The new "20 Commandments"

[bobman]

"Don't commit adultry."

But what if you got yourself in a relationship with a abusive SOB or manipulative shrew. Wouldn't it be better to find someone who will love you?

Then again, I'm not a fan on the concept of marriage to begin with, to the point is kind of moot for me.

This is true, but also, what about open relationships? Is sleeping with someone who isn't your wife still a sin if she is ok with it? Or does it violate the "sanctity of marriage" if she is aware of it or not?

 

[username]

Is sleeping with someone who isn't your wife still a sin if she is ok with it? Or does it violate the "sanctity of marriage" if she is aware of it or not?

Well, whether or not something is a sin depends upon whether the 'real' god views it as such. In more practical terms it depends on what one's faith says.

As far as 'sanctity of marriage' goes, that depends on what right wingers say.

 

[Elind]

Here's a sneak preview:

(source)

I think we really only need #8, but just to make sure things don't get too kinky; throw in #16 as well.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

This is true, but also, what about open relationships? Is sleeping with someone who isn't your wife still a sin if she is ok with it? Or does it violate the "sanctity of marriage" if she is aware of it or not?

That's a good question. I'm sure the fundies would tell you that such arrangements are worse than adultry. (i.e. It implies that sex is being used for pleasure and not for the strict act of procreation.) However, if you read the Bible they think we should take literally, you'll find most of the Old Testement males having their way with various wives, concubines, slaves, and what have you.

If it was OK for King Solomon, why not me?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, but modern fundies do not use the Old Testament as a moral guide. They say that Jesus came to redeem mankind and the old rules no longer apply. The New Testament is where it's at. If you look at the Epistles of Paul the Misogynist you find the updated, modern attitude of religion towards women.

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

So you can see that women are far better off under the New Testament than they ever were under the Old.

(source: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible)

 

[maddog]

And I feel no list of commandments is complete without "Thou shalt not leave thy seat to roam the aisles whilst the puck is in play."

Amen, brother! Only add: "or whilst the basketball [football, etc] is in play" and "At the Holyest sport, the game of baseball, thou shalt only leave thine seat between innings. If thou MUST leave during an inning, thou shalt make the love offering of a cold beer to thine row-mates."

 

[elliotfc]

I find the obsession with the Commandments, by humanists, amusing. I understand that part of it is demythologization, but the eagerness and thought that goes into it...

Why not pick your own label? Why co-opt someone else's? If you really want to be original...BE ORIGINAL.

And if the point is to *not* be original...well...what's the point again?

But I'm biased. I'm a big believer in originality.

-Elliot

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: The new "20 Commandments"

I find the obsession with the Commandments, by humanists, amusing. I understand that part of it is demythologization, but the eagerness and thought that goes into it...

Actually, it is probably more of a social context sort of thing than anything else.

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: The new "20 Commandments"

Actually, it is probably more of a social context sort of thing than anything else.

It's a group activity that's been happening for years all over the Westernized world!

Hell, they've even got the believers getting involved! Nice one!

I'm telling you guys, Melville had this all figured out a long time ago. Maybe I should be more sympathetic.

-Elliot

 

[Upchurch]

Well, as I recall, Christianity borrowed most, if not all, of it's ideas, stories, and principles from earlier religions. You can't be that much of a stickler for originality.

 

[elliotfc]

Well, as I recall, Christianity borrowed most, if not all, of it's ideas, stories, and principles from earlier religions. You can't be that much of a stickler for originality.

I understand why you believe what you say Upchurch. Whether or not you think yours is an opinion or a fact...it doesn't really matter in my particular argument here. Here's the kicker. Christians actually *believe* that these things are real, and not contrivances. You don't, and we do.

So originality is completely irrelevant from our perspective. Let's say there was an American president who helped black civil rights who is assassinated. Well that's not original! It happened to Lincoln before JFK! Originality is *irrelevant* if you are speaking about, at least what you believe to be, objective truth.

So granted you have that opinion, yet your opinion is unquestionably different from that of the Christian.

So you *don't* believe that Moses received commandments from God on the top of some mountain, but you'll de-mythologize the idea and secularize it and run with it. It's a game. It's stimulating. It allows the opportunity to demonstrate that humanists are just as moral as the religious. And even more so! They can *improve* upon the religious sentiment after all.

