Commandments?

[Bob Butler 54]

I am having a bit of trouble separating church and state.  Let me draw a few lines.  Are there those who disagree?

We have Ten Commandments…

1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not commit murder.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbor.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbor’s goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Now, 1, 2 3, and 4 seem pure religious.  Government seems to have no business enforcing them.  

Wait?  4?  Can we have blue laws?  Weekends?  Yes, we are allowed to, and they can correspond to various maybe religious traditions, but governments have no business leaning the blue laws to enforce a particular set of religious traditions.  For practical reasons, the blue laws should be compatible with the majority, though.

Then we have 6, 7, 8  and 9, which describe civil crimes.  Both churches and governments deal with crimes, one to preach against them, and the other to enforce and punish.  I have no problem with the government enforcing and punishing crimes as long as the crimes are not religious ones, such as eating meat on a Friday.

Then we have 5 and 10, honoring parents and not envying your neighbors stuff.  Honor and envy are emotions.  I do not see the government enforcing that a citizen feel a certain way.  At the same time, 5 and 10 seem like good ideas.  I can quite seen the desire of a church to preach things like that.  This seems to be a church issue, with each sect free to decide what to preach so long as there is no advocacy of committing a crime.

Does this result in any controversy?

[pbrower2a]

Some that might have been missed:

1. Never treat children as sexual objects.
2. Honor the helpless among you -- the children and the infirm.
3. Never judge any person by skin color.
4. Do not get drunk.

Back to the originals:

#1 clearly separates monotheists from polytheists, and when Jews were the only monotheists, this distinguished them from everyone else.
#2 implies that there are no other gods, and that worshiping anything even as a manifestation of God does something unforgivable: dividing or compartmentalizing God.
#3 is probably not so much the "God damn!" curse... I think we can understand Jews cursing such evil people as Torquemada, Chmielnicki, Hitler, and Saddam. The big problem comes with fraudulent oaths that people might use to seal a business transaction that one breaks.
#4. The day of rest is a necessity, even if the 'rest' is only a break in the pattern. At the least it can keep life from becoming pure drudgery for toilers.
#5. What if a parent is a criminal?
#6. Straightforward enough. There might be exemptions for war, self-defense, and capital punishment.
#7. Marriage is to be respected by those inside and outside.
#8. Theft is the most blatant violation of property rights, and it makes security of title impossible.
#9. Perjured testimony makes a travesty of judicial process.
#10. Covetousness (the neighbor has a color TV, and I want one, too) is a motivator for capitalist production.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 08:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some that might have been missed:

1. Never treat children as sexual objects.
2. Honor the helpless among you -- the children and the infirm.
3. Never judge any person by skin color.
4. Do not get drunk.  

Back to the originals:

#1 clearly separates monotheists from polytheists, and when Jews were the only monotheists, this distinguished them from everyone else.
#2 implies that there are no other gods, and that worshiping anything even as a manifestation of God  does something unforgivable: dividing or compartmentalizing God.
#3 is probably not so much the "God damn!" curse... I think we can understand Jews cursing such evil people as Torquemada, Chmielnicki, Hitler, and Saddam. The big problem comes with fraudulent oaths that people might use to seal a business transaction that one breaks.
#4. The day of rest is a necessity, even if the 'rest' is only a break in the pattern. At the least it can keep life from becoming pure drudgery for toilers.
#5. What if a parent is a criminal?
#6. Straightforward enough. There might be exemptions for war, self-defense, and capital punishment.
#7. Marriage is to be respected by those inside and outside.
#8. Theft is the most blatant violation of property rights, and it makes security of title impossible.
#9. Perjured testimony makes a travesty of judicial process.
#10. Covetousness (the neighbor has a color TV, and I want one, too) is a motivator for capitalist production.

Oh, yes. In keeping it to only ten, they missed much that could be properly included. They did well for the time, though.

For example, while parents might well be honored, one could include honoring the weak or honoring everybody. The Enlightenment ideal of all being equal combined with honoring ones parents implies that.

I have been dealing regularly with a parent who commits perjury often, and has sold for drugs her own children for use as child abuse victims. I for one count the Ten Commandments as only a start, as would many, but many reject such ideals as irrelevant to satisfying one's self.

Can one find common principles? Honor everyone? Do not take anything, whether material or not, from others. Does not coveting imply no greed, the center of much Red thinking?

