The Ten Commandments

[OnceConvinced]

Have you ever looked at the ten commandments and wonder what the hell was God thinking? Why did he put these ten things above all else? I can understand most of them, but certainly not all.

Just take a look at them:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: (for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;)
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The first three commandments are all about God and if they are that important to him then it shows us what an insecure and jealous God he is (Note that jealousy is a sin). That’s 30% of the commandments! Is God’s ego that delicate that he had to include 3 commandments such as this? Then you have laws like “thou shalt not covet” which seems to be small fry in the sin department next to many other things. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” also seems to be a small fish in a big pond when things like rape and paedophilia seem to be given a very low priority.

So what about some of the other important stuff? Where are all the other commandments that would seem to be so incredibly important? Where is…?

Thou shalt not take another human being as a slave (You’d think God would take a harder line on this issue)

Thou shalt not rape (Sexual crimes seem to be unimportant as far as God’s concerned when it comes to the 10 commandments - apart from adultry. In fact the bible says God expects rape victims to marry their abusers)

Thou shalt not take drugs (or something like that. After all, God knows what will happen in the future and must have surely known it would become a major problem further down the line. He is either short sighted or has no knowledge of what will happen in the future.)

I am aware there are a lot of issues dealt with in other parts of the Torah relating to immoralities, however the 10 Commandments seem to stand out as God’s main issues and that is what I am trying to focus on here.

So my questions:
What commandments that haven't been included do you think should have been included and why?
Should any have been omitted? Why?
Should any have been reworded or elaborated more on?.

[Fallibleone]

Fallible , sorry, I can see now how I might be giving a wrong impression of God for you to think him at fault.

Just for the record - I'm sure you know this already, but in case anyone does not, I don't think God is perfect or imperfect. I don't think God is.

When I said God can not speak to man on our terms I was not impying God can not but sometimes chooses a different approach in order to teach us something new.

The words 'God can not' don't imply anything. They state pretty unequivocally that God can not. But that aside, he seems to have 'chosen' an approach which is ambiguous and ineffective, since so many people are able to read such contradictory things into it. Inevitably, some people get the 'wrong' message. This would show him to be not perfect, unless he intends for some of us to get the 'wrong' message. In which case, why?

God may say something that does not make sense to us to shake us loose from our earthly understanding which is so deeply ingrained in the natural man it takes some shifting .

So whereas before he could not say things to us because we would not understand, he now is saying things to us which we cannot understand, in order that we are shaken loose from earthly understanding. I'm not sure how that would work. It's difficult to see how such a process would shake anyone loose from anything, seeing as we can't understand it.

Error or sin has very deep roots like a weed that must be gently loosed and not yanked up leaving enough behind to grow again. If you have ever done any weeding you will know how it must be tackled to get all of the root.

Not being religious, I don't recognise the concept of sin. As far as the roots of error go, what exactly are they, and where is (drum roll) free will in all this? What if I like my error and want my roots left where they are?

So it's not a question of God being incapable or imperfect in any way but he is careful to do the best for us slow as it may be.

Again, where does the 'knowledge' of a God who operates outside natural law come from? Or do you not concur with that argument?

Believing God is the most basic requirement and many have not even started with that.

Actually this is not true for many people. Believing in God is not a basic requirement. Those words make it sound much too easy. Such a thing is above and beyond my capability. It would need a literally super human effort on my part to make myself believe something which I do not believe. In such a circumstance it is not a question of 'not even' starting with that. As things stand at the moment regarding available evidence, I have as much chance of being able to travel via woodlouse unicycle from here (6 miles outside the centre of Liverpool) to you in West Yorkshire by 6 this evening (20 minutes from now) as I do of being able to believe in something which I don't believe in.

To start with friend you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't believe God is - yet you want answers based on his word since that is all I can give you.

No, I just want your answers. Since I do not believe in God, how I can want answers based on God's word is somewhat of a puzzle.

If you just want opinions you are asking the wrong person, I don't have any.

On the contrary - that is all you have. That is all any of us has, that's the whole point. Some like to call their opinions on God 'knowledge', but they're still just opinions. If yours are somehow not opinions, you'll be able to prove it.

You will never understand anything I say if you can not accept that God is ...Heb.11v6.

I understand more than you might think. Disagreement is not synonymous with misunderstanding. But one key to being understood is to be understandable, and some of your statements are very ambiguious and shift when one attempts to nail them down. Eg. God can not tell us about things we don't understand becomes God tells us things which we don't understand.

This refers to an attitude of Mind and Heart toward God. If you want to believe but find it difficult then you must ask God to help you believe, scripture says so.

