The Ten Commandments

[OnceConvinced]

Have you ever looked at the ten commandments and wonder what the hell was God thinking? Why did he put these ten things above all else? I can understand most of them, but certainly not all.

Just take a look at them:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: (for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;)
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The first three commandments are all about God and if they are that important to him then it shows us what an insecure and jealous God he is (Note that jealousy is a sin). That’s 30% of the commandments! Is God’s ego that delicate that he had to include 3 commandments such as this? Then you have laws like “thou shalt not covet” which seems to be small fry in the sin department next to many other things. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” also seems to be a small fish in a big pond when things like rape and paedophilia seem to be given a very low priority.

So what about some of the other important stuff? Where are all the other commandments that would seem to be so incredibly important? Where is…?

Thou shalt not take another human being as a slave (You’d think God would take a harder line on this issue)

Thou shalt not rape (Sexual crimes seem to be unimportant as far as God’s concerned when it comes to the 10 commandments - apart from adultry. In fact the bible says God expects rape victims to marry their abusers)

Thou shalt not take drugs (or something like that. After all, God knows what will happen in the future and must have surely known it would become a major problem further down the line. He is either short sighted or has no knowledge of what will happen in the future.)

I am aware there are a lot of issues dealt with in other parts of the Torah relating to immoralities, however the 10 Commandments seem to stand out as God’s main issues and that is what I am trying to focus on here.

So my questions:
What commandments that haven't been included do you think should have been included and why?
Should any have been omitted? Why?
Should any have been reworded or elaborated more on?.

[Thought Criminal]

false gods

And how would you prove they're false? Can you prove 'He' is right? Can you prove 'He' isn't one of these alleged 'false' gods?

So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up [Elijah's] sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. --1 King 18:26-29, 38

All gods are false. Some just have better PR.

TC

[Jian^sia]

Yes, that's true. "all the gods are false"

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. - Psalm 96:5

[Thought Criminal]

Yes, that's true. "all the gods are false"

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. - Psalm 96:5

Included in this list of false gods is the one you worship.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

1. Thou shalt treat another as they wish to be treated.
2. Thou shalt honor those you call friends.
3. Thou shalt not make another person unwillingly beholden to thee (no slavery)
4. Thou shalt not rape.
5. Thou shalt honor thy body and mind.
6. Thou shalt seek knowledge and truth constantly.
7. Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for future generations.
8. Thou shalt live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
9. Thou shalt not be knowingly responsible, passively or actively, for the death of a child or other Innocent.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.


I stole a few of these from the OP and the "10 Atheist Commandments", but some are original.

They need some work, but I think I have already done a much better job than Moses.

#2 is an offshoot of some atheist author who said it much more eloquently. It was something like: you shouldn't try to lie to your friends; you should make an attempt to be honorable to them - or some such thing.

#9 is a bit extreme but I was wondering if people thought that allowing the rampant starvation of children around the world as passively letting them die was a sin, I just wonder if we'd have less tragic deaths. After all, the Jewish/Xian 10 Commandments only mention active killing - but, as a Xian/Jew who conforms to the 10C's, you can watch a man rape and murder a woman with a clean conscience.

Either way, these would be unnecessary if some people didn't need a list of how to be moral. It scares me to think there are some people who think we need a commandment from God to not kill, otherwise they would be flooding the streets with blood (something many Xians claim would be true. Odd that cultures without the 10C's have generally had much less killing...).


Anyhow, that is my New and Improved 10 Commandments.

[cnorman18]

1. Thou shalt treat another as they wish to be treated.
2. Thou shalt honor those you call friends.
3. Thou shalt not make another person unwillingly beholden to thee (no slavery)
4. Thou shalt not rape.
5. Thou shalt honor thy body and mind.
6. Thou shalt seek knowledge and truth constantly.
7. Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for future generations.
8. Thou shalt live this one life thou hast to its fullest.
9. Thou shalt not be knowingly responsible, passively or actively, for the death of a child or other Innocent.
10. Thou SHALT support those who follow these commandments.

