Examining The Ten Commandments (believe, Adam, exist, religion)
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.
The ten commandments was cherry picked like, the other abrahamic legends that were taken from previous religions. These were lifted from the Egyptian book of the dead spell 125. Is it copied word for word? No. Is it necessary to have done this for your plagiarized religion? Again No.
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Why do so many Christians deny that, even after you read the applicable passages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Are you dissing the source or the contents and facts contained therein?
But are they 'facts'? This is the question.
In relation to what Hawkins posted here it can be seen that the Hebrews were quite advanced as a society in relation to slavery, at least as far as the rules applied.
This is not to say that there were not abusers of said rules of course, because you get that with every society.
However, perhaps the real thing to examine in relation to the OP and slavery is which of the 10 commandments allows for slavery or by slavery not being mentioned in the commandments whether - by its omission - this indeed is saying that slavery is okay.
Quote:
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Now clearly (I assume you would agree) owning another human being for the purpose of using that human being to increase your personal wealth is questionable - but only slightly given the systems of the 'First World' societies most of us live in, because we accept that this is 'okay' and while the rich may not 'own' those who are not rich, that is merely a matter of how the concept of slavery and society have altered from the past. Essentially the systems still deliver the same, even that non rich people are no longer referred to as slaves.
Which is to say that if you are really against slavery (the treating of poor differently from the treating of rich) then you would be protesting - not just Jews and Christians - but EVERYTHING to do with this attitude and of which the secular community also endorses. Yes?
So do you?
Quote:
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Again, there is nothing in the 10Cs which says it is not okay to beat another human being.
Quote:
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Again, there is nothing in the 10Cs which says it is not okay to sell another human being.
Quote:
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Again, there is nothing in the 10C's which says it is not okay to rape another human being.
Quote:
Your totally ignoring that Jews could own, beat, sell, rape, demean, kill (but only if they due there days or more after a beating) trade and so what ever else one does with property of non- Jews.
Now with demean and kill, it can be argued that 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 cover this. Therefore if those can cover demeaning, then because raping, beating, owning are also acts of demeaning human beings, it could be agreed that at least in principle the 10C's are against the idea of slavery.
I think if you delve deeper into WHY there is slavery (or was back then) you will find that the reasons had to do with the progressiveness and forward thinking/agenda of the societies and the fact of ownership in relation to other things not human (to which the 10C's do deal with) and that within said societies there were members who didn't have that 'get ahead in life' attitude and naturally became the victims of those who did have that attitude.
That same propelling attitude to get ahead is why we now live in the kind of world we do.
So effectively the 10C's can be seen as the Hebrew shorthand version of 'how to get ahead and succeed as a nation' and the more detailed versions of the rules to follow were mapped out in other parts of their writ.
Now just to be clear, I am not a Christian, although I have been influenced by Christianity in good and bad ways as part of my life experience.
I have never met any Jews in my life - do not know much about their customs and think it quite likely that while I have not, their will be some Jewish influence in my life experience that I have not been so aware of.
Now people can and do call themselves what they like, and act as they will. I am hard pressed though to accept that Jews and Christians in today's world are pro-rape, slavery, etc because the 10C's do not clearly say those things are unacceptable.
And that is the feeling I am getting from you - that you think they are.
Or more to the point, that you think that their ideas of G()D are pro these highly anti social things.
Been there done that...I read through that website years ago...It is a website to promote Atheism...A lot of misunderstanding in there, probably because the author of most of the articles is getting his information from a poorly translated Old Testament...However, to him it is evil because our society's values have changed, 200 years ago in our country it was common to own slaves, not many people had issues with it, but now our minds have changed and we do not believe one human should own another human, WE think it is wrong, today...WE decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and those that don't believe as the majority WE deem as mentally unstable...
This is the crux really.
Perhaps the confusion is then that this idea of G()D is related to a past time in which none of us are (or should be) presently living and that this particular G()D is apparently unchanging and thus isn't evolving with humanity?
