The Ten Commandments and God

You've got the first commandment wrong. It's thou shalt have no other gods before me. That's a little g. It's a distinction that has meaning.

 

I'm quite confused, I never said they were "faulty". I asked you in what aspect are the Ten Commandments "true". You literally just listed the Ten Commandments, included an excerpt about each one, an conclude that they were true and correct. What exactly is your logic for your conclusion? WHY are they true? The Ten Commandments are simply that, commandments. How can a commandment be inherently true? What is true about them? How is "Thou shalt have no gods before me" a "true" statement? That's like saying "Go take out the garbage" is a true statement.

If you were harboring Jewish prisoners during the Nazi regime and lied to a Nazi officer about harboring them, is that immoral?

Atheists can't feel bad about doing something wrong? Is guilt a soley Christian attribute now?

Also, how do true statements in a book automatically result in proof of God? There are true statements in MANY books, fiction and nonfiction.

 

Why they are true is listed after each commandment. It is clearly you that is needing more detail. Well, this is a debate forum, and I have more than met the required burden of proof in the alloted space available.

What is not debate is demanding an ever higher standard of proof ... and that is an issue I dealt with in the very first sentence, is it not? It is easy to scoff, harder to solve.

But the reality is that the world these commandments were revealed into, from a burning, talking bush no less, was not a world where these commandments were common, nor indeed valued. Egypt and Rome, among others routinely murdered in the game of politics. Lying was considered an art. Adultry? Not in Roman orgies. Worship ONLY one God? Take a Sabbath? Why woud you allow a slave or a serf that luxury?

And yet, we see today that these things are correct, and indeed beneficial. Exactly as predicted.

There are ways to misdirect without lying. There is also something called silence. Besides, if you hav a reputation for lying, do you think the Nazis would believe you?

And where do you see atheists introducing these as a topic of discussion? It doesn't happen. This is what we get from atheism:

"We're respectful of the American people's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

The only time atheists talk about these things is when someone else brings them up, and then, its always the same, "We can have them to!," and the usual victim refrain, "What's wrong with you guys!!!"

Well you were asked to explain how atheists deal with sin? By being guilty? Is an emotion that passes or rationalized away a manner of dealing with sin?

How don't they?

Were told they were correct, and they are.

So either there is a guy thousands of years ago who sat down in arse end of the world and made up a series of commandments so perfect that he was clearly a massive genius or there is a God.

You tell me what your alternative is, and teh proof for that, but any damb explanation that the one provided is simply an exercise in creative writing.

Your faith says it is not so, your faith is wrong.

 

Because you say so? Well, that is pretty overwhelming considering you hav not addressed a single point.

But we'll just take an atheists word for it. Because that is how science and rationalism work.

I think I know something else that works that way:



You do realize, Dr. Science, that you actually have to SHOW or DEMONSTRATE why your contention is true. Not just claim it, especially as you atheists HATE authoritarianism and dogmatic irrationalism as support, correct?

Well, lets see it.

Because yes, if you deny all proof, there is indeed no proof.

You just go ahead and explain why a talking bush can achieve something like this, but all the brainy atheists can't figure out a single unifying moral code for the lot of the self licking ice cream cones who are ALL supposedy superior in every way? Can't even come up with a set of rules? But an imaginary bush can?

Seems atheism has a few problems, does it not? Wonder why skeptical atheists, who find pleasure is questioning and removing weaknesses, never brings up any of their own weaknesses?

Comparative morality beats the ten commandments any day! Just ask an atheist, he will TELL you it is ... so it must be. Don't ask why though, just call yourself a skeptic and revel in the illusion of skepticism. After all, its easy to doubt everything but yourself -- you'll never be fooled that way.

 

I'm pretty sure that civilizations back then had laws against stealing and murder.

Okay, try to read carefully here Neutral, because I'm only going to say this ONCE more. A commandment cannot be "true" or "not true", it is a COMMANDMENT. Once again, my example of commanding somebody to take out the garbage cannot be considered a "truth", it is either just accepted or not accepted. The ideas BEHIND the commandments can be justified In the garbage example, it is "true" that the garbage SHOULD be taken out for a variety of reasons, but to say that the commandment itself is correct is semantically incorrect.

