the 10 commandments

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Honoring parents: Great as a general rule, but honor and respect must be earned. I'm sure you've met parents who aren't deserving of it, I know I have. So yes, it's a nice guideline for society, but carries no force of law and doesn't belong in a courthouse.

Adultery: There are laws on the books, but they aren't enforced and should be eliminated. Adultery is a private matter between two people. Again, this carries no force of law and doesn't belong in the courts.

Coveting: Stalking is a form of coveting, certainly not the only one, as is made obvious by the text itself ... you just don't hear of people stalking houses or animals. This is a commandment that everyone breaks, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it doesn't belong in our court system.

You initially said that nine of the ten commandments dealt with rules for polite society. Even if I accept that the three above fit that description, and combining them with the commandments against killing, stealing and lying, that still leaves three unaccounted for. What are they?

I might also point out that the commandments condone slavery and are offensive for that reason alone. Even if we didn't have the first amendment, nothing that implies approval of holding human beings in bondage has any business being posted in a government building in a country that claims to promote freedom.

i know of a recent case in indiana where adultry was prosecuted so there is force of law. the woman also won a civil case based on that law.
i've never heard any version of the 10 commandment that condoned slavery.
to listen to you; moses would have needed a semi to carry the 10 commandment (written on stone) down from the mtn. you are referring to man's interpretation which has changed throughout history to fit the times.

decides2dream

onelongsong wrote:

i know of a recent case in indiana where adultry was prosecuted so there is force of law. the woman also won a civil case based on that law.
i've never heard any version of the 10 commandment that condoned slavery.
to listen to you; moses would have needed a semi to carry the 10 commandment (written on stone) down from the mtn. you are referring to man's interpretation which has changed throughout history to fit the times.

who disagreed with that?
point is, that is b/c we chose to take SOME of the ideals of the 10 commandments and make them law....stilll says nothing in support of having the 10 commandments on display, with full rlegious language intact. it does not belong.

um, since you are not moses...how do you know exactly what her was given? i have nothing else to go on but the bible. if you would like to offer another source for the contents of the 10 commandments, feel free to share. i suggest you open a bible if you want to contest what i linked...i didn't write it. i merely copied/pasted.

onelongsong

decides2dream wrote:

who disagreed with that?
point is, that is b/c we chose to take SOME of the ideals of the 10 commandments and make them law....stilll says nothing in support of having the 10 commandments on display, with full rlegious language intact. it does not belong.

um, since you are not moses...how do you know exactly what her was given? i have nothing else to go on but the bible. if you would like to offer another source for the contents of the 10 commandments, feel free to share. i suggest you open a bible if you want to contest what i linked...i didn't write it. i merely copied/pasted.

man wrote the bible; not God. the same men (pope actually) that ordered galleleo assassinated in 1635.
again; religion is a social institution. this is why people go to church; temple; etc as opposed to worshiping at home. our rights include public display; although not by government.

decides2dream

onelongsong wrote:

man wrote the bible; not God. the same men (pope actually) that ordered galleleo assassinated in 1635.
again; religion is a social institution. this is why people go to church; temple; etc as opposed to worshiping at home. our rights include public display; although not by government.

so then all the MORE reason, since the only 'version' of the 10 commandments we have is interpreted by man, which btw - is the reason muslims in fact don't put much stock in em, read the link for further info.


i really don't know what you are arguing/supporting?
first you say 'our version' of the 10 commandments is wrong.
you then espouse the value of the commandments, that 'your version' is different, but have yet to share 'your version' or specify how it is superior.
if you find fault with man's interpretation of such, all the more, why show support for such? and in regards to the actual thread topic...why support the idea that the 10 commandments have ANY business in our govermental institutions? i mean honestly, that is ALL this thread was about.....not if you believe or not...but do you believe the 10 commandments should be on display in governmental institutions. see first post. so yea...i am seriously at a loss now as to what exactly your 'point' here is?


and now your last statement, which i bolded...seems to support what i and others have contended all along...that the government does NOT have the right to publicly display something of a religious nature? so then, what were all those other posts about? b/c obviously, not really about the topic at all then...just for fun? haha. whatever.

me, i am not endorsing or condemning the commandments, that really is NOT at ALL what this thread was about, or started about...but EXACTLY about your last statement:

our rights include public display; although not by government.

what private citizens may do, and what the government may do, especially as a represntation of the 'collective WE'...not at all the same thing. ok, i am really off now..have a great evening all....look for more interesting comments at another time.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i know of a recent case in indiana where adultry was prosecuted so there is force of law. the woman also won a civil case based on that law.
i've never heard any version of the 10 commandment that condoned slavery.
to listen to you; moses would have needed a semi to carry the 10 commandment (written on stone) down from the mtn. you are referring to man's interpretation which has changed throughout history to fit the times.