My point is that the humanist recognizes the significance and obvious worth and power in this religious...construction, I guess it would be. And they use it as a group activity! You need religious language, religious symbol, and religious stories. If you didn't, this thread wouldn't. If you didn't, there would be no humanistic parlor games where the supposed construct is deconstructed and then reconstructed.

See there is *no* originality in that. Because you don't think it is *true*! You're just doing what you imagine the Hebrews did in the OT. Co-opting and reconstructing! Nice one!

-Elliot

 

[Upchurch]

Special pleading: Originality is unimportant to you as a Christian because you have faith in your religious stories even though they closely resemble other, earlier religious stories. However, originality is important enough to you that you chide others who base a morality code on the same format of other, earlier morality codes.

Is faith a "get out of plagiarism free" card, then? If not, Christian owe the Jews, Egyptians, and Ancient Greeks a lot of royalties.

The fact of the matter is that all ideas are built upon and improve earlier ideas. Just as Christianity is built upon and improves Judaism, so is this thread an exercise built upon and improving the Jewish moral code.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Re: Re: The new "20 Commandments"

I find the obsession with the Commandments, by humanists, amusing. I understand that part of it is demythologization, but the eagerness and thought that goes into it...

Why not pick your own label? Why co-opt someone else's? If you really want to be original...BE ORIGINAL.

And if the point is to *not* be original...well...what's the point again?

But I'm biased. I'm a big believer in originality.

-Elliot

Do you really know so little about Biblical history? Virtually nothing in the Bible is original (or historically accurate).

Just read through the Code of Hammurabi or some of the Sumerian codes. Of course, things like "don't sleep with someone else's wife" is pretty DUH! stuff.

 

[ceo_esq]

Do you really know so little about Biblical history? Virtually nothing in the Bible is original (or historically accurate).

What do you mean by "virtually nothing in the Bible is original"? And original vis-a-vis what? Pre-existing oral traditions? Other cultures? Other works of literature?

As to your second point, what, in your view, are the most important respects in which archaeology, historical research and so forth have controverted the vast account of Hebrew history presented in the Bible? Feel free to cite some scholarly authority to the effect that the overwhelming majority of this account has been discredited, too.

Just read through the Code of Hammurabi or some of the Sumerian codes. Of course, things like "don't sleep with someone else's wife" is pretty DUH! stuff.

You seem to be suggesting that Hebraic law is essentially the continuation of the same juridical tradition reflected in the Code of Hammurabi. Yet the differences between the two traditions are at least as significant - and as obvious - as the similarities.

Among many other points, one of the first things that strikes the modern reader of the Code of Hammurabi is the rigid class heirarchies which permeated Babylonian justice. The ancient Israelites were not a classless society, but Mosaic law reveals an ethical vision that transcends class in a way that its antecedents don't.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

What do you mean by "virtually nothing in the Bible is original"? And original vis-a-vis what? Pre-existing oral traditions? Other cultures? Other works of literature?

As to your second point, what, in your view, are the most important respects in which archaeology, historical research and so forth have controverted the vast account of Hebrew history presented in the Bible? Feel free to cite some scholarly authority to the effect that the overwhelming majority of this account has been discredited, too.

I think such an answer would fill books. Perhaps you can select one event you feel has good evidence for historical authenticity and we can debate that (please, not Jesus again). How's about a new thread?

I always love learning something new even if I'm wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that Hebraic law is essentially the continuation of the same juridical tradition reflected in the Code of Hammurabi. Yet the differences between the two traditions are at least as significant - and as obvious - as the similarities.

Among many other points, one of the first things that strikes the modern reader of the Code of Hammurabi is the rigid class heirarchies which permeated Babylonian justice. The ancient Israelites were not a classless society, but Mosaic law reveals an ethical vision that transcends class in a way that its antecedents don't.

Actually what I am suggesting is more simple. Laws and codes existed before the Jews wrote down their oral history. The 10 commandments are nothing new. Some of the code of Hammurabi is virtually word for word the same as Jewish law. So, elliotfc telling humanists (thanks!) to be original is laughable (at least by me).

 

[maddog]

for those mentioning the golden rule, i think that rule sucks. it is very presumptuous, as you have to make the assumption that the way you want to be treated is good for everybody else.

Amen to that!

Can I get a witness from the congregation?