But I would like you to offer more of an explanation as to why you consider the first four commandments to be related to morals. What does resting on the Sabbath day have to do with whether something is "right" or "wrong"?

So how would you go about "misdirecting" a Nazi officer?

"Hey, look over there, it's a Jew!"

Also, I doubt that silence would be an option if a Nazi officer is asking you a question. Your house is then going to get raided and they will find you harboring Jews. This is unwanted.

And of course you just plain avoided my question about whether or not it is immoral to lie in this instance. To save a life, is it immoral to lie?

What does this have to do with repentance on ANY level? Man, you ARE good at misdirection.

http://www.atheists.org/religion

People feel guilty about doing something wrong and they can change their ways. Obviously this isn't something that can be forgiven and we accept that. Of course it is easier for Christians to be forgiven because they think that accepting Jesus Christ and repenting completely wipes the slate clean. We don't have that luxury. But regardless, I don't see how atheists and Christians differ in how they react to doing something wrong and realizing they have done something wrong. Both groups will feel guilty over it, apologize, and move on with their lives. Is there some unique step that Christians do besides repenting to their Lord? Because that seems to be the ONLY difference.

Where in the Bible does it say the Ten Commandments are "correct"? They are simply commandments to follow or not follow and there were punishments to go along with those commandments. The only quality commandments have is whether or not they are justified.

Once again, it makes no difference, my answer to you is "So what?" Because some part of a book is correct says nothing about the validity of any god. Islam has many of the same commandments that Christianity does. Does this make Muhammad a prophet of God?

You really think that these commandments are "genius"? Come on, Neutral. Laws existed before the Bible that dealt with many of these same concepts. And if you're asking me, the Ten Commandments are NOT perfect because they are severely lacking in moral direction. What about rape? What about war? What about how to treat people of different ethnicity, race, or gender? What about child labor? What about slavery? NONE of these things are included and yet you still consider the Ten Commandments to be perfect? Please. Our laws today cover a wider variety of concepts and issues than ten simple rules, four of which have NOTHING to do with morality at all.

The alternative is that somebody came up with ten commandments and six of them do a pretty decent job of telling people what to do. Do you really have such little faith in human intelligence that you don't think someone could have thought "Hmm, if we followed these rules, society would probably be more ordered and less chaotic"? That's terribly degrading.

Your faith says it is not so, your faith is wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

Really? Baal worshippers did not sacrifice? Rome was not known for things like cruxifiction? Torture? Greedy emporers and fueldal lords did not just expropriate land and title as they saw fit? And teh other eight commandments?

NOW READ THIS: I am allowed to disagree with you.

A commandment can be falsem in that the wisdom tha guides it is faulty. The effects it produces WRONG.

LIke teh common atheists tendancy to view sex as harmless. Except we know that is not the case, for many reasons, from self esteem, to STD's, to long term relationship effects, etc. And the further we drift into the nethre worlds of sex the more destructive it becomes.

Yet many an atheist on this very site has chosen to defend it with me anyway - and lost.

Sex is harmless, indulge, is therefore a FALSE commandment. Value. Principle.

What you are doing is called semantics, you are simply not engaing honestly and are already blowing your stack - or do I need to say that ONE MORE TIME?

See above.

Because they have proven benefits, and not following them has proven negatives. In every case.

Well, you can start by saying, "Sorry gents, I want no part of this, just keep me out of it. I understand you gents have your duty to do, but I really just want to left alone with my family."

Is there anything wrong with that? Did you lie? Did you bring suspicion on your household?

Whose fault is it that you cannot think of a manner to solve a problem without lying?

And you base this on what? Your expertise with Nazis?

Well, having been a Foreign Officer in a War Zone, most of the people we talked to were silent. We didn't shoot them. We already knew the insurgents were out there, and that, in many cases, the insurgents would kill them for talking meaningfully with us.

Remember, if a Nazi officer is asking you a question rather than kicking down your door, then you are in a population whose cooperation he desires. That gives you leverage to use - IF you stop for a second and use your brain.

Obviously, as I already answered it and provided alternatives, its been answered. Lying is wrong, period.

Oh, but in a hypothetical that requires time travel and no individual creativity ... please, we call that an excuse, an absurd one at that.

Nothing.

That is the point.

You want to have a discussion on it, and you have what to offer from atheism? Nothing.

Get the point yet?

#1 - even atheists can forgive. They can also be forgiven. You accept that this is not possible? Then just like I charge, you simply ignore sin. Yet the sin still occures does it not?

#2 - the only difference we have with sin is a rather important one. We acknowledge it. Its a little thing called accountability, perhaps you have heard of it?

You see, like lying, we acknowledge that doing it is wrong, and that contexts can make it worse, but sin is sin. And when we ACKNOWELDGE that we have violated a standard, that means we acknoweldge the consequences and we do something to rememdy it.

You are aware, as I am sure you are yet another expert on our faith, that forgiveness requires humbleness and genuine repentence?

Oh that is a very different result, and it al begins with having a set of standard and acknowledging when you fall short it in.

Atheists, wel, you guys have no standard do you? No forgiveness as you say?

Well, that is different is it not. I think its fairly self evident that it is anything but better or wiser in action.

All over, maybe you should read it.

The so what is that it was predicted as correct and is correct.

Your alternative?

You don;t have one do you? You just deperately don;t want it to be right, but the best you can come up with for it to be wrong is, "Well, what if we travelled through time and you were asked a question by a Nazi officer - pay no mind to the fact that we can trave through time but a have no power or authority over a Nazi officer in the past - and you have to abandon all creativity in an increasing exercise of ever impossible what ifs?" What if THAT happened.

Well, good luck planning your life around those instances.

Us stupid Christians will continue to go, "You know what, I lied to my boss and I need to make that right."

You really think they aren't?

Does anything in the ten commandments lead to slavery? Rape? Treat ALL others, your neighbors as yourself? Do you WANT to be enslaved?

Or are atheists so dense that they need a list of explicitely barred actions that clearly violate the simple standard?

You think THAT would be genius?

You do know that one of the recorded errors of the Old Testament is JUST that? Getting wrapped up in excessive rule making?

Nah, you've read the Bible.

They why haven't atheists done this if it is so easy?

And we are back to double standards. Its stupid when we do it, no matter what. Yet your failure to do it is actually a sign of great genius?

Its simply true. And that seems to have your goat.

Seems like a personal problem. It usually is for atheists. But I am glad that you coming in and disagreeing with the ten commandments poorly, and having someone point out that you are incorrect is degrading to you.

Its so easy that atheists haven't, and indeed, cannot do it. What does that say about atheism?

I see I am correct.

Not a lot of facts in your disagreement is there?

 

I think you have to take the Ten Commandments in context.

Moses had just led the Children of Israel out of Egypt where they had been slaves, had no freedom, lived by a strict set of rules laid down and enforced by the Egyptians. Now they were free, total anarchy, no rules whatsoever and no police force to enforce them even if there were, one extreme to the other and they could not handle it.

Moses had to provide them with a set of laws and had to have some means of enforcing those laws, the basis of civilisation is the law.

So Moses drew up a set of rules for the people to live by, told them the rules came from God to give them authority, and told them God would enforce them.

 

And they were nevertheless correct.

And he coud have written anything. He did not. Jesus could have abandoned them if they were not correct. He did not.

Anyone could have, in a time of trouble, written down someother laws - and they did - and their empires are now dust.

Amazing isn't it?

 

No, because the argument you put worth was idiotic. It lacked anything even approaching a rational argument. In fact, the argument you have put forth can be basically summed up as:

 

They were basic natural laws. Don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't tell lies, look after old people who can't work any more, they have the same laws in most civilisations, they wouldn't have been out of place written by a Buddhist.

 

The Jews were not slaves in Egypt.. The slavery is symbolic.. They were slaves to ignorance.. lack of knowledge of God.

The Code of Hammurabi is older and so is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

 

You asked how anyone can need more proof, I supplies a link telling you what proof is needed and why, ie. how one can need more proof.

I find adultery the way it is in society today to be reasonable. Not illegal, since spouses can agree on extramarital sex, but associated with social stigma.

I usually have happiness maximization as my fundamental goal, but I expand happiness to include a certain level of unconscious dignity, one that is lost if your husband or wife cheats on you. It is also what keeps me from proposing that everyone should be in drug induced ecstasy for their entire lives.