Yes, the logical fallacy of begging the question. In order to believe in God, you must ask God, in whom you don't believe. Despite my having explained how it is impossible to make myself believe in something which I do not believe, there's no acknowledgement of this point whatsoever, but a repeating of the circular argument, because reality conflicts with a specific holy book, and nothing must do that.

But I can tell you here and now that nothing will happen if we ask from a wrong motive.

And I can tell you here and now that your sentence is 7 words too long.
How does one ask God to help one believe and actually mean it? You can spot the mistake there, right?

So when you have given this some thought we might be able to move on.

An assumption that I have not 'given this some thought' is unhelpful to the discussion, but very helpful if the objective is to lay fault at my door in lieu of checking your facts. Instead, you could ask me if I have given this any thought.

Look, when a Baby learns to walk it starts from the bottom (literally speaking) and time and time again it falls back on it but it does not give up and neither must a spiritual Babe.

Of course the difference between a real baby and a spiritual baby is that we have ample evidence that real babies exist, and that they go on to walk.

We all have very humble beginnings physical and spiritual, none of us are born walking, running or flying it all has to be gradually accomplished from small and humble beginnings Heb.11v6 being the most basic.

Once you can produce a reliable test for Spirit you can use the term confidently with non-believers (if there are any left).

Here are the questions:

Why has God chosen such an ineffective method by which to spread his word?

If he has been deliberately obscure because he intends for some of us to get the wrong message, why does he intend this?

How does saying things to us which we cannot understand shake us loose from our earthly understanding?

What are the roots of error?

Where does the 'knowledge' of a God who operates outside natural law come from?

Or do you not concur with that argument?

[Beta]

Yes goat ,
Jesus was the son of man in the sense that one Parent was Human.
Jesus is also the Son of God because His Father is God Jh.1.

Wen God speaks of repentance he is referring to natural man who can and does sin. This can not be applied to Jesus since scripture says he was without sin and therefore did not have to repent.

[Goat]

Yes goat ,
Jesus was the son of man in the sense that one Parent was Human.
Jesus is also the Son of God because His Father is God Jh.1.

Wen God speaks of repentance he is referring to natural man who can and does sin. This can not be applied to Jesus since scripture says he was without sin and therefore did not have to repent.

According to Christian belief, ALL men sin.. jesus is without sin, therefore Jesus can not be the son of Man.

Yet he is.

Such a hodgepodge of beliefs..

And, I noticed you were not able to actually COUNTER the scripture,just disagree with it.

[Beta]

Fallibleone , you pose questions the answers to which you have no intent to receive in the spirit they could be given. Perhaps one day you may be receptive to them and God will be able to work with you.

[cnorman18]

If one can't get proof of God except through a personal relationship with him, just what 'corrections' are you qualified to make, and why should anyone listen to you?

When I tell you what God says it is not me correcting anyone but the Word of God.. When we are in our natural carnal state it is extremely hard not to relate to other physical beings instead of God and so we assume other people are speaking from their own mind. The fact they quote scripture is overlooked or confused with false teaching already well-established in the world . Mankind has had 6000 years of satans deceptive practices tying people in knots through every religion.
I am not qualified to correct anyone and when people accept scripture coming from God they will be corrected by him. The very same applies to myself. All I can do is speak of my experience in the hope it may help others find the way to eternal life. Because this is really the purpose of our existence.

You claim that the Word of God is correcting fallibleone. That is an unjustified excuse as far as i can see. You have yet to show what you claim is the Word of God is actually the Word of God.

You have several items to take care of first before you can make that claim.

1) You have to demonstrate that the scripture you are using IS indeed the "Word of God'. .. without using circular reasoning.
2) You have to show that the way you are using the scripture is proper and not a mistake. From what I have seen so far, your broader understanding of scripture is strongly lacking. One major problem seems to be context.
3) Then, having established points 1 and 2 .. which you haven not by any means, you would have to establish it would apply to fallibleone as a non-believer, and not just you,as a believer.

Pretty good, Goat. I would add (4)--that "the purpose of our existence" is "finding the way to eternal life" according to Scripture. As far as the OT is concerned, it would seem to be something more like proper behavior in THIS life. A life after death is not even mentioned in the Torah; plus, it has seemed to me from childhood that being concerned only, or even primarily, with whether or not one personally goes to Heaven is a remarkably self-centered view of what religion is about, and rather at odds with most of the Bible.

By "Bible," of course, I mean the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. I don't recognize the NT as Scripture, another small point that remains to be established here.

[Fallibleone]

Fallibleone , you pose questions the answers to which you have no intent to receive in the spirit they could be given.

Do you claim to be able to read minds?

Perhaps one day you may be receptive to them and God will be able to work with you.

Alternatively, you could desist avoiding them and answer.

[cnorman18]

Fallibleone , you pose questions the answers to which you have no intent to receive in the spirit they could be given.

