The 10 Commandments and the laws of Western Society

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Whenever these discussions come up, I find it frustrating because many people on the "pro-religious" side (for lack of a better term) all seem to believe something from the other believers. Some believe the bible is the absolute word of God; some believe the Bible is only flawed because it was interpreted by man; some believe God is omnipotent and everything is God's will; some that God set it up but man has free will; and so on.

It is difficult to keep the debate structured because the topic of debate, as viewed by its own supporters, is so varied.

Until there is an agreement about what the bible and religion really represent, religious people are going to be frustrated because the atheist/agnostic "side" will be misrepresenting them; and the atheist/agnostics will be frustrated because the religious argument appears to be a moving target.

Yes, and it goes both ways too. Atheists and agnostics believe different things for different reasons too.

Which is why I don't like debating things on a message board. Good discussion with a person comes out of really knowing that person, and understanding the way they think and speak.

And related in many ways, I hate prooftexting.

[Cheese]

Yet these posts get by far the most viewership and responses next to Calgary Flames topics on this board.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Yes, and it goes both ways too. Atheists and agnostics believe different things for different reasons too.

Which is why I don't like debating things on a message board. Good discussion with a person comes out of really knowing that person, and understanding the way they think and speak.

And related in many ways, I hate prooftexting.

Sure you can debate it, but you really need to explain early on where you are basing you position.

I've seen in this thread points that have been raised specifically because of previous debates, and both people getting frustrated since the person who fought for those views in the previous thread isn't in this discussion.

Thneed - you need to explain what your belief is. Then you can have a rational debate about you beliefs as opposed to those that a fundamentalist or LDS or Baptist or Catholic, or whomever may believe. And feel free to ask the person with whom you are debating to state their beliefs, so that you aren't tilting at windmills, either.

These debates can be very enlightening, but only when everyone recognizes the debate points, and ad hominems are left out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Yet these posts get by far the most viewership and responses next to Calgary Flames topics on this board.

Because its really interesting.

But for the most part, we end up going in circles. Round and round....

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because its really interesting.

But for the most part, we end up going in circles. Round and round....

Well I think more than that...I learn a lot from both sides of the equation. Apart from the fact that most people love talking about religion, politics and sex.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Well I think more than that...I learn a lot from both sides of the equation. Apart from the fact that most people love talking about religion, politics and sex.

And if you want to mix all 3 we can discuss Mark Foley.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

6. Neither shall you commit adultery.

While it is justifiably grounds for divorce and is almost universally recognized as being immoral, there is no law against cheating on one's spouse.

I guess the question is, if marriage is just a legal contract for financial purposes between a man and woman (man man, woman woman, ....etc) then why is cheating on your spouse considered immoral and why is it grounds for a breakup of the contract?

Please also remember the 10 Commandments are from the O.T. You cannot look at the Bible as a continuous document speaking to the same people, the O.T. was talking (through G) to the decadense and sloth of the S&G era. Alot of the O.T. is basic stuff that shouldnt even need to be written (its wrong to covet thy neighbours wife or property - well duh) The N.T. is a different approach were alot of the scripture isnt supposed to be direct fom G but more of an individuals interpretation/story.

It is also important to take into account that there is alot of scriptures that was left out to appease the Roman leader at the time so that he would give his support.

You cant take the Bible word for word, without knowing the time in which it was written.

[Textcritic]

I have to take issue with some major generalizations in one of Azure's posts:

Originally Posted by Azure

Hebrews 1:1-2, "God, who at various times and in variousways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;"

Points out pretty clearly that in OT times, God spoke to his followers through prophets, and according to the Bible and OT literature, directly with the individual. During the NT, he spoke to the people through Jesus Christ.