I agree with most of them, but that does not mean that I see it to be the right way. I agree with most of the Kazakhstani crime laws too, but that doesn't mean that the Kazakhstani law book is the right way, does it? (No, I don't know anything about Kazakhstani law, but I assume it has the basics)

I don't see these laws as very extraordinary. I have no reason to believe (I don't expect proof, just the simplest honest indication) that these are not laws written by normal human people for human reasons. The fact that people will object if you steal their stuff isn't exactly rocket science.

As mentioned before, I (mostly) don't argue against the rules, I follow them too, I argue against your statement that this is evidence.

What exactly in these words is it that you propose is proof of any divinity?

You seem to argue
Ten commandments -> God

I think you need to explain the middle steps. I don't see them, I think others have pointed this out too. I appreciate that you might not want to say you're wrong, but surely, you can't refuse to explain your logic further?

 

Its so idiotic that you have abandoned all sense of civility and objective logic to not offer a single rebuttal, leaving in doubt that you ever managed to read the OP.

We are glad that you think making excuses to be a flaming ass to people is the atheist idea of a rebuttal - that is a problem for atheists.

So, either participate like a grown up with at leats half a brain or go away.

 

And yet people do them all the time do they not? Buddhism claims that you have to suffer to achieve that understanding. Have you?

God does not.

Why do atheists need something that is obviously NOT wrong to be wrong? Or otherwise hand wave it away?

Why does you faith require everyone else's to be dengrated?

 

No you provided a stupid video about converting atheists. Once again, as atheists tend to do, not addressing the proof presented in the ever changing standard of evidence that can never be met for atheists.

When teh bar is met, you guys change the standard.

When presented with something that it totally rational and reasonable, you reject it anyway.

Such rejection is about your faith. Why it always requires others to validate it?

And what are the effects of this? If you want to screw around, why even bother to get married? Why make a commitment to anyone?

So, sex is your God then? It controls you, rather than the other way around?

You find purpose and honor in adultry?

Yep, you are an atheist.

Really? Your happiness of others? And you contradict the previous statement. You are now for and against adultry? Nice.

That's great, the laws of man are not the ten commandments, and the laws of petty dictatorship have no bearing on the Bible do they? In fact, when the conflict with the Bible - that usually leads to bad things doesn't it?

So where is this moral standard for atheists written at?

And there are ten rules, not one - and you picked the one that I said was blindingly obvious to agree with me. Have contradcted yourself on another ...

Wisdom is not about YOU. Do you understand?

How many times does it have to be spelled out. You atheists demand predictive results and are goven them.

THOUSANDS of years ago, these rules were given and predicted to be correct, right, virtuous. This happened in a time and place where these rules were mocked, clashed with the religious ideals of the day. And yet, they have proven to be correct anyway.

Oh, but atheists want to pull an ostrich? They want to change the subject to different kind of proof that, as spelled out in the FIRST sentence of the OP, so they can not actually discuss the ones that are laid out in front of them and what it means?

And what do you have to back up atheism? To deny? An ever changing set of standards and criteria that never amount to a hill of beans.

If you wish to be atheist, so be it. But if you define it, as far too many atheists do, then you should acknowledge that we have things like the OP, and atheists .... well, all you guys appear to have is the ability to call things idiotic and ... well, nothing.

Somehow that is wiser, truer, better?

 

Uh, the Old Testament commands the death penalty as well, just as Rome had death by crucifixtion. In fact, the Old Testament includes the death penalty for such outrageous activities like picking up sticks on the Sabbath, cursing God's name, cursing your parents, not crying out if you are being raped (women), and not being a virgin on your wedding day (women).

Yeah, your Old Testament was the epitome of enlightened thinking. Do you really think that these activities should require the death penalty?

Did you really even need to say this? At what point in our conversation did I say, "Neutral, you have to agree with me on every single point I have."?

This is exactly what I was saying.

Uh, okay? Do you just like throwing in random talking points for no apparent reason?

What I am doing is the study of meanings of words? ... Uh, okay.

What are the proven benefits of honoring abusive parents or not working on the Sabbath?

LOL

Because that isn't fixing the problem. I don't understand how you think that saying "I want no part of this" would deter a Nazi intrusion into your home if they suspect you of harboring Jews.

