@FinneousPJ "I don't see it. 1-5 don't impress me the least. Why is having no other gods a good general rule for society? It's a general rule that the US constitution certainly disagrees with. Same with 2-4. And the bible contains 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous."
Slight error on my part. I left a sentence out when I re-wrote that. To clarify 6-10 are good general rules for society. I KNEW you were gona pull the "613 commandments" on me. YOU HAVE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD. Its true that the Old Testament has hundreds of commands, but its the Old Testament for a reason. Despite the entire impetus for Jesus' arrival and sacrifice being the release of mankind from the old law, people LOVE harping on the Old Testament even though from a regulation standpoint, it no longer applies. Its almost as trying to hate a group of people whose central tenet is "Love your neighbor" is patently ridiculous and the old law HAS to be trudged up as a screen.
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”' Galatians 5:14
"Too complicated? Why do you seek to undermine my intelligence? Doesn't seem very Christian. O wait..."
My bad here. The intent was to point out that God's commands are even simpler than remembering ten things, not to make a statement on your intelligence. I was going for an informercial type, "But wait there's more!" and it came out bad.
"It's false? Many churches teach that, and it's even in the bible
Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."
Odd that someone who "believes in their heart" would go out of their way to break God's law. Its almost as if they truely don't believe.
Context is important and in addition to the scripture you have provided above, the Bible also teaches that faith should lead to works. One does not exist without the other.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17
@FinneousPJ "I don't see it. 1-5 don't impress me the least. Why is having no other gods a good general rule for society? It's a general rule that the US constitution certainly disagrees with. Same with 2-4. And the bible contains 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous."
Slight error on my part. I left a sentence out when I re-wrote that. To clarify 6-10 are good general rules for society. I KNEW you were gona pull the "613 commandments" on me. YOU HAVE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD. Its true that the Old Testament has hundreds of commands, but its the Old Testament for a reason. Despite the entire impetus for Jesus' arrival and sacrifice being the release of mankind from the old law, people LOVE harping on the Old Testament even though from a regulation standpoint, it no longer applies. Its almost as trying to hate a group of people whose central tenet is "Love your neighbor" is patently ridiculous and the old law HAS to be trudged up as a screen.
The 10 commandments are also in the old testament, and you wanted to reference them. Why bring them up if they don't apply? Anyway I don't see how the old testament doesn't apply. Christianity doesn't exist without the old testament, and it's a moot point until Christian bibles stop featuring the old testament. If it's in your holy book, it applies. Why is it there if not? And JC is quoted as saying he did not come to change the old laws.
Odd that someone who "believes in their heart" would go out of their way to break God's law. Its almost as if they truely don't believe.
Context is important and in addition to the scripture you have provided above, the Bible also teaches that faith should lead to works. One does not exist without the other.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17
That's not what I mean, though. I'm not saying a person has the belief when they're doing the horrible things. Or rather, that's irrelevant. The point is you can lead a horrible life, then find Jesus and be saved.
@FinneousPJ "I don't see it. 1-5 don't impress me the least. Why is having no other gods a good general rule for society? It's a general rule that the US constitution certainly disagrees with. Same with 2-4. And the bible contains 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous."
Slight error on my part. I left a sentence out when I re-wrote that. To clarify 6-10 are good general rules for society. I KNEW you were gona pull the "613 commandments" on me. YOU HAVE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD. Its true that the Old Testament has hundreds of commands, but its the Old Testament for a reason. Despite the entire impetus for Jesus' arrival and sacrifice being the release of mankind from the old law, people LOVE harping on the Old Testament even though from a regulation standpoint, it no longer applies. Its almost as trying to hate a group of people whose central tenet is "Love your neighbor" is patently ridiculous and the old law HAS to be trudged up as a screen.
The 10 commandments are also in the old testament, and you wanted to reference them. Why bring them up if they don't apply? Anyway I don't see how the old testament doesn't apply. Christianity doesn't exist without the old testament, and it's a moot point until Christian bibles stop featuring the old testament. If it's in your holy book, it applies. Why is it there if not? And JC is quoted as saying he did not come to change the old laws.
