Commandments Five to Eleven, by David E. Cortesi

[Toto]

This is a brilliant political statement. I hope it receives wide distribution, as it shows up the fake theology that seems to dominate American political discourse.

However, I think that Cortesi is too respectful of Judeo-Christian ethics, and I would not want this essay to prompt anyone to say - okay - we'll post commandments 5 through 11 and credit the Bible, and this will stop murder in public schools.

First note the degree of selection that is required to come up with the list of acceptable commandments. The requirement to "love thy neighbour as thyself" in Leviticus is followed directly by a prohibition against sowing two types of seeds in the same field or wearing garments of mixed fibers, which are beyond trivial. How do we decide that these commandments are expendable? Perhaps by applying reason rather than blind acceptance?

And even the commandments that pass his scrutiny are doubtful. "Honor thy father and thy mother" makes sense for many of us, as long as we don't get too carried away with it and work through our issues in therapy, but not for abused children. And how can "coveting", the basis for the capitalist system, be mentioned in the same breath as murder? For that matter, while adultery is not a good thing, it is several orders of magnitude less serious than theft or false witness.

But going into all this might make the essay too complicated for its purpose.

Thanks for concurring. I recently discovered an excellent analysis of the history and meanings of the Ten Commandments at the Religious Tolerance web site. Anyone who liked my essay will enjoy http://www.religioustolerance.org, and especially the chapter on the Commandments at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm.

The high profile given the commandment to honor your parents has puzzled many. In my opinion, it is in any case subsumed by the commandment to love others as you love yourself. If you treat your parents, along with everyone else, as kindly as you treat yourself, how much more "honor" could you give?

I do not agree that coveting the property of other people is a basis for capitalism. The proper basis of capitalism (as any libertarian can tell you) is the exchange of value between peers, to the non-zero-sum benefit of all. No coveting required, only common sense.

However, you do point up the narrowness of the 10th commandment. It aims at the very specific craving for our neighbor's goods, not at the general desire for what we don't have. You would probably find Buddhist ethics more useful. Buddhism points directly at the general state of "craving" -- whether it is aimed at our neighbor's goods or at stuff in general -- as the source of all unhappiness.

Your short piece was quite insightful. It is so true that the commandments were spoken to the Israelites and not to the world of Gentiles.

In support of, and adding to your information, covenants in the ancient world are a genre and not a nebulous idea. Everything in the Bible is not part of God's covenant with His people. Covenants have a starting verse and an ending verse. Thus, the covenant in Exodus follows the patter of historic suzerain-vassal treaties. The pattern of these treaties is:
1. Preamble (mention of parties involved)
2. history of the faithfulness of said parties
3. stipulations
4. list of cursings and blessings for disobedience and/or disobedience
5. deposit of and schedule of renewal of covenant
6. external sign for those involved in the covenant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. ceremonial ratification

All of these are not present in strict order in covenants and some drop out. The covenant in Exodus extends from Exodus 20:2 to 24:11 and Deuteronomy is a big and expanded renewal of this covenant/treaty that fills in a lot of blanks. Leviticus, therefore, while containing foundational laws, is not part of the covenant of Exodus. This is contrary to the flow of your logic, but not completely contrary to your conclusion.

Identification in this covenant is partially shown by circumcision, primarily observance of the Sabbath (Ex 31:13-15). The stiff penalty for infringement is due to the connection with the whole covenant. How you treat the sign is how you treat the whole thing. It's like burning your green card while in this country. This is the cause for the prophet's disproportionate emphasis on the Sabbath and the extreme controversy with Jesus and the Pharisees over the Sabbath.

Judaism sees its laws as foundational. The 10 commandments are the stipulations of the covenant. The other laws are case laws and applications of these initial 10. Hence the phrase "parent laws" in rabbinical circles. These 10 are the means for Israelites to access their part of the bargain from God: The Palestine region as a possession. Therefore all 10 are essential compared to all the other termed "trivial" laws. Nevertheless, this is still to the Israelites alone.

Law can be divided into two broad categories. Apodictic and case law. No other society in the ancient world tried to legislate morality (apodictic). Israelite law did attempt this. How do you prove coveting in a court of law anyway? You don't. Any ancient Israelite would have laughed at the notion. But they did believe in a "higher court" if you will. A judge renders a decision on based on evidence alone, but deity can weigh motive and punish in its own way apart from civil government. Too many religious fanatics try to do what their God is supposed to do alone. Israelite culture valued things that that our society by in large does not protect: the family as a unit, national morality, etc. They recognized the strength these debatable ethics gave a society. Anything that tore at the fabric of society (not necessarily its ideas and perspectives) was a threat and killed. Hence the death penalty for adultery and rebellious youth. This is the cause for the seemingly stiff penalties attributed to minor crimes.