Those are actually pretty good, Daedalus. In Judaism, all of those or similar ideas are derived from or included in the Ten and the 603 other commandments, small c, that we call mitzvot, and are covered in Jewish law.

In particular, this:

#9 is a bit extreme but I was wondering if people thought that allowing the rampant starvation of children around the world as passively letting them die was a sin, I just wonder if we'd have less tragic deaths. After all, the Jewish/Xian 10 Commandments only mention active killing - but, as a Xian/Jew who conforms to the 10C's, you can watch a man rape and murder a woman with a clean conscience.

Only if you're an idiot who doesn't understand basic morality and isn't the least bit familiar with the most elementary teachings of Judaism. In any case, there is this:.

Leviticus 19:16:
"Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour."

Nobody ever said the Ten were the only
Commandments. Not in my religion, anyway.

Bear in mind that your #1 is universally regarded as the essence of the whole Torah.

[Cathar1950]

I would just go with be good to each other including everyone and yourself and if you see someone fallen help them up. If it is to big a job alone then get some help.

[OnceConvinced]

Wow! Good responses guys! Looks like the thread's finally got back on topic.

[daedalus 2.0]

Only if you're an idiot who doesn't understand basic morality and isn't the least bit familiar with the most elementary teachings of Judaism.

"and"?

Are you saying that you could be a moral person, not an idiot, but if you are ignorant of basic Jewish doctrine you could watch a woman raped and killed without feeling bad?

Why throw in the Jewish thing? The tenets of Humanism have pre-dated the tenets of Judaism by far. There have been many cultures that preceded Judaism that would recognize basic moral values that are considered "Humanist" today.

The thing is, I know people want to claim all the good things for their own religion, but we are human first then religious. The human experience of pathos and ethos came long before hammer and chisel was put to stone.



(I might add that the OT is full of rape and killing endorsed by numerous Jewish heroes. And this is rather embarrassing:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

Not to mention Numbers 5:11-31).

It seems you have a selective process in determining Jewish doctrine. Take the parts that are Good and Human-centric, disregard the parts that are Bad.




That said, I appreciate that you don't follow your religion to the letter and acknowledge that there is a better way to live and interact in the world. I would be happy with you as a neighbor.

[cnorman18]

Only if you're an idiot who doesn't understand basic morality and isn't the least bit familiar with the most elementary teachings of Judaism.

"and"?

Are you saying that you could be a moral person, not an idiot, but if you are ignorant of basic Jewish doctrine you could watch a woman raped and killed without feeling bad?

Why throw in the Jewish thing? The tenets of Humanism have pre-dated the tenets of Judaism by far. There have been many cultures that preceded Judaism that would recognize basic moral values that are considered "Humanist" today.

The thing is, I know people want to claim all the good things for their own religion, but we are human first then religious. The human experience of pathos and ethos came long before hammer and chisel was put to stone.

I can understand how, if one removes my statement from its context, one might get the impression that I was saying that to which you are responding here.

There was, however, a context. I was specifically replying to this:

"...as a Xian/Jew who conforms to the 10C's, you can watch a man rape and murder a woman with a clean conscience."

Allow me to rephrase to make my meaning clear:

Any person who could watch a woman being raped and murdered, do nothing, and have a "clean conscience" would have to be an idiot who did not understand basic morality. And, were that person a Jew, as specified here, he/she would also have to be ignorant of the most elementary Jewish teachings.

I do not and did not intend to imply that Judaism was the origin or the only source of "basic morality." That's even more ridiculous than assuming that the whole of Jewish moral and ethical teaching is contained in the Ten Commandments.

(I might add that the OT is full of rape and killing endorsed by numerous Jewish heroes. And this is rather embarrassing:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

If that were still Jewish law in the present day, I would indeed find it embarrassing. It isn't.