Odd that someone who "believes in their heart" would go out of their way to break God's law. Its almost as if they truely don't believe.
Context is important and in addition to the scripture you have provided above, the Bible also teaches that faith should lead to works. One does not exist without the other.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17
That's not what I mean, though. I'm not saying a person has the belief when they're doing the horrible things. Or rather, that's irrelevant. The point is you can lead a horrible life, then find Jesus and be saved.
Is a person just supposed to go on living the REST of their life being just as horrible then? Why change if there's no hope of forgiveness or redemption? People change over time. Are they forever defined by stupid things they've done or believed in the past? God I hope not...
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
As I posted this morning there is a lot of overlap between religious values and modern morality. However, you can quickly run into problems if you take an absolutist position on religious values. For instance I'm sure we can all think of situations in which "thou shalt not kill" does not seem appropriate. Not coveting your neighbour's wife seems to me quite unreasonable if she's been divorced for years (I know of course that religions do now generally acknowledge the possibility of divorce). A prohibition on theft may not make sense for a starving child and so on.
I don't believe that taking a single set of commands and applying them in all situations is healthy for society. I don't think most people who describe themselves as religious would believe that either, but clearly there are some who do take an absolutist position on the grounds that while that may lead to unfairness on earth, everything will be sorted out properly in the afterlife.
@FinneousPJ "I don't see it. 1-5 don't impress me the least. Why is having no other gods a good general rule for society? It's a general rule that the US constitution certainly disagrees with. Same with 2-4. And the bible contains 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous."
Slight error on my part. I left a sentence out when I re-wrote that. To clarify 6-10 are good general rules for society. I KNEW you were gona pull the "613 commandments" on me. YOU HAVE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD. Its true that the Old Testament has hundreds of commands, but its the Old Testament for a reason. Despite the entire impetus for Jesus' arrival and sacrifice being the release of mankind from the old law, people LOVE harping on the Old Testament even though from a regulation standpoint, it no longer applies. Its almost as trying to hate a group of people whose central tenet is "Love your neighbor" is patently ridiculous and the old law HAS to be trudged up as a screen.
The 10 commandments are also in the old testament, and you wanted to reference them. Why bring them up if they don't apply? Anyway I don't see how the old testament doesn't apply. Christianity doesn't exist without the old testament, and it's a moot point until Christian bibles stop featuring the old testament. If it's in your holy book, it applies. Why is it there if not? And JC is quoted as saying he did not come to change the old laws.
Odd that someone who "believes in their heart" would go out of their way to break God's law. Its almost as if they truely don't believe.
Context is important and in addition to the scripture you have provided above, the Bible also teaches that faith should lead to works. One does not exist without the other.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17
That's not what I mean, though. I'm not saying a person has the belief when they're doing the horrible things. Or rather, that's irrelevant. The point is you can lead a horrible life, then find Jesus and be saved.
Is a person just supposed to go on living the REST of their life being just as horrible then? Why change if there's no hope of forgiveness or redemption? People change over time. Are they forever defined by stupid things they've done or believed in the past? God I hope not...
I think that's completely irrelevant when considering morality...
George Carlin saw the 10 commandments as an artificially inflated list. Ten sounds important, right.
Anyways, he went through them and reduced em to two:
•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.
•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.
The whole bit: (warning *some adult launguage*)
George Carlin On The Ten Commandments
I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.
Here's how it happened: A few thousand years ago, a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God— God personally—had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.
But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fuck outta here!"
But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bullshit list. In truth, it's a politic; document, artificially inflated to sell better.
I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy.
• I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME.
• THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.
• THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.
Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments—pure bullshit "Sabbath day," "Lord's name," "strange gods." Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized human in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, am you're down to seven.
•HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER.
This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.
Now, in the interest of logic—something religion has a really hard time with—I'm going to skip around the list a little bit:
• THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
• THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two commandments cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." Suddenly we're down to five.
And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that belong together:
• THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
• THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.
Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, marital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?
But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four.
And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive language instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three.
•THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful," you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.
You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:
•THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks—especially the truly devout—murder is negotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed.
And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments:
First:
•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.
And second:
•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.
Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he included one additional commandment:
•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!
Funny in that the judge in Alabama he mentions who displayed the ten commandments was Roy Moore.
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
As I posted this morning there is a lot of overlap between religious values and modern morality. However, you can quickly run into problems if you take an absolutist position on religious values. For instance I'm sure we can all think of situations in which "thou shalt not kill" does not seem appropriate. Not coveting your neighbour's wife seems to me quite unreasonable if she's been divorced for years (I know of course that religions do now generally acknowledge the possibility of divorce). A prohibition on theft may not make sense for a starving child and so on.
I don't believe that taking a single set of commands and applying them in all situations is healthy for society. I don't think most people who describe themselves as religious would believe that either, but clearly there are some who do take an absolutist position on the grounds that while that may lead to unfairness on earth, everything will be sorted out properly in the afterlife.
As mentioned, it all boils down to:
Love everyone. Treat everyone the same way you wish to be treated.
If you were starving and someone has the means to feed you, would you not want them to feed you? Why would a person have to resort to stealing?
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
As I posted this morning there is a lot of overlap between religious values and modern morality. However, you can quickly run into problems if you take an absolutist position on religious values. For instance I'm sure we can all think of situations in which "thou shalt not kill" does not seem appropriate. Not coveting your neighbour's wife seems to me quite unreasonable if she's been divorced for years (I know of course that religions do now generally acknowledge the possibility of divorce). A prohibition on theft may not make sense for a starving child and so on.
I don't believe that taking a single set of commands and applying them in all situations is healthy for society. I don't think most people who describe themselves as religious would believe that either, but clearly there are some who do take an absolutist position on the grounds that while that may lead to unfairness on earth, everything will be sorted out properly in the afterlife.
As mentioned, it all boils down to:
Love everyone. Treat everyone the same way you wish to be treated.
If you were starving and someone has the means to feed you, would you not want them to feed you? Why would a person have to resort to stealing?
That doesn't solve the issue. You might as well say why would we need scuba equipment if we could breath underwater, or something equally silly. That doesn't reflect reality.
Is it morally wrong to deny a child who is starving food?
Why steal it? Why not explain the situation and ask for it? Maybe there is some other type of compensation a person would take instead of money, such as labour.
Why is the question, Do I need to steal to feed a starving child instead of, what do I need to do to get this child food?
Golden rule treat others as you'd like to be treated. No need for a religious explanation.
The philosopher Kant formulates it as:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
and:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
However these formulations have resulted in some rather controversial conclusions, such as that it would be immoral to lie to serial killer seeking their next victim... although one could conceivably refuse to answer the question.
1-3. Have no other gods, don't worship objects, Don't curse God's name. (All related to the worship of God. Has no meaning for non-followers) 4. Keep the Sabath. (technically religious, but setting a day aside to rest seems like a good idea to me.) 5. Honor your father and mother. (Verb form, the fulfillment of an obligation. Listen to your parents kids.) 6-10. Don't murder anyone, Don't sleep with someone else's spouse, Don't steal, Don't falsely testify against your neighbor, Don't covet what others have. These all seem to be good general rules for society.
As I posted this morning there is a lot of overlap between religious values and modern morality. However, you can quickly run into problems if you take an absolutist position on religious values. For instance I'm sure we can all think of situations in which "thou shalt not kill" does not seem appropriate. Not coveting your neighbour's wife seems to me quite unreasonable if she's been divorced for years (I know of course that religions do now generally acknowledge the possibility of divorce). A prohibition on theft may not make sense for a starving child and so on.
I don't believe that taking a single set of commands and applying them in all situations is healthy for society. I don't think most people who describe themselves as religious would believe that either, but clearly there are some who do take an absolutist position on the grounds that while that may lead to unfairness on earth, everything will be sorted out properly in the afterlife.
As mentioned, it all boils down to:
Love everyone. Treat everyone the same way you wish to be treated.
If you were starving and someone has the means to feed you, would you not want them to feed you? Why would a person have to resort to stealing?
