The 10 Commandments and the laws of Western Society

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Here's a link to some written material on the subject:

http://www.clsnet.org/lsmPages/ICLS/bibliography.pdf

Also, as has been explained to you before Cheese; just because you find an earlier reference to a christian principle doesn't mean Christianity isn't responsible for ingraining said principle within society.

Still pompous eh?

Here is who created your linked thesis...
Associate Professor, Regent University School of Law, and Director, Institute for Christian Legal
Studies, a joint ministry of the Christian Legal Society and Regent University School of Law.
Regent University - America's Preeminent Christian University

Do you think they looked at what they were writing with an open mind? Honestly?

The Introduction...

The civil law, although imperfectly administered by man, is a gift from God that flows from his nature and reflects his character.

The Christian legal scholar who desires to integrate the study of law with his or her Christian faith needs instruction and encouragement from those who have dedicated careers and lives to the pursuit of God’s law.

I did read the vast majority of the article CalgaryBornAgain...but let me tell you something...IF I was a Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist and I found out that a prosecuting lawyer was a product of Regent University I might be a bit scared at his possible perversion to something I dont believe in. You should be scared that you dont find yourself in a Muslim country where they are taught to be Lawyers from a Muslim perspective and get yourself into trouble. What a horrible excuse for a University and what a pathetic excuse for an article. You seriously need to read something beyond apologetics. Free your mind.

The great leader of Regent University...Mr Pat Robertson.

If you attend Regent University in Virginia Beach be warned that school administration has zero tolerance for dissent, or well maybe humor? Poking fun at the "Great Leader", no not Kim Jong Ill, but Pat Robertson will lead to swift punishment and you might find yourself in a straight jacket too! Just ask second year Regent law student Adam Key...

You know college kids, always "pushing the envelope", taking things too far, always trying to prove a point….ahhh, the days of student activism... Mr. Adam Key, a second year law student at Regent University, made the mistake of poking a little “college fun” at THE CREATOR of Regent University, Mr. Pat Robertson...yeaa, that guy...you know the old guy who claims he once leg pressed 2,000 pounds...or who once used his divine connections to redirected a hurricane from hitting Virginia Beach...yes, that guy! Who would ever think to poke a little fun at him?

Well, apparently Mr. Key didn't read his student handbook? Because the second year law student would have known that posting a picture of Pat lobbing "the bird" on his “facebook” page (albeit I assume a slightly photoshoped picture) could get you booted from school...Remember Adam, people are watching…the place is crawling with informants, even in cyberspace! Therefore Mr. Key found himself in “hot water” when his transgression was exposed to Regent’s Administration. The good folks at Regent didn’t find much humor in Adam’s facebook picture and in matter of fact Mr. Key is now banned from the University.

[Sparks]

If we're going to say that Christianity has affected our morals and values (or their development), we need to find examples where our morals and values are different than most other (non-Christian) societies as a result of Christian teaching.

The Ten Commandments obviously doesn't satisfy this, because equivalents of all the relevant commandments would exist in every functioning society.

I did find my compilation of readings from Poli 401... some specific ones to look up:
Leviticus 25: 21 (Basic Property Laws)
Deuteronomy 5 (Basic Conduct), 23, 24 (Lending, Usury Laws, etc.), 27 (Property Laws)
Psalm 15 (Perjury)
Mark 10 (Basic Conduct, Civil Code... not literal)
Acts 5 (Basic Financial conduct, basis for evasion... not literal, very contextual)

Leviticus 25: 21
This does talk about property (farming practices in particular), but I'm not sure how relevant it is. Take a look: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...25&version=31;

A lot of what it says is repeated in the verses below:

Deuteronomy 5
This has basically the same content as the Ten Commandments, and doesn't satisfy our problem for the same reason.

Deuteronomy 23
This begins by explaining who may not come to worship the lord. Eg. banned are people with deformities, illegitimate children (and their decendents), specific groups of people (non-Jewish), etc. Then it talks a bit about hygiene (eg. what to do when you poop), and a bit about slavery. I don't think any of that is particularly relevant - bias against the former groups would probably exist in many societies, and the rest is unremarkable.