Perhaps someone has been successfully prosecuted under outdated adultery laws ... if so, I'm sure it's under appeal, and I hope it's overturned. Government has no business meddling in the sex lives of it's citizens.

The version of the ten commandments that I just posted condones slavery. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. And again: You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. It's right there ... acknowledgment that slavery exists, and yet no commandment such as "You shall not enslave your fellow humans."

Please ... these are the only Ten Commandments of which I am aware. I'd be very interested to see yours if they're different, and to know where they come from, because these are the commandments in the bible, and this is what people want to post in government buildings. I'm still waiting for the nine commandments of polite society that you alluded to earlier.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

The version of the ten commandments that I just posted condones slavery. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. And again: You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. It's right there ... acknowledgment that slavery exists, and yet no commandment such as "You shall not enslave your fellow humans."

.

I'm pretty much done with this argument/discussion, but I have to say here that this, yes, mentions slavery, but doesn't necessarily condone it. Thats a stretch. It acknowledges slavery which was very real at the time, but doesn't necessarily condone or encourage it. There are other passages of the old testament which adamantly denounce the practice.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

I'm pretty much done with this argument/discussion, but I have to say here that this, yes, mentions slavery, but doesn't necessarily condone it. Thats a stretch. It acknowledges slavery which was very real at the time, but doesn't necessarily condone or encourage it. There are other passages of the old testament which adamantly denounce the practice.

I'm more familiar with the new testament than the old, but I've never seen a biblical passage that denounces slavery. I did a quick google search and didn't come up with anything. I'd be interested to know which passages they are, when you have some spare time

I have to say though, I don't know why god would go to the trouble to regulate an institution if he would have preferred to see it abolished. Whatever passages may be in the old testament, they didn't have much of an effect, since slavery was still widespread in new testament times. There's no record of Jesus denouncing the practice, although it's certainly possible that he did and his words weren't recorded. Paul, however, had ample opportunities and instead chose to instruct slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves fairly.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

then don't abide by them. no one is forcing you until it becomes criminal. but don't stop my rights to believe what i choose. religion is social. therefore the right to express religion allows religion outside of the church. many presidents say "God bless america" and not one has been sued. one has the right to proclaim their religion just as you have the right NOT to listen.
think about this: if being an athiest is not a religion; then seperation of church and state doesn't apply. one has the right to practice the religion of choice. if athiesm is not a religion; there is not one written word or law that gives you the right to practice it. we merely tollerate you.

One has the right to practice their religion of choice, but the government does not have the right to endorse one religion over another. So athiests are more than tolerated - they're equal members of society. On Sunday, you can worship in the building of your choice,(Congress shall make no law.......prohibiting the free exercise thereof) and the athiest can sit at home and watch football (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). From the Constitutional perspective, these are equivilant in value.

No one is stopping your rights to believe as you choose - unless your beliefs require you to use the power of government to promote a metaphysical take on reality on the rest of the population. And, if your beliefs require you to use the government to promote them, then I'm sorry but the Constitution doesn't allow it. Very undemocratic, I know. But, just like freedom of speech (another phrase that doesn't appear word for word in the Constitution, but is given the legalese treatment), no matter how much you vote, you can't take it away without an amendment. Amendment is a Constitutionally approved method of putting up exclusive religious displays; so if you believe that the fundamentalist Christian faiths have enough to clout to garner a super majority - then by all means start a movement to revoke the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses from the First Amendment and attempt to establish Christianity (what denomination might get a little problematic) as the religion of the nation. Until that happens, there is going to be resistence to placing the ten commandments on public property (and can you imagine the resistence if the Constitution was amended? And we all thought the Civil War was fun - this time we can cut it with Christ).

And "In God We Trust" was made our official monetary motto (mixing God and money - that's pretty cool) until the late 1930s. And "under God" wasn't added to the pledge until the 1950s. Conservatively speaking, these were never intended by our Founding Fathers. Conservatively speaking, of course.

cornnifer

hippiemom wrote:

I'm more familiar with the new testament than the old, but I've never seen a biblical passage that denounces slavery. I did a quick google search and didn't come up with anything. I'd be interested to know which passages they are, when you have some spare time

I have to say though, I don't know why god would go to the trouble to regulate an institution if he would have preferred to see it abolished. Whatever passages may be in the old testament, they didn't have much of an effect, since slavery was still widespread in new testament times. There's no record of Jesus denouncing the practice, although it's certainly possible that he did and his words weren't recorded. Paul, however, had ample opportunities and instead chose to instruct slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves fairly.

Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”


The question of how slavery was dealt with in the Bible is indeed a sticky one, Hippiemom, and one I had some hangups with as a ... ahem... younger man. I think it is important to take into account the fact the slavery acknowledged and "regulated" in the Bible is a far cry from the slavery we speak of when we speak of the African slave trade of the 1700's and 1800's. It isn't really fair to compare the two. They were in fact very different. The slavery acknowledged in the Bible was more of a voluntary (indentured)servitude, sometimes voluntary lifetime servitude, or restitution for thief or criminal. It is also important to note that it wasn't part of God's originally, created order. This type of slavery became a way of life for those who had no means of sustaining themselves, and chose servitude. As such, it was regulated.

The evil of the type of slavery we are much more familiar with, that of the African slave trade, I feel, is clearly condemned in the passages I opened with, and really by the entire book of exodus.

IndianSummer

there you go - the ten commandments.

http://rapidshare.de/files/25777181/comedy_-_George_carlin_-_The_Ten_Commandments.mp3.html


get it fast before the file dies out.

whats "nucky" btw??

boxwine_in_hell

I don't like the "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife."....What fun is that? Especially if she's really hot.

IndianSummer

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

I don't like the "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife."....What fun is that? Especially if she's really hot.

btw notice how they dont say thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's husband.

as if women never do any coveting... or is it that the 10 commandments were for the menfolk only>?

boxwine_in_hell

IndianSummer wrote:

btw notice how they dont say thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's husband.

as if women never do any coveting... or is it that the 10 commandments were for the menfolk only>?

Good point. But I think women had no status so not coveting thy neighbor's husband was a given or she would get bitch slapped and then stoned to death.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

I'm more familiar with the new testament than the old, but I've never seen a biblical passage that denounces slavery. I did a quick google search and didn't come up with anything. I'd be interested to know which passages they are, when you have some spare time

I have to say though, I don't know why god would go to the trouble to regulate an institution if he would have preferred to see it abolished. Whatever passages may be in the old testament, they didn't have much of an effect, since slavery was still widespread in new testament times. There's no record of Jesus denouncing the practice, although it's certainly possible that he did and his words weren't recorded. Paul, however, had ample opportunities and instead chose to instruct slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves fairly.

Jesus said basically two things:
1) love they neighbor as you love thyself. unless you'd love to be a slave; this in itself denounces slavery.
2) take care of my children.

rightondude

No matter what god, person, or thing you believe in, always follow the last 5 commandments.

I will always stand by them, and that statement forever.

To do less, is to take away more than you brought to this world. To leave a negative impact...to smear a stain on the earth as the sum of your existence.

IndianSummer

i am disappointed to learn that no one gave the song i uploaded a listen.

decides2dream

onelongsong wrote:

Jesus said basically two things:
1) love they neighbor as you love thyself. unless you'd love to be a slave; this in itself denounces slavery.
2) take care of my children.

however, the 10 commandments came BEFORE jesus's time on earth...so does his presence/teachings somehow negate any of the points in the commandments? honestly, i was surprised to see the world 'slave' in the 10 commandments, shows i never read them in the bible and only saw the sunday-school version. i too believe that God would have nothing to do with slavery....so all the more, to me, shows how heavy a hand MAN had in the bible, etc...and not truly 'JUST' the words of God. that's all.

RainDog wrote:

One has the right to practice their religion of choice, but the government does not have the right to endorse one religion over another. So athiests are more than tolerated - they're equal members of society. On Sunday, you can worship in the building of your choice,(Congress shall make no law.......prohibiting the free exercise thereof) and the athiest can sit at home and watch football (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). From the Constitutional perspective, these are equivilant in value.

No one is stopping your rights to believe as you choose - unless your beliefs require you to use the power of government to promote a metaphysical take on reality on the rest of the population. And, if your beliefs require you to use the government to promote them, then I'm sorry but the Constitution doesn't allow it. Very undemocratic, I know. But, just like freedom of speech (another phrase that doesn't appear word for word in the Constitution, but is given the legalese treatment), no matter how much you vote, you can't take it away without an amendment. Amendment is a Constitutionally approved method of putting up exclusive religious displays; so if you believe that the fundamentalist Christian faiths have enough to clout to garner a super majority - then by all means start a movement to revoke the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses from the First Amendment and attempt to establish Christianity (what denomination might get a little problematic) as the religion of the nation. Until that happens, there is going to be resistence to placing the ten commandments on public property (and can you imagine the resistence if the Constitution was amended? And we all thought the Civil War was fun - this time we can cut it with Christ).

