- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: University of Arkansas hanging posters of the Ten Commandments around campus
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:14 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:14 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
You must also like…
you are such a troll. 
1
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:24 am to j1897
quote:Whose freedom is being violated by this being displayed?
How is a law requiring this freedom?
Early in our nation’s history, there were calls for prayer by the government. How could such calls be freedom for the atheist or the person who doesn’t believe in a personal God?
They didn’t understand freedom of religion to be absence of religion in the public square as many do today.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:27 am to FooManChoo
quote:
As usual, you don’t read the passage you abuse and rely on takes hostile to the truth.
Pathetic projection
quote:
Verse 1 clearly states that God would write the same commandments from chapter 20 on the tablets God commanded Moses to cut.
Yes, except in verse 27 it says Moses wrote the words. Either it’s a contradiction or God changed his mind.
quote:
The commands from chapter 34 are expansions, not replacements.
No, these from chapter 34 are supposed to be THE 10 commandments.
quote:
28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
You suck at basic reading comprehension.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:29 am to FooManChoo
quote:
you are such a troll.
whatever Foo, you know I’m right and anyone on this site can look it up and verify.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 11:43 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:The Hebrew is not specific on who “he” is who wrote on the tablets. However the context of verse 1 and Deuteronomy 10:1-4 explains it. It was God who wrote on the tablets. No contradiction is necessary. You just always go with the interpretation that does the most damage to the Bible.
Yes, except in verse 27 it says Moses wrote the words. Either it’s a contradiction or God changed his mind.
quote:No they are not, as explained.
No, these from chapter 34 are supposed to be THE 10 commandments.
quote:I’m the only one using it in this discussion.
You suck at basic reading comprehension
Posted on 10/25/25 at 12:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Hebrew is not specific on who “he” is who wrote on the tablets.
quote:
And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words
And then he wrote them. It is pretty specific.
quote:
However the context of verse 1 and Deuteronomy 10:1-4 explains it
Verse one is a contradiction or indicates a change of mind. Deuteronomy is another book with another author.
quote:
No contradiction is necessary
Sure, if you gin up stories in your head, anything is possible, but in the story in Exodus 34, it is Moses who wrote the commandments on the tablets to any sane person with basic English reading skills.
quote:
No they are not, as explained.
I’ve explained to you that they are.
quote:
I’m the only one using it in this discussion.
Ok troll. Why don’t you tell me I’m wrong about Philo so I can post some of
Philo’s excerpts of his writings and make you look more like a jackass?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:14 pm to riccoar
Like the right is dumping all over the Constitution?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 5:14 pm to Bengalbio
They need to be hung all over the White House.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:17 pm to riccoar
quote:
Freedom OF Religion is hard for some folks.
And you are one of them.
The courts have ruled many, many times that:
1. The Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment prohibits the establishment or support of any religion by a government.
2. The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment provides that a private
citizen can practice their religion, without interference of the government.
In this case, the government of Arkansas passed a law endorsing a religion by forcing schools to display a religious doctrine item. The unconstitutionality of this could not be clearer. Nothing wrong with being a Christian, but there is no reason to fumble through a mess of mental gymnastics, to try and prove your point.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:26 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Like I said, “he” is not specific. It doesn’t say “Moses”, so we have to infer who “he” is based on the context. The context says that God was going to write the 10 commandments (from ch. 20) on the tablets and there is no hint that God changed His mind. The only way you can conclude that God changed His mind is if you already assume a contradiction.
And then he wrote them. It is pretty specific.
Verse one is a contradiction or indicates a change of mind.
The chapter, itself, is evidence against that. The author would be writing a contradiction into the text within a few verses without any explanation at all, even though the same account is given in Deuteronomy, which supports the historical narrative. When trying to understand who “he” is, you can either use the context to know it was God, or you can insert Moses into the word and create a contradiction that isn’t explicitly there.
This is another example of the hardness of your heart.
quote:It was written by Moses and finished by someone else. But that doesn’t matter. I am judging the Bible as a whole, not word by word, verse by verse, or book by book. It is God’s word guided by the Spirit.
Deuteronomy is another book with another author.
quote:That is according to your opinion with no support other than your mere assertion. “He” can be interpreted in two ways and you default to the way of a contradiction just because you want to. The context says otherwise.
Sure, if you gin up stories in your head, anything is possible, but in the story in Exodus 34, it is Moses who wrote the commandments on the tablets to any sane person with basic English reading skills.
quote:You don’t explain anything. You merely assert. You tell a story based on the least generous interpretation of the Bible and claim it as fact. When you can’t get the Bible to contradict itself, you either claim it isn’t original or you default to an extra-biblical narrative as truth against the Bible. You don’t even care what is actually true as long as you can cast doubt on God’s word.