Common sense. Why would you even RISK an even more thorough invasion of your home by trying to dissuade them from bothering you? THAT is immoral because it will likely lead to not only the deaths of those who are hiding, but also to the imprisonment and probable death of yourself. I honestly can't believe that you think lying to protect a life is immoral. That is an absolutely disgusting thing to think. What is immoral about saving a life through lying?

Wow, a completely different example that is absolutely contextually different.

No, we call that a hypothetical that pretty accurately explains points out your absurd position: you don't believe that lying to save lives, no matter how many, is justified.

Um, no, that isn't the point. I'm not going to skip around with you while you bring up absurd points that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

When did I say that atheism had anything to offer? Atheism is a non-belief in God, it can't be the foundation for any such morals just as theism can't be the foundation for morals.

No, we don't recognize "sins" because we don't recognize religious books as absolute moral authorities.

Most people in the world recognize basic moral standards, regardless of their faith.

What a vague answer. I've read the Decalogue before.

It was predicted that it was correct? Uh, okay. Many people make predictions about things in books and sometimes those predictions turn out to be correct. To leap in logic and say "Ah HA, therefore, God" is just disingenuous.

My alternative to what? And it was an example, Neutral, I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by it. To think that there are no situations where lying can be justified is just a silly idea to me. Should police officers not be able to lie in line of duty when they are undercover? There are situations in which lying can result in people getting hurt emotionally and physically and to say "Well, the Bible says don't lie, so therefore let those people be hurt!" is just a childish position.

Uh, no? But the Ten Commandments obviously aren't perfect if they don't include some basic rules against pretty morally hazardous actions. Obviously slavery was accepted by the Israelites and commanded by God himself in some situations. Is slavery therefore "correct" or morally acceptable to you?

OH, so people back then COULD rationalize.

Because we already have a governmental system that does a pretty decent job of putting such laws into existence already? Why would we need to release a book around the world declaring that something is an absolute MORAL standard when we have a system of democracy where people can declare whether or not something is moral?

Our failure to do so? Did we try and fail to do it or something? Otherwise there was no failure on our part. Atheism has NEVER been prevalent in the world at any point in recorded history. The majority of this planet believes in a God, and the majority of people in this country believe in a God. How exactly do you expect us to actually create any standards other than through our laws?

 

People do what all the time?

Suffering as a path to enlightenment is a technique which has been practised by Christians as well as Buddhists and the followers of other religions.

Nothing you say seems relevant to the point I was making.

 

Actually, the bar is set in the clips, you presented something, and you still don't meet that standard.

Well, yeah, if you plan to have sex with a person other than the one you marry, then you should not marry that person. That does have exceptions, but probably not relevant ones.

However, it does happen that spouses agree to screw around, and I don't see why I should tell them off.

Not sure about your logic behind that one.

Nop.

Nop.

You don't know what happiness maximization is, do you? Your understanding of happiness is so short termed. You seem to believe that maximum orgy means maximum happiness.

You said that since you I think the commandments are correct, I should follow them. That's all the logic you cared to include. By the same logic, I should also follow any other law with which I agree mostly.

This is why you have to include the entire logic.

Why don't you go ask them? My morals aren't written down.

I have only contradicted myself if one postulates that the maximum amount of sex means maximum amount of happiness. I'm sure anyone who has been cheated on, anyone who has been raped or even someone who is bored of sex will tell you differently.

Are you not reading my post?

You state that the presence of the ten commandments is proof, I reject that.

The only part where I mention me is where I think you are wrong in saying that I reject the commandments.

There is nothing in the ten commandments that could not easily be written by humans. There is a completely reasonable explanation for their existence without any divine intervention.

Oh, I'm glad you capitalized the word "thousands", that makes the entire argument [/sarc].

The code of Hammurabi includes most of the commandments. They were not new. They were predicted to be correct by Hammurabi too, there is nothing unique about the version that then could be found among the Jews.

We, for instance, find banning of rape to be reasonable too, is that not correct?

Also, the laws are very unspecific. Hammurabi's law includes many different parts of law, how to conduct lending, sale, property laws, how to deal with an assortment of sexual crimes, marital law including dealing with divorces, widows, and so on. The ten commandments look like a random exert from a children version of Hammurabi's code, despite being much newer.

Nobody will accept "proof" that can just as well be "proof" of a certain desert tribe wanting some form of law system. It's not unheard of, you know.

