24 Feb 19
Yeah, those are the good commandments.
And Christ brought another -- love thy neighbor as how you love thyself. This was also something listed in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.
He summarized all of the commandments in two: love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as how you love yourself.
That is what I go back to and the totality of all good is encompassed in these two commandments, IMO. There is nothing that is moral that would not escape the bounds of this definition, and there is nothing that is immoral that would actually uphold this definition.
24 Feb 19
@fmf saidYou told everyone to be believers here in this discussion, and then fill your input with unbelief. If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?
It's a debate and discussion forum. I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer! Since your rejecting the claims from the onset, there is nothing about your op that is truthful.
24 Feb 19
@philokalia saidThere is nothing that is moral that would not escape the bounds of this definition, and there is nothing that is immoral that would actually uphold this definition.Cruelty to animals isn't covered by the two commandments, unless you define animals as neighbors (which is an unusual use of that word).
25 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYour mundane/political objections to some of the additions along with how you carefully blanked out of some proposed additions [rape and slavery and others] has made you sound like you have been defending a manmade and not-divinely inspired set of rules. If that's an outcome of you addressing the OP, so be it. Assuming one was a "believer" did not mean one had to assume belief in the same things as you do.
You told everyone to be believers here in this discussion, and then fill your input with unbelief. If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?
If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer! Since your rejecting the claims from the onset, there is nothing about your op that is truthful.
25 Feb 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYou have simply got the wrong end of the stick.
If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer!
At the end of 8 pages of discussion, I have begun to reach my own deduction in this thought exercise, in part due to consideration of the answers and claims you offered. You are entitled to reach your own conclusions
I think the two Assumptions fail to withstand scrutiny given answers '1. No' and '2. Yes' to the Questions because the Commandments do not provide timeless moral leadership and standards and because they appear, instead, to be merely some rules written by humans which reflected the morality of their time.
25 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidWhat about this one?
If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?
You shall not own human beings as chattel
And this one...
Thou shalt not have sexual relations with anyone, including thine own wife, without their consent.
And...
Thou shalt not physically assault any person, unless that person is acting to harm thyself or other innocents.
...and others suggested by BigDoggProblem on page 3?
25 Feb 19
@fmf saidWasn't this about the 10 Commandments, where do you see me saying anything here about rape, slavery, and others in this OP? If you want to assume the scripture is from God, then it’s the whole thing.
Your mundane/political objections to some of the additions along with how you carefully blanked out of some proposed additions [rape and slavery and others] has made you sound like you have been defending a manmade and not-divinely inspired set of rules. If that's an outcome of you addressing the OP, so be it. Assuming one was a "believer" did not mean one had to assume belief in the same things as you do.
If you only want to discuss a couple of verses, then you are not really speaking to scripture. Most people can take a single verse here or there, making it mean whatever they want, as long as they can ignore the rest. This is what you are doing here, take a few verses, make them mean what you want, and ignore the rest without cause.
So much for your exercise, moving on.
25 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYes, I would say the hypotheses did not pass the test.
Wasn't this about the 10 Commandments, where do you see me saying anything here about rape, slavery, and others in this OP? If you want to assume the scripture is from God, then it’s the whole thing.
25 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidThe thread was about what can be argued is missing.
If you only want to discuss a couple of verses, then you are not really speaking to scripture. Most people can take a single verse here or there, making it mean whatever they want, as long as they can ignore the rest. This is what you are doing here, take a few verses, make them mean what you want, and ignore the rest without cause.
25 Feb 19
@bigdoggproblem saidThat's an interesting point.
Cruelty to animals isn't covered by the two commandments, unless you define animals as neighbors (which is an unusual use of that word).
However, we know that Christianity believes in fair treatment of animals. There is the Old Testament passage about not muzzling the ox while it treadeth out the grain, and there are also passages which equate gluttony with binging on meat in Psalms, and moreover, of the creatures of God praising God via their existence. It is also noteworthy that the Catholic priests pray int heir hours about how they praise God for these creatures.
And, of course, I am sure there are some other things that involve matter sof good stewardship that fall out of the bounds of this.
Well done, Big Dogg -- you have pointed out that I was wrong.
Much appreciated!
25 Feb 19
FMF, your complaints basically come down to two errors:
(1) This desire to enumerate far beyond what is there.
This could create a ridiculous circumstnace where the enumeration is basically never done, until we are writing "Thou shalt not litter!" must be among the Ten Commandments.
(2) The error of not understanding historical circumstances and thinking that you can 1:1 slavery as you understand it in the current context with the reality of that time period.