I’ve explained to you that they are.
quote:I don’t care about Philo’s other beliefs. I was only pointing out that the “Protestant” 10 commandments were accepted by Jews and Christians alike and it wasn’t until Augustine that the “Catholic” version started becoming popular.
Ok troll. Why don’t you tell me I’m wrong about Philo so I can post some of
Philo’s excerpts of his writings and make you look more like a jackass?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 6:28 pm to nealnan8
quote:That wasn’t the understanding of the founders, though. The courts are wrong just like they were wrong about Roe.
The courts have ruled many, many times that:
1. The Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment prohibits the establishment or support of any religion by a government
Posted on 10/25/25 at 8:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Like I said, “he” is not specific. It doesn’t say “Moses”, so we have to infer who “he” is based on the context. The context says that God was going to write the 10 commandments (from ch. 20) on the tablets and there is no hint that God changed His mind.
You are such a jackass. There’s no way you even believe the bullshite you wrote.
Let me bold all the references to Moses for you. He (Moses) was with Yahweh. He (Moses) didn’t eat bread or drink (wouldn’t be a big deal for Yahweh since he doesn’t need to eat or drink), and He (Moses) wrote the words on the tablets. Three successive “He”’s and they were all Moses. The last part of that verse
quote:
27And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
quote:
The author would be writing a contradiction into the text within a few verses without any explanation at all,
It’s a composite text you dolt. It’s why in exodus 22 Yahweh commands the sacrifice of the firstborn children on the eighth day just as with the firstborn of the oxen and sheep and donkeys. Then in Exodus 34 Yahweh says “redeem” the firstborn children (as in, pay the ransom for their life to not have to kill them).
quote:
It was written by Moses and finished by someone else.
Even in seminary they teach that Moses was a composite character who was non-historical. That Moses wrote Deuteronomy is traditional but it is solely based on tradition someone ginned up because it’s not in evidence.
quote:
I don’t care about Philo’s other beliefs
Of course. Use Philo to show what Jews believed and accepted but you don’t want to hear about the other stuff that Philo’s Jewish sect believed and accepted such as their belief in the Logos, the firstborn of all creation, the image of the invisible God, through the Logos all things were made, who was the intermediary and mediator between men and God, and through the Logos men are reconciled to God so that they will be granted eternal life with God. All before Jesus allegedly was doing his ministry.
That is very unfortunate for you but it is reality and anyone here can look it up and verify some Jews were worshipping a version of Jesus before Jesus was said to exist.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 8:46 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
Here ya go
I can't read them on my phone, does one say
thou shall not molest the altar boys?
The one true church.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 8:52 pm to Bengalbio
see nothing wrong with it......dont look if you dont like it.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 7:05 am to LSUbest
quote:
does one say thou shall not molest the altar boys?
They could have had one that said Thou shalt not rape, or perhaps Thou shalt not “know” another person against their will. That would have been good, but in the Bible and their culture rape was a legitimate form of taking a wife or concubine, and the will of the woman didn’t matter.
They could have had a Thou shalt not own another human as property. But they kept slaves. Another violation of free will that even Paul and Jesus didn’t care about.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 8:09 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Of course I believe it. It is the truth. Just because you don’t believe anything you write about the Bible doesn’t mean others don’t, either.
You are such a jackass. There’s no way you even believe the bullshite you wrote.
quote:In Hebrew, like most languages, the context always determines the pronoun usage.
Let me bold all the references to Moses for you. He (Moses) was with Yahweh. He (Moses) didn’t eat bread or drink (wouldn’t be a big deal for Yahweh since he doesn’t need to eat or drink), and He (Moses) wrote the words on the tablets. Three successive “He”’s and they were all Moses. The last part of that verse
In 1 Kings 2:46, we see three successive pronouns used: “So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him down, and he died.”
The context here is that Shimei was told that he would die if he left where he lived (vv 36-37). However, we could do what you’re doing and infer that after Benaiah killed Shimei, that he (Benaiah) died, since “struck him down” could also refer to merely killing him, and “he died” could seem unnecessarily repetitive if talking about Shimei.
Since the context of Ex. 34 and elsewhere states that God would write or did write the original words again in the tablets, we can rightly infer that it was God, not Moses, that wrote in verse 28.
In addition, the “second 10 commandments” as you are describing them, have no second table as the first. The first (and only) 10 commandments includes commands for how we are to worship God and then commands on how to interact with others (don’t kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, covet, and honor parents), while the commands in ch. 34 are all ceremonial laws around worship and ritual purity. Context clearly shows a fundamental difference of kind, rather than just a few changed commands or words.
quote:You like to change subjects or spam so many issues that it is difficult to keep up, but I’m in the mood to show others your wickedness right now, so I’ll bite for a while longer.
