns.

You are running on the assumption that humans actually have any control over what they want.

[Kynchile]

I would send my kids to a Christian school if it was a good school that taught the right subjects and didn't teach the religion in a feminized watered down way that drives men from the religion. A Christian Military school would be even better if they wanted to go. My kids already want to go to Annapolis, so that is close. Religion is more of a private matter to us so I feel no need to want to send them to a Christian school for the sake of it.

[Surote]

I would send my kids to a Christian school if it was a good school that taught the right subjects and didn't teach the religion in a feminized watered down way that drives men from the religion. A Christian Military school would be even better if they wanted to go. My kids already want to go to Annapolis, so that is close. Religion is more of a private matter to us so I feel no need to want to send them to a Christian school for the sake of it.

I feel bad for your children