• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Ten Commandments [W:52]

Moderator's Warning:
Two things. Firstly, everyone please make sure you read the special rules for this particular forum. Secondly, reduce the attacking tone.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
Two things. Firstly, everyone please make sure you read the special rules for this particular forum. Secondly, reduce the attacking tone.
Click to expand...

This thread doesn't belong in the religion forum. Can you please move it?
 
Amadeus said:
Do you believe that the Ten Commandments...

1) ...were written by God?
2) ...were well-written?
3) ...are out-dated?

I am not questioning whether or not God exists, as per the rules of the board. However, I have studied the Ten Commandments quite a bit and I can only come to the conclusion that they were written by humans living in a very archaic society.

Click to expand...


The ten commandments could be rewritten in 5 minutes and become vastly improved.
 
Peter Grimm said:
This thread doesn't belong in the religion forum. Can you please move it?
Click to expand...

Most threads in the religion forum can't really function with the extra restriction. Many ask yes or no questions and then refuse to allow anyone to answer no. The ones that ask actual theological questions, certainly ought to be protected from derailment. But many are about moral questions, and everyone has something to say about them. This one asks if specific religious precepts are right, and then restricts people who want to say no. This segregated religious forum causes all kinds of problems and stifles discussion.

Admittedly derailing a bit myself here, but see post 31 for my response to the OP.
 
Amadeus said:
Do you believe that the Ten Commandments...

1) ...were written by God?
2) ...were well-written?
3) ...are out-dated?

I am not questioning whether or not God exists, as per the rules of the board. However, I have studied the Ten Commandments quite a bit and I can only come to the conclusion that they were written by humans living in a very archaic society.

Click to expand...


you can kill anyone ,rape anyone ,steal from anyone if you dont believe

:lol:
 
Paschendale said:
Most threads in the religion forum can't really function with the extra restriction. Many ask yes or no questions and then refuse to allow anyone to answer no. The ones that ask actual theological questions, certainly ought to be protected from derailment. But many are about moral questions, and everyone has something to say about them. This one asks if specific religious precepts are right, and then restricts people who want to say no. This segregated religious forum causes all kinds of problems and stifles discussion.

Admittedly derailing a bit myself here, but see post 31 for my response to the OP.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's drink the Kool Aide and tell us you like it; no other comments are welcome.
 
Paschendale said:
Most threads in the religion forum can't really function with the extra restriction. Many ask yes or no questions and then refuse to allow anyone to answer no. The ones that ask actual theological questions, certainly ought to be protected from derailment. But many are about moral questions, and everyone has something to say about them. This one asks if specific religious precepts are right, and then restricts people who want to say no. This segregated religious forum causes all kinds of problems and stifles discussion.

Admittedly derailing a bit myself here, but see post 31 for my response to the OP.
Click to expand...

I can understand the source of your frustration, but remember why we have a religion forum in the first place: It's supposed to be a place for people who are religious to discuss and debate various aspects of their religion.

When you get a bunch of nonbelievers and atheists involved, all it does is turn every thread in to a "does God exist" debate, which eradicates any sort of nuanced religions discussion we might want to have, and robs us of any sort of variety in our religious discussions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having that debate... but there's a time and place for it. As far as I understand, that time and place is in the philosophy forum. I don't understand why some people continually feel the need to try to upset the apple cart on that.

This particular thread does not belong in the religion forum since its very intent is to dismiss religion. It just invites exactly the kind of debate we want to avoid in here, and it makes the experience less enjoyable. In my opinion, the mods have dropped the ball on this by allowing it to remain here.

The point of the thread is transparent: To provide a forum for bashing the ten commandments. If this is allowed, what's to stop the OP from starting dozens of threads bashing various aspects of different religions? You can't bash the whole religion per the rules, so just pick one part of the religion at a time and bash that.

What's next, a thread bashing Jesus? Muhammad? It's the same self-defeating logic.

I don't plan on participating in this discussion until it's moved, which is too bad, since the topic itself is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
The point of the thread is transparent: To provide a forum for bashing the ten commandments. If this is allowed, what's to stop the OP from starting dozens of threads bashing various aspects of different religions? You can't bash the whole religion per the rules, so just pick one part of the religion at a time and bash that.
Click to expand...

See, and that's where I have to disagree. The point of the thread is not to bash anything. It's to discuss. And the whole reason this forum exists is because some theists can't tell the difference between the two. I listed many ways in which I think the ten commandments are flawed. I didn't bother going into whether or not I think they come from a divine course. By now everyone should know that I don't. But just as I can argue that they're flawed, you should be able to argue that they're not, and show reasons for this. That's a debate. And a quite reasonable one. But when a theist can't handle that debate and calls any criticism of something religious "bashing"... that's how we get this situation.

So why not just discuss with me, then? I think the ten commandments, as a primary source of rules, are flawed in several ways. Keep in mind that they are offered as a set of law. They're not just suggestions, they're laws, to be enforced upon people. Not by god alone, but by his worshipers. So there's a lot of problems with them as laws. First, they put religious freedom as a crime on par with murder. That's something I have a big problem with. Any American should. Frankly, since it's pretty clearly referring to Judaism, your religious position would be just as criminal as mine. So we can team up to oppose the first three commandments. Second, it suggests a censorship of thought, namely the rule against coveting. Thought policing is not okay. Not for god to do or for people to do. Third, it leaves off some pretty important stuff, like rape. Also non-lethal assault. And slavery.