It’s a composite text you dolt. It’s why in exodus 22 Yahweh commands the sacrifice of the firstborn children on the eighth day just as with the firstborn of the oxen and sheep and donkeys. Then in Exodus 34 Yahweh says “redeem” the firstborn children (as in, pay the ransom for their life to not have to kill them).
Ex. 22 doesn’t command human sacrifice. God commanded the firstborn to be dedicated to God’s service. Just a few chapters earlier (13:2), God commands the firstborn to be consecrated to Him. Not only does God consistently condemn human sacrifice as the other nations were doing, He specifically calls the Levites to service instead of the firstborn of all the people of Israel (Num. 3:12-13; 8:26-18). The Levites weren’t sacrificed like the animals, but they worked in the temple and served God as His dedicated servants.
The firstborn of Israel were not commanded to be sacrificed as the animals, but the parents did have to pay a special price for them because they were set apart for God. No children were killed to fulfill this command.
quote:Yeah, liberal seminaries teach all sorts of liberal things to undermine the Scriptures. Many liberal seminary professors deny the resurrection of Jesus, too.
Even in seminary they teach that Moses was a composite character who was non-historical. That Moses wrote Deuteronomy is traditional but it is solely based on tradition someone ginned up because it’s not in evidence.
quote:I used him only to show what was accepted broadly by Jews and Christians alike. Highlighting commonalities does not mean I need to accept or even discuss other unrelated beliefs. In fact, that strengthens my argument: even Jews with non-orthodox beliefs understood the 10 commandments as other Jews did.
Of course. Use Philo to show what Jews believed and accepted but you don’t want to hear about the other stuff that Philo’s Jewish sect believed and accepted
I could have also referenced Josephus, who also taught that the Jews understood the “Protestant” version of the 10 commandments in his Antiquities.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 8:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:
In Hebrew, like most languages, the context always determines the pronoun usage. In 1 Kings 2:46, we see three successive pronouns used: “So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him down, and he died.”
I agree on the principle of context. You however are trying to use an example where there are two humans and then “he” did something and you have to figure out who the author is talking about. In Exodus 34, Yahweh tells Moses to write the commandments. Then “he” does two things (was with Yahweh and didn’t eat or drink) and “he” does the third thing of writing the commandments on the tablets. Sorry your retarded brain can’t grasp this basic and very clear context.
quote:
while the commands in ch. 34 are all ceremonial laws around worship and ritual purity. Context clearly shows a fundamental difference of kind, rather than just a few changed commands or words
Yes they are very different from the ones in exodus 20. But Yahweh says this in exodus 34.
quote:
1The LORD said to Moses, “Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
I guess your arguments are so weak and stupid since there’s no way to logically and sanely reconcile exodus 20 and exodus 34. Your brain is locking up in a blue screen of death.
quote:
You like to change subjects or spam so many issues that it is difficult to keep up, but I’m in the mood to show others your wickedness right now, so I’ll bite for a while longer.
I was just giving you an example of why we know exodus is a composite text.
quote:
Ex. 22 doesn’t command human sacrifice. God commanded the firstborn to be dedicated to God’s service.
It does. But it doesn’t say anything about God’s service. Yahweh wants you to do the same with your firstborn as he wants with the first fruits of grain and the first born of the cattle and donkeys - on the eighth day sacrifice your firstborn child to Yahweh on an altar and set it on fire. Exodus 22:
quote:
29“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
After 7 days, your firstborn child is no longer with its mother (because it is a pile of ashes, idiot).
Don’t take my interpretation as the truth? Just listen to the maniacal volcano and storm god of the Shasu himself - Ezekiel 20:
quote:
26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.
quote:
I used him only to show what was accepted broadly by Jews and Christians alike. Highlighting commonalities does not mean I need to accept or even discuss other unrelated beliefs.
Philo’s Logos was
- “Theos” - same words from John 1:1
- a second god, the same words used by Justin Martyr to describe Jesus
- firstborn of creation
- the son of God
- image of the invisible God
- mediator between God and mankind
- responsible for the salvation of believers
- responsible for the creation of all things (through him all things were made)
You would have to be stupid to think those beliefs were “other unrelated beliefs” to Christians. Oh, wait…
Posted on 10/26/25 at 9:02 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The commands from chapter 34 are expansions, not replacements.
Where does it specify that?
Also lol, Foo is going to come in here and try to convince us that the source of objective morality has come down from on high and one of the 10 or 20 commandments is not to boil a goat in its own mother's milk.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 9:20 am to Azkiger
quote:quote:Where does it specify that?
The commands from chapter 34 are expansions, not replacements.