Still America is not based on a moral system, if ever it was. The 10 commandments as legislated in Exodus are weight upon a gentile nation, nor would they be compatible.

I wish more Christians would read your article and less of their opposition, because your essential idea was correct, but both its application and proof is incomplete and false.

I would have agreed completely with you had it not be for Romans 1:5 and the fact that the message Jesus teaches he extends to Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20). While this is not the extension of Old Testament Law on all people it is the extension of the principles contained in it. Proof of Jesus' support of all 10 commands is in Matthew 22:34-40 in which He is questioned about the greatest command in scripture. The first five commands find weight in his first response, the second five in his "second" command. Then comes the phrase "all the Law and the Prophets." This is not the extension of a previous covenant. It is the establishing of something new on the exact same principles.

An article arguing that the 10 commandments should be removed has a place in America because of freedom of speech. But a article arguing that the Bible supports this does not. Even the Old Testament envisions the Law going forth into all the earth and it causing world peace (Isaiah 2:1-4).

Nor do I think that your article is true in its terminology of "posting". In America, you would have to "remove" what the founding fathers posted on the Supreme Court's wall if my facts are straight. I do not think that it could be termed as very American in its traditional sense. However ignorant they were of the implications of ancient covenant does not diminish the intent and message they sent.

Thank you, "Josephus," for your amplifications.

For an example of a modern country that enforces "apodictic" rules, see the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Recently they arrested and jailed some barbers because they were giving un-Moslem haircuts.

I regret that I don't see the relevance of Romans 1:5, which says
------------
[Jesus Christ] By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name...
------------
Perhaps you can clarify?

I cited Matthew 19:17-19 to show that Jesus, when asked what constituted the Law, referred only to the 5th to 9th commandments plus "love thy neighbor." You point to Matthew 22:34-40 as if it showed something different; but to me, it makes precisely the same point. After Jesus makes some rather startling claims the Pharisees want to debate him:
----------------
Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying, Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
--------------

I would cite this passage as yet more proof that, for Christians, the verses of the Ten Commandments are not especially privileged, nor are they to be taken as a complete guide to behavior -- which was my main point.

Regarding your final, oblique reference -- does someone claim that the early Supreme Court had the Commandments posted on the chamber wall? I would be interested in a citation. I was in the first Supreme Court chambers in Philadelphia last year and I don't remember any thing like that, nor was it mentioned by the National Park ranger in her talk.

In response to the critics who think prayer in the schools and posting the Ten Commandments will curtail violence. Last night watching the world news, watching a story on violence in Jerusalem, I realized something. Here are people who pray several times a day. The Ten Commandments were supposidly written by Moses, the leader of what would become Israel. If prayer and the Ten Commandments don't work there, why would it work for us?

[Richard Carrier]

Well put. I also find it amusing that "school violence" only became a national problem when it started affected affluent white people. In contrast, overall school violence has steadily and remarkably dropped in relation to the past, for minorities are killing themselves a lot less often. School violence was a far more serious problem in the 70's and 80's. Yet no one is praising local schools in minority neighborhoods for turning around school violence there. No one is even looking into how they did that. No, instead everyone thinks and says we are in a crisis, a wave of rising school violence, despite all evidence that it is in fact the reverse. The real message is that schools are moot. The threat lies at home: the very same rich white parents who argue that parents need to be better parents are waking up to find their own son has just become a murderer. And they are too self-absorbed to know what to do about that, or to see how they are really to blame. Talking about bibles and commandments and prayers in school is clearly a waste of time. These are the kids of God Fearing Christians, and if they can't turn them around at home, how the hell is even a completely religious school going to succeed?

your group disgusts me with your rage against the plaque of the TEN COMMANDMENTS at the Chester County Courthouse. If your group was attaked like that you would not like it. After 9/11 you would think that you would have other things to worry about instead of attacking your fellow humans (regardless of their religion).
GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!

