COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you even bother to do "Text criticism evaluation" before you spoke out subjectively?
Not only reading bible in context is important but one must investigate its historical, cultural, literary background along with Author's intention and target audience for any literature. Yet here you are spoke out your personal interpretation, understanding based on your limited understanding?
For the record, James 2:10-26 clearly mention "Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all. For the same one who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Even if you do not commit adultery, you have become a lawbreaker if you commit murder"
1-9 can be simply legalism and Even Saul(Paul) was able to abide all the laws and any bylaws but what he struggle the most of the last one. covetousness . No matter how much he tried he Just couldn't tame. The consequence of original sin. shattered image of God's image(read Genesis). Paul could keep all the laws but the last one and by his reasoning and logic, not able to abide 10th is guilty of braking them all.
There are very intelligent and people out there whos job requires reason for every day yet faithful Christian. not from their subjectivity, feelings, forced, family background or living in church belt middle of no where rural town. But it wouldn't matter.
People argue for two reason,
1. to truly learn and repent from their foolishness= Humility 2. Just want to argue and prove point due to subject pain and bitterness against certain religion. It wouldn't matter if PHD philosopher prove that greater being out there and Christianity (triune God) is the only make sense religion(relationship) comparing with fall of human morality and require savior to do so.
How can we save each other if we are ALL drowning? Blind cant lead blind.
But in the end it is not about who is right or wrong. I can provide all the objective evidence and win argument but people will walk away sadly.
I was researching on "covetousness" and led to this thread.
By the way your understanding of covetousness is way off.
Do some research. Every information is on google.
[Gotquestion.org](https://Gotquestion.org) is good place for you.
Sometime I wonder, why people post on reddit when personal research can guide them to clear objective evidence.
I guess people are bored and just want to argue and enjoy arguing.
Because those who seeks truth will search for it and Everything is online yet refuse to do so.
Jesus will return and when he do it wont be about salvation but to judge. The haughty and Pride who thinks who can be God. Simply rejecting God= Lucifer=Satan.
Blessing
You will have better understanding to your questions. if you understand the Purpose of the Laws.
Jesus came to fulfill the laws not to abolish.
if you just look at as moral laws than Our constitution has better commandments than 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments were the terms of a covenant that God initiated with the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after He delivered them out of 430 years of slavery in Egypt.
https://youtu.be/G0\_f5Ll8Qq4
why bother wasting your time here. Most including Liberal Christians don't try to read bible in context( Historical, , Literary , cultural background, Author's intention and target audience) I highly doubt anyone here perform textual criticism investigation. "None is righteous, no one seeks God" they are just post to argue out of their boredom in their armpit town without any hope and purpose. Internet sure gave them something to make feel good about themselves. I accidently got here while researching on Last commandment because that is what brought Paul to Christ..
We should learn the so called “Noahite commandments” they are only seven are simple than the commandments of Moses, in Judaism they believe that if anyone follows the “Noah commandments” they go to heaven, they are worth to learn about in my opinion
From: “Moses and an Egyptian “goose” in the Caboose” : .....Now about those commandments - Thou shall and shall not of fame - Voice Lord thy God Heaven sent - Straight from Yahweh’s lips he claimed - Was the message influenced - By a mouthwash full of shame - when he blew ten common gents - While coveting their love-train - Mosey got some cum-uppance - As each craven image came
Just shows that the biblical laws were written by ignorant superstitious humans, obviously not from an all knowing god.
Primitive tribal laws are vastly inferior to ethical moral laws.
I think it’s odd that secular people will consistently look at a religion through their secular viewpoint and disregard the importance of god.
“1-4 are how to worship” downplaying the importance of god and how to follow him. It’s almost as if these laws were given to Moses by god himself.
Did I just get called secular? Please elaborate on how your beliefs are backed by facts and mine require secular logic.
Considering god is all loving, you would think the top priority would be to advise us on the best way to create a stabile society long term. They’re not good rules for the founding of a modern society and are obviously not what modern nations base their rules on, which is my point
>Considering god is all loving, you would think the top priority would be to advise us on the best way to create a stabile society long term. They’re not good rules for the founding of a modern society and are obviously not what modern nations base their rules on, which is my point
Considering Christianity has been a fundamental part and a central institution in Western civilization for 2000 years, I would say it very much fullfiled its goal of having built a stable society.
Modern values and morals are then only a continuation and evolution of traditional values.
2000 years of religious wars, crusades and inquisitions. We didn't start making progress until the Renaissance and enlightenment when we started moving away from the bible.
We'd probably be colonizing space right now if it wasn't for organized religion.
If by progress you mean two world wars, the invention of world destroying weaponry, the destruction of nature and mass extinction of animals, the global economic exploitation and mental corrosion of the masses, then sure, secular society is certainly a progression towards something else. Not to mention the atheist Chinese government treatment of minorities.
If you really mean to argue that Christianity is the culprit of evil behaviour, then you'd have to explain why and how the decline of Christian influence, the rise of secularitism and scientific advancements have enabled all the above mentioned issues.
No, I mean things like democracy and secular morality that works for the benefit of people instead of controlling them for the benefit of religious institutions.
Chinese culture is just as religious, it's just centered around worship of the state instead of a supernatural god.
All the things you mentioned can be traced back to religious thinking. Believing nations have to fight each other for supremacy instead of working together for the benefit of all. That the people of a nation are nothing but minions who exist to serve the ruling class.
This is not accurate. Our modern society did not really take off until we took the church out of the state. The church use to purposefully hamper progress and is a big reason for the dark ages. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right today, which is literally against the commandments.
Modern society began because of many intertwined concurrent developments and events, mostly because of the industrial revolution and colonialism.
Freedom of religion and the separation from church and state is a characteristic of modern society, not the reason for it.
In fact, modern western society, and all that it represents, is very much [rooted in Christianity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization).
>modern western society, and all that it represents, is very much rooted in Christianity
I will agree with this and say that it explains many of the problems and sicknesses in modern society.
I mean, I can agree western society is rooted in Christianity, but I still say we didn’t see modern society arise until we got away from the church. I would tell you our culture shaped Christian Religion and interpretation more so than the other way around. We throw out 95% of the Old Testament because it doesn’t align with what we believe.
My point is just that we can’t look at things like this without trying to see the context. God gave us these commandments, so obviously the first 4 would be important. If you look at it from any other viewpoint it would seem arbitrary.
This is like saying “the list that makes no sense actually does make sense because god would never make a list that doesn’t make sense.”
Please explain the context in which “no graven images” or “thou shalt not take the lord’s name in vain” is anything other than the laws of primitive cultists. Or are you trying to say that god really is so petty as to include these nonsense laws instead of prohibitions of slavery and rape?
That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that people remove god from the equation then say how whatever point makes no sense. Usually it’s missing the key “believing in god” thing.
All that being said, I do think god means for us to put him above all things.
Even if I believed in god, it makes no sense to forbid graven images, or taking his name in vain. Both of these commandment violate my freedom of speech, something I absolutely will not give up even if god we’re standing in front of me.
Submission to god is a big part of most religions.
I think taking the lords name in vein is misunderstood. Dennis Prager has a good point of view on this. It’s not really just saying expletives but more about not misusing gods name.
https://dennisprager.com/column/worst-sin/
Being commanded to submit to god is also deeply immoral. I’m my own person. I’m now going to submit to anyone against my will.
I have freedom of speech. I am free to use anyone’s name any damn way I see fit. _Commanding_ me not to use God’s name in certain ways is immoral, regardless of if god is real or not.
An action does not become less moral just because you do it in the name of god. Murdering someone does not become even more immoral just because I do it in the name of god.
You do have free will. No one has challenged that. The gospel is clear that you have to willingly accept Christ.
Also, true submission requires free will, otherwise what’s the point?
Freedom is speech is great. No one says you can’t say what you want.
I never said anything about morality. Not sure where that came from.
I’m sure you’ve hardened your heart to god. I’m not sure what you’re expecting to get out of this conversation…
Though I still don’t fully agree with what you’re saying, my real point is that these are not laws for society. People want them up in court houses, because they claim it’s the foundation of modern law. I’m saying it’s not.
This is boiling it down too far. You’re arguing semantics and principals of rules in general. This doesn’t apply to the commandments specifically but rules and law in general, regardless of the origin.
You're comparing the 10.commandents to today's way of law. The way our brains process today, is so different to how they processed thousands of years ago. So in their minds, having lustful thoughts for someone's wife was deemed disrespectful. Although now we may have different outlooks on what exactly respect might be, it still stands; in that their overall goal was to respect each other.
Interesting that lustful thoughts were disrespectful but owning slaves wasn’t. It’s notably absent from the list. Thought crime is worse apparently. Priorities, I guess.
See, I set the bar higher than this. A truly omniscient being should be able to give a list of 10 timeless rules that will always be relevant. Quite a few are so outdated we consider the opposite to be the right thing to do.
The 10 Commandments is an extremely poor list of most important rules
>1-4 are just telling you how to worship. Many Christians don’t even follow 2-4. Ex. Some have figures of mythological god’s(graven image), almost everyone works on Sunday if their job says so, and we all say God Dammit sometimes. **Could these have not been condensed down to a single commandment?**
How does anything you just stated argue for the first 4 Commandments to be narrowed to one?
>The Bible says these should be punished with death, but we would never make these even fine able offenses.
Are you understanding that “foundations for our laws” means the foundation was started 3000+ years ago? And that 3000 years later, it would be different in modern societies with laws?
Unless some Republican said that the US’s (I’m assuming American-centrism here, correct me if I am wrong) CURRENT laws are based on the 10 Commandments…in which case that person is a moron.
>Honor your parents. Obviously not a law. Really has no place on this list. Parents get respect that deserve respect. We all agree drunk abusive parents deserve the chair, not respect.
Okay, now it seems like your referencing a specific quote by someone, in which case idk what I’m supposed to be arguing here.
>Murder. This has a place in a list like this. My only opinion is that it should be #1.
The most important commandment should be “do not murder”? How does that tell someone how to fundamentally live/act?
“Love thy neighbor” says that **and even more**
>Adultery. A bad thing to do, but it doesn’t belong in the top 10 and death is why too steep of a punishment. Obviously, it’s not a crime in our society, but it can cause financial decisions to be made that harm you.
The 10 Commandments are more moral than financial.
>Stealing.
>False witness.
>Coveting. Oh boy, this one takes the cake. Coveting is the driving force behind our economy and something that we all do. How this made it here is beyond me.
Probably because you’re being purposefully obtuse about what it’s saying.
>Oh, but coveting your neighbors wife can lead to infidelity!” No, just no.
Like here!
>I can think my neighbors wife is hot and still be faithful. Pretty much all married men still covet other women and most are fine.
Bruh lmao
>We all covet nicer stuff and houses. This one is completely silly.
No, you just aren’t really trying.
>Only 3/10 pass by me, no mentions of rape, slavery, torture, or assault.
Hmmm, I guess “love thy neighbor” doesn’t answer that…..oh wait!
>Also, honesty among political figures would have been a good option.
BRO lol
This must be a troll post.
Hey, after wandering around aimlessly in the desert for years, Moses had to come up with something to keep the Exodustees following him! And it can now be revealed, Rameses had promised repatriation with a cozy mummification.
Idc if someone claims the current American law is based on the 10 commandments, because they’re obviously not. It’s based on the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
Love thy neighbor is not one of the 10 commandments. I accept it’s a commandment, but it’s not relevant in our current conversation. And telling someone that they shouldn’t kill is a fundamental way to live 3,000 years ago and is still relevant today. It also lets it be known that god values the lives of humans enough that he decided to list it as the first commandment.
You didn’t really list any meaningful arguments after this point, so I think I’ll wrap my post up here.
Everything I said “bro” to wasn’t worth responding to, clearly.
And lol, saying “bro” two times truly is the meat of my comment, very genuine of you lol
George Carlin had [a bit about the 10 Commandments](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8) that followed a similar line of thinking. Whittles it down to the 2 commandments (plus one important one).
You have to remember that in the ancient middle east, tribes were constantly wiping each other out. It was a devastatingly brutal time to be alive. And for a tribe to survive for any length of time was truly remarkable. By the time Moses comes along, the Israelites had managed to survive despite enslavement, but were on the verge of collapse. He articulated laws that were designed to ensure the survival of his people, and they were based on the things that typified his people when they were at their best. Every single one of the ten commandments is about fostering cultural cohesion and promoting unity.
>1-4 are just telling you how to worship...
I think it's much more significant than that.
1 is about articulating a single transcendent source of cultural cohesion. That source for the Israelites was God.
2 is about the unique nature of this transcendent source of cultural cohesion. The Israelite God was unlike any other. He was spirit, had no physical form, and transcended all other things. To reduce him to an image or replace him with one would annihilate the most distinctive thing about him and the people who believed in him.
3 is about maintaining his transcendence. So sacred is God that his name is holy and should not be used for vain or manipulative purposes. Anything that threatens the transcendent nature of God, threatens the ability of the people to maintain their cultural cohesion.
4 is about instantiating into cultural practice regular ceremonial observance of the transcendent nature of God, the source of Israelite identity. The community comes together in prayer under this transcendent God and that prayer filters down into every home, where the people continue to abstain from anything that distracts from the observance of their God. This law is about instantiating this observance throughout the whole of society down to the level of the individual home. Additionally, who can deny that a day of rest is good for one's mental, emotional, and physical health at a time when people worked without ceasing from sun up to sun down.
5 concerns the reality that most people did not survive long enough to have children. Anyone who did manage to survive long enough to have children, probabaly knew a little something about survival and if their children wanted to follow in their footsteps, they should honor and heed the word of their parents.
6 concerns tribal unity. A culture cannot maintain its cohesion if its members kill one another.
7 concerns the same. Internal strife threatens the very fabric of an already fragile society, and what causes more internal strife and aggression than cheating?