Here are the complete marginal notes on this passage from the Oxford Jewish Study Bible (p. 418):

"28-29: The seizure and rape of a virgin who is not engaged, the enforced marriage, and the prohibition of divorce correspond to Middle Assyrian laws... The law also follows the literary model of Exod. 22:16-17, which specifies sexual intercourse with, but not forced rape of, a "virgin who is not engaged." The conflation of the two different models makes it unclear whether or not this law refers to consensual intercourse.
"28: Seizes her: The Hebrew word differs from that in v. 25, where force is clearly intended; here it may mean simply "hold" or "handle" (Jer 2:8). And lies with her, as in Exod. 22:15. The fact of intercourse normally marks legal consummation of a marriage; here it places the woman in a legally ambiguous position, unavailable to others (v. 14).
"29: Fifty . . . silver: In contrast to Exod. 22:15-16, the payment to the father does not represent compensation for the loss of the bride-price, which is normally a negotiated amount (Gen. 34:12). As a fixed amount externally imposed by the law, the payment here seems closer to a fine (v. 19), paid for the woman's violation. As in Exod. 22:16, the law requires the man now also legally and contractually to marry the woman by paying the bride-price to the father. In contrast to Exod. 22:16, the father's consent is not sought. Postbiblical Jewish law granted both the father and the daughter the right to refuse such marriages."

It is assumed throughout, of course, that this law is no longer applicable in modern times. It is a cultural artifact of ancient times, and nothing more.

I have said, over and over again, that it is illegitimate and inaccurate, and sometimes dishonest, to point to a passage in the Hebrew Bible and say, "This is what Jews believe and/or teach." That also goes for the other passages wherein rapes and killings "endorsed by numerous Jewish heroes" take place. The Bible only very rarely comments on itself; the narratives are given without explicit moral lessons or commentary. For those, one must go to the tradition.

The fact that David, for instance--one of the most iconic figures in Jewish history--engaged in adultery and murder by proxy does not imply that the Jewish God endorses such activities. In the case of David, that He does not is made explicit later in the words of the prophet Nathan, but the actual narrative of those acts makes no comment on David's morality. In other cases, the commentary is not found in the text at all, and one must look to other Jewish sources to find out what is to be learned from such passages.

Not to mention Numbers 5:11-31).

"Water ordeals" for various crimes where there was no available evidence, and particularly for adultery, were very common in the ancient Near East. This is no longer a part of Jewish law, either. In fact, there is no evidence that this ritual was ever commonly used, and it was formally discarded by the time of the fall of the second Temple in 70 CE, if not earlier.

Many modern scholars believe that this was a ritual intended to calm the fears of paranoid husbands more than an actual test of guilt.

It seems you have a selective process in determining Jewish doctrine. Take the parts that are Good and Human-centric, disregard the parts that are Bad.

No. I am simply conversant with the actual teachings of Judaism as they have developed and changed over the centuries, as opposed to suppositions about those teachings derived from an unassisted and Jewishly uninformed reading of the Bible. I'm not making this stuff up.

It's just not legitimate to refer only to the Bible when discussing "Jewish doctrine." The Bible is not determinative of that doctrine; the tradition is. That has always been the case.

That said, I appreciate that you don't follow your religion to the letter and acknowledge that there is a better way to live and interact in the world. I would be happy with you as a neighbor.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment, but the implication is that following my religion "to the letter" consists of accepting the Bible on its own and without critical thought. That isn't the case, and never has been in all the history of Judaism. It also implies that following the tenets of my religion is somehow a morally inferior choice as opposed to ignoring them to some unspecified degree, and I have a bit of trouble with that idea too.

It seems to me that one who is unquestionably as dedicated to logic and rational thought as you clearly are--no sarcasm at all intended; I know that you actually are so dedicated--ought to go to the trouble of learning what the teaching of a religion actually is before you condemn it on that basis.

You can't learn Jewish teachings from just reading the Bible. We've changed a bit in the last 2,500 years or so.

I wouldn't mind living next door to you, either, Daedalus; but I would hope that a lawyer or judge lived on our block, too, to arbitrate our misunderstandings and misinterpretations of each other's statements.

[daedalus 2.0]

I'm sorry I misunderstood you.