Next, it talks about prostitutes. Western taboos against sex, prostitution, nudity, etc can probably be attributed in part to Judaism/Christianity.

Finally, it says that you may not charge interest if the person is Jewish. Interest is a pretty simple concept and I'm sure at least the concept of it would exist in most societies (including the in-group/out-group distinction).

Deuteronomy 24
A man can divorce his wife if he wants, but he may not remarry her. You can't take something essential for a person's livelihood as collateral. Death for kidnapping. Be careful if you get leprosy. Don't get collateral for a loan in a demeaning way. Don't be a dick to your servants. People (to be executed) are only responsible for their own actions (not their relatives). Finally, leave a bit for the poor.

Have any of these had an impact on our morals, today, in a way that is strikingly different from other societies? Divorce existed long before the Old Testament was written. In some more modern societies (like the pre-Christian Roman Empire) women could divorce also - sounds closer to what we have today. The collateral stuff sounds pretty obvious, and I don't think that when the bank comes knocking these days (or over history, for that matter), they care all that much about how extracting money from you might hurt your livelihood. Kidnapping would be generally condemned in all societies. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, mentions personal responsibility.

Most societies have some sense of financial welfare. Take a look at Buddhist writings which date back much further than the Old Testament as an example.

Psalm 15 aka "Thanks Captain Obvious"
Nice people don't lie, don't gossip, keep their promises, lend their money without interest, and don't accept bribes.

Mark 10
Don't divorce. God changed his mind in the years since Moses.
Give to the poor. First shall be the last, etc. (see: Buddhism, as one of many examples)

Acts 5
To look good, a couple (Ananias and Sappira) sold some land and said they would donate the money to the apostles. They lied about the amount they got for it, though. Doing that is bad. Lying is still bad.
There are a couple of other things which aren't relevant: Paul healing people as he walks by, and the Saudducees arresting some Christians and learning that by arresting them, they're messing with God (bad idea).

-

So, I think that our taboos against sex, prostitution, nudity, etc could be seen as coming from Christianity, but I'm not sure that those taboos are even all that good. It brings to mind American television - tonnes of violence but at the sight of a boob, it's the end of the world.

Otherwise, it's hard to see anything unique coming from those verses. Christianity has obviously had an impact in other areas. Well, not Christianity itself, but institutions people made out of it - eg. the Church.

But the bible itself, and our morals and values? I definitely don't buy it so far.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

First, we have the fact that God implicitly condones slavery here, but in all enligtened Western nations, slavery is outlawed. Furthermore, keeping slaves is specifically prohibited by Article 4 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The recognition that slavery existed in that era is not a condoning of slavery.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The recognition that slavery existed in that era is not a condoning of slavery.

You missed the point; God says nothing about slavery being wrong. In fact, he implicitly allows his people to keep slaves. All of us can surely agree that slavery is immoral, but in the Bible, it's not treated as such. If we're supposed to learn morality from the Bible (as many people claim), why doesn't God condomn slavery? This would make an especially potent addition to the narrative of the Old Testament and the story of the Jewish people escaping Egypt. Since they themselves were once slaves, you'd think that once they gained their freedom God would forbid them from having slaves of their own.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You missed the point; God says nothing about slavery being wrong. In fact, he implicitly allows his people to keep slaves. All of us can surely agree that slavery is immoral, but in the Bible, it's not treated as such. If we're supposed to learn morality from the Bible (as many people claim), why doesn't God condomn slavery? This would make an especially potent addition to the narrative of the Old Testament and the story of the Jewish people escaping Egypt. Since they themselves were once slaves, you'd think that once they gained their freedom God would forbid them from having slaves of their own.

I think God implicitly condemns slavery, he certainly comdemns the negative aspects of slavery (treating them poorly, etc.). I'm not sure if the world at that time was ready to abolish slavery.

Besides, God didn't give his entire revelation to us all at once - a condemning of slavery was coming, but it would have caused too much chaos at that time to completely abolish it. The law had to get progressively stiffer over time. A modern day example would Calgary's smoking laws, although the smoking laws progressed a lot faster.