[-DM-]

sb:

Did you read the "IMPORTANT--PLEASE READ!" message before you submitted your feedback? The reason that I ask is that it would have been helpful had you supplied the requested URL--or at least something more solid in the way of a clue regarding the page to which you refer. As it stands, I am uncertain as to what group it is that you have in mind when you say "your group" inasmuch as I am not aware of "rage against the TEN COMMANDMENTS at the Chester County Courthouse" on the part of the Internet Infidels, which is, of course, the group responsible for the Secular Web and the Internet Infidels Feedback forum (to which you submitted your feedback).

In any case, whether you like it or not, there are good reasons that many people feel that the Ten Commandments have no business being posted in the Chester County Courthouse--or any other government facility--given the firmly established principle of separation of church and state by which our government operates.

Most of those who are in favor of posting the so-called Ten Commandments in public places seem to be Protestant Christians. It is doubtful that these Protestant Christians would feel good about posting moral precepts from the Koran or the Book of Mormon on the walls of government buildings. My guess is that these same Christians who are in favor of posting the so-called Ten Commandments would be the first to invoke the principle of separation of church and state when it came to the posting of moral precepts taken from the holy books of competing religions.

Regardless, There is also a problem inherent in any discussion of the so-called Ten Commandments, and that is that there are several versions in the Bible itself and, in addition, some variation in interpretation of the so-called Ten Commandments between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Thus, one needs to clarify exactly which version and which interpretation is under discussion. (This is one of the reasons, by the way, that I refer to them as the "so-called" Ten Commandments. The other is that what we refer to as the Ten Commandments are, in their original form, not necessarily ten in number.)

There is yet another problem: Because Moses broke the tablets on which "God" allegedly wrote the first version of the Ten Commandments, "God" allegedly redid them. Unfortunately, "He" seems to have forgotten what he said in the first instance inasmuch as the first and second editions are hardly identical. Worse. there are actually three sets of so-called Ten Commandments in the Bible:
1.) EX 20.2-17: the first set of ["Ten"] Commandments on two stone tablets.
[EX 32.19: Moses breaks the first set of tablets.]
[EX 34:1, God promises Moses a new set of tablets with the same words that were on the first set.]
2.) EX 34.12-28: the second set of ["Ten"] Commandments on a new set of two stone tablets.
3.) DT 5.6-21: [allegedly] a restating of the #1 set.

#1 and #3 are essentially the same, although there are minor variations between the two. #2, however, is quite different, and this is in spite of the fact that God allegedly said that he would write the same words on this set of two tablets as had been on the first set, the set which Moses broke. Only #2 is specifically labeled as the Ten Commandments and yet these are not the so-called Ten Commandments which we normally think of as the Ten Commandments. What it boils down to is these different sets of commandments come from different traditions, and in the case of #2, two different traditions have apparently been comingled after-the-fact by an editor. [See post, below, from Jeremy Pallant and the discussion which followed by clicking on the link provided.]

There are several other problems associated with posting the so-called Ten Commandments in a government building, school building--or anywhere else--problems which have little or nothing to do with the separation of church and state: the so-called Ten Commandments are defective as a moral code.

[quote]From "The Bible in Balance," by Charles Smith:
As a moral code, the Commandments are defective. The first four have no moral value [whatsoever]. The Bible God commanded the breaking of all the commandments (except those involving himself). The first commandment reflects upon God as conceited; ... the third [makes him out to be jealous [and vengeful]. The fifth gives a selfish and false reason for honoring parents; and the tenth classes wives with asses and other chattels, and recognizes slavery. [Editor's note: the Hebrew word translated "servant" means "slave."] The Ten Commandments do not restrain wife beaters, slave beaters, religious persecutions, liars (outside of a court of law), or tyrants.<hr></blockquote>

It must also be kept in mind during any discussion of the Ten Commandments and of biblical moral precepts that there are not just ten commandments, but hundreds. In fact, there are more than 70 chapters which are more or less filled with the commandments which allegedly come from "God." Thus, if we were to accept that the Ten Commandments came from "God" and were worthy of our attention, there is good reason that these other commandments should receive similar attention.

--Don--

P.S. In my experience, those who have said "GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!" are those most in need of heeding their own advice.

---------

Suggested reading:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (http://www.religioustolerance.org./chr_10co.htm#int)

Real Religious Freedom (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=136) by J. E. Hill

Ten Commandments Redux (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=92) by G J Gaudia

Commandments Five to Eleven (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi2.html): Biblical arguments against public posting of the Ten Commandments by David E. Cortesi

The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html) by Richard Carrier

The Ten Commandments are Moral Fossils (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=134) by Charles W. Webb, M.D.

