(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]I could explain why if you'd like? Taking them from Exodus (because of course, in the numerous times they are given they aren't the same) we have:
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."
This is a worthless commandment. It offers no moral insight, only an introduction. That you may have no gods before him seems odd, seeing that anybody looking for the truth after becoming disillusioned with another religion is already buggered.
My impression is that he'd take that into account. That's my idea of a perfect deity, although I am imperfect and could have a largely corrupted idea of what "perfection" is.
Either 1) God does not exist. Okay. Fine. Why then are we even arguing from a theological standpoint?
2) God is not good. Still, why are we arguing? It sucks, yes, but nothing can change that.
3) God is indifferent (deism). Beliefs vary from Leibniz's and Franklin's Christian roots to Voltaire's "classical" deism, to Flew's nonbelief in afterlife, and even pandeism.
4) God is perfectly fair. In which case no matter what reward or punishment you get at your death is perfectly just.
Even if God is not
perfect (I have theological problems with this notion), if he is so much greater than the human scope of mind can comprehend (which is why we, imperfect beings, couldn't perfectly comprehend God), you might as well consider him "infinitesimally close to perfect". And an entity who created the universe? At least pretty damn close to perfect in my book. Has to be greater than the universe itself, anyway (unless you're a pantheist).
(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
What is moral, or helpful to humans here? Nothing that I see. You'd expect people who feel a strong connection to God to want to represent him in art, and why shouldn't they? For fear of worshiping a statue or painting? Is this really top 10 moral teachings a God could hand out?
Seriously dude?
(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
Absolutely vague and no explanation as for why not. No moral teaching to be had. Has anyone even figured out what not taking his name in vain even means? So many people practice this in so many different ways, it is beyond useless.
Explanations are irrelevant. God doesn't
owe you anything (something so many people get wrong), not even an explanation.
I do however agree that I do think it's an odd commandment. God is said to be impassible, so I don't see why God would be "offended" if I said something bad about him.
My impression is that it's more a matter of discipline. Like a cardinal sin of a different type. If I just carelessly toss around the name of God around like any mortal's name, without keeping notice of his grandeur, I might end up making God sound mundane, like if he was on my level. Mundane is actually the correct word, and I think that's what many if not all antitheists do; turn God into something he's not. It's probably why God also wouldn't want you to represent him in art (I know the Muslims take this a lot more seriously).
I should try to ask my Hebrew family friends their personal translation of the commandment from the Hebrew text.
(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Besides the tedious pandering to the creation story, what is to be gained morally here? "Have a rest every Sunday because I need some affirmation once a week"? Somebody explain to me why an all powerful God needs people to keep a day holy FOR him. How this made the top 10 is laughable.
LOL. The holy day is made
for God in that it's made for
worshiping God. You take the Sabbath to have spiritual connection, not only with God, but with the church (aka the people; that's why you have gathering at mass). Going to church is actually considered relaxation to serious, practicing Christians. God doesn't need anything (aseity).
People need
God.
It also is irrelevant. If God wants that and
is good (a
good God is a moral lawgiver), you don't question it. If he's
not good, then it really doesn't matter how you behave, even if you're a bloodthirsty murderer. As a practicing Christian,
one gives God the benefit of the doubt, because
one does not know the nature of God.
I know what you're thinking. "People have killed in the name of God". No war was fought as commanded by God (they've all been fought by people who decided on their own to go to war and who act in ways very much different than what their holy texts dictate), with the possible exception of the genocide of the Canaanites, which is often interpreted never to have actually happened. And even then,
if God is perfectly knowledgeable and good, then going to war as commanded by God is the right thing to do
by virtue that God commands what is right, not because it's something that he wants, but because he is good, and what he commands is good. And as for popes, being infallible, who have killed? Infallibility of the pope is a very recent doctrine, and the pope is only said to be infallible when it comes to teaching certain dogmas.
(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."
At first glance, not a bad one. But you read it over and realize "that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you" implies the reason you should honour your parents is for your own gain in longevity here on earth. Not for their nature, or out of love. This isn't moral in the slightest.
If that's not splitting hairs, I don't know what is.