So, at this timepoint in history, the law is "treat slaves well," but it shouldn't be regarded as the final plan.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think God implicitly condemns slavery, he certainly comdemns the negative aspects of slavery (treating them poorly, etc.). I'm not sure if the world at that time was ready to abolish slavery.

Besides, God didn't give his entire revelation to us all at once - a condemning of slavery was coming, but it would have caused too much chaos at that time to completely abolish it. The law had to get progressively stiffer over time. A modern day example would Calgary's smoking laws, although the smoking laws progressed a lot faster.

So, at this timepoint in history, the law is "treat slaves well," but it shouldn't be regarded as the final plan.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)



The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)



The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)



You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)



In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Still pompous eh?

Here is who created your linked thesis...
Associate Professor, Regent University School of Law, and Director, Institute for Christian Legal
Studies, a joint ministry of the Christian Legal Society and Regent University School of Law.
Regent University - America's Preeminent Christian University

Do you think they looked at what they were writing with an open mind? Honestly?

The Introduction...

The civil law, although imperfectly administered by man, is a gift from God that flows from his nature and reflects his character.

The Christian legal scholar who desires to integrate the study of law with his or her Christian faith needs instruction and encouragement from those who have dedicated careers and lives to the pursuit of God’s law.

I did read the vast majority of the article CalgaryBornAgain...but let me tell you something...IF I was a Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist and I found out that a prosecuting lawyer was a product of Regent University I might be a bit scared at his possible perversion to something I dont believe in. You should be scared that you dont find yourself in a Muslim country where they are taught to be Lawyers from a Muslim perspective and get yourself into trouble. What a horrible excuse for a University and what a pathetic excuse for an article. You seriously need to read something beyond apologetics. Free your mind.

If you did read the article you will see that it doesn't so much prove the argument that the basis of our law is the Bible but, rather it provides sources to study this fact out. It divides law into its categories and provides authors and books that address the bible's influence on these areas. I chose this particular link because the argument that's been put forth on this thread seems to center around the idea that because there is little direct correlation between the ten commandments and our law and therefore one didn't influence the other. There is in fact a myriad of books that differ from that opinion. The bible itself says that the ten commandments is the tenor of the law(referring to the Mosaic law). By the "tenor" it means that it is a part that is representative of the whole. The amount of books on that site demonstrating correlation between our law and God indicates the 10 commandments are indeed a tenor of our law as well.

I understand your distrust of Pat Robertson. I don't have a very high opinion of him either. But Pat Robertson didn't write all those books. Legal and religious scholars wrote those books. Now in all probability these scholars are christian. I would imagine they would have more interest than Atheists to explore this topic. But to disregard all their work because the legal professor who recommends them works for the University Pat Robertson started demonstrates the intellectual pride that keeps you ignorant. Anyone who hasn't come to the same conclusions as you regarding God must be untrustworthy and backwards; Right? The Bible talks about folks in the last days having itchy ears and surrounding themselves with teachers willing to scratch them. Imagine that! You a Atheist contributing to the fulfillment of prophesy! I hope it doesn't weigh too heavily on your soul.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In the Landover Baptist thread, I was in a bit of a side discussion with Thunderball, who claimed that the Bible forms the basis of the laws of Western society. I challenged him on that fact, and asked which specific Biblical passages he meant. His first reply was, "Well, the 10 Commandments are a pretty obvious one..."

This is, of course, a great fallacy. The 10 Commandments absolutely do not form the basis of our laws. In fact, in several cases, our laws are specifically opposite to what is demanded by the 10 Commandments.

Actually, you're totally offbase, which doesn't surprise me all that much. Just because something forms THE BASIS of the code of law (both common and civil law) does not mean this still reflects this and has not been updated. Does modern law match up with the ten commandments? Nope. Only a few are still prominent. Law constantly changes and progresses.

Lets go through this again with a more objective eye:

1. 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. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Before the 20th Century, there was extensive laws on the religion of the land in Europe and North America. The United States was probably the first to grant freedom of religion. Mark this one as past influence of law.

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

This commandment has transformed from defamming God to libel and defammation of character. The context is very relevant. Mark this one as influential.

3. Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.