The Ten Commandments (2000) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/william_edelen/10commandments.html) by William Edelen

THE "TEN COMMANDMENTS" AND THE "LAW" (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/is_it_gods_word/chapter_06.html) by Joseph Wheless

---------

The Real Ten Commandments (http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000645)
Author: Jeremy Pallant
Secular Web Regular
Member # 1637

posted May 18, 2001 05:58 PM

I've referenced a set of commandments found in Exodus 34, and claimed that these were the only such explicitly identified as being THE Ten Commandments. For those who might be curious, they are as follows:

The First Commandment
34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

The Second Commandment
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god:
34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

The Third Commandment
34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

The Fourth Commandment
34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

The Fifth Commandment
34:19 Every first birth of the womb is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

The Sixth Commandment
34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

The Seventh Commandment
34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the years end.
34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before Lord Yahweh, the god of Israel.
34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before Yahweh thy god thrice in the year.

The Eighth Commandment
34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.

The Ninth Commandment
34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of Yahweh thy god.

The Tenth Commandment
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk.

34:27 And Yahweh said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

34:28 And he was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

[Mike Rosoft]

Don,

In a response to the "disgust" feedback, you wrote:

(By the way, the authors of the Gospels seem to have recognized this last oversight in that they have Jesus saying in MK 10:19 that "defraud not" is one of the commandments even though there is no such commandment in the so-called Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the OT.)

It is not true that there is no commandment "defraud not" in the Old Testament. Try Leviticus 19:11 and 13: "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. ... Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him." (KJV)


Mike Rosoft

[-DM-]

Mike:

Thank you for calling this to my attention.

You are correct that LE 19:11 and 19:13, especially the latter, essentially provide the equivalent of the "defraud not" commandment which Jesus allegedly mentioned in MK 10:19. I therefore eliminated the erroneous paragraph from my response to the disgust (=http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002051) feedback (and made note of that change at the end of my response to that feedback).

This points up the danger, by the way, of taking someone else's word for it inasmuch as I had gotten the alleged fact that there was no such commandment either in the so-called Ten Commandments or elsewhere in the Old Testament from one of the many books that I have read on the Bible.

There is one point still to be made with regard to MK 10:19, however, and that is that MK 10:19 makes it seem as if Jesus is saying that "defraud not" is one of the so-called Ten Commandments when it is not--but that is a rather picayunish point.

Thanks again.

--Don--

[Facts]

This information you have provided, like so many other secular points of view, is misconstrued. Moses did not make the Ten Commandments like your forum reads. The Bible states they were written with the Finger of God. Moses merely presented them to the world. This means the Ten Commandments of the Bible are Devine in origin, and have specific laws that cannot be misinterpreted, Solon's ideas are human in origin and full of vagueness such as "Do good things." "Good things" has a very different meaning to a serial killer than it does to the Pope. "Make reason your supreme commander?" and "Do not associate with people who do bad things?" These statements are not specifics to live by, nor were they, in any way, mentioned when the laws of this country were construed. However, the ONLY reason why Europeans left thier country in search of a new place was to practice Christianity in a place without presecution. So Please, if you are going to contort factual history just for the sake of showing ignorance...please keep it to yourself.

[-DM-]

It would seem that you are ignorant of the requirement (see the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)) to supply the title of the article and the name of its author--either that or you ignored that requirement. Assuming, however, that what you have in mind is The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.shtml), I hope you noticed that he is an instructor of Ancient History, that he has a B.A. in history, an M.A. in Ancient History, and a M.Phil. in Ancient History; it is not as if he doesn't know the subject or what he is talking about when it comes to this article and what the Bible has to say about who was responsible for the so-called Ten Commandments.

Keep in mind that although the Bible might state that the so-called Ten Commandments were "written with the finger of God," the statement doesn't make it necessarily so any more than that The Book of Mormon or the Koran are necessarily from "God" just because they make that claim. In other words, the so-called Ten Commandments are not necessarily "Devine" [sic] in origin but, more likely, the words of men put into the mouth of "God."

In any case, there is a problem inherent in any discussion of the so-called Ten Commandments, and that is that there are several variations in the Bible itself and, in addition, some variation in interpretation of the so-called Ten Commandments between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Thus, one needs to clarify exactly which version and which interpretation is under discussion. (This is one of the reasons, by the way, that I refer to them as the "so-called" Ten Commandments. The other is that what we refer to as the "Ten Commandments" are, in their original form, not necessarily ten in number.)