Clearly if you are religious it doesn't all boil down to that. There are many religious values that are not relevant to the way other people treat you (keep the Sabbath, have no other gods etc). There are also religious values that require you to take action against others that you would not accept against yourself (heretics, jihad etc).
Even if you are not religious then I agree that is a good moral principle to use, but it's not the only one. Take the example for instance of someone that believes in the idea of national service as a useful way to build character and community spirit - and therefore makes such service compulsory. They are treating others as they would wish to be treated - but that doesn't mean that others want to be treated in that way .
Take the example for instance of someone that believes in the idea of national service as a useful way to build character and community spirit - and therefore makes such service compulsory. They are treating others as they would wish to be treated - but that doesn't mean that others want to be treated in that way .
They do want to be treated that way to be part of a team with pride in your nation. They just don't know it yet.
A wise one once said: Everything is awesome, everything is cool when your part of a team Everything is awesome, when you're living out a dream. He was right.
@FinneousPJ "The 10 commandments are also in the old testament, and you wanted to reference them. Why bring them up if they don't apply? Anyway I don't see how the old testament doesn't apply. Christianity doesn't exist without the old testament, and it's a moot point until Christian bibles stop featuring the old testament. If it's in your holy book, it applies. Why is it there if not? And JC is quoted as saying he did not come to change the old laws. "
I've seen this said before, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, it shows a marked lack of understanding of what the Bible says. You mention a quote of Jesus' and I assume you mean this one, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
And the Mosaic law was fulfilled. Note that everything in the old law had to do with ceremonial clean and uncleaness. It was a very large number of rules and rituals dedicated to the temporary cleansing of sin. When Christ came, he was the perfect offering that fullfilled the law for all time. It was completed and never needed to be redone. So no, the old law no longer applies to us. The Old Testament is still included because it constantly calls forward to Christ's coming, and just as importantly, shows what he came to save us from. What is the point of a message of salvation and redemption, if there is no context of what we are redeemed from? Your argument about "600 ridiculous laws" makes far more sense as a critique of traditional Jewish faith, (the main difference between Judaism and CHristianity being that we no long follow Mosaic law). Your line of reasoning here literally comes accross as non-sensical because it doesn't apply. Its like arguing that Buddism is cyclical because it preaches the virtues of reincarnation. (Man, I hope I didn't get my eastern religions swapped there.)
"That's not what I mean, though. I'm not saying a person has the belief when they're doing the horrible things. Or rather, that's irrelevant. The point is you can lead a horrible life, then find Jesus and be saved."
@Balrog99 hit the nail on the head here. I have nothing I can add.
@Grond0There's definite give and take here. There is a reason that Jesus simplified it down to, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect."
In general, morality is universal, in a sense. Every civilization and group of people have had a set of morals in some form. As a people, we hunger for a better way and a set of rules to help us measure a way to do so. Some morals have always been around, (unlawful killings being discouraged) and some haven't, (indentured servitude being a-ok). So at some core level, there are an absolute set of morals, as without them, society would collapse.
@semiticgod I believe that religion and morals are so intertwined with politics these days (at least in the US) that debates like these are still on topic. However, I IMPLORE the modding team, to not delete these messages if they deem them off topic. But rather, move into their own thread instead. There is some really good discussion going on here, with a lot of thought being put into all sides that it would incredibly disheartining for it too all just disappear.
The Christian bible includes within it a list 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous. OK, so you don't think you're required to follow them. They're still in the book. This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that.
EDIT: Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man...
@FinneousPJSo what if they are in the book? I've already explained their purpose. "Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man..."
Here's the thing. There are a lot of sub denominations that impose dozens of restrictions on their congregation without any kind of Biblical basis. Its very common in Baptist and God Holiness sects to ban things like makeup, nail polish, pants for women, and long hair for men, despite Jesus never once laying out such conditions. Don't even get me started on Westboro Baptists. Presenting mis-representations of a group does not equate a critique of said group. I could blame original Marxism on all leftists, but that wouldn't be accurate.
" This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that."
So, you wanna tell me what is immoral about, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect"?
@FinneousPJSo what if they are in the book? I've already explained their purpose. "Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man..."