Capitalism is one example where taking advantage of others in order to advance ones self and profit from even the misfortunes of others is socially and lawfully acceptable, but which might one day be seen as abhorrent.
In relation to human evolution there is simply no doubt that it hasn't all been beautiful and wholesome.
Nonetheless, it has been what it has been and if we dwell too much on just the negative side of human existence we likely run the risk of loathing it completely and wanting nothing more than to see it completely eradicated from existence within the physical universe - sometimes I have to wonder at whether some atheists deep down desire this to happen...and it is just their way of saying so.
Quote:
As far as facts contained therein, they are only FACTS as the author of the website sees them, not necessarily concrete facts...Today, we think it is horrible to put a fifteen or sixteen year old in BDU's and send him off to fight, yet it was not uncommon during the Civil war or Revolutionary War...
In about another 20 to 50 years it will be unheard of to have issues with homosexuality...And anyone that does will be deemed mentally unstable...
Today, you are mentally unstable for corporeally disciplining your child, 50 years ago you were deemed mentally unstable if you didn't and were thought of as not caring about your child enough to discipline him...
He is referencing an English translation of the Tanakh. Devarim 5:18 maps to Deuteronomy 5:21. Probably trying to argue that any religious argument that references the Christian OT is automatically wrong because it is not referencing the "real" word of "G_d".
In other words, substanceless semantic quibbling...
-NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Oh, an obfuscator!
Seems many religious folks excel in that. Why be clear if we can muddle things up, right?
This could very well be the case.
It might be that while we can all agree that people/societies change, if their G()D ideas are unable to change along with them they eventually have to argue for those ideas as a matter of belief and because they are commanded to do so, thus they 'turn a blind eye' and things get real muddled because they defend the indefensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Thank you, and was this person, however spelled, correct that there are two standards for treatment of slaves in Tanakh?
I was ignorant of their being 2 standards and am still unclear. No one has offered any explanation as to why these two standards exist.
But let me be clear. If anyone's standards are against all forms of slavery (obvious or subtle) then I would expect such people to be against much of the present laws which govern our systems of the 'first world' and to be increasing their 'zone of complaint' further afield than merely at those who support any of the Organised Abrhamic Religions. To protest one set of society on such grounds while ignoring any other set with similar agenda and world view is like digging a hole while filling it in at the same time.
The ten commandments was cherry picked like, the other abrahamic legends that were taken from previous religions. These were lifted from the Egyptian book of the dead spell 125. Is it copied word for word? No. Is it necessary to have done this for your plagiarized religion? Again No...
This interests me. Do you have references where this evolution of human religion can be clearly seen to be the case?
Quote:
Just more garbage.
Nevermind that! Interesting things can be found in 'garbage'...
Honor God and your parents, respect your neighbor and all people and keep your hands to yourself. Ummm...that's about it. We kinda learned that in Sunday school and kindergarten but some folks were not paying attention.
The ten commandments was cherry picked like, the other abrahamic legends that were taken from previous religions. These were lifted from the Egyptian book of the dead spell 125. Is it copied word for word? No. Is it necessary to have done this for your plagiarized religion? Again No.
Just more garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willingsniper
Start digging.
So you don't have any references as to why you think that the Hebrews plagiarized and created their religion from previous cultures?
The ability of Hebrews to steal ideas from others?
Okay, so the Hebrews stole their commandments from the Egyptians:
I have not robbed. I have not coveted I have not stolen
I have not committed wrong-doing against anyone
I have not done injustice in the place of Truth
I have not done evil
I have not debased a god
I have not done that which the gods abominate
I have not slandered a servant before his superior
I have not killed
I have not commanded to kill
I have not damaged the offerings to the gods
I have not copulated in sin
I have not been lascivious
I have not taken milk from the mouths of children
I have not neglected the days concerning their offerings
Uh-oh....now what?
Historically...
Mircea
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.