There is yet another problem: Because Moses allegedly broke the tablets on which "God" allegedly wrote the first version of the Ten Commandments, "God" allegedly redid them. Unfortunately, "God," although allegedly perfect and omnipotent, seems to have forgotten what "He" said in the first instance inasmuch as the first and second editions are hardly identical. Worse, there are actually three sets of so-called Ten Commandments in the Bible:
1.) EX 20.2-17: the first set of ["Ten"] Commandments on two stone tablets.
[EX 32.19: Moses breaks the first set of tablets.]
[EX 34:1, God promises Moses a new set of tablets with the same words that were on the first set.]
2.) EX 34.12-28: the second set of ["Ten"] Commandments on a new set of two stone tablets.
3.) DT 5.6-21: [allegedly] a restating of the #1 set.

#1 and #3 are essentially the same, although there are minor variations between the two. #2, however, is quite different, and this is in spite of the fact that God allegedly said that he would write the same words on this set of two tablets as had been on the first set, the set which Moses broke.

Only #2 is specifically labeled as the Ten Commandments and yet these are not the so-called Ten Commandments which we normally think of as the Ten Commandments.

What it boils down to is these different sets of commandments come from different traditions, and in the case of #2, two different traditions have apparently been comingled after-the-fact by an editor, or "redactor."

Further, the so-called Ten Commandments are often suspiciously similar to the Law of King Hammurabi, which Hammurabi allegedly received from the Sun god Shamash prior to Moses and Yahweh's "Ten Commandments."

--

Finally, anyone who believes that "the ONLY reason why Europeans left thier [sic] country in search of a new place was to practice Christianity in a place without presecution [sic]" needs to learn some history.

-DM-

[Donjared]

I wish I was smart as DM and could point out every misspelled word in everyones posts.

But yoo knoe us hick Christians, we ar juss so dam stoopid.

Condescending isn't it?

[-DM-]

One does not necessarily need to be smart in order to avoid spelling errors in a public post; a good spell-checker works quite well. For example, I usually compose anything other than a very short post in a text editor, then run the spell checker, then cut and paste into the message window. Regardless, it is customary when directly quoting written material to use "[sic]" when there are spelling errors in the quoted material; the idea is to indicate that the person who is being quoted made the errors, not the person doing the quoting. So no, it is not condescending, rather it is customary procedure.

In any case, the substance of my first response remains unchallenged; to accuse another of "showing ignorance" is always dangerous inasmuch as it can turn out that the accuser is much more ignorant than the accused.

-DM-

P.S. There is another potential problem with "ignorant posts": we have, on occasion, had disingenuous atheists post as if they were Christians; the idea was to make Christians look ignorant. We can never be certain, therefore, whether a given "ignorant post" is from a person who is a legitimate Christian or from someone who is trying to make Christians look bad.

[Donjared]

Thank you for your reply.
Yes, I understand what -sic- means, and yes I understand what it is used for. I just find it a bit tiresome when educated folks think they have more wisdom than the average guy just because they have more formal schooling. The most intelligent person I know is my father, and he can barely read. His spelling is ofcourse, abominable. However, if any member of my family needs an intelligent answer, he is the one we call. BTW, he is also an agnostic. I hate admitting that!
Please excuse me DM, but I find pretense and patronization nauseating. I am 31 with a beard. I am married with 3 children. I drive an 86 Ford pickup truck. It has a gun rack. I use the guns in the said gun rack to kill other mammals and eat them. I most always vote Republican and/or Libertarian. I go to a Southern Baptist Church in Northern Nevada and I wear a big sliver cross (gold is too Catholic for me) around my neck. Now as you read that, I'm sure you formed an image in your mind. Maybe it was the image of a big dumb flag waving redneck who lives in a self made Christian fantasyland. Or maybe not, I dont want to judge you. But its that image I find objectionable. If I were to misspell every word in this post, it wouldn't make me any less right or you any less wrong.
Now as for the content of your post. Surprise! I agree with you. I think people are way to quick to tag others as ignorant (read above) when they actually just disagree. I certainly don't think you or your authors are ignorant. I just disagree with your conclusions and objectives.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Donjared
I just find it a bit tiresome when educated folks think they have more wisdom than the average guy just because they have more formal schooling.In my opinion, to assume that you know what another thinks is presumptuous--to say the least. Unless you are omniscient, you know little about my schooling, my IQ, or what I think. In any case, you are just plain wrong if you think that I think that either Carrier or I have "more wisdom than the average guy just because" I or he might "have more formal schooling." Further, neither you nor I knows with certainty what Carrier thinks in this regard. But one thing is certain, Carrier most likely does know what he is talking about here, and it is uncertain--at best--that "Facts" does given the assertions he made in the first post in this thread.

