PDA

View Full Version : Christians demand removal of 'satanic' 10 Commandments



LadyWillow
July 29th, 2008, 11:27 PM
A Christian organization is pressuring the community of Elberton, Ga., to tear down a massive, granite monument that lists an alternative set of Ten Commandments that the organization labels satanic.

The monument, known as the Georgia Guidestones, was built under a cloud of mystery in 1980. It lists 10 commandments in eight different languages, including a call to establish a new world language, limit human population to 500 million and avoid being "a cancer on the Earth."

"We have atheists and Satanists getting the Bible's Ten Commandments removed from public property," said Mark Dice, spokesman for the group The Resistance, "yet the satanic Georgia Guidestones have stood for decades, and nobody seems to care. Well, we do."

Link (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70792)

Interesting. Seems works of art and other views just are never tolerated by some people.

Caitlin.ann
July 29th, 2008, 11:39 PM
So if the Ten Commandmants aren't allowed to be up then no one else's are allowed up? Seems so hypocritical of them.

GabrielWithoutWings
July 30th, 2008, 12:19 AM
I think they need to decide one or the other. Either put everyone's up or no one's.

LadyWillow
July 30th, 2008, 12:26 AM
I think they need to decide one or the other. Either put everyone's up or no one's.

I couldn't agree more.

Caitlin.ann
July 30th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Yeah I do agree with that as well.

LadyDancer1181
July 30th, 2008, 12:34 AM
I wonder if those idiots realize that the Georgia Guidestones are situated on private property. That's the key difference between the Guidestones and the Christian ten commandments being in a government office. You can put up the ten commandments anywhere you like, so long as it isn't a government building.

LadyWillow
July 30th, 2008, 12:51 AM
I wonder if those idiots realize that the Georgia Guidestones are situated on private property. That's the key difference between the Guidestones and the Christian ten commandments being in a government office. You can put up the ten commandments anywhere you like, so long as it isn't a government building.

That was my main reasoning when I was discussing this with my partner. That is privately owned property. If you don't want to see those stones, then you don't have to. However, if the 10 commandments were in the courthouse or something, some people may end up seeing them every day. There is a big, big difference.

memnoch
July 30th, 2008, 02:02 AM
I wonder if those idiots realize that the Georgia Guidestones are situated on private property. That's the key difference between the Guidestones and the Christian ten commandments being in a government office. You can put up the ten commandments anywhere you like, so long as it isn't a government building.

I've yet to see anything stating who owned said property, if "R.C. Christian" owned/owns it, or if it is public property.

If I were a christian and wanted to fight this I would buy land between it and the highway and build a 10 commandments monument that blocks out the guidestones.

TygerTyger
July 30th, 2008, 03:12 AM
I don't understand why anyone objects to these stones!

Mr Dice seems to be a reactionary type who likes to misrepresent facts to push his cause, so typical of the minor political bully!


Regardless of anyone's religion, I think they would find it objectionable that there's this monument that calls for the elimination of over 90 percent of the world's population

The actual statement he's referring to is:


Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature

The key word there is maintain, not eliminate.

The commandments themselves reminded me very much of Blake's proverbs from his The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, a work that I would expect get Mr Dice into a fine apoplexy if he were ever to read it!

Whoever errected these stones should have included a commandment to toleration, a concept so many religious people seem to be ignorant of!

LadyWillow
July 30th, 2008, 05:26 AM
I agree. He's more interested in pushing his agenda and probably feel that people wont go looking into the stones or something. I personally think they're a lovely piece of art, not to mention they carry a nice message.

Klucky
July 30th, 2008, 09:19 AM
I don't understand why anyone objects to these stones!

That's exactly what I was just thinking. To demand their destruction would mean that you are "against" their messages. I'm surprised any decent Christian would object to them (let alone call them Satanic). If I were a little alien that just came to Earth and read this article, I'd think Satanists were far more decent and moral than Christians.

And anyway, to go against a message would make people think that you're in belief of the opposite. But I'll leave it at that.

aluokaloo
July 30th, 2008, 11:32 AM
So if the Ten Commandmants aren't allowed to be up then no one else's are allowed up? Seems so hypocritical of them.

it's private property so they shouldn't make a fuss, however about them being hypocrites, that is what a lot of people were shouting here. all or nothing. it seems they were just using the same argument that so many other people were using when griping about the ten commandments being taken down from public property.

I'm not attacking you fyi, i'm merely pointing something out in general that i remebered sacred.:)

Caitlin.ann
July 30th, 2008, 12:16 PM
it's private property so they shouldn't make a fuss, however about them being hypocrites, that is what a lot of people were shouting here. all or nothing. it seems they were just using the same argument that so many other people were using when griping about the ten commandments being taken down from public property.

I'm not attacking you fyi, i'm merely pointing something out in general that i remebered sacred.:)

No attack taken..this time, but I'm watching you. :2G:

Xander67
July 30th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I've yet to see anything stating who owned said property, if "R.C. Christian" owned/owns it, or if it is public property.

If I were a christian and wanted to fight this I would buy land between it and the highway and build a 10 commandments monument that blocks out the guidestones.
:reading:

Since the land the monument sits upon is owned by a private trust and is not public property, Dice said, the battle against the monument will have to take place in the court of public opinion, rather than a court of law.

LostSheep
July 30th, 2008, 12:38 PM
"Christians" en masse are demanding removal of said items, or just some small group who see an opportunity for publicity, as per usual?

LostSheep
July 30th, 2008, 12:41 PM
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion faith tradition and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Hmmm. Sounds a bit New World Order-ish, doesn't it. Well, if it's whoever paid for it's own money, he's welcome to do what he wants with it, i suppose.

BlackLili
July 30th, 2008, 12:48 PM
I've yet to see anything stating who owned said property, if "R.C. Christian" owned/owns it, or if it is public property.

If I were a christian and wanted to fight this I would buy land between it and the highway and build a 10 commandments monument that blocks out the guidestones.
Do you even RTA, or do you just come in to read little blurbs and insert your opinion based on half-realized facts and suppositions?

From the Article, Paragraph 5, Line 3:

Since the land the monument sits upon is owned by a private trust and is not public property, Dice said, the battle against the monument will have to take place in the court of public opinion, rather than a court of law.

BlackLili
July 30th, 2008, 12:49 PM
:reading:
Sorry Xander, I didn't get to the second page to notice your uber-pithy smiley before I said the same thing.

You get points for brevity. _cookie_

Heart of All
July 30th, 2008, 01:02 PM
Hmmm. Sounds a bit New World Order-ish, doesn't it. Well, if it's whoever paid for it's own money, he's welcome to do what he wants with it, i suppose.

I kind of thought the same thing. In general, I think that most of it is nice, but I think two in particular--a world language and a 500,000,000 population are a bit far-fetched at this point. It will take many generations of people who only have one child a family, or else a whole lot of people to simultaneously decide to have no children for the sake of the planet to get the population that low without killing off a bunch.

And as for language, given the rapidity of dialect creation, it wouldn't last long.

Whitewolf
July 30th, 2008, 01:46 PM
I think they need to decide one or the other. Either put everyone's up or no one's.
I totally agree with you.