"Thou shalt not kill"...did you have to be TOLD this?

what?

every ancient people that ever was either wrote down their moral codes as fable, or handed them down around the campfire via oratory. what on earth makes you think a particular collection of old jewish fables are any different to all the millions of others that have existed since we swung down out of the trees?

 

The fact that every week about 1 billion people listen to them being read every week......today.

- - - Updated - - -

Because when it was written murder was common.

 

what does the number of listeners have to do with it?

but if you think popularity lends respect, 6+ billion people DON'T listen to it.

 

Did you not understand your own question? You wrote:

The difference is that PEOPLE STILL USE THEM AS A GUIDE TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE TODAY. That is how they are different.
It is about the fact they they survived and speak to people today. Or maybe you think you were just being flip and didn't expect to be called out.

 

So if people know the differenc e between right and wrong why do we have prisons?

Humans have a dark side. Anyone that denies that has their head buried. Look around and see for yourself. In some cultures it became a practice to sacrifice other humans. There are some humans who even practice cannibalism. Seems to me humans need all the help they can get when it comes to knowing right from wrong.

 

Still read today by millions just like the koran and the sutras? I guess islam and buddhism much be as meritorious as christianity, then

brush up on your diaspora history and you'll soon see the mechanics behind the spread of christianity. Ultimately though, none of it matters in terms of the value of any given collection of fables as anything other than cultural and anthropological information and possible literary merit.

End of the day, if you equate numbers with virtue, you're in a difficult position.

 

Okay you asked:

what on earth makes you think a particular collection of old jewish fables are any different to all the millions of others that have existed since we swung down out of the trees?

I answered because they are still relevant to many people today. That answers your question. I am sorry you didn't like the answer and felt the need to read into it to reject. But that is the difference.

It doesn't matter why? Or if any others are read? I answered your question.

I don't think I have to brush up on anything here. I am sorry I spoiled your tantrum.

 

You implied that the popularity of the bible somehow lends christianity superiority. This is demonstrably incorrect (see islam and buddhism).

Adding emotive 'insults', aka, referring to my pedestrian and detached posts as tantrums doesnt improve your position, incidentally.

 

NO I didn't. I don't know why you got there. You are simply not accepting the answer I gave as to why they are different. That is all I did. I don't feel Christianity isn't superior, in fact I am not Christian. But again you asked why the Jewish text are still relevant and I answered. I can only assume your inability to accept the answer is due to your tantrum because nothing else seems rational. But go ahead tell be what I believe and said so you can attack it.

Now if you want to talk about the merit of the Biblical literature I can but that is not what you asked about.

 

I apologise if I interpreted hastily or badly. The impression I got was that you were claiming that numbers equalled validity.

Can't talk about the merit of biblical literature, as I find it a dull (but deeply disturbing) read. Too much killing and thees and thous.

 

The thees and thous are a symptom of bad translations.

 

This is Biblical literature. Even the English translation is pretty good.

 

He wrote that verse with you in mind, not the rest of us

 

apart from having her hair compared to a flock of goats (!), it's not too bad, as doggerel goes

- - - Updated - - -

please choose a or b, instead of deflecting

 

It was a serious answer. People who don't have ethics aren't going to be motivated by right/wrong - so fear of punishment is pretty much the best and only effective motivator - the command was made with people like that in mind, not with the majority of people (who do have ethics for their own sake)

Just like a spoiled 5 year old kid isn't going to be motivated to clean his room if you give him a lecture on "morals" - he's going to be motivated when you take his Xbox away - and sadly some adults never evolve beyond thinking like kids, so when dealing with primitive people (such as tribesmen from thousands of years ago) then primitive laws are effective believe it or not

 

Difference is that it's part of Western culture, and those other fable's aren't

 

Which means absolutely nothing. It's not part of eastern culture.

 

Well if you are talking about the Bible then you should try and read it. I have looked at just about every religion there is and this Christianity matches the real world. I have. Considered atheism but it is pretty far off from reality.

 

I think the overall point is that God did not have to give a command in order for humanity to figure out that murder was not in societies best interest.

At the time when Moses received the 10 commands laws against murder already existed in every significant culture that existed.

Hammurabi's law code had existed for some 4-500 years already. Not only were there laws against murder but also almost all of the other of the 10 commands. Hittites, Assyrians, Egyptians and so on all had laws pertaining to social interaction.

Don't murder, steal, shag thy neighbors wife, commit perjury and so on were part of almost every law code we know of at the time of Moses and these had existed for many centuries previous to Moses.

As such, there was little point in God giving these commands to Moses as he would have already been well aware of them.

 

Tell me, do you innately feel that it's right or wrong to go against the wishes of your parents and pursue your own career and family choices?

 

That is probably true, except murder was accepted in some ancient near East socieities.

That is why it wasn't simply a prohibition, it was a statement that it was morally wrong to murder not just a crime. There is a difference and that is why the 10 commandments does not have a punishment. It is less a legal code of society as it is a statement of morality.

Yes but it was not seen as a moral imperative and thus it was perfectly fine for the law makers to violate them.

Whoops that is not even close to true.

Read above/

 

Sure it was seen as a moral imperative. To the Sumerians Egyptians,and Greeks absolutely. It probably was a moral imperative for the Hittites as well. (They had the laws in their code but I have not studied them enough to say for sure)

The Egyptians had the concept of Ma-at. Similar to and probably the precursor to the eastern idea of karma. This is a better moral code IMO than the one prescribed by Christianity.

Considering that is highly doubtful that you have knowledge of any of the law codes that did exist... your comment is mute.

 

when one is a child, and has no choice, one is compelled to follow the 'wishes' of parents. when one is old enough to enjoy a little autonomy, begins to understand the importance of critical thinking, and is able to determine the difference between good and bad information, things change. if you're one of the lucky ones, you find that the line sold by your parents is sound, and not just them projecting their own shiit (ambitions, prejudices, superstitions, etc etc). for many people, though, this isn't the case at all. in such cases, it's VERY right to 'go against the wishes' of parents.

 

And, yet, if you were Asian, you might have a very deep sense of regard for your parents such that you would innately feel dishonorable for going against the wishes of your parents. Filial piety is not part of western culture. The fables told in western culture are very relevant to the structure of our culture. Sure, we are supposed to "honor" our parents, but that is not the same as to be obedient to them and our ancestors.

 

What do you mean "if" I was Asian? What made you think I wasnt?

Incidentally, I despise unquestioning familial piety. It leads to utter stagnation and entrenched zenophobia and cultural bigotry.