So by all means, respond to just me, then. I have no interest in discussing whether or not god exists, unless someone else invokes god as a reason to obey the commandments. Then I have to address that argument. But if you want to discuss whether or not they are a good set of rules based on their merits, then I'd love to.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I can understand the source of your frustration, but remember why we have a religion forum in the first place: It's supposed to be a place for people who are religious to discuss and debate various aspects of their religion.

When you get a bunch of nonbelievers and atheists involved, all it does is turn every thread in to a "does God exist" debate, which eradicates any sort of nuanced religions discussion we might want to have, and robs us of any sort of variety in our religious discussions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having that debate... but there's a time and place for it. As far as I understand, that time and place is in the philosophy forum. I don't understand why some people continually feel the need to try to upset the apple cart on that.

This particular thread does not belong in the religion forum since its very intent is to dismiss religion. It just invites exactly the kind of debate we want to avoid in here, and it makes the experience less enjoyable. In my opinion, the mods have dropped the ball on this by allowing it to remain here.

The point of the thread is transparent: To provide a forum for bashing the ten commandments. If this is allowed, what's to stop the OP from starting dozens of threads bashing various aspects of different religions? You can't bash the whole religion per the rules, so just pick one part of the religion at a time and bash that.

What's next, a thread bashing Jesus? Muhammad? It's the same self-defeating logic.

I don't plan on participating in this discussion until it's moved, which is too bad, since the topic itself is interesting.
Click to expand...

When it is suggested that the application and observance of the tenets of one religion will benefit the people of all religions, and those with no religion, the discussion should then welcome the input of all people. If everyone accepted and practiced the tenets of one religion then everyone would be of that one religion, would they not?

The 10 Commandments, while certainly worthy and well intended for Christians, do not and cannot apply equally to all other religions. In my opinion, it is important that people understand that and why.

If you cannot tolerate the discussion you are free, as we all are, not to participate.
 
Ray410 said:
Gotta admit he was offensive though. He got worse as he got older, it seemed like he was filled with hatred for everyone.
Click to expand...

All Hitchens ever did was to question and point out inconsistencies in magical thinking.
He made you uncomfortable with what you profess to "believe'.
 
People don't worship or pray to the cross.
Click to expand...

Not true. The cross dominates the alter in every christian church. It is bowed to and prayed to. It is worn as an iconic proof of belief .
The cross is indeed worshiped.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Not true. The cross dominates the alter in every christian church. It is bowed to and prayed to. It is worn as an iconic proof of belief .
The cross is indeed worshiped.
Click to expand...

Not every Christian church.

You'll find very few crosses or crucifixes in a Mormon church. As Gordon B. Hinkley explained, “For us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.”

I've always found it rather strange the way other Christians use the cross as a symbol. To me, it's a macabre symbol of torture and death, and not at all an appropriate representation of the Christian gospel as I've been taught it.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
So by all means, respond to just me, then. I have no interest in discussing whether or not god exists, unless someone else invokes god as a reason to obey the commandments. Then I have to address that argument. But if you want to discuss whether or not they are a good set of rules based on their merits, then I'd love to.
Click to expand...

Well of coarse god is invoked ... otherwise you're just debating Jewish law, and you can compare it with other law such as french law or whatever, then it's no longer a religious debate, it's a legal one.

What makes the mosaic law part of religion, and not just legal history is that God is invoked.

Religious debate pre-supposes that a God exists, and then you go from there as to the nature of revelation, scripture, what can logically be deduced from it and so on.
 
RGacky3 said:
Well of coarse god is invoked ... otherwise you're just debating Jewish law, and you can compare it with other law such as french law or whatever, then it's no longer a religious debate, it's a legal one.

What makes the mosaic law part of religion, and not just legal history is that God is invoked.

Religious debate pre-supposes that a God exists, and then you go from there as to the nature of revelation, scripture, what can logically be deduced from it and so on.
Click to expand...

It's not really a debate when you only let people who already agree with you participate. Pre-supposing that your position is correct... why bother discussing at all? There's no debate to be had. If all someone has is "god says so, so I must be right", and of course without credible evidence of this god existing or saying so, why bother opening your mouth at all? That's not an argument. That's just an appeal to authority.
 
this forum is not used to mock religions
Click to expand...

WHY NOT?
Is your conviction so fragile that it can't endure the pressure from a little light hearted mockery?
Beyond the humor George raises a lot of questions you would do well to consider.
If this 2000 year old dogma can't tolerate a five minute bit of self examination from a dead comic who made his living pointing out the foibles of what we take for granted...
then it's days must surely be numbered.
HA!
 
Paschendale said:
It's not really a debate when you only let people who already agree with you participate. Pre-supposing that your position is correct... why bother discussing at all? There's no debate to be had. If all someone has is "god says so, so I must be right", and of course without credible evidence of this god existing or saying so, why bother opening your mouth at all? That's not an argument. That's just an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

If someone says "God says so, so I must be right," assuming God exists, that statement still needs to be defended, what evidence or argument is it that God actually says that, also what if God did say it, what does it mean? Does it apply to us, and so on and so forth.

Pre-supposing God doesn't end the argument, it begins it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom