Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... (M)ost people ... have missed the fact that these three religions divide up the commandments in different ways!
Judaism, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, considers "I am the L-rd, your G-d" to be the first "commandment". Catholicism, unlike Judaism and Protestantism, considers coveting property to be separate from coveting a spouse. Protestantism, unlike Judaism and Catholicism, considers the prohibition against idolatry to be separate from the prohibition against worshiping other gods. No two religions agree on a single list.
So whose Ten Commandments should be the Ten Commandments?
What does this have to do with the question I posted? *What* else is a cheap imitation? I'd argue that the 10 commandments are, at most, a mild expansion of the predominant world view of the people of the area and time when they were written.
It's a fair question. Please take note of the "IF's:"
IF God exists and IF Moses really existed and IF the 10 Commandments we're transmitted as recorded and such a transmission of objective moral absolutes predated all other forms and expressions or alternate forms of official (state sanctioned) or transcendent morality (attributed to other transcendent sources), then, by logic, all other official expressions of morality and moral codes WOULD in actuality be mere copies of the original.
Obviously, this is a loaded statement. Obviously, these things are often hotly debated and views differ over whether or not objective moral absolutes actually exist, much less, what the source might be.
However, my point is to say that if my statement is in fact true, then the direct link between "Thou shalt not kill" and God/Moses/Bible (by extension "religion") is clearly established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Is this an attempt to link the 10 commandments to the Constitution of the United States? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, honestly.
Another fair question. I'm merely making the point that, in whatever form "Thou shalt not kill" found it's way into early American society and considering the overall (majority) religious make-up of the electorate of the time (overwhelmingly Christian), again, we have a clear and direct link between "religious law" and the societal "secular law." In other words, the imposition of "religious" law upon the populace. That is, if we are to take the modern definition of "separation of church and state" at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes.
Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Hmmm, in what ways? Can you give me some examples? At the root it is no more than a belief, or lack of, in an intelligent creator of some sort. That difference of belief does not ensure a mutually exclusive moral, political or any other type of sensibility between the two groups, IMO.
I'm more than happy to elaborate. I would define a "world view" as a formulated opinion, for or against, such things as the existence of God, existence of objective moral values, existence of the supernatural etc...basically, things which concern life's ultimate questions. My statement that everyone has a world view is to simply state that everyone has an opinion about these things - a personal window, if you will, through which each one of us views our surroundings.
So, with this in mind, would you agree that atheism and theism are competing world views?
However, my point is to say that if my statement is in fact true, then the direct link between "Thou shalt not kill" and God/Moses/Bible (by extension "religion") is clearly established.
The correct translation from the Hebrew is murder (ujustified killing), not kill.
Whatever Ten Commandments were issued to Moses at Mount Sinai.
There were 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) given at Sinai, and the Ten Commandments, or, more correctly, the Ten Utterances are the chapter headings under which the other 603 Mitzvot (Commandments) are organized, and these Mitzvot (Commandments) are only binding on those taken out of bondage in Egypt and present at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily accept them through conversion.
Good post. While some may view it as somewhat wordy, you've actually laid out the entire dilemma quite clearly and concisely.
Well done.
Even those who support moral relativism dont really want that ideology because it becomes harmful to oneself . Its truly a hypocritical tenet of Post Modernism /Secular Humanism.
It's a fair question. Please take note of the "IF's:"
IF God exists and IF Moses really existed and IF the 10 Commandments we're transmitted as recorded and such a transmission of objective moral absolutes predated all other forms and expressions or alternate forms of official (state sanctioned) or transcendent morality (attributed to other transcendent sources), then, by logic, all other official expressions of morality and moral codes WOULD in actuality be mere copies of the original.
Obviously, this is a loaded statement. Obviously, these things are often hotly debated and views differ over whether or not objective moral absolutes actually exist, much less, what the source might be.
I would agree that *IF* all of those conditions were true, which I don't believe they are, that would be evidence for objective/absolute morality. However, to call all other moral codes copies would be to assume that there was never a subjective moral code that deemed murder, rape, theft, etc to be immoral that pre-dated the 10 commandments. No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
However, my point is to say that if my statement is in fact true, then the direct link between "Thou shalt not kill" and God/Moses/Bible (by extension "religion") is clearly established.
Agreed, but that still assumes that those things were not considered immoral before Moses and the Bible.
I'd be more likely to believe that attributing this moral code to an omniscient and omnipotent "god" was an attempt to keep citizens in line, despite their ability to circumvent any societal laws and "get away with it". That's just an assumption, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Another fair question. I'm merely making the point that, in whatever form "Thou shalt not kill" found it's way into early American society and considering the overall (majority) religious make-up of the electorate of the time (overwhelmingly Christian), again, we have a clear and direct link between "religious law" and the societal "secular law." In other words, the imposition of "religious" law upon the populace. That is, if we are to take the modern definition of "separation of church and state" at face value.
I think you're taking the separation of church and state too far. There are obvious secular benefits to having laws preventing murder and theft on the books that are not tied to a specific religious belief, or lack thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm more than happy to elaborate. I would define a "world view" as a formulated opinion, for or against, such things as the existence of God, existence of objective moral values, existence of the supernatural etc...basically, things which concern life's ultimate questions. My statement that everyone has a world view is to simply state that everyone has an opinion about these things - a personal window, if you will, through which each one of us views our surroundings.
So, with this in mind, would you agree that atheism and theism are competing world views?
Existence of God? Certainly competeing there. Objective morals? Yep, I would think so. Supernatural? No, there is no need of a god figure in order for supernatural events to exist.
Jesus Christ IS God. Were you expecting someone else giving the 10 Commandments ?
That is only the belief of the Trinitarians. Not all who originally followed Jesus(as) were trinitarian. Actually that did not even become church Doctrine until the 2nd Century at the earliest when the Paulinians and Catholic/Orthodox united as one church.
Quote:
Fast Facts on the Trinity
The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative
History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.
The word "Trinity" is not found in the New Testament, nor is the doctrine explicitly taught there. However, foundations of the concept of the Trinity can be seen in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of John, one of the latest and most theologically developed of the New Testament books. 1
Hints of Trinitarian beliefs can also be seen in the teachings of extra-biblical writers as early as the end of the first century. 2 However, the clearest early expression of the concept came with Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. Tertullian coined the words "Trinity" and "person" and explained that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence - not one in Person." 3
About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father." 4
Nicea did not end the controversy, however. Debate over how the creed (especially the phrase "one substance") ought to be interpreted continued to rage for decades. One group advocated the doctrine that Christ was a "similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father. But for the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy.
Most post-Nicene theological discussion of the Trinity consisted of attempts to understand and explain such a unique concept. Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise, That There are Not Three Gods, compared the divinity shared by the three persons of the Trinity to the common "humanness," or human nature, that is shared by individual human beings. (Ironically, this initially promising explanation has been seen by some to yield a conclusion quite opposite than the title of his work.)
Saint Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers of the early church, described the Trinity as comparable to the three parts of an individual human being: mind, spirit, and will. They are three distinct aspects, yet they are inseparable and together constitute one unified human being.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