According to the author of the Book of Hebrews, it may be the case that God "spoke to the fathers and by the prophets", and that this form of divine communication has somehow been transformed in "these last days" to be the exclusive property of His Son. There are a number of ambiguities with this single example from Scripture that need to be resolved before you can make such a statement:

First, who are the "prophets" and the "fathers" alluded to? It may seem to be a simple question to resolve, but determining the nature and extent of "prophecy" and the designation of whom was considered a "prophet" at and before the time of Jesus is not clear. Were prophets only those who were identified as such in the texts of the Hebrew Bible? If so, then there are massive sections of what we now consider to be "the Bible" that would not conform to this model. What about the so-called "extrabiblical" Jewish and Christian texts? Works such as the [I]Book of Jubilees[/B], I Enoch, I–II Maccabees, The Temple Scroll, The Hodayot, The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Judas all make claims to some form of prophetic insight. Yet there are incredibly varying degrees of agreement about whether these texts exist on an equal plain of authority with the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant canons of Scripture.

If your interpretation of the Hebrews passage is correct, then the only viable "word of God" according to the author are those words that were actually spoken by Jesus. Is it even possible to know what Jesus actually said, and to distinguish these divine sayings from what was redacted and expanded during the Apostolic period? Even if we were to accept only the words of Jesus as they are presented in the New Testament, this leaves no place for the writings of Paul and the other apostles who contributed greatly to the Christian Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Azure

Well Jesus Christ isn't alive these days, so the only way to hear what he had to say is to read the Bible.

Paul tells us in II Timothy 3:16, 17, “all scripture was given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto all good works.” If we have in Scripture the instruction for all good works, what else can we possibly need?

Your rather definitive statement does not at all measure up with what Paul supposedly wrote to Timothy in the passage you cited. First of all, what were the limits—if any—that the author placed upon "all Scripture"? From my reading of the text—without any preconceived notion of what the limits of Scripture were for the author—the claim seems to me to be very inclusive. Knowing what I do about the state, nature and shape of Jewish and Christian "scripture" before the beginning of the second century, the statement is quite astonishing. In essence, the author is endorsing carte blanche virtually everything that has every been written in the name of God and classified as sacred! Hell, for all we know, Paul's "scriptures" included Homer's Odyssey, the works of Plato, and the instructions of the rabbinical School of Hillel.

Second, "inspiration by God" is a highly problematic term that depends upon centuries of developing theology and doctrine to arrive at the more general conviction that this was akin to divine dictation. The actual Greek word is theopneustos, which, literally translated, means "God-breathed". In a more hebraically inspired sense of the term, this is akin to the imagery provided in Gen 2 of God breathing into the clay mass he has shaped in creating a living human being. Biblically, humans are all technically "God-breathed" as well; does this mean that we are all "inspired" in the same sense as Scripture? More likely, Paul is suggesting that the scriptures are dynamic and actively applicable. Again, it is highly ambiguous, and provides no certainty whatsoever regarding whether or not scripture was originally even considered as source material for the life and teachings of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Azure

There are even people who will say that the Holy Spirit will speak to them. Yet they fail to realize that...

In Ephesians 6:17, Paul tells us to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God...”

Again, going towards the belief that the Bible is the only way that God communicates with his followers.

How so? Where does Paul actually equate the "word of God" with Scripture? In actual fact, the only direct equivalent for this term is found in the Johannine description of Jesus as "the Word" (John 1). Even if Paul is alluding to Scripture here, is there any indication whatsoever that the "word of God" is exclusively contained within "the Bible"? If so, which one? Anyone with a modicum of understanding regarding the shape of sacred literature in Second Temple Judaism will concur that the scriptures were fairly fluid and prone to extensive recasting, rewriting, and a plethora of wildly inconsistent interpretations.

Originally Posted by Azure

Talking about those who believe God shows them signs or speaks to them in dreams and visions. First, there is no biblical support for believers having dreams and visions from God. God tell us in the Bible He speaks to us through His word. Second, dreams and visions generally has a detrimental and confusing effect in the person's life. Their vision sets a precedent and they remain unsound doctrinally in some areas.