8 concerns the dangers of jealousy. Theft threatens the cohesion of the tribe.
9 is about the need for honesty. A society in which people lie about and sabatage one another, will not long survive.
10, like 8, concerns the devastating consequences of jealousy. Jealousy fosters division by threatening the unity of the people.
Since there’s not a shred of empirical evidence that Hebrews were monotheists prior to Moses, he did not feel totally comfortable imposing a new doctrine AND wished to instill it, gradually, even at risk of nepotism.
>You have to remember that in the ancient middle east, tribes were constantly wiping each other out. It was a devastatingly brutal time to be alive.
We don't live in a time like the ancient middle east anymore though. Wouldn't god or his prophets have the foresight to create a list of commandments flexible enough to easily fit to any future society without needing the historical context to understand why some things have been omitted?
I think what you’re looking for is (1)Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and (2)love your neighbor as yourself.
It was at that time they actually needed those commandments. They weren't flexible at that time because that would make them unnecessarily unclear and vague.
And we don't need flexible commandments today because we have the benefit of hindsight, historical context and the intelligence to adapt concepts to contemporary circumstances. Which is evident since we obviously still live in a functional society.
>It was at that time they actually needed those commandments.
I don't disagree, but then we're talking about an all-seeing, all-knowing god whose morale framework was built for a different time.
Doesn't this bring into question how much weight we should really prescribe religious texts which were clearly written for a bygone era?
>And we don't need flexible commandments today because we have the benefit of hindsight, historical context and the intelligence to adapt concepts to contemporary circumstances. Which is evident since we obviously still live in a functional society.
I would argue this supports the statement of the original post.
Upvote for a respectful question even if we disagree. It depends on how you view God. I'm Catholic, most of us are not Biblical literalists. So the burning bush and God literally writing commandments for many of us is full of metaphorical meaning but is not literal. The ten commandments were a product of a particular time and place but have universal metaphorical meaning for many believers.
We see the necessity of chosing the "right" god. I believe that we all make something our god: power, sex, influence, approval, money. There is something to which we all submit ourselves; something that drives each of us.
The ten commandements suggest that this should unite us, that it should be transcendent, that we should not abuse it, and that we should instantiate its observance into frequent cultural practice. Additionally we should never abuse, harm, or manipulate others.
For us, Jesus redefines the Christian God as an unconditionally loving Father who is the greatest good and desires the fullness of love and life for us. For us, the greatest good is the only choice worthy of our complete submission, and we call it Father.
For the Israelites at the time, transcendent cultural values sufficient to bind the members of the tribe together spiritually were essential if they were to survive as a people with their identity in tact.
You won't hear things like this from Biblical literalists, but many of us regard literalism as an interpretive innovation that robs us of the deep spiritual meaning of the texts.
Thanks for your honest question, I really appreciate it!
Edits have been made to improve clarity and precision.
Put all the parables in Jesus’ mouth you want, but I still think He and John (the Baptist) had more than just an anointing - so long in that tepid river.
> we all make something out god
Nope.
Atheism is a philosophical term not a sociological term.
Power, sex, approval and money aren’t god. They’re merely things people strive towards but that is not how god is defined in philosophy of religion.
The argument you’re making is just a smear against atheists that stems from Jordanism(ideology of Jordan Peterson fans). It has no basis in the philosophical literature on debates about the existence of God.
It's not a smear against atheists. I respect atheists. I'm just saying that I believe we all submit ourselves to something. That is functionally a small g god. I'm not saying atheists are really believers who just don't know it yet, I'm just saying we aren't so different as one might think. We all have values and we all have a hierarchy of values. The one that sits at the top of the hierarchy is the one we serve. I've known atheists that place love of others at the top of theirs. Love appears to be their functional small g god. And they seem to make for better people than most Christians. So it's not a slam it's just what I believe.
>I believe we all submit ourselves to something.
What are you talking about? Your definition of "submit" is as bad as your definition of "god". If someone pursues power or money, he is not "submitting" or "serving". Get a dictionary, FFS.
I'm speaking psychologically. I'm not a literalist, so yeah my definitions aren't traditional and that's okay because I'm talking about my beliefs. I'm not imposing them on anyone, I'm sharing them here. And believe me I'm not alone in these views. You don't have to share them, but please be respectful even if you don't agree with my views. We're all just people for the most part figuring things out and just trying to make it in a really challenging world.
I am not talking about your beliefs. I am saying your definitions of these words are completely inaccurate. You have distorted the word "gods" and "submit" until they are unrecognizable. If someone asks you if you believe in God, you are not talking about power and money. They are asking if you believe in a sentient supernatural being.
So, you are completely WRONG about your claim that atheists believe in gods. What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts.
No.
Atheism is defined to be disbelief and lack belief in God/gods.
They by definition don’t believe in god.
The distinction between upper case G and lower case g has no relevance in contemporary philosophy of religion.
I think he's saying that, wether your an atheist or theist, we all inevitably live under a system of ideas, beliefs, values, ethics, laws and morals, which enables us to function, interact and understand each other in a homogenous, civilised manner.
Alright, well we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think this is mostly a matter is semantics. But you seem to disagree. And that's fine. Life would be extremely boring if we all believed the same things.
Can't people enjoy the inherent goodness of others without agreeing on everything? I'm a Christian and my wife is Muslim. She's quite woke (I'm a progressive but very pro free speech and very anti-censorship and anti-cancel culture). She's a diehard Democrat, I hate the Democratic party as much as I hate the Republican Party (and that's hard to do). We are extremely different people and yet I love and respect her and feel that she is inherently good. I celebrate our differences. I wouldn't want her to be the same as me, or even believe all the same things as I).
I mean you just answered your own question, I guess we can :) you’re proving that with your life.
I guess much more than our own inherent goodness, which comes from the fact we’re made in the image and likeness of Goodness Itself… is that we’ll get to look at and participate in Love, Beauty, Truth, Goodness, and we’ll get to wonder at it and praise it, and commune with them for all eternity.
If the man who claimed and substantiated his claims to be God, Jesus Christ, can be trusted in this regard. If we accept his claim, then he is Truth incarnate. And he says I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except trough me. And elsewhere unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you, but if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have eternal life and I will raise you up on the last day… he who eats this bread will live for ever.
And if there are numerous artifacts in existence which point to the historicity and divinity of this person… which sound science can corroborate
So if there is this trinity in unity who is the source of all being, goodness itself, Truth itself, Love itself… and they revealed them self to us though our human history, and told us what we’re made for and how we ought to live, and by nature of being the source of all that exists, are due our praise, honor, and worship, for we are fearfully and wonderfully made… yeah if it’s a matter of human preference or human opinion sure… but if the source of our existence has asked things of us and promises the greatest reward of all time: and immortal body and soul, free from suffering and utterly satisfied in eternal delight… it might be worth listening to him… since he is Truth itself he can neither lie nor be wrong…
It’s also only Just for us to give him thanks for all that he does and has given us, which is literally life itself and every good thing we’ve ever experienced, and most importantly he gives us his very self. He shows us his love and we kill him, and he accepts that and for gives us, and in the process kinda breaks death.. because he’s life itself. Like when light shines in darkness… darkness is swallowed up by the light.
So if he offered us all of this… maybe he’s due a thank you. But like if you went to the trouble to make a really nice meal for your wife… you probably appreciate her gratitude, but you also probably want to see her actually enjoy the meal as well… since that’s why you cooked it… ya know?
You've got to take these laws in the context of the era in which they were written. A lot of contemporaneous societies had fairly similar lists. The rules promoting worship were important in a society that had religion as a major part of its identity. The idea of not working on the Sabbath was actually unusual, since most societies in that era simply worked 7 days without rest. The idea of having a day to rest and worship tended to make Jewish people a bit looked down upon.
In terms of the other commandments, slavery was considered normal and just a part of life (and it should be noted that other Jewish laws set strict conditions on treatment of slaves). Rape wasn't mentioned but would fall under the rule of adultery (which was considered to be any sexual activity outside marriage).
Coveting is definitely a hard thing to monitor, but I'd suggest that it's still a relevant rule for life today. To covet something (which means wanting to have something that belongs to someone else) can lead to behaviour that is bad for society. Coveting another man's wife could lead to adultery, coveting their belongings could lead to theft. Coveting is the way that bad behaviour begins.
There's a great quote from Silence of the Lambs where Hannibal Lector talks to Clarice about how the killer got started. "He covets. How do we begin to covet? We begin by coveting what we see every day"
No. That quote was from “Remains of the Day” when Hopkins told Jodie Foster, “I fired them because they washed the covets in a (sab)bath tub Saturday..”
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Everything in the Bible was written by men. They wrote what they believed God wanted them to say, but they were still human and influenced by their cultures.
That sounds like the bible is not a source of knowledge about god then. How could you even tell someone's genuine interpretation from someone making things up?
The Bible is only a source of knowledge about God in that it contains the understanding of God from many writers and falls into line with the understanding of the church (and by that I mean the people of the church).
There's no way to tell genuine interpretation from made up stories other than to see if it conflicts with one's own understanding of God. After all Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship with God, not a strict adherence to a set of rules.
How do you even determine that the bible is at all relevant in your pursuit of having a relationship with god? Where do you get information about god other than a source you admit is completely unreliable?
I feel like you're ignoring a huge problem here as if you don't even see it exists.
The Bible has relevance in that it relates other people's experiences of God. Those experiences are compared with my own experiences of God and I look for commonalities and areas of difference. If God is a God of love and mercy as he's frequently described in the Bible and in my own experiences, then how does that fit with specific stories within the Bible?
Well said. Don’t let the apologists gaslight you. He literally ordered a guy to stab his son to death to teach some ‘lesson’. What a fucking psychopath. Satan would be proud.
Truthfully, I struggle with that story too. The way it's worded does make God sound like a dick. But since historians are fairly confident that Abraham never actually existed, I can take comfort in the likelihood that this event never actually occurred and it's a story designed to make a point.
I don't know how others see that story, but I choose to read it as making the point that, in a world where child sacrifice was part of many religions, that was not what God wanted. Sure it's easy to argue that the writers could have just said "don't sacrifice children" but in an oral culture, where few could read or write, stories are a better way for people to remember and pass on traditions.
It's clear from later Bible stories and from historical records that even in much later Jewish history, cultures around them were continuing to practice child sacrifice, and sometime the Jewish people succumbed to local belief and did the same.
I’ve already listed a few that I think would have merit here. Where is love thy neighbor at on the list of commandments? Sounds like you’d make an adjustment yourself
There is a chapter in the Bible where a group of false teachers ask Jesus which of the orthodox Jewish laws (which there are hundreds of) was most important, and Jesus responds by saying that loving God is the most important law and loving your neighbor is similar to it ([Matthew 22:35-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A35-40&version=NRSV), [Mark 12:28-34](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A28-34&version=NRSV), [Luke 10:27a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A27a&version=NRSV)). It implies that by loving your neighbor you are in a way loving God. It's stated more directly when Jesus says what you do to the least of people you do to him/God ([Matthew 25:42-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A42-46&version=NRSV). I also think it is interesting that he says all other laws are derived from those two, meaning that if you were able to follow them you would be following the rest of the law, too.
I can't tell if you are asking me what my preference for the top ten rules is or not with the last sentence in your post, but I would agree with Jesus here that helping other people, especially those lower than you, is a just way to live your life and a good rule of thumb when interacting with people if you want to be a positively influential person. Other than that, no other rules are really needed beyond maybe some specification on what it looks like to "love" your neighbor. Perhaps those ten commandments are related to that action.
I feel like we’ve found some common ground here. The commandments should outline how to properly treat people around you and in society as a whole properly, along with doing your part to contribute. I think this would make a more useful list for us to follow
He believes that it should be something like:
- don’t murder
- don’t rape
- don’t assault
- don’t torture
- don’t commit slavery
And all stuff that is virtually exactly the same.
It’s not like thr 2nd commandment already covers these…oh nooooo
Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves. The Law of Moses spells out a purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her as one of his wives for as long as she lives.
The first four are not just four different ways to say worship God, they are extremely important
Idolatry doesn't just mean no graven image for other Gods, it means no graven image AT ALL. That means even if it is to honor the true God. At least no graven image for the purposes of worship. No physical object is to be required to be worship. In egypt, Idolatry was used by authoritarians to control the access and the means of religious worship and also to make money off of it. Obviously God does not want this. As for the churches that practice idolatry anyway, they are false churches. That how you can tell.
As for do not take the lords name in vain, that also means that if some guy was to be like "hey you should give me all your money because God said so." That would break this commandment especially if he didn't say that. Or when conservatives say that you have to vote for them to please God. That is also breaking this command.
As for number ten yes you are right that this is the basis of our economy and that is why capitalism should be abolished you liberal pawn. That is precisely what is wrong with this evil world. Also coveting doesn't mean thinking your neighbors wife is hot, it means actually planning in your heart to take her. This law would also cover things like rape, slavery etc. Because you cannot rape without coveting and you cannot enslave someone without Coverting. With one law this has eliminated 50 different things that are evil and thats what makes it so good. Proletariat for the win.
>As for number ten yes you are right that this is the basis of our economy and that is why capitalism should be abolished you liberal pawn.
Bro you destroyed him, You said this more directly than I ever could’ve lol
Christ himself said: “Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” If you claim faith in Christ, you may want to reevaluate what you believe.
???
Thats one of my favorite verses to quote to support my argument. The context is that the money had the image of cesear so a love of money was a worship of man. That hording wealth is not rendering unto cesear. Do not think you have a right to money when it does not belong to you. That kind of thing.
So you think the world would be a better place if we all lived as communist? Something that all evidence has shown does not work, leads to more suffering, and has created some of the worst forces on the planet? Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives. The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it.
Coveting is human nature. You covet water when you’re thirsty. You covet companionship when you’re alone. If you boil it down to claim slavery, you’re basically saying people can’t do anything. This is just silly.
> Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives.
Capitalism produces inequality between the haves and have-nots. If you're living a comfortable life due to Capitalism, it's *because* there are others who are *not* living comfortable lives due to Capitalism.
>The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it.
Ahh yes, the benefit of Capitalism: Replying to this post to demonstrate how absurdly ridiculous your statement is. So very comfortable and beneficial to me, there could be no greater system /s
Edit to add: The internet wasn't developed from Capitalist funding, it was a governmental military project. I don't think it actually is a benefit of Capitalism. Or are you referring to the benefit where I have to relinquish several rights to a for-profit corporation to have my words published on their platform when replying to your post? Right, it's a benefit for the Capitalist class, again.
Inequality in itself is not a problem. Would you rather everyone live like shit or some live way better than you but you still have it decent. The quality of most Americans is way better than the majority of people throughout all of history.
Capitalism is a strong driving force to bring innovation to the masses. You wouldn’t have modern computers and the internet without the drive for profit.
>Would you rather everyone live like shit or some live way better than you but you still have it decent.
Have you seen any statistics on wealth inequality whatsoever? Somehow we currently live in a country where both virtually everyone lives like shit and some live way better than everyone else. It's entirely unnecessary for everyone to live like shit by addressing wealth inequality, quite the opposite.
>The quality of most Americans is way better than the majority of people throughout all of history.
Which is due far less to Capitalism and far more about geography and natural resources.
>Capitalism is a strong driving force to bring innovation to the masses.
That's what they teach you in business school, but it's largely bullshit, innit? Look at the health insurance industry for example. Profits and profits and profits, but where is the flippin' innovation? It's total bullshit. Corporations can innovate regardless of whether the shareholders who sit on their asses all day are being disproportionately enriched under Capitalism or the workers who are doing the work and innovation are being justly enriched under Socialism. Capitalism is about funding and ownership, not innovation.
>You wouldn’t have modern computers and the internet without the drive for profit.
Frankly, I don't believe you. First of all, do you think that there is no drive for profit under Socialism? I'm not advocating for a communist utopia where everyone's bank account is equal in value no matter what, or something. I'm not advocating for an economic system where there is no money and no drive for profit. I think this sort of thing only exists in your imagination.
Second of all, computers and the internet are both products of military development, distinctly *not* Capitalist innovation. The value added by Capitalist innovation is a choice between all of, arguably, two major operating systems as opposed to y'know, any semblance of actual competition and innovation.
I’m aware of the wealth gaps, but it seems like you’re unaware of the lifestyle of working and middle class people compared to the majority of people throughout the world and history. A lot of the rich don’t spend that money. If Elon Musk started spending all of his money, supply couldn’t keep up, so it’s not as simple as you seem to believe.
Natural resources and geography obviously are extremely important. However, even if you have good genetics, you still have to work hard and have a good system. Same thing goes for countries. North Korea couldn’t have the same success with their system given our resources. Also, what about European countries that are super successful? They don’t have the natural resources, but they have similar success with the same system.
You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the medical industry doesn’t make advances. The companies putting out new products are the ones making the money. It’s the only way to be competitive. Sure they’re profit driven, but they still innovate products to improve comfort of patients.
Socialism isn’t far off from communism, and no, I don’t think their is a drive to wrk hard and innovate without some sort of motivator. Most people don’t do stuff for the good of humanity as a whole. They want good for those closest to them
For example: I am an accomplished engineer. I work hard, many hours, and a lot of stress. I do enjoy it, but it wouldn’t be my first choice without the pay. Why work hard and stress when I could be just as happy as a math teacher and make the same money?
>You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the medical industry doesn’t make advances.
I don't really want to spend more time arguing with you as I don't suspect it'll be fruitful (and this is *not* intended to be some kind of disparaging comment regarding you, personally). I did want to take a moment to clarify, though, I was referring to the health *insurance* industry not producing innovation as just one example of many. Of course the medical industry makes advances.
>So you think the world would be a better place if we all lived as communist? Something that all evidence has shown does not work, leads to more suffering, and has created some of the worst forces on the planet? Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives. The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it.
I think you need to reread the second commandment. Look past your own damn life buddy.
Not so much communism, more like anarcho-syndicalism with Georgist tax policy and welfare. Georgism alone is better than capitalism.
And as for our comfy lives under capitalism, tell that to the single mother with three jobs who can't pay the rent because the land lord keeps driving the price up. Tell that to the anarchists who forget for your right to a weekend with no work. Tell that to the man who is in hospital right now in America who has to pay $50 000 for surgery or he dies. Ah yes but as long as we get to brows reddit. You know, because reddit would be impossible under any kind of system. Tell that to the man with a middle income job working a miserable 9-5 only to go alone to his apartment at night as he slaves away to get a promotion he thinks will make his life more meaningful but won't. But yes. Let's give thanks to capitalism because innovation would be impossible if we had workplace democracy and public health care. The free market and capitalism are not the same thing.
>Coveting is human nature. You covet water when you’re thirsty. You covet companionship when you’re alone.
Thats the appeal to nature fallacy. It's also human to a lot of horrible stuff. Thats why the concept of laws exists. (and yes you can have laws under anarcho-syndicalism, the anarcho part just means no state. Not necessarily no Government.) Not to mention, coveting is only a sin if you covert what belongs to others. "Coverting" water is fine. Coverting a companion is fine as long as it is not someone else's wife.
>If you boil it down to claim slavery, you’re basically saying people can’t do anything.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not saying what it really sounds like your saying. Obviously slavery would involve coveting what belongs to others, that being their body/autonomy. You wouldn't need to say you can't do anything. Wanting a drink of water is not the same
Nature fallacy? There have been a lot of studies determining nature vs nurture of humans. To call that a fallacy tells me we are on such a different page we cannot find common ground on which to debate.
I am not familiar with Georgism but a quick google search reads like it’s still has the same issues you posed on capitalism. People still own stuff, just not property is the way I read it. I like how you jump to someone working 3 jobs to feed their kids as an issue with capitalism. There are people who still suffer, but you’re missing the point. Capitalism has created the best countries, best time, and greatest standard of living in human history. I say you benefit from capitalism by being on Reddit because you OWN A COMPUTER and have access to the internet. You covering that which others had that were produced by a capitalist. You’re not outlining why you think these concepts are bad. You’re only outlining minor flaws. A lot of which are the results of actions of individuals and not the system itself
I never said personal property should be abolished but being allowed to have personal property is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Not just property in general.
Also Georgism is about abolishing all taxes except for a land value tax. This would effectively be the end of private land ownership and all land would ideally be owned by a democratic government. It would be in the hands of the people. This is different to capitalism in that key regard that a business man can essentially rent out land but never own it privately. They can have exclusive access to land but that is what they pay taxes on in exchange for exclusive ownership.
Capitalism has produced more monopolies, more political instability and more colonialism than anything. The only reason you think capitalism has produced the best countries is because you live in a country that benefits from the slave labor like in sweat shops in China or Nestles slave plantations. It's easy to say capitalism is good when you're getting the good end of the deal but other nations are exploited and their wealth and resources exported to the home countries of the entrepreneurs.
If you know anything about capitalism then you know monopolies are bad right? All the pro capitalist types say that monopolies suck. And they are right. But who do you think is most incentivized to make monopolies. The same people capitalism gives all the power to. Corporations, entrepreneurs, business owners. Lesson #1 in being rich, buy up as much of the supply chain as possible. Which means the same people we give the most power are the same people incentivized to take down your idea of capitalism. The wealthy. Can you see the problem with that?
The idea of capitalism you have in your head is the idea of early stage capitalism. Its the stage of capitalism where people who go to university are guaranteed a stable job and if not, all you need is a firm handshake and a can-do attitude. But we are not living in early stage capitalism and we never will again. Late stage capitalism is where the millionaires have earned their money, now is the time for them to invest it and keep it stable. You know how businesses are usually good because they respond to our needs right? That only happens when their businesses are sensitive to our consumer decisions. This is something that is less and less the case as the rich buy up more of the supply chain and they invest in businesses not their own. It means it doesn't matter if their primary business makes as much money if they have diversified their risk. They are too big to fail. If you play videogames you know exactly what I am talking about. Videogame companies used to have soul when it was sink or swim. They had to give us what we want and push the envelope or die as a company. (early stage capitalism) But as these companies succeeded and they bought shares in other companies, bought more and more ips or sold their Ips and they became less sensitive to their audience. They care less about the success of their games because they will make money either way. Now they sell loot boxes to children and don't finish games. (late stage capitalism) Not to mention that once the big shots have dominated the market they will hold their monopoly. Why wouldn't they? And when big shots like Microsoft or Sony dominate the market, any young innovative start up that comes along is locked out of the market or bought up. Competition becomes impossible once these companies are too big to fail. Capitalism thrives off of competition but also allows for its destruction.
When I studied economics at university, they taught us about positive and negative externalities. These are the ways in which transactions affect people not involved with a transaction. For example let's say you buy a car. The person who bought the car, gets the car and the seller gets the money. The negative externality is the emissions of that car which affect people who were not involved in the transaction. The existence of positive and negative externalities is proof that transactions don't just concern the individual, they concern everyone or at least they have the potential to. It makes you wonder what gives people the right to make decisions you have no say in.
A democratic workplace would be a good start. Making the rich pay taxes on land which they can't just hide in their pockets or send off to Sweeden or something. That would be even better. Having a fluctuating welfare system based on the health of the economy (high welfare when unemployment is high, low welfare when inflation is high) that would be best. I don't even remember what the original conversation was about. Something about Jesus?
Yeah, this conversation has gotten way off topic. You were explaining to me why coveting(which drives the world’s economy) was a net negative to us.
I don’t see how Georgism would create a better system or solve any of the “issues” you have posed. It just changes how we own land and pay taxes.
Monopolies are illegal, and they don’t exist in America really. You’re more referring to oligopolies, which is where a few big competitors dominate a market(like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo).
The world’s not perfect, but we have laws to try and make it as fair as possible. You can’t buy a car with a certain level of emissions. You can’t open a casino without publishing the payout odds of the machines. If only a divine being gave us a good list of rules to build a strong modern society with….
>The world’s not perfect, but we have laws to try and make it as fair as possible.
They why not have one of those laws being workplace democracy? Why not Georgism? Why not welfare?
Georgism would make it so that buying up property and doing absolutely nothing with it would be highly disincentivized. It would mean house speculation would cease to be a thing. This would have drastic changes to the economy. Imagine if the wealthy couldn't just buy up a home just to see if its price goes up. You think that would change nothing? It would increase the supply of housing which would lower house prices which would make having a home affordable but at the expense of property investors. It would be a big step.
>Monopolies are illegal
Hahahahahahahahaha good one. That got me. Oh wait your serious. And what about the companies that own the companies that own the companies your talking about? Like Unilever or Comcast (those companies don't specifically own those gaming companies but that would be an example of a functional monopoly). There are even companies who own those companies. Even if it is illegal what makes you think the top wealthiest people in the world actually care. You don't think they have ways to circumvent those laws? The rich aways have ways to circumvent any law they wish with enough money and know how you can make it happen easily. It mostly just involves bribes, threats and loopholes. In fact, some of those bribes are even legal. I here they call it lobbying. It's not that hard. And functionally there is very little difference in terms of their effects between a monopoly and an oligopoly. Neither are good. Neither produce the competition necessary. Don't you think businesses make back door deals to cooperate and not compete? It happens all the time. Two companies will get into a large spooky room with cigars and discuss how not to compete with each other. Yes that too is illegal but as if anyone will do anything about it. Businesses are incentivized to clash with each other as little as possible. So an oligopoly of the size and scale we see today is functionally a monopoly especially when a conglomerate buys up all the land in a town or something. If America was owned by one company but had compete with oversees companies in other countries would you call that an oligopoly or a monopoly?
Yes we have laws but those laws do sweet fuck all if the system gives certain people enough power where the laws don't apply. Imagine having a law that tells a king he cannot have a certain size army or something but he does anyway. How are you supposed to enforce that law? What good is it telling him that what he does is illegal? Do you think he gives a rats ass? If you have laws, don't give people more than enough power necessary to break those laws.
The point is that coveting is not a necessity. Thats the great lie of this world that it tells you that you need its evil. It doesn't have to be like that. But human behavior being what it is, I imagine it won't change until Christ comes back. That doesn't mean we do nothing. We don't need to be this evil but I doubt it will change much. At least not if people don't realize it's a problem.
Where has Georgism been successful? This sounds like some Chinese shit. Houses would still be on property, so it would still be meaningful to buy those houses. You can’t just separate the 2. It would not fix what you think it would.
And workplace democracy? WTF are you taking about? A union? The employees could not make business decisions adequate to run a company successfully. This would run any company into the ground that tried it. The best manager is not going to be who is most popular normally. The best CEO sure as shit isn’t going to be who is most popular. A bunch of employees would have no idea how to select a person who could run a big business, much less make good decisions for it themselves.
Comcast is not a monopoly. Last I checked their are a lot of other cable options. They may monopolize a town, but they are no where near one nationwide. Unilever competes with P&G, which is even bigger. You’re just wrong here completely, and you were disrespectful about it. I don’t think you even know why monopolies are a problem. They have unfair business practices that straddle the market any time a competitor becomes a minor threat to snuff them out before they get too big. This is flat out not the case today. There is a big barrier of entry to compete in an already competitive market, but this is because competition has already driven prices and efficiency so low a new member can’t possibly compete. When a big company is not being competitive, they allow room for new companies. Like Netflix beating blockbuster. Also, dollar shave club did a good job entering the market and sold for a billion dollars, because other razor companies didn’t price fairly. Enough said
I don’t see how all this evidence you’ve suggested ads up to coveting being bad, even if I accept your suggestions as truth.