Here's the thing. There are a lot of sub denominations that impose dozens of restrictions on their congregation without any kind of Biblical basis. Its very common in Baptist and God Holiness sects to ban things like makeup, nail polish, pants for women, and long hair for men, despite Jesus never once laying out such conditions. Don't even get me started on Westboro Baptists. Presenting mis-representations of a group does not equate a critique of said group. I could blame original Marxism on all leftists, but that wouldn't be accurate.
" This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that."
So, you wanna tell me what is immoral about, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect"?
I think that particular quote is amoral TBH, i.e. neither moral nor immoral. Just a decent thing to do.
The Christian bible includes within it a list 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous. OK, so you don't think you're required to follow them. They're still in the book. This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that.
EDIT: Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man...
Christianity and Morality are not interchangeable.
A person does not need to be Christian to be moral.
A person who regnonizes themself as Christian can be immoral.
I said it earlier: Morality and it’s existence of what makes people not attempt to rule the world (the original question that was asked) boils down to Treating others the way that you yourself wish to be treated. Everything else is noise.
The Christian bible includes within it a list 613 commandments, most of which are ridiculous. OK, so you don't think you're required to follow them. They're still in the book. This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that.
EDIT: Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man...
Christianity and Morality are not interchangeable.
A person does not need to be Christian to be moral.
A person who regnonizes themself as Christian can be immoral.
Honestly, free will is limited to actions, beliefs and feelings aren't something that you can choose.
You can't choose to "love" or "not love" someone, you can choose leave someone who you love because he is not adequated to be a wife, but you can't choose what feel. So how god can order someone to love god above everything else?
Same for believes. I can't choose to believe that 2+2 is 5. Doesn't matter how much i like believe on it. Creeds are not choices, people have his creeds or lack of creeds by a lot of factors, not because they choose.
Now about secutar state. This is not an atheistic "proposition", is a proposition who cristians have been made in order to minimize religions conflicts.
What continues to be most interesting about her is of course is that she basically infiltrated the NRA. Lo and behold, in the last couple of days, the NRA has started complaining that because the State of NY has cracked down on the bogus insurance program they were offering, they are having financial difficulties. Is it that, or did the Russian money laundering operation have to come to a halt?? Regardless, I have only three words for the NRA and their current troubles......thoughts and prayers.
What worries me about the NRA thing is that it shows that the Russian government actually has a fairly keen understanding of American politics, which means they actually know how to influence people. It's not just something they're attempting; it's something they're doing with some skill. You see the same thing in their attempts to foment counter-protests both left and right; they can tell what riles up Americans and are using that to their advantage. I find it interesting because I've studied China, whose government profoundly does not understand American politics or thought. Apparently Russia does not suffer from the same lack of insight.
I'm not sure I would criticize the NRA for letting this happen, exactly. My first impression is that folks in the NRA simply fell for a well-constructed story that was designed to convince them--I don't think they had any particular reason to be suspicious. I would fault Russia for attempting the infiltration more than I'd fault the NRA for believing the spy's story about being a guns rights activist.
Now that this has come to light, though, I think we should expect major political organizations like the NRA to not fall for this kind of thing in the future.
Now that this has come to light, though, I think we should expect major political organizations like the NRA to not fall for this kind of thing in the future.
Did they fall for something or did they just unquestioningly accept money? I'm pretty sure they will happily accept money next time as well.
And the day after the news of the Russian spy Trump's treasury passed a rule change that let's non-profits like the NRA accept unlimited bribes, er donations, without having to report the source. They want more of this type of thing to continue. Russians give money to the NRA then the NRA donates it to Republicans.
Only one question. If NRA only cares about weapon industry who maintain NRA, why NRA promotes even the right to own homemade guns?
Also, the logic of gun control, i never understood. Any one expect that people who don't follow any law will follow the gun control?
An interesting picture
Other question, if gun control works soo greatly, why Mexico and Brazil are so violent compared to Uruguay(highest gun per capta of Latin America)? On Brazil in 2005, the population voted against the gun ban in a public referendum despite all media and mass investment from metacapitalists into gun ban and the governmetn din't cared and imposed an ridiculous strict gun control law. The homicides numbers raised exponentially. In Mexico and Brazil, is illegal to have an 9mm and even a .380 ACP is insanely hard to get.
You still see a lot of Drug lords in both countries with weapons that even in USA will be considered destructive devices.
Note that even Uruguay isn't comparable to USA in therms of guns per capta, is comparable only to Canada. If you look to the list of gun ownership, most countries in Americas and in Europe with high gun ownership are exactly the most peacefull
If you look to municipal level, what city imposed a gun control and managed to reduce the crime? If it din't worked in municipal level, why will work in federal level?
What worries me about the NRA thing is that it shows that the Russian government actually has a fairly keen understanding of American politics, which means they actually know how to influence people. It's not just something they're attempting; it's something they're doing with some skill. You see the same thing in their attempts to foment counter-protests both left and right; they can tell what riles up Americans and are using that to their advantage. I find it interesting because I've studied China, whose government profoundly does not understand American politics or thought. Apparently Russia does not suffer from the same lack of insight.
I'm not sure I would criticize the NRA for letting this happen, exactly. My first impression is that folks in the NRA simply fell for a well-constructed story that was designed to convince them--I don't think they had any particular reason to be suspicious. I would fault Russia for attempting the infiltration more than I'd fault the NRA for believing the spy's story about being a guns rights activist.
Now that this has come to light, though, I think we should expect major political organizations like the NRA to not fall for this kind of thing in the future.
That seems an extremely generous interpretation to me. The NRA is hardly a naive charity dipping their toes into politics for the first time - they've been involved in funding and strong-arming politicians for quite a few years ...
I looked at the affidavit against Butina to see if that shed any light on it, but it only covers the establishment of a conspiracy and not later actions.
The FBI has confirmed they have a long-running investigation into possible illegal channeling of funds to the NRA. No details about this have been published, but Butina was responsible for setting up at least one company for no obvious purpose and it seems likely that funding was done through one or more shell companies.
If that funding consisted of millions of dollars (which seems likely given how much the NRA spent on supporting Trump), then the NRA would, as a minimum, have known the source was dubious. It seems quite likely to me that they also knew that Butina was associated with the source - and there was no secret that she was working for wealthy Russians. The best interpretation I would put on the NRA is that they deliberately used 'don't ask, don't tell' strategies to avoid definite knowledge about who was funding them. However, it seems much more likely to me that at least someone within the NRA (though not necessarily the organization as a whole) knew a lot more than that.
Comments
Slight error on my part. I left a sentence out when I re-wrote that. To clarify 6-10 are good general rules for society. I KNEW you were gona pull the "613 commandments" on me. YOU HAVE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD. Its true that the Old Testament has hundreds of commands, but its the Old Testament for a reason. Despite the entire impetus for Jesus' arrival and sacrifice being the release of mankind from the old law, people LOVE harping on the Old Testament even though from a regulation standpoint, it no longer applies. Its almost as trying to hate a group of people whose central tenet is "Love your neighbor" is patently ridiculous and the old law HAS to be trudged up as a screen.
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”'
Galatians 5:14
"Too complicated? Why do you seek to undermine my intelligence? Doesn't seem very Christian. O wait..."
My bad here. The intent was to point out that God's commands are even simpler than remembering ten things, not to make a statement on your intelligence. I was going for an informercial type, "But wait there's more!" and it came out bad.
"It's false? Many churches teach that, and it's even in the bible
Romans 10:9-10
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."
Odd that someone who "believes in their heart" would go out of their way to break God's law. Its almost as if they truely don't believe.
Context is important and in addition to the scripture you have provided above, the Bible also teaches that faith should lead to works. One does not exist without the other.
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17
I don't believe that taking a single set of commands and applying them in all situations is healthy for society. I don't think most people who describe themselves as religious would believe that either, but clearly there are some who do take an absolutist position on the grounds that while that may lead to unfairness on earth, everything will be sorted out properly in the afterlife.
Anyways, he went through them and reduced em to two:
•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.
•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.
The whole bit: (warning *some adult launguage*)
George Carlin On The Ten Commandments
I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.
Here's how it happened: A few thousand years ago, a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God— God personally—had given one of them a list of Ten Commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.