Foo actually hates the Bible. He only cherry picks it and ignores most of it to justify his dogmas. When it conflicts with his dogmas, he pitches it and ignores it. In exodus 34 verse 1 it literally states that the new tablets are a replacement for the ones Moses had broken, and it was going to be the exact same words.
quote:
not to boil a goat in its own mother's milk.
Here’s a good one I like from Deuteronomy:
quote:
If you come upon a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. Let the mother go, taking only the young for yourself, in order that it may go well with you and you may live long.
Posted on 10/26/25 at 8:49 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You're limiting the context, though, which is what I'm trying to explain to you and which you are willfully ignoring.
I agree on the principle of context. You however are trying to use an example where there are two humans and then “he” did something and you have to figure out who the author is talking about. In Exodus 34, Yahweh tells Moses to write the commandments. Then “he” does two things (was with Yahweh and didn’t eat or drink) and “he” does the third thing of writing the commandments on the tablets. Sorry your retarded brain can’t grasp this basic and very clear context.
The section, itself, starts and ends with the writing of the commandments. The first verse says, "The Lord said to Moses, “Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." The last verse of this section says, "And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."
This is later confirmed in Deuteronomy that it wasn't Moses who wrote it. Moses was commanded to write other things, as well, but in a book (Ex. 17:14; 24:4; Num 33:2; Deut 31:9, 24-26). What we're arguing about is who wrote on the tablets, and the context is God wrote it. Otherwise you'd have to argue that the author of that passage made a blatant error within a few verses and it was never corrected.
quote:It's amazing to me how you think that the fundamental law of God was changed within a few chapters of a book, when there are many other expansions of the law given before and after chapter 34, and that this not only wasn't harmonized or corrected over time, but further memorialized by things like the Nash Papyrus, which uses the 10 commandments from Ex. 20, not 34.
Yes they are very different from the ones in exodus 20. But Yahweh says this in exodus 34.
quote:Projection. Your argument is that because "he" is ambiguous by itself, it MUST be a contradiction, rather than a consistent tie-back to verse 1 or Deuteronomy. You aren't letting any of the context matter except the prior verse, and you are claiming my argument is weak. You don't even know how to read the Bible.
I guess your arguments are so weak and stupid since there’s no way to logically and sanely reconcile exodus 20 and exodus 34. Your brain is locking up in a blue screen of death.
quote:It's not evidence of anything except your lack of reading comprehension in light of your desire to reject the Bible.
I was just giving you an example of why we know exodus is a composite text.
quote:I already showed you the parallel where the Levites were to take the place of the firstbrn of the whole of Israel. You conveniently didn't respond to that part. I wonder why. Could it be that the Levites were not killed and burned up but served the Lord in the temple? Or, that the firstborn were commanded to be redeemed for a price? Or that God detests human sacrifice? Oh, but you don't care about that, because it's much better for you to ignore all of that and say that it's just a contradiction because it was written by a bunch of idiots.
It does. But it doesn’t say anything about God’s service. Yahweh wants you to do the same with your firstborn as he wants with the first fruits of grain and the first born of the cattle and donkeys - on the eighth day sacrifice your firstborn child to Yahweh on an altar and set it on fire. Exodus 22:
After 7 days, your firstborn child is no longer with its mother (because it is a pile of ashes, idiot).
It's almost comical how you put so much effort into explaining how the authors got it right when they write something you think hurts the credibility of God, but wish-cast away or ignore everything that supports the truth about God when it's more convenient for you to do so. I can use the context of the whole verse, passage, chapter, book, and Bible to support a singular and consistent message, and you have to dismiss entirely out of hand anything and everything that contradicts your perverse interpretation by say it isn't original, authentic, or it was a corruption.
quote:I don't take your interpretation, because it's not what the Bible says or teaches. Even your repeated use of Ezekiel 20 shows this. God handed the people of Israel over to their sin, letting them do what they wanted, and punishing them for it. That's what the verse is saying. The people were adopting the pagan practices of the surrounding nations, against God's strict command, and so He gave them up to the desires of their hearts, following the laws of their neighbors, and then judged them for it. It's the same sentiment expressed in Romans 1 and Psalm 81:12. It's actually what God has done to you: He has given you over to your sinful rebellion and you will most certainly repeat eternal judgement for your wickedness if you do not turn from it.
Don’t take my interpretation as the truth? Just listen to the maniacal volcano and storm god of the Shasu himself - Ezekiel 20:
quote:You misunderstood what I said, as usual. I was saying I'm not interested in discussing Philo's other beliefs at this time because you're already diverting this discussion away from what I was saying. I'm not moving on to another topic in this thread until these other issues are settled. You keep spamming threads like these with many different issues at once so you can claim some sort of victory when not everything is thoroughly addressed. Stick to one topic at a time.
You would have to be stupid to think those beliefs were “other unrelated beliefs” to Christians.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News