And "In God We Trust" was made our official monetary motto (mixing God and money - that's pretty cool) until the late 1930s. And "under God" wasn't added to the pledge until the 1950s. Conservatively speaking, these were never intended by our Founding Fathers. Conservatively speaking, of course.

excellent post. really the whole crux of the issue imo.

signaltonoise

I'd like to recommend you all a film by Krzysztof Kieslowski - "Dekalog" (english titles: "The Decalogue" or "Ten Commandments"). I think it might be of interest to you and show how the decalogue affects us all.. The whole project consists of 10 short (about 1hour long movies) loosely based on the ten commandments which I think perfectly portray how people break them everyday...sometimes they are unaware of it until something tragic happens (1st film, brilliant), sometimes they are aware of the consequences, but do it anyway (5th, the critically acclaimed "Short Film About Killing")

I watched the whole series several times and it's always very thought-provoking and does not leave anyone indifferent.

as for the question whether the ten commandments should be on display in public places or institutions, i'd say no. i believe there must be a separation of state and church and to me religion is something most private..

one more thing- let's say the ten commandments are all displayed in a public place, for example in a court-- and the court rules that a person gulity of murder (illegal killing) is to be sentenced to death (in a country where death penalty is in use). "Thou shall not kill." - a commandment that's displayed somewhere in the court building, is not respected by the court...the court's decision is not only a form of punishment, but another killing without mercy. What makes this a legal killing? is it not against the commandments as well?? of course it is..
btw- the issue with two killings is perfectly depicted by Kieslowski in "A Short Film about Killing" (or "Dekalog 5")

People that do not wish the 10 commandments to be displayed should oppose not the fact that there's too much mentioning of God in there, but the fact that the authorities (or those who want them on display in their own buildings) violate the commandments anyway. i hate such hipocrisy...mixing religion with politics is even worse...
keeping one's own attitudes toward Bible and the Ten Comandments is the best thing in my opinion..

decides2dream

signaltonoise wrote:

I'd like to recommend you all a film by Krzysztof Kieslowski - "Dekalog" (english titles: "The Decalogue" or "Ten Commandments"). I think it might be of interest to you and show how the decalogue affects us all.. The whole project consists of 10 short (about 1hour long movies) loosely based on the ten commandments which I think perfectly portray how people break them everyday...sometimes they are unaware of it until something tragic happens (1st film, brilliant), sometimes they are aware of the consequences, but do it anyway (5th, the critically acclaimed "Short Film About Killing")

I watched the whole series several times and it's always very thought-provoking and does not leave anyone indifferent.

as for the question whether the ten commandments should be on display in public places or institutions, i'd say no. i believe there must be a separation of state and church and to me religion is something most private..

one more thing- let's say the ten commandments are all displayed in a public place, for example in a court-- and the court rules that a person gulity of murder (illegal killing) is to be sentenced to death (in a country where death penalty is in use). "Thou shall not kill." - a commandment that's displayed somewhere in the court building, is not respected by the court...the court's decision is not only a form of punishment, but another killing without mercy. What makes this a legal killing? is it not against the commandments as well?? of course it is..
btw- the issue with two killings is perfectly depicted by Kieslowski in "A Short Film about Killing" (or "Dekalog 5")

People that do not wish the 10 commandments to be displayed should oppose not the fact that there's too much mentioning of God in there, but the fact that the authorities (or those who want them on display in their own buildings) violate the commandments anyway. i hate such hipocrisy...mixing religion with politics is even worse...
keeping one's own attitudes toward Bible and the Ten Comandments is the best thing in my opinion..

thanks for the film recommendation, i shall definitely look into it. he's an excellent director, love his 'colors' trilogy...so even better. also, excellent post. thanks for sharing.


btw - nice to see you here again! i often wondered where've you been....so good to see you.

IndianSummer

hippiemom wrote:

I'm more familiar with the new testament than the old, but I've never seen a biblical passage that denounces slavery.

since slavery was still widespread in new testament times. .

http://www.blacksandjews.com/MarcLeeRaphael.html

thats a stunning webpage ^^^^ as are some of the links on the bottom.