I don't have anything backing up atheism. In fact, I actively reject atheism on a logical basis. I have told you this repeatedly, but you do not seem to pick up long sentences.

I haven't called anything idiotic, nor wiser, truer or better.

I have been presented with two things. One: one argument that the presence of a law and the fact that it adds up to ~60% with today's laws, means that it must be true. Two: That non-theists change their standards, to which I replied with the standard which has always been and always will be the standard of most non-theists.

 

No, God does not command death in the Old Testament, misguided men do.

And teh command is, though shalt not MURDER slick. Any first year seminary student know that.

Now tell me, if you followed God's ten commandments, do you think rape would be considered tolerable at all? Of course, not, but leave it to another so called expert on the Bible to ignore the New Testament entirely, and the fact that the Jews of old rebelled against God on a regular basis and were disciplined as a result.

Is there something wrong with being a virgin on your wedding day? Sex again with atheists! What's up with the utter faxiation of sex?

As opposed to what from atheists? Nothing.

When you issue a statement of supoprt by saying, "I am only going to say this once!" Well, now its fully supported

Oh, no one else understand English but you? Another cop out.

Even abusive parents brought you into the world rather than aborted you. You do no value or honor your life? Your choice.

Yep, working without a break leads to something called burn out and re-prioritization of values - i.e. work before family. You apparently think family is not important? OK, your choice.

Well, since you are apparently a master of English and now Clausewitz himself, you asked about KNOCKING on your door and them asking about Jews. As a military officer, there is a distinctly different reason we knck verses kick in the door. Not too mention, if we are kicking in your door, we aren't asking you any questions at all - meaning you have no reason to tell the truth or lie.

But heh, when confronted with a perfectly valid contextually correct truth, you chose to dishonestly change the context into something even more ludicrious.

I think its just emotionally impossible for you to acknowledge that the ten commandments make sense - because that would mean you would have to question the entire atheist bully schtick that has guided your life to this point. Perhaps you should?

It'd probably beat chasing imaginary Nazis?

Then tell the truth, "there are Jews upstairs," and save your own skin coward.

If you make teh choice to protect, and you lie, and the Nazi's find out, they are still going to kick in your door. And now they know you are good for nothing liar too boot. So good luck with that.

Oh, my experinces as a military officer are not relevant? Your insight as ... nothing is MORE relevant. Remind me again why atheists consider themselves logical?

Is there some reason you need to ask and have answered the same question? Are you now going to ask me some super absurd and absolutely doltish scenario that begins with, "What if ...."?

What if we deal with the realm of reality - I assure you I have been in places far more dangerous and demanding than you, and I have never found a valid reason to lie in any of them.

So you were wrong, and need another excuse to avoid having to acknoweldge that, gotcha.

You continue to say it by not offering anything.

Atheists have no doctrine - you guys say that all the time.

Welcome to reality of having no standards.

Agh, so any of the values just put forth are incorrect? You don;t recognize that you err?

Hmmm ... and you guys always claim you are not self worshippers - even as you slip into its vocabularly with such ease and unawareness.

Not when teh ten commandments were published they did not. And what moral standards do you recognize? You don;t even recognize sin? Have no list, no standards, that atheists are held to.

Its all about comparison for you guys isn't it? Needing to be better by looking out at other and saying, "Well, I am not THAT bad!"

Well, how do you stack up against a guy who tells a lie, acknowledges that it is wrong, who then turns around, apologizes, and and askes to provide restitution of damages and seeks forgiveness?

You'll just lie and hope nobidy notices? And if not, you're all good?

No doubt in English ...

Oh, that was sometimes? Its right in every case.

That is just stupid.

Trying to say tha undercover officer are 'lying' is stretch beyond imagination. There is a valid need for that, and it is an honest and honorable one. YOU, as yourself, do not need to lie. Unless of course, you are under cover right now?

There are always way for you, as yourself, to not lie - what is silly in thinking that you should be judged as if you were an inder cover agent and lives hang on the line.

How many lies have you told where anything other than your pride was on the line?

So, show me how slavery is supported by the ten commandments? And remember, the abolition movement began in Christianity - not atheism.

Go ahead, tell me how we should treat our neighbors as ourselves justifies or supports slavery. Go ahead.