Up until the late 1960s, Alberta had laws on holy day activities. These have since been revoked, but I'd imagine some posters, and definitely everyone's parents and grandparents who lived in Canada in that time can remember when nothing was open on Sundays. Mark this one as former influence.

4. Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

This is the preamble to the age of majority. Previous to this, you were/are considered the property of your parents/guardians. One is to honor their laws as they are liable. This has obviously liberalized in recent society, but you can't tell me this doesn't have its basis in modern western societies.

5. You shall not kill.

No brainer.

6. Neither shall you commit adultery.

Divorce laws are only now starting to bring in "no-fault." In many jurisdictions, adultery is considered a positive cause for divorce and can be used to assign fault. Previous to modern divorce laws, many western societies considered adultery illegal (unless one was rich and powerful enough... but is that really different than the celebrity show trials we see today?) Consider this one an influence.

7. Neither shall you steal.

No brainer again.

8. Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.

Perjury and treason have both been drawn from this. While not a Bible only law (same with 5 and 7), they definitely influenced western society.

9. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife.

Divorce was illegal in most Catholic nations until modern times. Its a stretch, but its an influence too.

10. Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Modus operandii can be successfully connected to this principle. Murder of purpose and malice aforefront is always considered more heinous than accidental murder or when matters of money, sex or power are not involved.

So, my revised count shows that every commandment has some relevance in the progression of Western society from the Magna Carta to present, despite many falling into disuse in the past 100-150 years.

This is probably the last time I'm going to bother with these threads because its the same BS every time. The atheists are adamant that christianity is evil at worst and misguided at best, and should be done away with. The theists are adamant that christianity is the true faith, faith is important, and there is value in the teachings. The academic theists claim that even if you don't take the book to heart (which one isn't supposed to), there is merit in the teachings and that Christianity has had a profound influence on western society, most of it positive, yet concede that they brought a very fair share of negative too, and that while much is outdated, there is still a use for a liberal christian church that promotes love, tolerance, acceptance and faith while recognizing the advance of science. The academic atheists claim that western society came to be DESPITE christianity, have outgrown it, and needs to be sent out to pasture to die.

No one is going to budge. Hell, I'm not very religious at all... I haven't been in a church for anything aside from a wedding in at least 4-5 years. However, arguing that Christianity had no influence and brought about no basis for the modern legal system is about as assinine as claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, and God created it on a Saturday.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)



In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Again, a recognizance that slavery existed is not a condoning of slavery.

Telling slaves to treat their masters well, is not a statement saying that slavery is good, but rather merely a statement that tries to make the best of an existing situation.

The Luke parable is a story talking about the future using imagery that the people of Jesus' day would have understood. If you look at the whole context, it's pretty clear that Jesus isn't talking about slaves and masters at all.

None of the Old Testament passages really go against what I was saying about progressivity, which, to be fair, is a concept that can be quite hard to explain.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Again, a recognizance that slavery existed is not a condoning of slavery.

Telling slaves to treat their masters well, is not a statement saying that slavery is good, but rather merely a statement that tries to make the best of an existing situation.

The Luke parable is a story talking about the future using imagery that the people of Jesus' day would have understood. If you look at the whole context, it's pretty clear that Jesus isn't talking about slaves and masters at all.

Here we have an issue that nobody, not one person, will disagree with -- that slavery is immoral. But it was clearly accepted in the bible. Nobody has argued that. If the Bible was written by god, which Christians generally appear to believe, then god accepted slavery.

You can hem and haw all night about how the greatest force in the universe was worried about a the social fabric of the day, but frankly, it's a lot of rich creamery butter.

I mean seriously -- god allowed this evil practice to go on, even wrote a few rules to govern it -- because he was concerned about the economy?

Come on now. You can't actually believe this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here we have an issue that nobody, not one person, will disagree with -- that slavery is immoral. But it was clearly accepted in the bible. Nobody has argued that. If the Bible was written by god, which Christians generally appear to believe, then god accepted slavery.

Wasn't 'written' by God, but by people who lived in those times.

Sure, slavery is immoral, wrong, sick whatever you want to call it.

But it did exist in those times....and was as accepted as divorce is today.

I mean seriously -- god allowed this evil practice to go on, even wrote a few rules to govern it -- because he was concerned about the economy?