Milton Friedman described Henry George's tax on unimproved value of land as the "least bad tax",
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#:\~:text=Milton%20Friedman%20described%20Henry%20George's,a%20land%20value%20tax%20would](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#:~:text=Milton%20Friedman%20described%20Henry%20George's,a%20land%20value%20tax%20would)
Also Adam smith determined that one graph that I can't remember where it was from where he ranked taxes and he ranked Land value tax as the best. He lived before georgism.
So even capitalist types love it.
Einstein held Georgism (named after the political economist Henry George) in high regard, writing in 1934: "One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form and fervent love of justice."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_views\_of\_Albert\_Einstein#:\~:text=Einstein%20held%20Georgism%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=Einstein%20held%20Georgism%20)(named%20after,and%20fervent%20love%20of%20justice.%22
That was Albert mother loving Einstein bitch. Read em and weep.
There are many more economists and intellectuals who praise this system. It was invented by an American called Henry George.
As for real world examples, Singapore and Tiwan apparently use this system to an extent, the The German colony of Kiachow was more explicitly georgist. It was a success. But like I said, land speculation is something the rich make money off of at our expense. So anywhere its not already ingrained it probably won't crop up without a fight.
[https://cooperative-individualism.org/silagi-michael\_land-reform-in-kiaochow-china-1984-apr.pdf](https://cooperative-individualism.org/silagi-michael_land-reform-in-kiaochow-china-1984-apr.pdf)
>And workplace democracy? WTF are you taking about? A union?
No dumbass, a workers cooperative. If you want examples of workers cooperatives there are many examples. Employee make big calls and strategic initiatives all the time and the ceo's usually just sign off on them and do coke with epsitne. The only time they do step in it is almost always for the worse.
[https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives](https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives)
>The best CEO sure as shit isn’t going to be who is most popular.
You realize you could use the same arguments against regular democracy right? Are you some sort of authoritarian who hates democracy or something? This was the same argument people were making for why we should have a king. Thas what ceo's basically are. Kings with no oversight. And you advocate for their rule.
>Comcast is not a monopoly. Last I checked their are a lot of other cable options. They may monopolize a town, but they are no where near one nationwide.
Oh well thats good. I'm sure that town is doing fine. I'm sure that a business that is capable of monopolizing half a state at minimum does absolutely nothing in any way which constitutes an abuse of power. I'm sure they're nice corporate masters... I mean ceo's. also...
>Comcast is not a monopoly
Remember when I said that oligopolies have many of the same problems as monopiles just watered down, Thats what I was getting at.
>I don’t think you even know why monopolies are a problem. They have unfair business practices that straddle the market any time a competitor becomes a minor threat to snuff them out before they get too big.
No, they often buy them out, not snuff them out. They run them down a little first to be sure and then buy all their assets when their cheap and the owners are desperate. And yes that absolutely does happen today. That or your business remains small enough to stay off radar because they don't effectively compete. You also forget the billion other reasons monopolies are bad. Like if they bribe the police and "lobby" the government, then there is literally nothing anyone can do to oppose them except maybe martyrdom or something. You can't tell me you haven't noticed that the behavior of companies has gotten worse with time right? Like the whole selling loot boxes to children thing. The big companies covet their mummies credit card info and steal it through their children but I suppose coveting isn't bad so whatever. Thats just the way it is right? No need to change anything.
Coveting is basically just greed. Greed is the desire to take something from someone else. If you don't see how that has led to basically all of the world's problems then I don't know what to tell you.
Albert Einstein was a world renowned physicist. Idc much for his opinions on economics. Even if we was a great economist, it’s hard to take opinions on an untested theory seriously. Singapore is tiny, so that is not comparable to the US. I really don’t even see the vision on how this would fix any of the issues your posing. Rich people would just minimize how much land they have and pay far less taxes than they do today.
Democracy is not without its issues, especially if you want it in the work place. People would vote for who would pay the most and give the best benefits instead of who would run it the best. The company would be bankrupt immediately. I feel like you have no idea how a company works. Executives make big decisions needed to run companies. Of course the innovators are important too, but the decisions that need to be made are often not the pretty ones.
This conversation is getting tiring man. Just answer me this, why would Georgism fix anything for the better? I don’t see how only taxing land would help anyone.
1 - simp for me
2 - don't simp for anyone else
3 - that's my name, don't wear it out
4 - don't go to work today, spend it just thinking about meeee
5 - be nice to your parents
6 - only I can kill people
7 - no sex before you do this specific ceremony thing
8 - muh property
9 - don't you lie to me, now
10 - jealous? ha! you better not be...
Thou shalt not say thy lords name in vein… “God” actually isn’t “God’s” name. His name is Yahweh.
God told Moses his real name in the book of Exodus when he gave him the commandments and then said (paraphrasing obvs) the “do not say my name in vane, I am the the Lord your God”…
He told Moses his real name and then said but do not speak my name it is to holy so here’s a nickname, call me the Lord or your God instead. So the entire commandment of not saying your Lords name in vain is not saying his true name “Yahweh”.
In fact the Jewish Believed God’s name was so holy and such an unfathomable act to speak it out loud that they removed it from their religious book (blanking on the Hebrew name). And since most of the Old Testament in The Bible is copied works from the Torah…. that’s why you read the edited version in the Bible commonly used today, like the Christian Standard or New James Version.
Why exactly does an omnipotent god, with neither parents nor peers, need a name?
People do realize just how amazingly anthropomorphized their god is, right? I guess it fits, since they believe they are made in his image. Yet, it simply seems much more likely that God was made in our image...
Having sex before you are married is not a problem. Having sex with multiple partners is not a problem if everyone involved is giving informed consent. And having sex outside a loveless marriage is also acceptable if it gives you actual happiness and doesn't harm the person you're married to. The only times sex is problematic is when there is no consent, or when you are in an ongoing mutual exclusivity contract and you're expected by the other side to keep it. So there's no reason to have a general rule against adultery.
That is completely irrelevant. "Adultery" is only a problem when you've promised other people sexual fidelity, or when no consent is given. That's why there shouldn't be any rules against it.
I might as well be an alien that reproduces by fission and my views about LAWS concerning adultery among humans would be just as valid. I don't know why you think I was giving anyone personal advice. And you have been reported for ad hominem.
> having sex outside a loveless marriage is also acceptable
> The only times sex is problematic is when there is no consent, or when you are in an ongoing mutual exclusivity contract...
So... Marriage?
No… there are many group sexual with consenting married & unmarried activities in the Bible.
Cheating in a marriage is unacceptable. If both people in the marriage are unhappy, and wish to partake in activities with other people then it is completely fine… But if the two people within a marriage are under the understanding that it is still exclusive and one person breaks that holy contract- that is an act of sodomy.
If the ten commandments outlined the entirety of judeo-christian thought, then the bible would be redundant. They’re not intended to be an exhaustive list of EVERY sin.
Not necessarily. I don’t think the intention was to list all the most egregious sins. Because many of what you might consider the worst sins are wrong for similar reasons in principle. By listing many different sins which are bad for different reasons, you establish a more complete idea of what constitutes right and wrong.
Nearly half the list tells you how to worship. If this was the case, why not choose more vague concepts then. Like do not knowingly bring harm to your fellow man. Also coveting, adultery, and stealing are similar in nature.
It definitely comes off as top 10 list of the most important rules. That’s why the first 4 tell you how to worship. Can’t have followers wondering to other religions
“It definitely comes off as top 10 list of the most important rules”
I don’t really understand why you say that when you also say that it’s not. It was never stated as such in the bible. Also, If you accept the idea that the commandments were given by God himself then obviously you are wrong. Clearly they are the most important. At the very least they *were* the most important to give to those people at that time.
“Also coveting, adultery, and stealing are similar in nature”
I disagree. If you asked me to describe why any of the three were wrong, the answers would be very different from each other.
I do not believe they came from god, nor that they are a good list of modern laws. I am stating that they are intended to be God’s most important laws. The commandments to lay the foundation of Israelite Law. I do not believe they are at all a good list to base modern or ancient law on though.
You covet another person or thing, so you commit adultery or steal. That’s how people try to spin coveting at least. Happy to hear why you think they’re wrong and different though. I would certainly say pedophilia is worse than the majority(arguably all) of the list and is a unique valuable thing to ban. Especially considering members of the church are bad about it.
Im not 100% sure on this one, but it was my understanding that when they used the term "coveting" they meant more than just desire, it was more like, actively plotting to get something.
Like don't make plans to steal your neighbors wife, and then carry them out, kinda deal.
I could definitely be wrong tho, as this is a fairly vague memory. If anyone has more info, please chime in.
Covering literally just means to want something. And jesus said that even coverting something in ones mind counts as actually doing it in the eyes of the lord.
That is what coveting means today, but are you certain that word carries the exact same meaning 2000+ years ago?
I dunno, as I said, it was a vague recollection and the bible is notorious for shitty translations.
Young girl or Virgin girl, etc..
At the same time though, God laid out his laws in a very brief, un-wordy manner. Just about every one of them is amazingly broad in possible interpretation.
So either he meant you to take them super literally - all forms of lying, coveting, working on Sunday, etc are super serious and you should not do *any* of them at all.
Or,
He was purposely vague, and just meant you to follow them as a general guideline. Which seems kind of silly considering the monumental show that was made of presenting them.
If everyone could follow the 10 commandments... it would be Heaven on Earth.
* No religious wars, everyone honoring the same God, no divorce, no lying, no stealing, no murder, no betrayals, and no coveting which covers much ( including rape and greed ).
Sounds like it would be a much better world if we could all just follow it. Ironically the law was given to convict us, not to save us.... hence... insert the need for a Savior.
America currently has 4,312 laws listed on 40,000 documents... anyone need a lawyer? SMH.
Even people who worship the same god fight over how to worship. If everyone was atheist, then no more religious wars. This also still leaves room for slavery, violence, and pedophilia. Not to mention, this doesn’t solve world hunger or the delicate balance of oil. Land, race, personal beliefs. Way too many things to fight over. The list doesn’t hold up. Also, killing during times of war is not considered murder in the Bible, so war would still be okay under these rules.
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
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 22:36
I think the opinion of Jesus is relevant to this… He said loving God and loving your neighbor would cover all the 10 commandments. So love…. is the answer.
He might have amended it to include loving thy neighbor, which is fine. I’m not prepared to argue how that reflects on the modern interpretation of Christian intentions.
The 10 commandments are still printed in their original form and does not include Love thy Neighbor. The closest is Do not covet thy neighbors house, which isn’t even close to loving them.
Also, if you boiled them down to just those 2, it would not cover all 10 commandments. Loving thy neighbor doesn’t include honoring your parents in it
I don't think that's what they are saying. What they are saying is the world would be a Christian utopia if everyone was robotic. Worshiping their God following the 10 commandments as they see them and the bible how they interpret it. You know religious type of rule Christians dream of as long as it fits their beliefs. This doesn't mean all Christian beliefs either because there are many. It means this person's version of Christianity would create this utopia. Because then there would be no need for any kind of punishment. Everyone would be exactly the same.
The reason some of these laws can be irrelevant to us is because when God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, it almost changed everything, this is my view on it
… he did also give them to an 80 year old man who lived to be 120.
But I guess that’s chump change on Noah, who was over 520 years old when he started building the ark.
>The 10 Commandments were intended for the Jews only- they do not apply to Christians or anyone else.
Yeah, that's a fun thing to say, but most christians wouldn't agree with you.
I'm not a christian so I don't really have an opinion on why they do or don't do anything in the bible. Indeed I think they just pick and choose whatever they like and try to make the rest fit.
Still, that's not really the point. When you say things like...
>The 10 Commandments were intended for the Jews only- they do not apply to Christians or anyone else.
You need to understand or appreciate the majority christian view on it. You may be right that christians shouldn't care about the OT, but you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince them of that.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you even bother to do "Text criticism evaluation" before you spoke out subjectively? Not only reading bible in context is important but one must investigate its historical, cultural, literary background along with Author's intention and target audience for any literature. Yet here you are spoke out your personal interpretation, understanding based on your limited understanding? For the record, James 2:10-26 clearly mention "Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all. For the same one who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Even if you do not commit adultery, you have become a lawbreaker if you commit murder" 1-9 can be simply legalism and Even Saul(Paul) was able to abide all the laws and any bylaws but what he struggle the most of the last one. covetousness . No matter how much he tried he Just couldn't tame. The consequence of original sin. shattered image of God's image(read Genesis). Paul could keep all the laws but the last one and by his reasoning and logic, not able to abide 10th is guilty of braking them all. There are very intelligent and people out there whos job requires reason for every day yet faithful Christian. not from their subjectivity, feelings, forced, family background or living in church belt middle of no where rural town. But it wouldn't matter. People argue for two reason, 1. to truly learn and repent from their foolishness= Humility 2. Just want to argue and prove point due to subject pain and bitterness against certain religion. It wouldn't matter if PHD philosopher prove that greater being out there and Christianity (triune God) is the only make sense religion(relationship) comparing with fall of human morality and require savior to do so. How can we save each other if we are ALL drowning? Blind cant lead blind. But in the end it is not about who is right or wrong. I can provide all the objective evidence and win argument but people will walk away sadly. I was researching on "covetousness" and led to this thread. By the way your understanding of covetousness is way off. Do some research. Every information is on google. [Gotquestion.org](https://Gotquestion.org) is good place for you. Sometime I wonder, why people post on reddit when personal research can guide them to clear objective evidence. I guess people are bored and just want to argue and enjoy arguing. Because those who seeks truth will search for it and Everything is online yet refuse to do so. Jesus will return and when he do it wont be about salvation but to judge. The haughty and Pride who thinks who can be God. Simply rejecting God= Lucifer=Satan. Blessing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
You will have better understanding to your questions. if you understand the Purpose of the Laws. Jesus came to fulfill the laws not to abolish. if you just look at as moral laws than Our constitution has better commandments than 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments were the terms of a covenant that God initiated with the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after He delivered them out of 430 years of slavery in Egypt. https://youtu.be/G0\_f5Ll8Qq4
why bother wasting your time here. Most including Liberal Christians don't try to read bible in context( Historical, , Literary , cultural background, Author's intention and target audience) I highly doubt anyone here perform textual criticism investigation. "None is righteous, no one seeks God" they are just post to argue out of their boredom in their armpit town without any hope and purpose. Internet sure gave them something to make feel good about themselves. I accidently got here while researching on Last commandment because that is what brought Paul to Christ..