Do you claim to be able to read minds?

Perhaps one day you may be receptive to them and God will be able to work with you.

Alternatively, you could desist avoiding them and answer.

Patronizing those who believe differently as poor, benighted "spiritual children" who are obstinately refusing to listen to obvious truths presented by a spiritual superior, as opposed to recognizing them as intelligent adults who desire coherent answers that do not require the proper beliefs to make sense, is the usual last resort of the fundamentalist in debate when he or she cannot explain or defend his or her views in a rational manner. Personally, I find it more than a little prideful and arrogant, not to mention offensive and intellectually dishonest. Maybe it's just me.

[McCulloch]

To start with friend you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't believe God is - yet you want answers based on his word since that is all I can give you.

How about starting with why you believe that whatever it is you think is God's word (the Bible? the Qu'ran? Mormon?) is the Word of God?

You will never understand anything I say if you can not accept that God is ...Heb.11v6.

OK, then show us that God is ...

This refers to an attitude of Mind and Heart toward God. If you want to believe but find it difficult then you must ask God to help you believe, scripture says so.

What attitude is that? Give up critical reasoning, then you will be able to believe just about anything. I have asked God to help. It didn't work. Should I try again?

But I can tell you here and now that nothing will happen if we ask from a wrong motive.

What better motive than to know the honest truth about the matter? That is my motive.

[Fallibleone]

Fallibleone , you pose questions the answers to which you have no intent to receive in the spirit they could be given.

Do you claim to be able to read minds?

Perhaps one day you may be receptive to them and God will be able to work with you.

Alternatively, you could desist avoiding them and answer.

Patronizing those who believe differently as poor, benighted "spiritual children" who are obstinately refusing to listen to obvious truths presented by a spiritual superior, as opposed to recognizing them as intelligent adults who desire coherent answers that do not require the proper beliefs to make sense, is the usual last resort of the fundamentalist in debate when he or she cannot explain or defend his or her views in a rational manner. Personally, I find it more than a little prideful and arrogant, not to mention offensive and intellectually dishonest. Maybe it's just me.

Thankfully, one is encouraged that it is possible to identify such findamentalist attitudes as the exception, due in part to the presence of reasonable people who are capable of holding their beliefs with dignity and expressing them rationally and honestly. Is your head big enough yet or shall I keep going?

[cnorman18]

Fallibleone , you pose questions the answers to which you have no intent to receive in the spirit they could be given.

Do you claim to be able to read minds?

Perhaps one day you may be receptive to them and God will be able to work with you.

Alternatively, you could desist avoiding them and answer.

Patronizing those who believe differently as poor, benighted "spiritual children" who are obstinately refusing to listen to obvious truths presented by a spiritual superior, as opposed to recognizing them as intelligent adults who desire coherent answers that do not require the proper beliefs to make sense, is the usual last resort of the fundamentalist in debate when he or she cannot explain or defend his or her views in a rational manner. Personally, I find it more than a little prideful and arrogant, not to mention offensive and intellectually dishonest. Maybe it's just me.

Thankfully, one is encouraged that it is possible to identify such findamentalist attitudes as the exception, due in part to the presence of reasonable people who are capable of holding their beliefs with dignity and expressing them rationally and honestly. Is your head big enough yet or shall I keep going?

(Ka-boom!)

Too late.

Seriously: Flat-out pedal-to-the-metal, take-no-prisoners-and-it's-okay-to-lie-for-God fundamentalism is, let us all give fervent thanks, not yet the norm among Christians, not even among conservative Christians. That said, it is still much more common than it has any right to be.

In my own experience, most people are "reasonable people who are capable of holding their beliefs with dignity and expressing them rationally and honestly." The problem is that on Internet fora, most of those people are atheists. Go to any mainstream Christian church or synagogue in the US, though, and you will find them thick in the pews. It's hard to get a "big head" when one knows that one is in no way special. I just happen to be here.

I have remarked before on the odd affinity that fundamentalists seem to have for Net fora. I have seen it on more than a dozen. I take it for granted that people exist who basically believe that rationality, logic, common sense, and often enough, even intellectual honesty must properly and necessarily take a back seat to dogmatism and an unexamined, unreflective "faith" that is invariably swallowed whole from the teachings of others. (Take it as fact; you will never, ever see a fundamentalist who has reasoned his way to that position on his own. They have always, I say always, bought into someone else's ideas and adopted them as theirs.)

What I can't figure out is why such people come to participate in fora that are explicitly dedicated to rational and reasoned debate. It's rather like vegetarians frequenting places where the proper cooking and serving of meat is the primary activity. If you have intentionally abandoned something, why would you go where that very thing is the major focus?

As we say here in Texas: Beats the snot out of me (expression slightly edited for language)..