Come on now. You can't actually believe this.

I do.

Like I said earlier, God does not actively play a role in deciding the outcome of every SINGLE situation. We make choices....and obviously the choices people made in that day condoned slavery.

Heck, it was alive and well in the United States up till a few hundred years ago. Because of the choice of men.

Not because God supported it.

If you use THAT argument....you can say God supports just about everything that happens today. Why? Because apparently he isn't divinely intervening and stopping heinous acts from occurring.

Goes back to the free will thing we were talking about earlier.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wasn't 'written' by God, but by people who lived in those times.

Then going by that it's just another book.

Clearly it is a mainstream Christian belief that the bible was written or inspired or is "the word of" god.

Originally Posted by Azure

Like I said earlier, God does not actively play a role in deciding the outcome of every SINGLE situation. We make choices....and obviously the choices people made in that day condoned slavery.

Okay, so going by that he plays a role in some situations. Slavery was one he decided to sit out?

Part of the problem here is that even the Christians can't seem to get their story straight. They all disagree on even the fundamentals.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Then going by that it's just another book.

Clearly it is a mainstream Christian belief that the bible was written or inspired or is "the word of" god.

I think you could say 'inspired.'

But still written by the people living during 'those' times.

Okay, so going by that he plays a role in some situations. Slavery was one he decided to sit out?

Sure.

I guess he sat there and watched while the Holocaust happened too, right?

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that he plays an active role. Perhaps 'influence' would be a better word.

He influences people to make certain choices. But we still have the free will to make whatever choice we want. And obviously, if you're an atheist, God isn't going to influence you to do anything.

Part of the problem here is that even the Christians can't seem to get their story straight. They all disagree on even the fundamentals.

Absolutely.

It does create a massive problem, as many different people have many different understandings of the Bible.

I'm not trying to sit here and tell you I'm right. If Textcritic read this thread, he could probably point out numerous errors in what I've said. But I'm trying to explain it in the way I understand the Bible, God, and religion.

[troutman]

Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Again, a recognizance that slavery existed is not a condoning of slavery.

Telling slaves to treat their masters well, is not a statement saying that slavery is good, but rather merely a statement that tries to make the best of an existing situation.

The Luke parable is a story talking about the future using imagery that the people of Jesus' day would have understood. If you look at the whole context, it's pretty clear that Jesus isn't talking about slaves and masters at all.

None of the Old Testament passages really go against what I was saying about progressivity, which, to be fair, is a concept that can be quite hard to explain.

ok so you picked one of the 6 examples I posted...whatabout the others?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

The pervasive idea that religion is somehow the source of our deepest ethical intuitions is absurd. We no more get our sense that cruelty is wrong from the pages of the Bible than we get our sense that two plus two equals four from the pages of a textbook on mathematics. Anyone who does not harbor some rudiementary sense that cruelty is wrong is unlikely to learn that it is by reading - and, indeed most scripture offers rather equivocal testimony to this fact in many cases. Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . concern for others was not the invention of any prophet. [Harris, p. 172]

Try not to quote other peoples work troutman...Azure doesnt think you understand what you are talking about by posting quotes and links.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Try not to quote other peoples work troutman...Azure doesnt think you understand what you are talking about by posting quotes and links.

Since when is Sam Harris an unbiased source? So people can't refer to religious apologetics, but ...

[maverickeastwood]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think most of us are born with an innate sense of right and wrong or soon learn it. For those who require more the Golden Rule [as mentioned elsewhere not necessarily first stated by Jesus] is a good basis for life. If a person requires still more, try the Ten Commandments or the law of the land but than lawyers and clergy get involved and that just costs money.

Except for the "most" part...there are kids in other countries that can shoot and strip an AK-47 before I'd figure out how to load one.

[Sparks]

nm, misunderstood

[Cheese]

From Robert Ingersoll...

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Some Christian lawyers -- some eminent and stupid judges -- have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt -- laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love.
All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new ar foolish. If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men." He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: "The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband." He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: "Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence."
If Jehovah had been civilized, how much grander the Ten Commandments would have been.
All that we call progress -- the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages -- has been done in spite of the Old Testament.