Push 0 #101 July 7, 2004 I don't believe in God, at least not in the Christian (or any other denominational) God, but I try my damned (pardon the pun) best to live my life by that principle. You don't have to be religious to be good. Yes, I agree that the modern view of evolution is very very useful, but has some holes on the macro scale. The first living organism probably did not evolve from a rock. Also, with all our breeding, (I think that) we were still unable to breed a new species. There is also some micro-organism, some tentacle cleaning thingy or something, that is extremely complex and has no visible predecessor. However, without it not a single higher lifeform can exist. I'm sorry I don't remember the names and sources, but these arguments can be seen summarized in a good science-fiction book called "Calculating God". -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #102 July 7, 2004 Quote You don't have to be religious to be good. I agree. Being religious doesn't necessarily make you a good person. I also believe there are a lot of non-religious people who do and/or are capable of doing good things. God's standard for goodness, however, is set forth in The 10 Commandments. I challenge anyone to say they've lived up to that standard perfectly. Therefore, I don't believe any person is "good." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #103 July 7, 2004 QuoteGod's standard for goodness, however, is set forth in The 10 Commandments. Your God, in your religion, you mean. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #104 July 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteGod's standard for goodness, however, is set forth in The 10 Commandments. Your God, in your religion, you mean. That is correct sir! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #105 July 7, 2004 Awesome -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmontana 0 #106 July 7, 2004 The best thing ever said about the ten commandments is this http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html "It's funny 'cause it's true" Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteH 0 #107 July 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm individualist. Quote If there is one "religious" tenet to live by, then it's the Wiccan rede. "Be it harm none, do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law" Pretty much sums it all up don't you think ? The ending should be "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It's taken from Aleister Crowley's The Book Of The Law and it's one of the most misused lines ever. . And he was one of the buggers who misused it. Crowley misapropriated it from earlier Wiccan and pagan texts to use it. He used it without the original qualifier, "Be it harm none". The phrase itself goes back before the Ordo Templis Orientis, and has been a staple of the Wiccan and pagan ways for longer. http://tim.maroney.org/CrowleyIntro/Do_What_Thou_Wilt.html "There is a relationship between the Law of Thelema and the Wiccan Rede, "an it harm none do as ye will", the moral rule of late 20th century Witchcraft in English-speaking countries. The exact relationships between the three different forms of the maxim remain controversial. The co-founders of the modern Witchcraft movement, Gerald Gardner and Doreen Valiente, were aware of and sympathetic to Crowley's version. They also referred to a separate literary version in the work of French erotic novelist Pierre Louys, probably derived independently from Rabelais" http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede4.shtml "1534 Francois Rabelais' novel Gargantua "DO AS THOU WILT because men that are free, of gentle birth, well bred and at home in civilized company possess a natural instinct that inclines them to virtue and saves them from vice. This instinct they name their honor." (Crowley's Inspiration) 1901 Pierre Louÿs's The Adventures of King Pausole (English version in 1919) I. Do no wrong to thy neighbor. II. Observing this, do as thou pleasest. 1904 Crowley’s The Book of the Law "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (Possible influence on Gardner and others familiar with O.T.O. or Crowley) 1946 Adriana Porter, who is said to have written the version of the Rede printed in 1975 in Green Egg, dies. 1952-1953 Doreen Valiente's The Rebirth of Witchcraft Doreen Valiente meets (1952) and is initiated (1953) by Gardner. (If Valiente did not write Rede, any sources could possibly predate this time.) 1956 Gerald Gardner’s The Meaning of Witchcraft "[Witches] are inclined to the morality of the legendary Good King Pausol, "Do what you like so long as you harm no one". (This is the first book on "modern" witchcraft to site the ethics of witchcraft.)" Couple more links. http://www.fact-index.com/w/wi/wiccan_rede.html http://www.meta-religion.com/Spiritualism/Wicca/is_wicca_really_a_religion.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #108 July 8, 2004 - And yet the 10 Commandments have endured, unchanged, and are as relevant today as they were ~3,500 years ago. And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:1-17 Condensed to: 1. You shall have no other gods before me. 2. You shall not worship any graven images. 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. 5. Honor your Father and your Mother. 6. You shall not kill. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not bear false witness. 10. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s. http://www.bible.com/answers/acommintro.html http://www.wayofthemaster.