But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fuck outta here!"
But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on Ten Commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bullshit list. In truth, it's a politic; document, artificially inflated to sell better.
I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy.
• I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE
GODS BEFORE ME.
• THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN
VAIN.
• THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.
Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments—pure bullshit "Sabbath day," "Lord's name," "strange gods." Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized human in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, am you're down to seven.
•HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER.
This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be earned. They should be based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.
Now, in the interest of logic—something religion has a really hard time with—I'm going to skip around the list a little bit:
• THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
• THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two commandments cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." Suddenly we're down to five.
And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that belong together:
• THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
• THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.
Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, marital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?
But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four.
And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the same overall value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive language instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three.
•THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful," you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.
You throw out coveting and you're down to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:
•THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks—especially the truly devout—murder is negotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed.
And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments:
First:
•THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY
TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE.
And second:
•THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS,
OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE MAN THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO.
Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominently in his courthouse lobby. As long he included one additional commandment:
•THOU SHALT KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!!!
Funny in that the judge in Alabama he mentions who displayed the ten commandments was Roy Moore.
Love everyone. Treat everyone the same way you wish to be treated.
If you were starving and someone has the means to feed you, would you not want them to feed you? Why would a person have to resort to stealing?
Why steal it? Why not explain the situation and ask for it? Maybe there is some other type of compensation a person would take instead of money, such as labour.
Why is the question, Do I need to steal to feed a starving child instead of, what do I need to do to get this child food?
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
and:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
However these formulations have resulted in some rather controversial conclusions, such as that it would be immoral to lie to serial killer seeking their next victim... although one could conceivably refuse to answer the question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
The consistent application of moral principles in a variety of contexts is hard.
Even if you are not religious then I agree that is a good moral principle to use, but it's not the only one. Take the example for instance of someone that believes in the idea of national service as a useful way to build character and community spirit - and therefore makes such service compulsory. They are treating others as they would wish to be treated - but that doesn't mean that others want to be treated in that way
A wise one once said: Everything is awesome, everything is cool when your part of a team
Everything is awesome, when you're living out a dream. He was right.
I've seen this said before, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, it shows a marked lack of understanding of what the Bible says. You mention a quote of Jesus' and I assume you mean this one,
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
And the Mosaic law was fulfilled. Note that everything in the old law had to do with ceremonial clean and uncleaness. It was a very large number of rules and rituals dedicated to the temporary cleansing of sin. When Christ came, he was the perfect offering that fullfilled the law for all time. It was completed and never needed to be redone. So no, the old law no longer applies to us. The Old Testament is still included because it constantly calls forward to Christ's coming, and just as importantly, shows what he came to save us from. What is the point of a message of salvation and redemption, if there is no context of what we are redeemed from? Your argument about "600 ridiculous laws" makes far more sense as a critique of traditional Jewish faith, (the main difference between Judaism and CHristianity being that we no long follow Mosaic law). Your line of reasoning here literally comes accross as non-sensical because it doesn't apply. Its like arguing that Buddism is cyclical because it preaches the virtues of reincarnation. (Man, I hope I didn't get my eastern religions swapped there.)
"That's not what I mean, though. I'm not saying a person has the belief when they're doing the horrible things. Or rather, that's irrelevant. The point is you can lead a horrible life, then find Jesus and be saved."
@Balrog99 hit the nail on the head here. I have nothing I can add.
@Grond0 There's definite give and take here. There is a reason that Jesus simplified it down to, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect."
In general, morality is universal, in a sense. Every civilization and group of people have had a set of morals in some form. As a people, we hunger for a better way and a set of rules to help us measure a way to do so. Some morals have always been around, (unlawful killings being discouraged) and some haven't, (indentured servitude being a-ok). So at some core level, there are an absolute set of morals, as without them, society would collapse.
@semiticgod I believe that religion and morals are so intertwined with politics these days (at least in the US) that debates like these are still on topic. However, I IMPLORE the modding team, to not delete these messages if they deem them off topic. But rather, move into their own thread instead. There is some really good discussion going on here, with a lot of thought being put into all sides that it would incredibly disheartining for it too all just disappear.