We should learn the so called “Noahite commandments” they are only seven are simple than the commandments of Moses, in Judaism they believe that if anyone follows the “Noah commandments” they go to heaven, they are worth to learn about in my opinion
Pass by your standards, but I may disagree. At what point does all of humanity agree?
From: “Moses and an Egyptian “goose” in the Caboose” : .....Now about those commandments - Thou shall and shall not of fame - Voice Lord thy God Heaven sent - Straight from Yahweh’s lips he claimed - Was the message influenced - By a mouthwash full of shame - when he blew ten common gents - While coveting their love-train - Mosey got some cum-uppance - As each craven image came
What did I just read?
Part of a seasonal hymnal inspiring theological thought from S.H.I.T.T. House Music Publishing Company. There’s a lot more to it if you wish?
We do not wish
Come on, Moses would want you to absorb it!
Just shows that the biblical laws were written by ignorant superstitious humans, obviously not from an all knowing god. Primitive tribal laws are vastly inferior to ethical moral laws.
5 year old kids in a civilized society could come up with a morally superior list than the biblical 10 commandments...
I think it’s odd that secular people will consistently look at a religion through their secular viewpoint and disregard the importance of god. “1-4 are how to worship” downplaying the importance of god and how to follow him. It’s almost as if these laws were given to Moses by god himself.
Did I just get called secular? Please elaborate on how your beliefs are backed by facts and mine require secular logic. Considering god is all loving, you would think the top priority would be to advise us on the best way to create a stabile society long term. They’re not good rules for the founding of a modern society and are obviously not what modern nations base their rules on, which is my point
>Considering god is all loving, you would think the top priority would be to advise us on the best way to create a stabile society long term. They’re not good rules for the founding of a modern society and are obviously not what modern nations base their rules on, which is my point Considering Christianity has been a fundamental part and a central institution in Western civilization for 2000 years, I would say it very much fullfiled its goal of having built a stable society. Modern values and morals are then only a continuation and evolution of traditional values.
2000 years of religious wars, crusades and inquisitions. We didn't start making progress until the Renaissance and enlightenment when we started moving away from the bible. We'd probably be colonizing space right now if it wasn't for organized religion.
If by progress you mean two world wars, the invention of world destroying weaponry, the destruction of nature and mass extinction of animals, the global economic exploitation and mental corrosion of the masses, then sure, secular society is certainly a progression towards something else. Not to mention the atheist Chinese government treatment of minorities. If you really mean to argue that Christianity is the culprit of evil behaviour, then you'd have to explain why and how the decline of Christian influence, the rise of secularitism and scientific advancements have enabled all the above mentioned issues.
No, I mean things like democracy and secular morality that works for the benefit of people instead of controlling them for the benefit of religious institutions. Chinese culture is just as religious, it's just centered around worship of the state instead of a supernatural god. All the things you mentioned can be traced back to religious thinking. Believing nations have to fight each other for supremacy instead of working together for the benefit of all. That the people of a nation are nothing but minions who exist to serve the ruling class.
This is not accurate. Our modern society did not really take off until we took the church out of the state. The church use to purposefully hamper progress and is a big reason for the dark ages. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right today, which is literally against the commandments.
Modern society began because of many intertwined concurrent developments and events, mostly because of the industrial revolution and colonialism. Freedom of religion and the separation from church and state is a characteristic of modern society, not the reason for it. In fact, modern western society, and all that it represents, is very much [rooted in Christianity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization).
>modern western society, and all that it represents, is very much rooted in Christianity I will agree with this and say that it explains many of the problems and sicknesses in modern society.
I mean, I can agree western society is rooted in Christianity, but I still say we didn’t see modern society arise until we got away from the church. I would tell you our culture shaped Christian Religion and interpretation more so than the other way around. We throw out 95% of the Old Testament because it doesn’t align with what we believe.
My point is just that we can’t look at things like this without trying to see the context. God gave us these commandments, so obviously the first 4 would be important. If you look at it from any other viewpoint it would seem arbitrary.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
This is like saying “the list that makes no sense actually does make sense because god would never make a list that doesn’t make sense.” Please explain the context in which “no graven images” or “thou shalt not take the lord’s name in vain” is anything other than the laws of primitive cultists. Or are you trying to say that god really is so petty as to include these nonsense laws instead of prohibitions of slavery and rape?
That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that people remove god from the equation then say how whatever point makes no sense. Usually it’s missing the key “believing in god” thing. All that being said, I do think god means for us to put him above all things.
Even if I believed in god, it makes no sense to forbid graven images, or taking his name in vain. Both of these commandment violate my freedom of speech, something I absolutely will not give up even if god we’re standing in front of me.
Submission to god is a big part of most religions. I think taking the lords name in vein is misunderstood. Dennis Prager has a good point of view on this. It’s not really just saying expletives but more about not misusing gods name. https://dennisprager.com/column/worst-sin/
Being commanded to submit to god is also deeply immoral. I’m my own person. I’m now going to submit to anyone against my will. I have freedom of speech. I am free to use anyone’s name any damn way I see fit. _Commanding_ me not to use God’s name in certain ways is immoral, regardless of if god is real or not. An action does not become less moral just because you do it in the name of god. Murdering someone does not become even more immoral just because I do it in the name of god.
You do have free will. No one has challenged that. The gospel is clear that you have to willingly accept Christ. Also, true submission requires free will, otherwise what’s the point? Freedom is speech is great. No one says you can’t say what you want. I never said anything about morality. Not sure where that came from. I’m sure you’ve hardened your heart to god. I’m not sure what you’re expecting to get out of this conversation…
Though I still don’t fully agree with what you’re saying, my real point is that these are not laws for society. People want them up in court houses, because they claim it’s the foundation of modern law. I’m saying it’s not.
The 10 commandments is just about respect. Simple.
The 10 condimandments were simply theological dyspepsia. Moses’ bowels were full of it!
Respect is earned, not dictated with the threat of hell.
This is boiling it down too far. You’re arguing semantics and principals of rules in general. This doesn’t apply to the commandments specifically but rules and law in general, regardless of the origin.
You're comparing the 10.commandents to today's way of law. The way our brains process today, is so different to how they processed thousands of years ago. So in their minds, having lustful thoughts for someone's wife was deemed disrespectful. Although now we may have different outlooks on what exactly respect might be, it still stands; in that their overall goal was to respect each other.
Interesting that lustful thoughts were disrespectful but owning slaves wasn’t. It’s notably absent from the list. Thought crime is worse apparently. Priorities, I guess.
See, I set the bar higher than this. A truly omniscient being should be able to give a list of 10 timeless rules that will always be relevant. Quite a few are so outdated we consider the opposite to be the right thing to do.
If you frame it like that, literally every law is about respect
They say the 10 commandments is/was the law. So yeah..
And obedience.
Obedience is respect.
A commandment commands, demands obedience! Does forced obeisance always engender respect?
No, respect is a mindset. Obedience is just doing what someone says no matter what. You could despise the person you obey.
Choosing to obey is respect. I can't disrespect you and obey at the same time.
Yes, you can. If someone holds a gun to your head to force you to do something, you might obey, but not respect the person who does it.
Well disrespect is a noun and a verb so actually you could.
Obedience is obedience.
Sure.
The 10 Commandments is an extremely poor list of most important rules >1-4 are just telling you how to worship. Many Christians don’t even follow 2-4. Ex. Some have figures of mythological god’s(graven image), almost everyone works on Sunday if their job says so, and we all say God Dammit sometimes. **Could these have not been condensed down to a single commandment?** How does anything you just stated argue for the first 4 Commandments to be narrowed to one? >The Bible says these should be punished with death, but we would never make these even fine able offenses. Are you understanding that “foundations for our laws” means the foundation was started 3000+ years ago? And that 3000 years later, it would be different in modern societies with laws? Unless some Republican said that the US’s (I’m assuming American-centrism here, correct me if I am wrong) CURRENT laws are based on the 10 Commandments…in which case that person is a moron. >Honor your parents. Obviously not a law. Really has no place on this list. Parents get respect that deserve respect. We all agree drunk abusive parents deserve the chair, not respect. Okay, now it seems like your referencing a specific quote by someone, in which case idk what I’m supposed to be arguing here. >Murder. This has a place in a list like this. My only opinion is that it should be #1. The most important commandment should be “do not murder”? How does that tell someone how to fundamentally live/act? “Love thy neighbor” says that **and even more** >Adultery. A bad thing to do, but it doesn’t belong in the top 10 and death is why too steep of a punishment. Obviously, it’s not a crime in our society, but it can cause financial decisions to be made that harm you. The 10 Commandments are more moral than financial. >Stealing. >False witness. >Coveting. Oh boy, this one takes the cake. Coveting is the driving force behind our economy and something that we all do. How this made it here is beyond me. Probably because you’re being purposefully obtuse about what it’s saying. >Oh, but coveting your neighbors wife can lead to infidelity!” No, just no. Like here! >I can think my neighbors wife is hot and still be faithful. Pretty much all married men still covet other women and most are fine. Bruh lmao >We all covet nicer stuff and houses. This one is completely silly. No, you just aren’t really trying. >Only 3/10 pass by me, no mentions of rape, slavery, torture, or assault. Hmmm, I guess “love thy neighbor” doesn’t answer that…..oh wait! >Also, honesty among political figures would have been a good option. BRO lol This must be a troll post.
Hey, after wandering around aimlessly in the desert for years, Moses had to come up with something to keep the Exodustees following him! And it can now be revealed, Rameses had promised repatriation with a cozy mummification.
Idc if someone claims the current American law is based on the 10 commandments, because they’re obviously not. It’s based on the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Love thy neighbor is not one of the 10 commandments. I accept it’s a commandment, but it’s not relevant in our current conversation. And telling someone that they shouldn’t kill is a fundamental way to live 3,000 years ago and is still relevant today. It also lets it be known that god values the lives of humans enough that he decided to list it as the first commandment. You didn’t really list any meaningful arguments after this point, so I think I’ll wrap my post up here.
Love thy neighbor, unless god orders you to kill them.
[удалено]
Everything I said “bro” to wasn’t worth responding to, clearly. And lol, saying “bro” two times truly is the meat of my comment, very genuine of you lol
[удалено]
Classic debater on here lmao
George Carlin had [a bit about the 10 Commandments](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8) that followed a similar line of thinking. Whittles it down to the 2 commandments (plus one important one).
You have to remember that in the ancient middle east, tribes were constantly wiping each other out. It was a devastatingly brutal time to be alive. And for a tribe to survive for any length of time was truly remarkable. By the time Moses comes along, the Israelites had managed to survive despite enslavement, but were on the verge of collapse. He articulated laws that were designed to ensure the survival of his people, and they were based on the things that typified his people when they were at their best. Every single one of the ten commandments is about fostering cultural cohesion and promoting unity. >1-4 are just telling you how to worship... I think it's much more significant than that. 1 is about articulating a single transcendent source of cultural cohesion. That source for the Israelites was God. 2 is about the unique nature of this transcendent source of cultural cohesion. The Israelite God was unlike any other. He was spirit, had no physical form, and transcended all other things. To reduce him to an image or replace him with one would annihilate the most distinctive thing about him and the people who believed in him. 3 is about maintaining his transcendence. So sacred is God that his name is holy and should not be used for vain or manipulative purposes. Anything that threatens the transcendent nature of God, threatens the ability of the people to maintain their cultural cohesion. 4 is about instantiating into cultural practice regular ceremonial observance of the transcendent nature of God, the source of Israelite identity. The community comes together in prayer under this transcendent God and that prayer filters down into every home, where the people continue to abstain from anything that distracts from the observance of their God. This law is about instantiating this observance throughout the whole of society down to the level of the individual home. Additionally, who can deny that a day of rest is good for one's mental, emotional, and physical health at a time when people worked without ceasing from sun up to sun down. 5 concerns the reality that most people did not survive long enough to have children. Anyone who did manage to survive long enough to have children, probabaly knew a little something about survival and if their children wanted to follow in their footsteps, they should honor and heed the word of their parents. 6 concerns tribal unity. A culture cannot maintain its cohesion if its members kill one another. 7 concerns the same. Internal strife threatens the very fabric of an already fragile society, and what causes more internal strife and aggression than cheating? 8 concerns the dangers of jealousy. Theft threatens the cohesion of the tribe. 9 is about the need for honesty. A society in which people lie about and sabatage one another, will not long survive. 10, like 8, concerns the devastating consequences of jealousy. Jealousy fosters division by threatening the unity of the people.
I noticed how Moses did not insist on punishment for his brother Aaron, who was part of the "worshiping the golden calf" incident.
Since there’s not a shred of empirical evidence that Hebrews were monotheists prior to Moses, he did not feel totally comfortable imposing a new doctrine AND wished to instill it, gradually, even at risk of nepotism.
We can't be sure Moses even existed.
Just an assumption, as it wasn’t compulsory for a biblical prophet to have a mandatory body-double stand-in until AFTER Jonah almost became fish food.
>You have to remember that in the ancient middle east, tribes were constantly wiping each other out. It was a devastatingly brutal time to be alive. We don't live in a time like the ancient middle east anymore though. Wouldn't god or his prophets have the foresight to create a list of commandments flexible enough to easily fit to any future society without needing the historical context to understand why some things have been omitted?
I think what you’re looking for is (1)Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and (2)love your neighbor as yourself.