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #109 July 8, 2004 how do you know they've remained unchanged? have you seen the tablets? they were part of the oral history of the Israelites... ever played a game of telephone? they've been translated from the original texts (which nobody has anymore) into multiple languages. When you translate something, you get the gist across, but lose a lot of the connotation and cultural context of the words. For example: some Bibles translate "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder." while that seems a small difference, its a big deal... killing is ending a life, period. Murder implies intent behind it. It leaves room for accidents and self defense. Different words, different meanings. Another example... the hebrew word Shalom... translates to welcome, peace, peace be with you, etc... used as a greeting, but according to WUJS, "Shalom says it all. Shalom means more than 'peace.' Shalom means completeness, wholeness" if you just translate it as "peace", while the translation is technically correct, you've lost a lot of the meaning behind the words. What words were used in the original telling of the 10 commandments story? I wonder how their translation has changed their meaning... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #110 July 8, 2004 So your stand is that you refute the 10 Commandments because you believe that they've been changed over the years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #111 July 8, 2004 I believe we’ve discussed in great detail the reliability and historicity of the New Testament text which includes the statements made by Jesus. As for the reliability of what was originally stated in the 10 Commandments, it was also accepted as reliable and authoritative by Jesus himself. Granted, none of the people of his time actually saw the tablets. However, they knew the history tradition well and went to great efforts to preserve it accurately. I don’t know of any evidence that shows that there is error in the 10 Commandments specifically. They’re pretty simple and clear no matter how you might twist the words around. As for your example with the words kill and murder, you’re putting present day English definition to the words. If you look at the contextual setting, it is clear what was meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #112 July 8, 2004 I believe they've changed over the years. I also believe they're not specific enough to be a true moral code. They're pretty much a list of what not to do. I think the new testament's "love your neighbor as yourself" is a much better moral guide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #113 July 8, 2004 QuoteI believe they've changed over the years. I also believe they're not specific enough to be a true moral code. They're pretty much a list of what not to do. I think the new testament's "love your neighbor as yourself" is a much better moral guide. I agree that, if you live by what Jesus said in "The Greatest Commandment", you pretty much sum up what was declared in the 10 Commandments. However, what you quoted was just the second part. You left out the first and most important. Jesus replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40 Whatever inconsistencies or loss in specificity you think you might have found with the 10 Commandments from ~1,500 years before, should be checked against these to see if they've lost any meaning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #114 July 8, 2004 QuoteI believe we’ve discussed in great detail the reliability and historicity of the New Testament text which includes the statements made by Jesus. As for the reliability of what was originally stated in the 10 Commandments, it was also accepted as reliable and authoritative by Jesus himself. Granted, none of the people of his time actually saw the tablets. However, they knew the history tradition well and went to great efforts to preserve it accurately. I don’t know of any evidence that shows that there is error in the 10 Commandments specifically. They’re pretty simple and clear no matter how you might twist the words around. As for your example with the words kill and murder, you’re putting present day English definition to the words. If you look at the contextual setting, it is clear what was meant. Well, as the bible, particularly the KJV, has been changed repeatedly over the centuries, particularly by Pauline scribes to support the apostolic succession of their favorite pope, it's a little disengenous to suggest that it's an immutable text. Also, quoting Jesus as a reference for corroboration is rather like me asking you to prove the existence of gnomes, and you telling me to ask Santa. The whole, and I mean all, of the ten commandments, can be replaces quite nicely by the Rede. if you follow the Rede, you'll wind up obeying their tenets, and no-one will have to get nailed to anything to do so. It also has the nice side effect of allowing you to live standing on your feet, instead of on your knees in obsequious deference to an imaginary deity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #115 July 8, 2004 QuoteWell, as the bible, particularly the KJV, has been changed repeatedly over the centuries, particularly by Pauline scribes to support the apostolic succession of their favorite pope, it's a little disengenous to suggest that it's an immutable text. I’m not trying to say that errors don’t creep into copies or translation. That has in fact occurred. I challenge you to find any of significance, however, that damage the foundational truths of Christianity. QuoteAlso, quoting Jesus as a reference for corroboration is rather like me asking you to prove the existence of gnomes, and you telling me to ask Santa. Jesus was a real person. Santa is fictitious. All I was doing was referencing a credible source. You do the same with any documentation of which you don’t possess the original. QuoteThe whole, and I mean all, of the ten commandments, can be replaces quite nicely by the Rede. if you follow the Rede, you'll wind up obeying their tenets, and no-one will have to get nailed to anything to do so. I’m not saying that what all other religions teach is wrong all through. There is usually a hint of the truth somewhere in most of them. However, the difference is in the final answer to the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #116 July 8, 2004 >I challenge you to find any of significance, however, that damage >the foundational truths of Christianity. There is pretty good evidence that, at one point in the translation cycle, "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #117 July 8, 2004 QuoteThere is pretty good evidence that, at one point in the translation cycle, "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin." It may be so that the word could mean both, however, in the context in which it was used, for example, in Luke 1:26-38, I think it is pretty clear that she was a “virgin” in the celibate sense of the word. In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Luke 1:26-38 I’m pretty sure the tradition of the day was for women to remain pure until marriage. I think they took that seriously. The first sentence states that she was pledged to be married to Joseph. It even says later that Joseph was very upset when he heard about the pregnancy and remained so until God made him understand. When Mary spoke to Gabriel, she was skeptical of what he said to her. She didn’t understand how it could happen since she was a virgin and had never been with man. Gabriel even explained to her how it would be done by other than natural means. I also don’t think Mary meant, while responding to Gabriel, that she was a virgin in the sense that she was merely a young woman too young to give birth to a child. I don’t believe a translation error, if there was one, could explain away the virgin birth. I don’t believe any reasonable person who actually took the time to read the passages in context would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tmontana 0 #118 July 8, 2004 However there are two more sets of commandments in the bible found in Exodus 34:12-26 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21 , they are similar to each other but not exact, which shows to me that either: A. God allowed his words to be changed by whoever was writing each particular part of the bible, which if true then his words could have been changed in MANY parts of the bible or B. They are not the words of God, they are words of men living during that time who had similar ideas and values, just as if you look at the laws each state or city may have, they all say pretty much the same thing but they are a little different because they were written by different people. QuoteThey’re pretty simple and clear no matter how you might twist the words around. As for your example with the words kill and murder, you’re putting present day English definition to the words. If you look at the contextual setting, it is clear what was meant. So what was meant. killing or murder, would someone in the army who kills be breaking a commandment. What about a judge who sentences a person to death, is he breaking a commandment? And then what about the person who actually turns on the electric chair in that case? is he also breaking a commandment?___________________________________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #119 July 8, 2004 QuoteI agree that we can't prove it wrong - however we can't prove it right either. Quick - Name 5 things that we can prove right. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #120 July 8, 2004 >Name 5 things that we can prove right. 1. People like to argue at Speaker's Corner. 2. Skydivers drink a lot of beer. 3. My Nova opens really hard. 4. My keys can move magically away from the place I left them. 5. Sangiro can ban people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #121 July 8, 2004 but... can we really prove that speakers corner exists? or that your keys exist? or is it all in your head? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #122 July 8, 2004 >can we really prove that speakers corner exists? Wellll . . . no. But I can prove that moderators can ban people! Wanna see? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #123 July 8, 2004 provide you demonstrate on someone else! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #124 July 8, 2004 Quote It even says later that Joseph was very upset when he heard about the pregnancy and remained so You're not kidding. "You got fucked by WHO ?" "He told you WHAT ?" etc etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #125 July 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlso, quoting Jesus as a reference for corroboration is rather like me asking you to prove the existence of gnomes, and you telling me to ask Santa. Jesus was a real person. Santa is fictitious. No SinterKlaas?! Blasphemy! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
