The 10 Commandments

[Flail]

As I understand it, the 10 Commandments were communicated by a 'God' to Moses to relay to the people then living in Israel. In them 'God' is supposedly 'speaking' for Himself. One of these Commandments instructs the people of Israel that they are not to 'take any other god' before this particular god and that He is their Lord God.

If I understand these words correctly, would a logical interpretation not imply that there are other 'gods' equal to the one issuing these Commandments? Is not the statement "...shall take no other gods before me", a clear indication that,at least according to this 'God', there are other similar beings existent, ie. 'other gods'?

[Crazy Ivan]

/end-of-discussion

Is this a Christian prerogative, or just yours?

Symbols and Idols are two different things though.

No, all idols are symbols. Specifically, symbols of worship.

A cross is a symbol it isn’t something people worship. It symbolizes an event. It isn’t something people idolize.

People often talk directly at the "cross symbol", with the figure of Jesus nailed on it, clearly worshipping the figure, i.e. idolizing, as if the idol was Jesus himself.

[Zzyzx]

.

Symbols and Idols are two different things though. A cross is a symbol it isn’t something people worship. It symbolizes an event. It isn’t something people idolize.
/end-of-discussion

It is not uncommon for people to terminate discussion / debate when they realize that they have not been able to support their position with anything more than opinion. Readers notice such things.

[naz]

.

Symbols and Idols are two different things though. A cross is a symbol it isn’t something people worship. It symbolizes an event. It isn’t something people idolize.
/end-of-discussion

It is not uncommon for people to terminate discussion / debate when they realize that they have not been able to support their position with anything more than opinion. Readers notice such things.

Good, I'm glad because most of your opinions and others don't really amount to much anyways.

[Murad]

.

Symbols and Idols are two different things though. A cross is a symbol it isn’t something people worship. It symbolizes an event. It isn’t something people idolize.
/end-of-discussion

It is not uncommon for people to terminate discussion / debate when they realize that they have not been able to support their position with anything more than opinion. Readers notice such things.

Good, I'm glad because most of your opinions and others don't really amount to much anyways.

Hey can you answer my questions that i asked.

[Flail]

Zzyzx wrote:

It is not uncommon for people to terminate discussion / debate when they realize that they have not been able to support their position with anything more than opinion. Readers notice such things.

I think this is common. I have done it myself and did it today in the 'On Peace' thread. Perhaps one is obligated to do so in honorable debate? However, is not opinion, clearly expressed as such, relevant to debate so long as it is arguably supported by the debater's reason, logic and common sense? Here I exclude opinions based solely upon claimed subjective experience that have no verifiable evidential starting point for any logical premise.

[Zzyzx]

.

It is not uncommon for people to terminate discussion / debate when they realize that they have not been able to support their position with anything more than opinion. Readers notice such things.

I think this is common. I have done it myself and did it today on another thread.

If I recall correctly, you withdrew honorably and openly -- and did not simply disappear (as is quite common).

Perhaps one is obligated to do so in honorable debate?

In my opinion, one is not obligated to withdraw from discussion or debate if their statements are shown to be unsupportable -- but ARE ethically obligated to withdraw or retract the individual statements.

However, is not opinion, clearly expressed as such, relevant to debate so long as it is arguably supported by the debater's reason, logic and common sense? Here I exclude opinions based solely upon claimed subjective experience that have no verifiable evidential starting point for any logical premise.

I agree that a clearly identified opinion can be appropriate in debate -- provided that it is not ALL that is offered and provided that it is not offered as "evidence" or "proof" of statements made.

[otseng]

Good, I'm glad because most of your opinions and others don't really amount to much anyways.

Moderator warning.

This would be considered a disrespectful comment. And anyone here has the right to participate on this forum as long as they abide by the rules.

[naz]

As much as I would like to conclude that all religion is corrupt, it is not that easy.

For example, modern Judaism makes no images to be used in worship. There is no representation of the god. Another example is Islam. A third example is Hinduism. Wait! I hear you say, the Hindus have graven images. Yes, they certainly do. But they have no commandment from their gods forbidding them. No, the only examples of religions that both forbid and use images in worship are Christian.

Well said McCulloch

But Christians will say Paul came with a new covenant, and that christians no longer had to follow the teachings of the prophet moses.
All Jews, All muslims, every single soul that follows the prophets, they have to circumcise, they cannot eat pig.
How is it, Paul decides, its OK to worship the image of Jesus.
How is it, Paul decides its OK to DISREGARD the teachings of moses.
How is it Paul decides that the 10 commandments should become OBSOLETE to christians?
How is it Paul decides the Sabbath should be changed from saturday to sunday?
Because thats when constantine worshipped the sun (in roman mythology)

Jesus said:

(Matt. 5:17)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Who do christians really follow? Jesus and Moses or Paul?

During the time of the bible and other religious texts, people didn’t have the advancements of mankind, technology, science, etc. People relied on prophets and infinite wisdom to guide them during times when understanding was scarce. It says in the bible to stay away from pork because it is unclean to eat.

King James: Deuteronomy
7Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. 8And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
9These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

I don’t like eating pig for the simple fact that it can cause people to get parasites and other diseases when it isn’t cooked and farmed properly. Thanks for advancements of doctors, science and medicine that can be avoided by knowing how to cook the meat and how farmers can be ethical and raise the livestock to prevent “uncleanness.�

The same thing can be said about being circumcise, it can help prevent complications in males later in life. However that is a trivial stance, because some complications can be avoided with proper cleaning, knowledge of sexual intercourse, etc. There is also a list of reason why people prefer not to have it done to their kids at an early age. They see it as being their Childs body, and it isn’t right for someone to decide what should be done with their child’s body, it is entirely up to the child when they get older. The List of do(s) and don’t(s) are large.

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/i ... rcumcision
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/f ... cision.htm
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html

I’m not sure why Muslims or Jewish people do it, but if it is because someone in their religion did then it is probably a misrepresentation of the facts. Again this is a debate that could go on forever. If a male is knowledgeable about his anatomy and his counterpart then I don’t see why it is a problem. That would include some discussions between father / son and some may even see that as a easy way out of those father / son talks. “Just circumcise the kid and be done with it.�
I would be interested in hearing some reasons Muslims and Jews find this practice suitable. Does your religion speak about anything like; you shouldn’t destroy your body. Don’t get tattoos, the body is the temple. It is given to you from god, etc.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

However, is not opinion, clearly expressed as such, relevant to debate so long as it is arguably supported by the debater's reason, logic and common sense? Here I exclude opinions based solely upon claimed subjective experience that have no verifiable evidential starting point for any logical premise.

Zzyzx responded:

I agree that a clearly identified opinion can be appropriate in debate -- provided that it is not ALL that is offered and provided that it is not offered as "evidence" or "proof" of statements made.

I am in general agreement. However, I contend that an opinion logically connected and argued from and upon an initial factual or evidential premise can be ALL that if offered in debate so long as it is clearly stated as opinion.
For instance, the Chrisitian God is not factual or evidential. As such there can be no factual or evidential premise to logically connect or agrue as to the existence of such a being.There is no reasonably defined starting point, no evidence to analyze, no reality upon which to attach a logical argument. So not only are truth claims as to the actual existence of the 'Christian God' without verifiable evidence;they are incapable of viable arguable opinion as well. Therefore I contend that debating truth claims as to the 'existence or non-existence' of such an undefined,unidentifiable, unverifiable creature as the 'God' proposed in the Bible is meaningless and irrelevant.

[Skyangel]

As I understand it, the 10 Commandments were communicated by a 'God' to Moses to relay to the people then living in Israel. In them 'God' is supposedly 'speaking' for Himself. One of these Commandments instructs the people of Israel that they are not to 'take any other god' before this particular god and that He is their Lord God.

If I understand these words correctly, would a logical interpretation not imply that there are other 'gods' equal to the one issuing these Commandments? Is not the statement "...shall take no other gods before me", a clear indication that,at least according to this 'God', there are other similar beings existent, ie. 'other gods'?

According to what God himself said, there are no other gods.

Isaiah 44:6-8 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].