I just disagree with your conclusions and objectives.Assuming that you mean what you say, here, you have no certain way of knowing my objectives, and I'm not sure that you correctly understand my conclusions. Perhaps, however, you mean something else, such as Carrier's conclusions and/or the objectives of the Internet Infidels?

-DM-

[Donjared]

Hey DM, I think you got me mixed up with that guy posting as FACTS. I'm actually Donjared. I'm a different guy. OOPS!

[Donjared]

Sorry but I would like to say one additional thing in regards to your objectives since that IS something I actually said. My assumption based on my observations is...
1)The explanation and advocacy of the Atheistic worldview.
2)The explanation and discouragement of the Theistic worldview. Which for some reason seems to focus exclusively on the Christian worldview. Atheist or Anti-Christian? Hmmmmm?
I understand the Atheists conclusions based on the reading material you provide. The conclusion is that there is no God and we'd are all better off to kick all religion to the curb (but ofcourse Christianity in particular). Am I wrong?
If I am mistaken as to your objectives or conclusions, please save me from the aformentioned ignorance as posted above.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Donjared
Hey DM, I think you got me mixed up with that guy posting as FACTS. I'm actually Donjared. I'm a different guy. OOPS!Donjared:

You are absolutely right. Please accept my apologies. I assumed without checking back to the first post--incorrectly, as it turns out--that I was talking to the same person throughout this exchange. Thank you for politely pointing that out to me.

I have gone back and corrected my responses where necessary. The gist remains pretty much the same, however.

-DM-

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Donjared
My assumption based on my observations is...
1)The explanation and advocacy of the Atheistic worldview.
2)The explanation and discouragement of the Theistic worldview. Which for some reason seems to focus exclusively on the Christian worldview. Atheist or Anti-Christian? Hmmmmm?The Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml) includes material on many of the major religions, not just Christianity. Christianity is, however, the primary focus because Christianity is the prevailing religion here in the US, our base of operation, and because that is what most of our authors have been exposed to. From the FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.shtml#focus):

--

Why do the Internet Infidels focus so much on Christianity?

We can only work with what we have: our expertise is primarily in Christian studies (many of our contributors are ex-Christians), the essays that are contributed to the Internet Infidels are very often about issues caused or brought about by Christianity, etc. Christianity is, after all, the most popular and influential Western religion, and its adherents are the most active in publishing apologetics and arguing against atheism, engaging us intellectually on a regular basis and challenging us to address their claims. Nevertheless, a great many of our papers relate to theism or the supernatural in general, not to Christianity as such, and we have some responses to Islam, Mormonism, and Judaism (to which our papers on the Old Testament often also apply). If you would be interested in contributing an essay about one of these religions, or others, please see our Call for Papers.

--

-DM-

[RevReid]

I have addressed these discussions in my book, God Fraud (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971398550/InternetInfidels). (Reid, J. R., God Fraud. CDA Publishing, 2002. ISBN: 0-9713985-5-0)
The major cause of disputes such as are occuring in this forum revolves around the words "I believe ..." Once these words are taken out of the discussion, and the participants ague facts, the Torah, Bible(s) and Koran can be considered in their true light.
I, along with countless other authors, historians and clerics, have demonstrated conclusively that these "Sacred Texts" are at best imaginative misconceptions and at worst, outright frauds. In light of the knowledge modern scientists have gained, religions based upon the ancient, sacred texts can only be described as frauds.
Two examples are sufficient to elaborate these points. First, compare the Genesis account of the creation of the universe with the facts gleaned from the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and also the HST Ultra-Deep Field Probe. We humans now know that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, that it is topologically flat and that some kind of a rapid inflation did occur to expand and "flatten" the universe. We know that our sun is a third generation star, that birds do not fly in interplanetary space and that stars were created before fruit trees.
In the other example, we must ask for proofs regarding the existence of Jesus bar Joseph of Gallilee. I have searched the literature exhaustively and found none. The four "Gospels" were written a generation after the purported death of this fictional person. No contemporary Roman accounts exist. Tacitus wrote of the religious movment a century afterwards. Other so-called authorities have been demonstrated to be flagrantly corrupted.
Until and unless those who adhere to religions can demonstrate that they are factual in content, then all religious texts must be considered to be philosphical lessons in morality, unexplained metaphors or arcane satire.