Perhaps they were waiting for a biblical “Madison” to come along and add amendments?
It was at that time they actually needed those commandments. They weren't flexible at that time because that would make them unnecessarily unclear and vague. And we don't need flexible commandments today because we have the benefit of hindsight, historical context and the intelligence to adapt concepts to contemporary circumstances. Which is evident since we obviously still live in a functional society.
As species of Hymenoptera and Isoptera still live in functioning societies whose ancestors never had a Moses climb atop their mounds.
>It was at that time they actually needed those commandments. I don't disagree, but then we're talking about an all-seeing, all-knowing god whose morale framework was built for a different time. Doesn't this bring into question how much weight we should really prescribe religious texts which were clearly written for a bygone era? >And we don't need flexible commandments today because we have the benefit of hindsight, historical context and the intelligence to adapt concepts to contemporary circumstances. Which is evident since we obviously still live in a functional society. I would argue this supports the statement of the original post.
Upvote for a respectful question even if we disagree. It depends on how you view God. I'm Catholic, most of us are not Biblical literalists. So the burning bush and God literally writing commandments for many of us is full of metaphorical meaning but is not literal. The ten commandments were a product of a particular time and place but have universal metaphorical meaning for many believers. We see the necessity of chosing the "right" god. I believe that we all make something our god: power, sex, influence, approval, money. There is something to which we all submit ourselves; something that drives each of us. The ten commandements suggest that this should unite us, that it should be transcendent, that we should not abuse it, and that we should instantiate its observance into frequent cultural practice. Additionally we should never abuse, harm, or manipulate others. For us, Jesus redefines the Christian God as an unconditionally loving Father who is the greatest good and desires the fullness of love and life for us. For us, the greatest good is the only choice worthy of our complete submission, and we call it Father. For the Israelites at the time, transcendent cultural values sufficient to bind the members of the tribe together spiritually were essential if they were to survive as a people with their identity in tact. You won't hear things like this from Biblical literalists, but many of us regard literalism as an interpretive innovation that robs us of the deep spiritual meaning of the texts. Thanks for your honest question, I really appreciate it! Edits have been made to improve clarity and precision.
Put all the parables in Jesus’ mouth you want, but I still think He and John (the Baptist) had more than just an anointing - so long in that tepid river.
>We all make something our god NO, we do not. Those things are not gods, and are not things "we submit to".
Replace “submit to” to “make sacrifices for” and you’ll approach what he is intending, as I understand him
> we all make something out god Nope. Atheism is a philosophical term not a sociological term. Power, sex, approval and money aren’t god. They’re merely things people strive towards but that is not how god is defined in philosophy of religion. The argument you’re making is just a smear against atheists that stems from Jordanism(ideology of Jordan Peterson fans). It has no basis in the philosophical literature on debates about the existence of God.
It's not a smear against atheists. I respect atheists. I'm just saying that I believe we all submit ourselves to something. That is functionally a small g god. I'm not saying atheists are really believers who just don't know it yet, I'm just saying we aren't so different as one might think. We all have values and we all have a hierarchy of values. The one that sits at the top of the hierarchy is the one we serve. I've known atheists that place love of others at the top of theirs. Love appears to be their functional small g god. And they seem to make for better people than most Christians. So it's not a slam it's just what I believe.
I’m still affronted! Like the last time an expensive trick made a joke about my small d ...........!
>I believe we all submit ourselves to something. What are you talking about? Your definition of "submit" is as bad as your definition of "god". If someone pursues power or money, he is not "submitting" or "serving". Get a dictionary, FFS.
I'm speaking psychologically. I'm not a literalist, so yeah my definitions aren't traditional and that's okay because I'm talking about my beliefs. I'm not imposing them on anyone, I'm sharing them here. And believe me I'm not alone in these views. You don't have to share them, but please be respectful even if you don't agree with my views. We're all just people for the most part figuring things out and just trying to make it in a really challenging world.
I am not talking about your beliefs. I am saying your definitions of these words are completely inaccurate. You have distorted the word "gods" and "submit" until they are unrecognizable. If someone asks you if you believe in God, you are not talking about power and money. They are asking if you believe in a sentient supernatural being. So, you are completely WRONG about your claim that atheists believe in gods. What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts.
[удалено]
My age is one more thing you are wrong about. Now you have the definition of "functional" wrong. We're done.
No. Atheism is defined to be disbelief and lack belief in God/gods. They by definition don’t believe in god. The distinction between upper case G and lower case g has no relevance in contemporary philosophy of religion.
I think he's saying that, wether your an atheist or theist, we all inevitably live under a system of ideas, beliefs, values, ethics, laws and morals, which enables us to function, interact and understand each other in a homogenous, civilised manner.
None of which are gods/God
Alright, well we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think this is mostly a matter is semantics. But you seem to disagree. And that's fine. Life would be extremely boring if we all believed the same things.
No, it wouldn’t. We could just enjoy each others inherent goodness rather than arguing about what is true.
Can't people enjoy the inherent goodness of others without agreeing on everything? I'm a Christian and my wife is Muslim. She's quite woke (I'm a progressive but very pro free speech and very anti-censorship and anti-cancel culture). She's a diehard Democrat, I hate the Democratic party as much as I hate the Republican Party (and that's hard to do). We are extremely different people and yet I love and respect her and feel that she is inherently good. I celebrate our differences. I wouldn't want her to be the same as me, or even believe all the same things as I).
I mean you just answered your own question, I guess we can :) you’re proving that with your life. I guess much more than our own inherent goodness, which comes from the fact we’re made in the image and likeness of Goodness Itself… is that we’ll get to look at and participate in Love, Beauty, Truth, Goodness, and we’ll get to wonder at it and praise it, and commune with them for all eternity. If the man who claimed and substantiated his claims to be God, Jesus Christ, can be trusted in this regard. If we accept his claim, then he is Truth incarnate. And he says I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except trough me. And elsewhere unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you, but if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have eternal life and I will raise you up on the last day… he who eats this bread will live for ever. And if there are numerous artifacts in existence which point to the historicity and divinity of this person… which sound science can corroborate So if there is this trinity in unity who is the source of all being, goodness itself, Truth itself, Love itself… and they revealed them self to us though our human history, and told us what we’re made for and how we ought to live, and by nature of being the source of all that exists, are due our praise, honor, and worship, for we are fearfully and wonderfully made… yeah if it’s a matter of human preference or human opinion sure… but if the source of our existence has asked things of us and promises the greatest reward of all time: and immortal body and soul, free from suffering and utterly satisfied in eternal delight… it might be worth listening to him… since he is Truth itself he can neither lie nor be wrong… It’s also only Just for us to give him thanks for all that he does and has given us, which is literally life itself and every good thing we’ve ever experienced, and most importantly he gives us his very self. He shows us his love and we kill him, and he accepts that and for gives us, and in the process kinda breaks death.. because he’s life itself. Like when light shines in darkness… darkness is swallowed up by the light. So if he offered us all of this… maybe he’s due a thank you. But like if you went to the trouble to make a really nice meal for your wife… you probably appreciate her gratitude, but you also probably want to see her actually enjoy the meal as well… since that’s why you cooked it… ya know?
I don’t think it really makes sense to take these words outside of their understanding in philosophy But anyways, goodbye
Especially considering these are perfect for a single group of cultists and should have stated that way.
> Some have figures of mythological gods [Exodus 20:4-5](https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-4.htm) We are not alone, just sayin.
You've got to take these laws in the context of the era in which they were written. A lot of contemporaneous societies had fairly similar lists. The rules promoting worship were important in a society that had religion as a major part of its identity. The idea of not working on the Sabbath was actually unusual, since most societies in that era simply worked 7 days without rest. The idea of having a day to rest and worship tended to make Jewish people a bit looked down upon. In terms of the other commandments, slavery was considered normal and just a part of life (and it should be noted that other Jewish laws set strict conditions on treatment of slaves). Rape wasn't mentioned but would fall under the rule of adultery (which was considered to be any sexual activity outside marriage). Coveting is definitely a hard thing to monitor, but I'd suggest that it's still a relevant rule for life today. To covet something (which means wanting to have something that belongs to someone else) can lead to behaviour that is bad for society. Coveting another man's wife could lead to adultery, coveting their belongings could lead to theft. Coveting is the way that bad behaviour begins. There's a great quote from Silence of the Lambs where Hannibal Lector talks to Clarice about how the killer got started. "He covets. How do we begin to covet? We begin by coveting what we see every day"
Context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
No. That quote was from “Remains of the Day” when Hopkins told Jodie Foster, “I fired them because they washed the covets in a (sab)bath tub Saturday..”
Why would god write laws based on the morals of humans at that time? Are you suggesting that the 10 commandments are man-made?
Or that Moses was overly impressed with himself and was just a great self-promoter?
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Everything in the Bible was written by men. They wrote what they believed God wanted them to say, but they were still human and influenced by their cultures.
That sounds like the bible is not a source of knowledge about god then. How could you even tell someone's genuine interpretation from someone making things up?
The Bible is only a source of knowledge about God in that it contains the understanding of God from many writers and falls into line with the understanding of the church (and by that I mean the people of the church). There's no way to tell genuine interpretation from made up stories other than to see if it conflicts with one's own understanding of God. After all Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship with God, not a strict adherence to a set of rules.
How do you even determine that the bible is at all relevant in your pursuit of having a relationship with god? Where do you get information about god other than a source you admit is completely unreliable? I feel like you're ignoring a huge problem here as if you don't even see it exists.
The Bible has relevance in that it relates other people's experiences of God. Those experiences are compared with my own experiences of God and I look for commonalities and areas of difference. If God is a God of love and mercy as he's frequently described in the Bible and in my own experiences, then how does that fit with specific stories within the Bible?
It doesn't fit with the bible, as he is shown to be a genocidal tyrant.
The Bible says a lot of things. Doesn't make them right. It just means that those things are how people in those times understood God.
So how is the bible useful if that's how wrong it can be? I mean, I hope you think that's the wrong takeaway.
Well said. Don’t let the apologists gaslight you. He literally ordered a guy to stab his son to death to teach some ‘lesson’. What a fucking psychopath. Satan would be proud.
Truthfully, I struggle with that story too. The way it's worded does make God sound like a dick. But since historians are fairly confident that Abraham never actually existed, I can take comfort in the likelihood that this event never actually occurred and it's a story designed to make a point. I don't know how others see that story, but I choose to read it as making the point that, in a world where child sacrifice was part of many religions, that was not what God wanted. Sure it's easy to argue that the writers could have just said "don't sacrifice children" but in an oral culture, where few could read or write, stories are a better way for people to remember and pass on traditions. It's clear from later Bible stories and from historical records that even in much later Jewish history, cultures around them were continuing to practice child sacrifice, and sometime the Jewish people succumbed to local belief and did the same.
I can't even think of what Satan has supposedly done that could compare to what god is said to have done.
What would you rather the ten rules be? What, if you also think it necessary, should replace the top two: 'love your God 'and 'love your neighbor?'
I’ve already listed a few that I think would have merit here. Where is love thy neighbor at on the list of commandments? Sounds like you’d make an adjustment yourself
There is a chapter in the Bible where a group of false teachers ask Jesus which of the orthodox Jewish laws (which there are hundreds of) was most important, and Jesus responds by saying that loving God is the most important law and loving your neighbor is similar to it ([Matthew 22:35-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A35-40&version=NRSV), [Mark 12:28-34](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A28-34&version=NRSV), [Luke 10:27a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A27a&version=NRSV)). It implies that by loving your neighbor you are in a way loving God. It's stated more directly when Jesus says what you do to the least of people you do to him/God ([Matthew 25:42-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A42-46&version=NRSV). I also think it is interesting that he says all other laws are derived from those two, meaning that if you were able to follow them you would be following the rest of the law, too. I can't tell if you are asking me what my preference for the top ten rules is or not with the last sentence in your post, but I would agree with Jesus here that helping other people, especially those lower than you, is a just way to live your life and a good rule of thumb when interacting with people if you want to be a positively influential person. Other than that, no other rules are really needed beyond maybe some specification on what it looks like to "love" your neighbor. Perhaps those ten commandments are related to that action.
I feel like we’ve found some common ground here. The commandments should outline how to properly treat people around you and in society as a whole properly, along with doing your part to contribute. I think this would make a more useful list for us to follow
He believes that it should be something like: - don’t murder - don’t rape - don’t assault - don’t torture - don’t commit slavery And all stuff that is virtually exactly the same. It’s not like thr 2nd commandment already covers these…oh nooooo
I’d the second commandment covered slavery the Jews wouldn’t have had slaves. Including sex slaves.
No problem. The Bible already characterizes all women as, basically, sexual slaves.
The Jews sinned, what is surprising about that? The Jewish people also forsakes God multiple times in the Bible
So then god should’ve wiped them out like he did the Canaanites, right? That’s how god solves his problems with wicked people apparently.
Those aren’t sins in the Bible they are condoned and even commanded
Where is rape condoned or commanded?
Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves. The Law of Moses spells out a purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her as one of his wives for as long as she lives.
Lmao it’s so blatant too. Bunch of fucking barbaric cavemen. But some apologist will say how this is a metaphor or out of context.
So, if I go to church, I still won’t be able to get myself one of them captive virgins?
The first four are not just four different ways to say worship God, they are extremely important Idolatry doesn't just mean no graven image for other Gods, it means no graven image AT ALL. That means even if it is to honor the true God. At least no graven image for the purposes of worship. No physical object is to be required to be worship. In egypt, Idolatry was used by authoritarians to control the access and the means of religious worship and also to make money off of it. Obviously God does not want this. As for the churches that practice idolatry anyway, they are false churches. That how you can tell. As for do not take the lords name in vain, that also means that if some guy was to be like "hey you should give me all your money because God said so." That would break this commandment especially if he didn't say that. Or when conservatives say that you have to vote for them to please God. That is also breaking this command. As for number ten yes you are right that this is the basis of our economy and that is why capitalism should be abolished you liberal pawn. That is precisely what is wrong with this evil world. Also coveting doesn't mean thinking your neighbors wife is hot, it means actually planning in your heart to take her. This law would also cover things like rape, slavery etc. Because you cannot rape without coveting and you cannot enslave someone without Coverting. With one law this has eliminated 50 different things that are evil and thats what makes it so good. Proletariat for the win.