(08-24-2013, 04:10 AM)WilltotheT Wrote: [ -> ]Finally:
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
What God thinks is wrong with coveting I'm not quite sure. "I want to have a house like my neighbour" seems a very normal and healthy thought. 'Thought' being the key word. This commandment specifically punishes you for how you think, not how you act.
Secondly, it lists the wife as a possession of the man which is obviously not okay and only adds to the sexist overtones of all Judeo-Christian religions.
I think your problem is that you seem to "know" what God wants or what he will punish you for.
Thinking about your neighbour's wife is not coveting. Thinking obsessively to the point where you actively want to have his wife is coveting. At least, that's what the popular definition is and, from philosophical and theological experience, I can assume is the definition that makes the most sense
that I have found. And by the way, part of the reason churches exist are made
specifically to have clear definitions for terms within the Bible. That's why Universalist churches interpret the word often construed to mean "eternity" as actually meaning "long era".
Secondly, as the others have said, the wording is made for semantic sake. I have not read the original Hebrew text so I don't know exactly what was written down. If, for all intents and purposes, the Hebrew text is the same as the modern English texts, the wife "being" your neighbour's is like saying that I
have a girlfriend. I don't literally
own a woman, but for simplicity's sake, we say "my girlfriend", "her boyfriend". The passage you quoted also says "anything that is your neighbours"
after all the living beings.
Let's make an assumption; let us assume God exists, is sovereign AND all-loving. This means that anything you may find unfair on behalf of life is in fact a wrong idea you may have about the world. I'm agnostic
and a cognitivist for a reason; because I know that I have no idea what ultimately can be understood to be wrong, nor am I religious because I have not yet found a path that makes the most sense to me, but I do believe that it makes more sense (more practical) to discuss ethics than not, and I believe that objective values seem more likely than relative ones. Noncognitivism = literally nothing we do means anything. Cognitivism = maybe nothing we do means anything, but for all intents and purposes, while we are alive, it is more practical to discuss. This is somewhat like a heavily altered Pascal's wager, if you will. Bearing this in mind,
if God is sovereign and
if God is all-loving, then even what may be interpreted as sexist (not that you, a mortal, have any say in what a maximally greater being decides, whether it be good or evil) is in fact, in the greater scheme of things, for a greater result. For example, a child that gets a booster shot may resent his parents for taking him/her to get stabbed in the arm with a needle. Later, however, the child may realize, even only as an adult, that the shot was for a greater good.
I'm not saying God exists, or is even good if he does. I'm just thinking outside the box. Backwards theology, if you will.
I'm not a (practicing) Christian; I am agnostic for these reasons, but it's important to put yourself into all the possible perspectives you can find.
What I don't understand is why there are so many atheists such as yourself that speak like cognitivists, i.e. "so and so is not moral". Russell actively spoke against Christianity for being "immoral in its institutions and churches" (paraphrased) which, one, doesn't at all talk about the religion but rather of the institutions, and two, doesn't mean anything in the first place. Unless you're a practitioner of a nontheistic religion or are an Objectivist, morality is rendered completely moot with atheism.
Remember also that the Abrahamic faiths all teach of progressive revelation, which is essentially the foundation of Bahai Faith (which also specifically teaches that Baha'ullah, prophet and founder of Bahai, is NOT in fact the last prophet). This means that the Ten Commandments may have been specifically made for the people of Moses's time, and have since become not necessarily wrong, but obsolete. "Gospel" literally means "good news", and the new covenant is most popularly seen to supersede the old testament.
(08-24-2013, 05:26 AM)WCPhils Wrote: [ -> ]EDIT: @Will
The last one :haha:
About #9 though. How do you feel about consenting euthanasia for someone like a terminally ill person? Though even if one was to support that I don't know if it would interfere with the commandment since it isn't exactly murder or anything like that.
From a Christian standpoint:
Suicide = murder.
Murder = deliberate killing of an innocent person.
This also opens up for an abortion debate.
(08-25-2013, 03:50 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]The concept of forgiveness is throughout both the new and the old testament. Not only does God the Father say He will forgive people who turn from their sins, but it also says Jesus/Yeshua (Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus) died for the sins of everyone.
Which is why, coupled with theology, I'd be a universalist if I were Christian.