[SeVeX ;)]

Just some thoughts.
Many historical manuscripts exist that the scholarly community accepts as legitimate only exist singularly. Only ONE copy! In many cases the written accounts are several centuries displaced from said event. Yet some new testament biblical manuscripts have been dated as early as 60 years later, and many copies exist, more than almost any other historical manuscript. Yet their validity is drawn into question. Where as many other historical manuscripts are accepted as legitimate fact when sometimes 700 or 800 years displaced. Just food for thought...

Bissell

[-DM-]

While I am no expert on the subject of biblical manuscripts, the sources that I use for information do not agree with you.

p. 166, The Historical Approach to the Bible, by Howard M. Teeple:
Although translators use printed editions of the biblical texts in their original languages, their ultimate sources are the ancient manuscripts on which the printed texts are based. A difficult problem exists, however. The manuscripts do not always agree with each other. This raises the question, What is the original text? We cannot obtain it from the original manuscripts, because they were soon lost or worn out. Only copies of copies have been transmitted to us. As scribes copied the manuscripts through the centuries, they made changes in the text, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. When a scribe made a change, other scribes copied it, and still later, others copied their copies, and thus the corruption of the text spread. ... No two manuscripts of the Bible read exactly alike.

p. 113:
In the field of New Testament textual criticism, the most significant events of the century have been the discovery of older New Testament manuscripts in Greek. Previously the two earliest and best that were known were the fourth century manuscripts, Codex Vatinicus and Codex Sinaiticus.

In 1931, the Chester Beatty papyri were found and marketed by dealers in Egypt. One, P46, was written around A.D. 200 and is very valuable as an early source of Paul's letters. ... Another papyrus, P45, is a third century codex of the Gospels and Acts, in fragmentary condition.

P52 is a tiny fragment from a papyrus codex of the Gospel of John. Written around A.D. 135, it is the earliest New Testament manuscript known. [Emphasis added.]p.44, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, by Robert M. Grant:
The oldest papyrus fragment of any New Testament book is a scrap, about two inches square, which contains verses from the eighteenth chapter of John on both sides. ... This papyrus scrap has been assigned to the first half of the second century.In other words, there are no original manuscripts of any New Testament book. What we have are bits and pieces of manuscripts which are themselves copies of the originals, which originals date to about 135 AD. The complete manuscripts that we have date from a later period. And there are tens of thousands of variations between the manuscripts and fragments that we do have.

-Don-

[Chris Weimer]

Many historical manuscripts exist that the scholarly community accepts as legitimate only exist singularly.[sic]
Where as[sic many other historical manuscripts are accepted as legitimate fact when sometimes 700 or 800 years displaced.

I myself do not know of any 800 year displaced writings to be deemed accurate, and if you do, please share! Speaking on behalf of the "scholarly community", I think you over-generalized a little too much. For example, we believe that Beowulf never really killed Grendel, Herodotos over-exaggerated his stories, and that all history has been subject to the hands of biased monks, who on even the slightest whim could have changed history as we know it. Skepticism and cynicism are the prevalent beliefs here, in part because we can accept human intervention.

[a gnostic]

It would seem that you are ignorant of the requirement (see the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)) to supply the title of the article and the name of its author--either that or you ignored that requirement. Assuming, however, that what you have in mind is The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bio.shtml), I hope you noticed that he is an instructor of Ancient History, that he has a B.A. in history, an M.A. in Ancient History, and a M.Phil. in Ancient History; it is not as if he doesn't know the subject or what he is talking about when it comes to this article and what the Bible has to say about who was responsible for the so-called Ten Commandments.

Keep in mind that although the Bible might state that the so-called Ten Commandments were "written with the finger of God," the statement doesn't make it necessarily so any more than that The Book of Mormon or the Koran are necessarily from "God" just because they make that claim. In other words, the so-called Ten Commandments are not necessarily "Devine" [sic] in origin but, more likely, the words of men put into the mouth of "God."

In any case, there is a problem inherent in any discussion of the so-called Ten Commandments, and that is that there are several variations in the Bible itself and, in addition, some variation in interpretation of the so-called Ten Commandments between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Thus, one needs to clarify exactly which version and which interpretation is under discussion. (This is one of the reasons, by the way, that I refer to them as the "so-called" Ten Commandments. The other is that what we refer to as the "Ten Commandments" are, in their original form, not necessarily ten in number.)