And yet, both the Old and New Testament contain dozens of instances in which God communicated through visions and dreams. Furthermore, I have yet to see any indication whatsoever that "God tells us in the Bible he speaks to us through His word." I see allusions to the idea that the "word of God" is a viable source for divine instruction, and that "scripture" is valuable and informative. But where does one ever mean the other? Furthermore, where does God ever make an authorial claim regarding even a single "biblical" book? I have only ever once encountered a piece of writing that purports to have been issued in its entirety by God directly in the first-person, and the only "Bible" the Temple Scroll ever appeared in was possibly one belonging to an elitest Jewish sect of disenfranchised priests and scribes.

Originally Posted by Azure

According to the Bible, and what it says many miracles happened.

As to the interpretation of those miracles, I'm not sure.

I hate this.

Sounds like I'm preaching.

This begs the question: if something happened "according to the Bible", does this mean that it necessarily happened actually?

[Vulcan]

Good post Textcritic. Ive always found it inaccurate when many Christians refer to the Bible as the Word. In John it says
"In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Now how can God be the Bible? It doesn't make sense, so the Word must be something else, something more basic. I think a clue to this is and according to the Bible, the name of God is YHVH. The unutterable name. [unless you add vowels and maybe use it as a mantra] If I can't say it, maybe though I can hear it. If I can hear it maybe I can see it also in the form of light. Seeing the light, may not just be an expression of discovery but an actual discovery.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Good post Textcritic. Ive always found it inaccurate when many Christians refer to the Bible as the Word. In John it says
"In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Now how can God be the Bible? It doesn't make sense, so the Word must be something else, something more basic. I think a clue to this is and according to the Bible, the name of God is YHVH. The unutterable name. [unless you add vowels and maybe use it as a mantra] If I can't say it, maybe though I can hear it. If I can hear it maybe I can see it also in the form of light. Seeing the light, may not just be an expression of discovery but an actual discovery.

YHVH...a Tetragrammaton. It appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God, as the God of Israel. It serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations. Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the scores of "gods of the nations".

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

YHVH...a Tetragrammaton. It appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God, as the God of Israel. It serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations. Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the scores of "gods of the nations".

My point is that the name of god could be any letters since it can't be said. These work as well as any and amongst the Jews give a common reference.
The other gods you refer to can be spoken, so they are a creation of man.

[photon]

Question for you Textcritic, a bit off topic in this thread but close enough I hope; I didn't want to start a whole new thread just for this.

In another thread Azure and I were discussing something and the subject of non-canonical books that were in circulation by Christians in the first few hundred years but were eventually not included in the canon.

His contention was that the books that were left out were left out because they dealt with mundane things, or they re-stated things already contained in the other books, etc.. my contention was that some books were left out because they had different doctrines and such in them, things that would have gone against the Nicene Creed or significantly contradicted the eventual canon. I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas because of it's gnostic slant (understanding the saying would unlock the secret teachings of Jesus I think is what it says).

I haven't had a chance to go do some research on that from where I got the idea, just wondered if you had some input?

Thanks in advance.

[photon]

BTW early Jews didn't believe their God was the only god, they just believed he was the one they had a covenant with and the one they were to worship; that he was the best one.

Thus "no other gods before me" rather than "no other gods".

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

BTW early Jews didn't believe their God was the only god, they just believed he was the one they had a covenant with and the one they were to worship; that he was the best one.

Thus "no other gods before me" rather than "no other gods".

Yeah that is an interesting fact that I also noticed when I read the Bible. My take on it is that most Jews only had second hand knowledge of god as evidenced by their making of the golden calf while Moses was gone and those who were in the know had to explain in terms the regular folks could understand. This leads back to the whole garbage pile of what in the Bible is real truth and what is in there to keep the masses in line. I pick what I find relevant and I think everyone, with an open mind, should decide for themselves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I pick what I find relevant

And how do you decide that?

Jim Jones picked what he felt was relevant too and brainwashed a bunch of innocent people to kill themselves.

[Calgaryborn]

The Synod of Antioch(266A.D.) denounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon.

The ecumenical Council of Nicea(325A.D.) refers to "the canon."

The Synod of Laodicea(363A.D.) forbade the reading of non-canonical Books, thus indicating that by this time the New Testament canon was finalized.

Apparently none of these early councils thought it necessary to list the Books which comprised the sacred canon, indicating they were well-known and universally accepted by churches and Christians.

The first complete listing of te 27 New Testament Books was given by Athanasius in an Easter letter written in 367A.D. (This does not mean the canon was not settled earlier-it is the earliest list known!)

The Council of Hippo(393A.D.) decreed the 27 Book canon.

The Synod of Carthage(397A.D.) forbade thereading of anything but the New Testament in churches.

The Council of Carthage(419A.D.) reaffirmed the New Testament canon.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And how do you decide that?

Jim Jones picked what he felt was relevant too and brainwashed a bunch of innocent people to kill themselves.

I try to use common sense and an inner feeling to find what is relevant for me and I interpret it from my own experience. I haven't read the Bible for a long time but I'm still learning and adjusting my views on life and hope that I have a firm moral basis so I don't cross any lines. I had a big change at one point in my life and find little inner conflict on what I want to do and with what is mostly right.

If his flock also picked what was relevant to them, Jim Jones wouldn't have had any followers.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I try to use common sense and an inner feeling to find what is relevant for me and I interpret it from my own experience. I haven't read the Bible for a long time but I'm still learning and adjusting my views on life and hope that I have a firm moral basis so I don't cross any lines. I had a big change at one point in my life and find little inner conflict on what I want to do and with what is mostly right.

Cross which lines?

Does the Bible set those lines for you? Where does your sense of morality come from?

If his flock also picked what was relevant to them, Jim Jones wouldn't have had any followers.

I'm certainly not going to compare you to Jim Jones, but he is a prime example of someone taking the Bible, interpreting it 'their' way...and brainwashing a bunch of people to follow 'that' way.

[jammies]

These discussions always will go around in circles because you are trying to rationally discuss an irrational subject. To claim a God exists is not a conclusion, it is a premise - a premise that is impervious to disproof because any argument against can be dismissed by referring back to that premise as a counter-argument, in the aforementioned circle.

Once you posit a transcendent God, anything becomes possible, as It is not limited by the laws of space, time, or logic. For example, the problem of evil (despite apologists) is not solvable in a universe created by a benign God, but it doesn't matter - in the end, a theist can simply say "we do not understand the ways of God" and no further explanation is necessary. It's the ultimate argument from authority, unchallengeable as long as you acknowledge that authority exists.

As I said in the previous thread, there is a better way to convince the religious that God does not exist - forget about logic and win them over with marketing. Atheism needs to shed its image of being all about disbelief, and turn itself into something that can inspire people. Of course, the disunity of atheism works against such an approach, but that doesn't mean it won't work, just that it is going to be very difficult.

Personally I find being an atheist is exhilarating and liberating. Humanity has suffered through many evils - some of its own making - but if you take a long enough view, you can see that, on balance, there is progress towards wisdom and justice, the rule of law, material well-being for all, social equity, and other "good" things that we have built for ourselves. Is that not worthy of pride, and should it not fill us with desire to continue along the way of progress and enlightenment?

Translating that feeling of pride, and determination to better the world, into a cause worthy enough to sway the believer should be the focus of every committed atheist. Certainly there is a place for criticizing the foolishness of religious-based argumentation, but that shouldn't distract you from exerting yourself for positive commentary in the cause of humanism as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm certainly not going to compare you to Jim Jones, but he is a prime example of someone taking the Bible, interpreting it 'their' way...and brainwashing a bunch of people to follow 'that' way.

If we've learned one thing from these religious threads, and we haven't, it's that every believer essentially interprets it 'their' way. You clearly do. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't know where Jim Jones comes into it.