Because no Christian today, or Jew, thinks they do and are indeed horrified by it.

And guess what slick - North Koreans are still slaves today - where is your moral out rage at this very second for what your supposedly rational atheist peers are doing? Lost amidst the sactimony no doubt.

 

Oh, they don;t know, eh?

Dis you dleiberately leave off the entirely of grace and forgiveness in order to be a stubborn jack ass? Seems that way.

Or are you going to find a place where it says that if you find the ten commandments correct you are automatically perfect?

You atheists always claim to know our faith, and then you say assinine things like that and prove beyind a doubt that you understand nothing but your own prejudices.

The book came first. The democracy that you luad of majority rules, is majority Christian.

Its not like a bunch of atheists created this - just a bunch of atheists who take it all for granted and think that by being arrogant and effusive that this all happened through the grace and magnanomy of their prescence here.

Read a history book.

Agh, so never trying is now an excuse, no doubt you COULD have been a Delta Force, Navy SEAL, pro football playing, MIT chemist, and invented the next internet ... but you didn't try ... so ... what exactly?

And yes, there are plenty of volumes on atheist morlity, only, they can pretty much all be ripped to shreds, so atheists have stooped trying.

It much easier to be a serial complainer and fault finder then it is solve problems.

Solving problems is hard so ... why bother even trying. You'll be comfortable forever in your denial and lack of motivation.

Notice how you are not even talking about the ten commandments any more, its all about you.

 

good point:

Exodus 32:27 and he saith to them, `Thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, Put each his sword by his thigh, pass over and turn back from gate to gate through the camp, and slay each his brother, and each his friend, and each his relation.'


it appears, someone making it up?

And per babble that comment was right after he gave moses the 'per se' commandments.

but you were right. People wrote the literature called OLD Testament.

So yep, the book or you have misrepresented 'god'.

i think the book is wrong.

how about you?

 

All I heard was don't steal or kill anybody. But everyone knows that without this list so it proves nothing.

The other 8 are rather trivial. I could have made a more inspiring list when I learned how to share in pre-school.

Besides, that's old testament talk. Christians like to say Jesus made all that irrelevent so they don't have to kill their bride on their fathers doorstep if shes not a virgin. Or kill their friend for not believing, or lift a finger on sunday, or try to explain the story of Abraham and Issac, or why slavery is ok (not of your tibe, like a Canadian maybe?) or why he took everything from Job to "prove" something to satan............ and on.

 

Oh, do they? Then why do we have theives? Courts? Police? Prisons?

And of course, you have a better list ... of course not. Atheists never have and solutions, just snide comments about other people's solutions.

You ar ethe second atheist in this thread to write about and miss the obvious point, "That is so simple, so stupid, anyone can do it! Its blindingly obvious!!!"

You are right, it IS blindingly obvious.

And here you, and your pals sit and try to denounce that blindingly obvious anyway

If an atheist wrote these rules, why they'd be brilliant. Unfortunately for the malcontents of atheism ... a Jew wrote them (well, actually a burning bush did ... but I digress), and therefore they are stupid. Only they are so blindingly obvious that they are obviously correct!!! You stupid Christians just don't get how brilliant atheists are!!!

 

Christian lords routinely murdered in the game of politics, so did countless Popes, so what exactly changed from the fall of the Roman Empire to the rise of the Christian Medieval states? conquering medieval armies did not pillage or gang rape in your estimation? (sort of like a forced orgy huh?). Why as a Christian would you allow a slave to go free when its so much easier to have someone to beat on, do your bidding and treat like a sub-human? How long did it take Christian states to finally abolish slavery?

Why do you need to worship one god, why is that superior to other worldviews?

Why are you cherry picking from history and glossing over what came after the fall of the Roman Empire?

 

Perhaps if you read either the OP or the Bible, you'd know that are well wide of the mark.

Nothing in Christianity says that joining will prevent you from sinning - nothing. This idea seems to be prevasive FEELING in atheism, but one that is clearly at odds with the reality of our doctrine.

What the book says is that the ten commandments are correct, and that should you choose to follow them - good things result - if you choose not to - bad things result. So the fact that you list Christians NOT following the ten commandments and it leading to - bad things - is EXACTLY what we are saying.

Guess what? When atheists don;t follow them? That leads to bad things too.