EDIT: Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man...
"Also many Christians seem to disagree with you and refer back to these commandments all the time, most famously the one about a man lying with another man..."
Here's the thing. There are a lot of sub denominations that impose dozens of restrictions on their congregation without any kind of Biblical basis. Its very common in Baptist and God Holiness sects to ban things like makeup, nail polish, pants for women, and long hair for men, despite Jesus never once laying out such conditions. Don't even get me started on Westboro Baptists. Presenting mis-representations of a group does not equate a critique of said group. I could blame original Marxism on all leftists, but that wouldn't be accurate.
" This is beside the point anyway, as those commandments are not all that makes it immoral. I believe I already made my point on that."
So, you wanna tell me what is immoral about, "Treat your neighbor with love and respect"?
A person does not need to be Christian to be moral.
A person who regnonizes themself as Christian can be immoral.
I said it earlier: Morality and it’s existence of what makes people not attempt to rule the world (the original question that was asked) boils down to Treating others the way that you yourself wish to be treated. Everything else is noise.
You can't choose to "love" or "not love" someone, you can choose leave someone who you love because he is not adequated to be a wife, but you can't choose what feel. So how god can order someone to love god above everything else?
Same for believes. I can't choose to believe that 2+2 is 5. Doesn't matter how much i like believe on it. Creeds are not choices, people have his creeds or lack of creeds by a lot of factors, not because they choose.
Now about secutar state. This is not an atheistic "proposition", is a proposition who cristians have been made in order to minimize religions conflicts.
I'm not sure I would criticize the NRA for letting this happen, exactly. My first impression is that folks in the NRA simply fell for a well-constructed story that was designed to convince them--I don't think they had any particular reason to be suspicious. I would fault Russia for attempting the infiltration more than I'd fault the NRA for believing the spy's story about being a guns rights activist.
Now that this has come to light, though, I think we should expect major political organizations like the NRA to not fall for this kind of thing in the future.
And the day after the news of the Russian spy Trump's treasury passed a rule change that let's non-profits like the NRA accept unlimited bribes, er donations, without having to report the source. They want more of this type of thing to continue. Russians give money to the NRA then the NRA donates it to Republicans.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/17/politics/treasury-irs-donor-lists/index.html
Also, the logic of gun control, i never understood. Any one expect that people who don't follow any law will follow the gun control?
An interesting picture
Other question, if gun control works soo greatly, why Mexico and Brazil are so violent compared to Uruguay(highest gun per capta of Latin America)? On Brazil in 2005, the population voted against the gun ban in a public referendum despite all media and mass investment from metacapitalists into gun ban and the governmetn din't cared and imposed an ridiculous strict gun control law. The homicides numbers raised exponentially. In Mexico and Brazil, is illegal to have an 9mm and even a .380 ACP is insanely hard to get.
You still see a lot of Drug lords in both countries with weapons that even in USA will be considered destructive devices.
Note that even Uruguay isn't comparable to USA in therms of guns per capta, is comparable only to Canada. If you look to the list of gun ownership, most countries in Americas and in Europe with high gun ownership are exactly the most peacefull
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
If you look to municipal level, what city imposed a gun control and managed to reduce the crime? If it din't worked in municipal level, why will work in federal level?
I looked at the affidavit against Butina to see if that shed any light on it, but it only covers the establishment of a conspiracy and not later actions.
The FBI has confirmed they have a long-running investigation into possible illegal channeling of funds to the NRA. No details about this have been published, but Butina was responsible for setting up at least one company for no obvious purpose and it seems likely that funding was done through one or more shell companies.
If that funding consisted of millions of dollars (which seems likely given how much the NRA spent on supporting Trump), then the NRA would, as a minimum, have known the source was dubious. It seems quite likely to me that they also knew that Butina was associated with the source - and there was no secret that she was working for wealthy Russians. The best interpretation I would put on the NRA is that they deliberately used 'don't ask, don't tell' strategies to avoid definite knowledge about who was funding them. However, it seems much more likely to me that at least someone within the NRA (though not necessarily the organization as a whole) knew a lot more than that.