There is yet another problem: Because Moses allegedly broke the tablets on which "God" allegedly wrote the first version of the Ten Commandments, "God" allegedly redid them. Unfortunately, "God," although allegedly perfect and omnipotent, seems to have forgotten what "He" said in the first instance inasmuch as the first and second editions are hardly identical. Worse, there are actually three sets of so-called Ten Commandments in the Bible:
1.) EX 20.2-17: the first set of ["Ten"] Commandments on two stone tablets.
[EX 32.19: Moses breaks the first set of tablets.]
[EX 34:1, God promises Moses a new set of tablets with the same words that were on the first set.]
2.) EX 34.12-28: the second set of ["Ten"] Commandments on a new set of two stone tablets.
3.) DT 5.6-21: [allegedly] a restating of the #1 set.

#1 and #3 are essentially the same, although there are minor variations between the two. #2, however, is quite different, and this is in spite of the fact that God allegedly said that he would write the same words on this set of two tablets as had been on the first set, the set which Moses broke.

Only #2 is specifically labeled as the Ten Commandments and yet these are not the so-called Ten Commandments which we normally think of as the Ten Commandments.

What it boils down to is these different sets of commandments come from different traditions, and in the case of #2, two different traditions have apparently been comingled after-the-fact by an editor, or "redactor."

Further, the so-called Ten Commandments are often suspiciously similar to the Law of King Hammurabi, which Hammurabi allegedly received from the Sun god Shamash prior to Moses and Yahweh's "Ten Commandments."

--

Finally, anyone who believes that "the ONLY reason why Europeans left thier [sic] country in search of a new place was to practice Christianity in a place without presecution [sic]" needs to learn some history.

-DM- what is your opinion about this "god" giving out the commandments & then breaking them??

[-DM-]

what is your opinion about this "god" giving out the commandments & then breaking them??If I were to do justice to my opinion with regard to the "God" of the Bible breaking his own commandments, I would need to write a book. Suffice it to say:
1) The biblical "God" sets a very poor example, and anyone who says that "God" sets the standard for morality needs to read the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.
2) Those who maintain that there can be no morality without "God" and the Bible are mistaken. Biblical morality is wanting, and human morality has evolved to the point that it is vastly superior to biblical morality.

-DM-

[S Tal]

I realise this feature is from about five years ago, but since it's the special feature for this month then I've spotted the issue only now:

"Commandment 2 insults Catholics

The second commandment bans making graven images or bowing before them. Jews take this commandment seriously; there are no images in synagogues. Moslems, who include the Old Testament as valid scripture, follow this commandment rigorously."

Well, the Muslims do indeed have a prohibition against making graven images or bowing before them, but they don't do it out of following the second commandment of the Decalogue, nor do they see the Old Testament as valid scripture. For them the Old Testament is of a divine source, but corrupted by humans after reception, hence invalid, and corrected and replaced by the Qur'an.

As for the prohibition for Islam, I think it derives from Qur'an 42:11, "there is nothing like unto Him (=God)", which means a making of any likeness of God or prostrating to it is gross error, amounting to shirk (assigning partners to the One God).

Regards,
ST

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding Commandments Five to Eleven (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi2.html) by David E. Cortesi. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[David Cortesi]

Thank you for the correction. I put in that sentence based on memory of something I'd read, without checking for a source--thus committing a sin of which I've accused others in a different essay. I blush.

If one puts the three words "islam images prohibition" into Google one gets a variety of explanations and interpretations of the Islamic ban on image-making, none of which mention the Torah etc. If I had the ability to edit the online copy of this essay, I'd strike the one sentence beginning "Moslems..."

[-DM-]

If I had the ability to edit the online copy of this essay, I'd strike the one sentence beginning "Moslems..."Edited per your suggestion.

-DM-

[Nathan Barth]

christian believe in Jesus but we also worship God. We believe that Jesus is God and we worship the father,son and the Holy Spirit. Catholic don't worship Idol. The person who wrote that does not know anything about catholic. Catholic worship God and God alone. We ask the saints to pray for us.

[seetharaman]

so u worship three gods, not one?

[KeithHarwood]

"Commandment 2 insults Catholics

The second commandment bans making graven images or bowing before them. Jews take this commandment seriously; there are no images in synagogues. Moslems, who include the Old Testament as valid scripture, follow this commandment rigorously."


Joseph II: I don't like waxworks. What do you think, Court Composer.

Antonio Salieri: Italians are very fond of waxworks, Majesty. Our religion is largely based upon them.