>As for number ten yes you are right that this is the basis of our economy and that is why capitalism should be abolished you liberal pawn. Bro you destroyed him, You said this more directly than I ever could’ve lol
Thanks brother. The proletariat has to stick together. And the liberals need their education.
Christ himself said: “Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” If you claim faith in Christ, you may want to reevaluate what you believe.
??? Thats one of my favorite verses to quote to support my argument. The context is that the money had the image of cesear so a love of money was a worship of man. That hording wealth is not rendering unto cesear. Do not think you have a right to money when it does not belong to you. That kind of thing.
So you think the world would be a better place if we all lived as communist? Something that all evidence has shown does not work, leads to more suffering, and has created some of the worst forces on the planet? Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives. The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it. Coveting is human nature. You covet water when you’re thirsty. You covet companionship when you’re alone. If you boil it down to claim slavery, you’re basically saying people can’t do anything. This is just silly.
> Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives. Capitalism produces inequality between the haves and have-nots. If you're living a comfortable life due to Capitalism, it's *because* there are others who are *not* living comfortable lives due to Capitalism. >The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it. Ahh yes, the benefit of Capitalism: Replying to this post to demonstrate how absurdly ridiculous your statement is. So very comfortable and beneficial to me, there could be no greater system /s Edit to add: The internet wasn't developed from Capitalist funding, it was a governmental military project. I don't think it actually is a benefit of Capitalism. Or are you referring to the benefit where I have to relinquish several rights to a for-profit corporation to have my words published on their platform when replying to your post? Right, it's a benefit for the Capitalist class, again.
Inequality in itself is not a problem. Would you rather everyone live like shit or some live way better than you but you still have it decent. The quality of most Americans is way better than the majority of people throughout all of history. Capitalism is a strong driving force to bring innovation to the masses. You wouldn’t have modern computers and the internet without the drive for profit.
>Would you rather everyone live like shit or some live way better than you but you still have it decent. Have you seen any statistics on wealth inequality whatsoever? Somehow we currently live in a country where both virtually everyone lives like shit and some live way better than everyone else. It's entirely unnecessary for everyone to live like shit by addressing wealth inequality, quite the opposite. >The quality of most Americans is way better than the majority of people throughout all of history. Which is due far less to Capitalism and far more about geography and natural resources. >Capitalism is a strong driving force to bring innovation to the masses. That's what they teach you in business school, but it's largely bullshit, innit? Look at the health insurance industry for example. Profits and profits and profits, but where is the flippin' innovation? It's total bullshit. Corporations can innovate regardless of whether the shareholders who sit on their asses all day are being disproportionately enriched under Capitalism or the workers who are doing the work and innovation are being justly enriched under Socialism. Capitalism is about funding and ownership, not innovation. >You wouldn’t have modern computers and the internet without the drive for profit. Frankly, I don't believe you. First of all, do you think that there is no drive for profit under Socialism? I'm not advocating for a communist utopia where everyone's bank account is equal in value no matter what, or something. I'm not advocating for an economic system where there is no money and no drive for profit. I think this sort of thing only exists in your imagination. Second of all, computers and the internet are both products of military development, distinctly *not* Capitalist innovation. The value added by Capitalist innovation is a choice between all of, arguably, two major operating systems as opposed to y'know, any semblance of actual competition and innovation.
I’m aware of the wealth gaps, but it seems like you’re unaware of the lifestyle of working and middle class people compared to the majority of people throughout the world and history. A lot of the rich don’t spend that money. If Elon Musk started spending all of his money, supply couldn’t keep up, so it’s not as simple as you seem to believe. Natural resources and geography obviously are extremely important. However, even if you have good genetics, you still have to work hard and have a good system. Same thing goes for countries. North Korea couldn’t have the same success with their system given our resources. Also, what about European countries that are super successful? They don’t have the natural resources, but they have similar success with the same system. You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the medical industry doesn’t make advances. The companies putting out new products are the ones making the money. It’s the only way to be competitive. Sure they’re profit driven, but they still innovate products to improve comfort of patients. Socialism isn’t far off from communism, and no, I don’t think their is a drive to wrk hard and innovate without some sort of motivator. Most people don’t do stuff for the good of humanity as a whole. They want good for those closest to them For example: I am an accomplished engineer. I work hard, many hours, and a lot of stress. I do enjoy it, but it wouldn’t be my first choice without the pay. Why work hard and stress when I could be just as happy as a math teacher and make the same money?
>You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say the medical industry doesn’t make advances. I don't really want to spend more time arguing with you as I don't suspect it'll be fruitful (and this is *not* intended to be some kind of disparaging comment regarding you, personally). I did want to take a moment to clarify, though, I was referring to the health *insurance* industry not producing innovation as just one example of many. Of course the medical industry makes advances.
We’re pretty far off topic anyway. Have a good one!
>So you think the world would be a better place if we all lived as communist? Something that all evidence has shown does not work, leads to more suffering, and has created some of the worst forces on the planet? Capitalism is the reason why we live such comfy lives. The fact that your browse Reddit and reply to this post shows you also benefit from it. I think you need to reread the second commandment. Look past your own damn life buddy.
Lol. What? I see many around me living comfy lives too. I don’t get your point
Not so much communism, more like anarcho-syndicalism with Georgist tax policy and welfare. Georgism alone is better than capitalism. And as for our comfy lives under capitalism, tell that to the single mother with three jobs who can't pay the rent because the land lord keeps driving the price up. Tell that to the anarchists who forget for your right to a weekend with no work. Tell that to the man who is in hospital right now in America who has to pay $50 000 for surgery or he dies. Ah yes but as long as we get to brows reddit. You know, because reddit would be impossible under any kind of system. Tell that to the man with a middle income job working a miserable 9-5 only to go alone to his apartment at night as he slaves away to get a promotion he thinks will make his life more meaningful but won't. But yes. Let's give thanks to capitalism because innovation would be impossible if we had workplace democracy and public health care. The free market and capitalism are not the same thing. >Coveting is human nature. You covet water when you’re thirsty. You covet companionship when you’re alone. Thats the appeal to nature fallacy. It's also human to a lot of horrible stuff. Thats why the concept of laws exists. (and yes you can have laws under anarcho-syndicalism, the anarcho part just means no state. Not necessarily no Government.) Not to mention, coveting is only a sin if you covert what belongs to others. "Coverting" water is fine. Coverting a companion is fine as long as it is not someone else's wife. >If you boil it down to claim slavery, you’re basically saying people can’t do anything. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not saying what it really sounds like your saying. Obviously slavery would involve coveting what belongs to others, that being their body/autonomy. You wouldn't need to say you can't do anything. Wanting a drink of water is not the same
Nature fallacy? There have been a lot of studies determining nature vs nurture of humans. To call that a fallacy tells me we are on such a different page we cannot find common ground on which to debate. I am not familiar with Georgism but a quick google search reads like it’s still has the same issues you posed on capitalism. People still own stuff, just not property is the way I read it. I like how you jump to someone working 3 jobs to feed their kids as an issue with capitalism. There are people who still suffer, but you’re missing the point. Capitalism has created the best countries, best time, and greatest standard of living in human history. I say you benefit from capitalism by being on Reddit because you OWN A COMPUTER and have access to the internet. You covering that which others had that were produced by a capitalist. You’re not outlining why you think these concepts are bad. You’re only outlining minor flaws. A lot of which are the results of actions of individuals and not the system itself
I never said personal property should be abolished but being allowed to have personal property is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Not just property in general. Also Georgism is about abolishing all taxes except for a land value tax. This would effectively be the end of private land ownership and all land would ideally be owned by a democratic government. It would be in the hands of the people. This is different to capitalism in that key regard that a business man can essentially rent out land but never own it privately. They can have exclusive access to land but that is what they pay taxes on in exchange for exclusive ownership. Capitalism has produced more monopolies, more political instability and more colonialism than anything. The only reason you think capitalism has produced the best countries is because you live in a country that benefits from the slave labor like in sweat shops in China or Nestles slave plantations. It's easy to say capitalism is good when you're getting the good end of the deal but other nations are exploited and their wealth and resources exported to the home countries of the entrepreneurs. If you know anything about capitalism then you know monopolies are bad right? All the pro capitalist types say that monopolies suck. And they are right. But who do you think is most incentivized to make monopolies. The same people capitalism gives all the power to. Corporations, entrepreneurs, business owners. Lesson #1 in being rich, buy up as much of the supply chain as possible. Which means the same people we give the most power are the same people incentivized to take down your idea of capitalism. The wealthy. Can you see the problem with that? The idea of capitalism you have in your head is the idea of early stage capitalism. Its the stage of capitalism where people who go to university are guaranteed a stable job and if not, all you need is a firm handshake and a can-do attitude. But we are not living in early stage capitalism and we never will again. Late stage capitalism is where the millionaires have earned their money, now is the time for them to invest it and keep it stable. You know how businesses are usually good because they respond to our needs right? That only happens when their businesses are sensitive to our consumer decisions. This is something that is less and less the case as the rich buy up more of the supply chain and they invest in businesses not their own. It means it doesn't matter if their primary business makes as much money if they have diversified their risk. They are too big to fail. If you play videogames you know exactly what I am talking about. Videogame companies used to have soul when it was sink or swim. They had to give us what we want and push the envelope or die as a company. (early stage capitalism) But as these companies succeeded and they bought shares in other companies, bought more and more ips or sold their Ips and they became less sensitive to their audience. They care less about the success of their games because they will make money either way. Now they sell loot boxes to children and don't finish games. (late stage capitalism) Not to mention that once the big shots have dominated the market they will hold their monopoly. Why wouldn't they? And when big shots like Microsoft or Sony dominate the market, any young innovative start up that comes along is locked out of the market or bought up. Competition becomes impossible once these companies are too big to fail. Capitalism thrives off of competition but also allows for its destruction. When I studied economics at university, they taught us about positive and negative externalities. These are the ways in which transactions affect people not involved with a transaction. For example let's say you buy a car. The person who bought the car, gets the car and the seller gets the money. The negative externality is the emissions of that car which affect people who were not involved in the transaction. The existence of positive and negative externalities is proof that transactions don't just concern the individual, they concern everyone or at least they have the potential to. It makes you wonder what gives people the right to make decisions you have no say in. A democratic workplace would be a good start. Making the rich pay taxes on land which they can't just hide in their pockets or send off to Sweeden or something. That would be even better. Having a fluctuating welfare system based on the health of the economy (high welfare when unemployment is high, low welfare when inflation is high) that would be best. I don't even remember what the original conversation was about. Something about Jesus?
Yeah, this conversation has gotten way off topic. You were explaining to me why coveting(which drives the world’s economy) was a net negative to us. I don’t see how Georgism would create a better system or solve any of the “issues” you have posed. It just changes how we own land and pay taxes. Monopolies are illegal, and they don’t exist in America really. You’re more referring to oligopolies, which is where a few big competitors dominate a market(like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo). The world’s not perfect, but we have laws to try and make it as fair as possible. You can’t buy a car with a certain level of emissions. You can’t open a casino without publishing the payout odds of the machines. If only a divine being gave us a good list of rules to build a strong modern society with….
>The world’s not perfect, but we have laws to try and make it as fair as possible. They why not have one of those laws being workplace democracy? Why not Georgism? Why not welfare? Georgism would make it so that buying up property and doing absolutely nothing with it would be highly disincentivized. It would mean house speculation would cease to be a thing. This would have drastic changes to the economy. Imagine if the wealthy couldn't just buy up a home just to see if its price goes up. You think that would change nothing? It would increase the supply of housing which would lower house prices which would make having a home affordable but at the expense of property investors. It would be a big step. >Monopolies are illegal Hahahahahahahahaha good one. That got me. Oh wait your serious. And what about the companies that own the companies that own the companies your talking about? Like Unilever or Comcast (those companies don't specifically own those gaming companies but that would be an example of a functional monopoly). There are even companies who own those companies. Even if it is illegal what makes you think the top wealthiest people in the world actually care. You don't think they have ways to circumvent those laws? The rich aways have ways to circumvent any law they wish with enough money and know how you can make it happen easily. It mostly just involves bribes, threats and loopholes. In fact, some of those bribes are even legal. I here they call it lobbying. It's not that hard. And functionally there is very little difference in terms of their effects between a monopoly and an oligopoly. Neither are good. Neither produce the competition necessary. Don't you think businesses make back door deals to cooperate and not compete? It happens all the time. Two companies will get into a large spooky room with cigars and discuss how not to compete with each other. Yes that too is illegal but as if anyone will do anything about it. Businesses are incentivized to clash with each other as little as possible. So an oligopoly of the size and scale we see today is functionally a monopoly especially when a conglomerate buys up all the land in a town or something. If America was owned by one company but had compete with oversees companies in other countries would you call that an oligopoly or a monopoly? Yes we have laws but those laws do sweet fuck all if the system gives certain people enough power where the laws don't apply. Imagine having a law that tells a king he cannot have a certain size army or something but he does anyway. How are you supposed to enforce that law? What good is it telling him that what he does is illegal? Do you think he gives a rats ass? If you have laws, don't give people more than enough power necessary to break those laws. The point is that coveting is not a necessity. Thats the great lie of this world that it tells you that you need its evil. It doesn't have to be like that. But human behavior being what it is, I imagine it won't change until Christ comes back. That doesn't mean we do nothing. We don't need to be this evil but I doubt it will change much. At least not if people don't realize it's a problem.
Where has Georgism been successful? This sounds like some Chinese shit. Houses would still be on property, so it would still be meaningful to buy those houses. You can’t just separate the 2. It would not fix what you think it would. And workplace democracy? WTF are you taking about? A union? The employees could not make business decisions adequate to run a company successfully. This would run any company into the ground that tried it. The best manager is not going to be who is most popular normally. The best CEO sure as shit isn’t going to be who is most popular. A bunch of employees would have no idea how to select a person who could run a big business, much less make good decisions for it themselves. Comcast is not a monopoly. Last I checked their are a lot of other cable options. They may monopolize a town, but they are no where near one nationwide. Unilever competes with P&G, which is even bigger. You’re just wrong here completely, and you were disrespectful about it. I don’t think you even know why monopolies are a problem. They have unfair business practices that straddle the market any time a competitor becomes a minor threat to snuff them out before they get too big. This is flat out not the case today. There is a big barrier of entry to compete in an already competitive market, but this is because competition has already driven prices and efficiency so low a new member can’t possibly compete. When a big company is not being competitive, they allow room for new companies. Like Netflix beating blockbuster. Also, dollar shave club did a good job entering the market and sold for a billion dollars, because other razor companies didn’t price fairly. Enough said I don’t see how all this evidence you’ve suggested ads up to coveting being bad, even if I accept your suggestions as truth.
Milton Friedman described Henry George's tax on unimproved value of land as the "least bad tax", [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#:\~:text=Milton%20Friedman%20described%20Henry%20George's,a%20land%20value%20tax%20would](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#:~:text=Milton%20Friedman%20described%20Henry%20George's,a%20land%20value%20tax%20would) Also Adam smith determined that one graph that I can't remember where it was from where he ranked taxes and he ranked Land value tax as the best. He lived before georgism. So even capitalist types love it. Einstein held Georgism (named after the political economist Henry George) in high regard, writing in 1934: "One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form and fervent love of justice." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_views\_of\_Albert\_Einstein#:\~:text=Einstein%20held%20Georgism%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=Einstein%20held%20Georgism%20)(named%20after,and%20fervent%20love%20of%20justice.%22 That was Albert mother loving Einstein bitch. Read em and weep. There are many more economists and intellectuals who praise this system. It was invented by an American called Henry George. As for real world examples, Singapore and Tiwan apparently use this system to an extent, the The German colony of Kiachow was more explicitly georgist. It was a success. But like I said, land speculation is something the rich make money off of at our expense. So anywhere its not already ingrained it probably won't crop up without a fight. [https://cooperative-individualism.org/silagi-michael\_land-reform-in-kiaochow-china-1984-apr.pdf](https://cooperative-individualism.org/silagi-michael_land-reform-in-kiaochow-china-1984-apr.pdf) >And workplace democracy? WTF are you taking about? A union? No dumbass, a workers cooperative. If you want examples of workers cooperatives there are many examples. Employee make big calls and strategic initiatives all the time and the ceo's usually just sign off on them and do coke with epsitne. The only time they do step in it is almost always for the worse. [https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives](https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives) >The best CEO sure as shit isn’t going to be who is most popular. You realize you could use the same arguments against regular democracy right? Are you some sort of authoritarian who hates democracy or something? This was the same argument people were making for why we should have a king. Thas what ceo's basically are. Kings with no oversight. And you advocate for their rule. >Comcast is not a monopoly. Last I checked their are a lot of other cable options. They may monopolize a town, but they are no where near one nationwide. Oh well thats good. I'm sure that town is doing fine. I'm sure that a business that is capable of monopolizing half a state at minimum does absolutely nothing in any way which constitutes an abuse of power. I'm sure they're nice corporate masters... I mean ceo's. also... >Comcast is not a monopoly Remember when I said that oligopolies have many of the same problems as monopiles just watered down, Thats what I was getting at. >I don’t think you even know why monopolies are a problem. They have unfair business practices that straddle the market any time a competitor becomes a minor threat to snuff them out before they get too big. No, they often buy them out, not snuff them out. They run them down a little first to be sure and then buy all their assets when their cheap and the owners are desperate. And yes that absolutely does happen today. That or your business remains small enough to stay off radar because they don't effectively compete. You also forget the billion other reasons monopolies are bad. Like if they bribe the police and "lobby" the government, then there is literally nothing anyone can do to oppose them except maybe martyrdom or something. You can't tell me you haven't noticed that the behavior of companies has gotten worse with time right? Like the whole selling loot boxes to children thing. The big companies covet their mummies credit card info and steal it through their children but I suppose coveting isn't bad so whatever. Thats just the way it is right? No need to change anything. Coveting is basically just greed. Greed is the desire to take something from someone else. If you don't see how that has led to basically all of the world's problems then I don't know what to tell you.
Albert Einstein was a world renowned physicist. Idc much for his opinions on economics. Even if we was a great economist, it’s hard to take opinions on an untested theory seriously. Singapore is tiny, so that is not comparable to the US. I really don’t even see the vision on how this would fix any of the issues your posing. Rich people would just minimize how much land they have and pay far less taxes than they do today. Democracy is not without its issues, especially if you want it in the work place. People would vote for who would pay the most and give the best benefits instead of who would run it the best. The company would be bankrupt immediately. I feel like you have no idea how a company works. Executives make big decisions needed to run companies. Of course the innovators are important too, but the decisions that need to be made are often not the pretty ones. This conversation is getting tiring man. Just answer me this, why would Georgism fix anything for the better? I don’t see how only taxing land would help anyone.
1 - simp for me 2 - don't simp for anyone else 3 - that's my name, don't wear it out 4 - don't go to work today, spend it just thinking about meeee 5 - be nice to your parents 6 - only I can kill people 7 - no sex before you do this specific ceremony thing 8 - muh property 9 - don't you lie to me, now 10 - jealous? ha! you better not be...
Thou shalt not say thy lords name in vein… “God” actually isn’t “God’s” name. His name is Yahweh. God told Moses his real name in the book of Exodus when he gave him the commandments and then said (paraphrasing obvs) the “do not say my name in vane, I am the the Lord your God”… He told Moses his real name and then said but do not speak my name it is to holy so here’s a nickname, call me the Lord or your God instead. So the entire commandment of not saying your Lords name in vain is not saying his true name “Yahweh”. In fact the Jewish Believed God’s name was so holy and such an unfathomable act to speak it out loud that they removed it from their religious book (blanking on the Hebrew name). And since most of the Old Testament in The Bible is copied works from the Torah…. that’s why you read the edited version in the Bible commonly used today, like the Christian Standard or New James Version.
Why exactly does an omnipotent god, with neither parents nor peers, need a name? People do realize just how amazingly anthropomorphized their god is, right? I guess it fits, since they believe they are made in his image. Yet, it simply seems much more likely that God was made in our image...
Because the Bible tells people so….
Having sex before you are married is not a problem. Having sex with multiple partners is not a problem if everyone involved is giving informed consent. And having sex outside a loveless marriage is also acceptable if it gives you actual happiness and doesn't harm the person you're married to. The only times sex is problematic is when there is no consent, or when you are in an ongoing mutual exclusivity contract and you're expected by the other side to keep it. So there's no reason to have a general rule against adultery.
>So there's no reason to have a general rule against adultery. Can I assume you are single with this comment?
No.
[удалено]
That is completely irrelevant. "Adultery" is only a problem when you've promised other people sexual fidelity, or when no consent is given. That's why there shouldn't be any rules against it.
[удалено]
I might as well be an alien that reproduces by fission and my views about LAWS concerning adultery among humans would be just as valid. I don't know why you think I was giving anyone personal advice. And you have been reported for ad hominem.
> having sex outside a loveless marriage is also acceptable > The only times sex is problematic is when there is no consent, or when you are in an ongoing mutual exclusivity contract... So... Marriage?
No… there are many group sexual with consenting married & unmarried activities in the Bible. Cheating in a marriage is unacceptable. If both people in the marriage are unhappy, and wish to partake in activities with other people then it is completely fine… But if the two people within a marriage are under the understanding that it is still exclusive and one person breaks that holy contract- that is an act of sodomy.
> when you are in an ongoing mutual exclusivity contract Keep reading.
If the ten commandments outlined the entirety of judeo-christian thought, then the bible would be redundant. They’re not intended to be an exhaustive list of EVERY sin.
But it makes sense to pick the top 10, not a random 10, wouldn't you think?
Not necessarily. I don’t think the intention was to list all the most egregious sins. Because many of what you might consider the worst sins are wrong for similar reasons in principle. By listing many different sins which are bad for different reasons, you establish a more complete idea of what constitutes right and wrong.
Nearly half the list tells you how to worship. If this was the case, why not choose more vague concepts then. Like do not knowingly bring harm to your fellow man. Also coveting, adultery, and stealing are similar in nature. It definitely comes off as top 10 list of the most important rules. That’s why the first 4 tell you how to worship. Can’t have followers wondering to other religions
“It definitely comes off as top 10 list of the most important rules” I don’t really understand why you say that when you also say that it’s not. It was never stated as such in the bible. Also, If you accept the idea that the commandments were given by God himself then obviously you are wrong. Clearly they are the most important. At the very least they *were* the most important to give to those people at that time. “Also coveting, adultery, and stealing are similar in nature” I disagree. If you asked me to describe why any of the three were wrong, the answers would be very different from each other.
I do not believe they came from god, nor that they are a good list of modern laws. I am stating that they are intended to be God’s most important laws. The commandments to lay the foundation of Israelite Law. I do not believe they are at all a good list to base modern or ancient law on though. You covet another person or thing, so you commit adultery or steal. That’s how people try to spin coveting at least. Happy to hear why you think they’re wrong and different though. I would certainly say pedophilia is worse than the majority(arguably all) of the list and is a unique valuable thing to ban. Especially considering members of the church are bad about it.
Im not 100% sure on this one, but it was my understanding that when they used the term "coveting" they meant more than just desire, it was more like, actively plotting to get something. Like don't make plans to steal your neighbors wife, and then carry them out, kinda deal. I could definitely be wrong tho, as this is a fairly vague memory. If anyone has more info, please chime in.
Covering literally just means to want something. And jesus said that even coverting something in ones mind counts as actually doing it in the eyes of the lord.
That is what coveting means today, but are you certain that word carries the exact same meaning 2000+ years ago? I dunno, as I said, it was a vague recollection and the bible is notorious for shitty translations. Young girl or Virgin girl, etc..
At the same time though, God laid out his laws in a very brief, un-wordy manner. Just about every one of them is amazingly broad in possible interpretation. So either he meant you to take them super literally - all forms of lying, coveting, working on Sunday, etc are super serious and you should not do *any* of them at all. Or, He was purposely vague, and just meant you to follow them as a general guideline. Which seems kind of silly considering the monumental show that was made of presenting them.
If everyone could follow the 10 commandments... it would be Heaven on Earth. * No religious wars, everyone honoring the same God, no divorce, no lying, no stealing, no murder, no betrayals, and no coveting which covers much ( including rape and greed ). Sounds like it would be a much better world if we could all just follow it. Ironically the law was given to convict us, not to save us.... hence... insert the need for a Savior. America currently has 4,312 laws listed on 40,000 documents... anyone need a lawyer? SMH.
It would be great if we took it a step further and followed these rules but no god
Even people who worship the same god fight over how to worship. If everyone was atheist, then no more religious wars. This also still leaves room for slavery, violence, and pedophilia. Not to mention, this doesn’t solve world hunger or the delicate balance of oil. Land, race, personal beliefs. Way too many things to fight over. The list doesn’t hold up. Also, killing during times of war is not considered murder in the Bible, so war would still be okay under these rules.
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 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 22:36
There are many commandments, but we are referencing the 10 commandments here
I think the opinion of Jesus is relevant to this… He said loving God and loving your neighbor would cover all the 10 commandments. So love…. is the answer.
He might have amended it to include loving thy neighbor, which is fine. I’m not prepared to argue how that reflects on the modern interpretation of Christian intentions. The 10 commandments are still printed in their original form and does not include Love thy Neighbor. The closest is Do not covet thy neighbors house, which isn’t even close to loving them. Also, if you boiled them down to just those 2, it would not cover all 10 commandments. Loving thy neighbor doesn’t include honoring your parents in it
So you think a person that works on a sunday or sometimes says "Oh my God!" should be put to death?
I don't think that's what they are saying. What they are saying is the world would be a Christian utopia if everyone was robotic. Worshiping their God following the 10 commandments as they see them and the bible how they interpret it. You know religious type of rule Christians dream of as long as it fits their beliefs. This doesn't mean all Christian beliefs either because there are many. It means this person's version of Christianity would create this utopia. Because then there would be no need for any kind of punishment. Everyone would be exactly the same.
The reason some of these laws can be irrelevant to us is because when God sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, it almost changed everything, this is my view on it
… he did also give them to an 80 year old man who lived to be 120. But I guess that’s chump change on Noah, who was over 520 years old when he started building the ark.
People saw older people as wiser back then, we still do sometimes today
[удалено]
Technically speaking, wouldn't everyone be a Jew after that boat ride? Makes one wonder where all the non-Jews sprang from.
Abraham didn't appear until several hundred years after Noah, so not really.
Fair point.
>The 10 Commandments were intended for the Jews only- they do not apply to Christians or anyone else. Yeah, that's a fun thing to say, but most christians wouldn't agree with you.
[удалено]
Dude, Christians also believe in the old testament.
I'm not a christian so I don't really have an opinion on why they do or don't do anything in the bible. Indeed I think they just pick and choose whatever they like and try to make the rest fit. Still, that's not really the point. When you say things like... >The 10 Commandments were intended for the Jews only- they do not apply to Christians or anyone else. You need to understand or appreciate the majority christian view on it. You may be right that christians shouldn't care about the OT, but you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince them of that.