[David Horn]

Your list comports with traditional religious belief and practice as we've understood it for a long time. Does it comport with more modern forms -- evangelicalism for instance? For evangelicals, there is only Jesus, and failure to believe is tantamount to breaking all 10 commandments. On the other hand, believing and calling on him to be your personal savior is almost a get-out-of-jail-free card. This also makes Jesus the center of a personality cult, with non-believers being the sad and misinformed (good interpretation) or the evil enemy (the less generous alternative), and overflows into our political and social life in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Something to consider.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 10:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your list comports with traditional religious belief and practice as we've understood it for a long time.  Does it comport with more modern forms -- evangelicalism for instance?  For evangelicals, there is only Jesus, and failure to believe is tantamount to breaking all 10 commandments.  On the other hand, believing and calling on him to be your personal savior is almost a get-out-of-jail-free card.  This also makes Jesus the center of a personality cult, with non-believers being the sad and misinformed (good interpretation) or the evil enemy (the less generous alternative), and overflows into our political and social life in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Something to consider.

Hmm, yes,  That would be the equivalent of believing in the One Commandment, to love Jesus completely.  The forgiving of all else renders the other commandments and their derivatives as irrelevant.  But if one lives that way, does one truly love Jesus as one rejects though action his core beliefs?

I see the above and the ideal that all evangelicals hold that world view as vile stereotype.  Most evangelicals are more complex than that.

But I am a devout agnostic, and should not say a lot about religious world views.  A lot of the devoutly religious make good neighbors, but the religious can be the victim of stereotyping too.

[pbrower2a]

Cheap grace is a mistake. I find it hard to believe that God would damn to Hell some unobjectionable person (except for rejecting Jesus) who died in a Nazi murder camp for being Jewish, and then forgiving some Nazi war criminal who 'gave his soul to Jesus' while standing on the platform of the gallows for putting Zyklon-B into the gas chamber.

So is Calvinist predestination, the idea that if you are destined to Heaven, then wonderful things will happen all your life. No -- one is simply lucky or good at what one does.

Maybe I give God less credit than I might, but unforgivable sins, like many committed by Nazis, Stalinists, Ba'athists, and ISIS exist. I certainly don't want to go where the Nazis are.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 11:48 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Cheap grace is a mistake. I find it hard to believe that God would damn to Hell some unobjectionable person (except for rejecting Jesus) who died in a Nazi murder camp for being Jewish, and then forgiving some Nazi war criminal who 'gave his soul to Jesus' while standing on the platform of the gallows for putting Zyklon-B into the gas chamber.

So is Calvinist predestination, the idea that if you are destined to Heaven, then wonderful things will happen all your life. No -- one is simply lucky or good at what one does.

Maybe I give God less credit than I might, but unforgivable sins, like many committed by Nazis, Stalinists, Ba'athists, and ISIS exist. I certainly don't want to go where the Nazis are.

Yep.  The lack of logic and self contradiction of many organized religions is a good part of why I describe myself as a devout agnostic.  I was brought up Catholic, ran with the Born Again crowd during my college years, and tried Neo paganism and Taoism as and adult.  It is not that I didn't try or don't care.

[Eric the Green]

(08-29-2018, 02:16 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 11:48 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Cheap grace is a mistake. I find it hard to believe that God would damn to Hell some unobjectionable person (except for rejecting Jesus) who died in a Nazi murder camp for being Jewish, and then forgiving some Nazi war criminal who 'gave his soul to Jesus' while standing on the platform of the gallows for putting Zyklon-B into the gas chamber.

So is Calvinist predestination, the idea that if you are destined to Heaven, then wonderful things will happen all your life. No -- one is simply lucky or good at what one does.

Maybe I give God less credit than I might, but unforgivable sins, like many committed by Nazis, Stalinists, Ba'athists, and ISIS exist. I certainly don't want to go where the Nazis are.

Yep.  The lack of logic and self contradiction of many organized religions is a good part of why I describe myself as a devout agnostic.  I was brought up Catholic, ran with the Born Again crowd during my college years, and tried Neo paganism and Taoism as an adult.  It is not that I didn't try or don't care.

Or maybe you gave up too soon?

It's yours and anyone's business what they believe and think. Good ethics can be found in many places, and the best of these principles have much in common anyway. Myself, I don't think the obvious errors in the thoughts about the divine among many religious writers and leaders, have any effect on the reality or not of what we call "God." Nor is it "God's" fault if we mistake a convenient image or myth of God for the reality. 

This is only about our own human evolution of consciousness. What we need, I think, is higher consciousness; though I myself only see a glimpse of it enough to know that it's there, and that the usual debates among those who are not accustomed to considering mysticism, leave out what is closest to reality, and engage in debate about the old false authorities, scriptures, preachers, myths and images instead.

[Eric the Green]

(08-29-2018, 11:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your list comports with traditional religious belief and practice as we've understood it for a long time.  Does it comport with more modern forms -- evangelicalism for instance?  For evangelicals, there is only Jesus, and failure to believe is tantamount to breaking all 10 commandments.  On the other hand, believing and calling on him to be your personal savior is almost a get-out-of-jail-free card.  This also makes Jesus the center of a personality cult, with non-believers being the sad and misinformed (good interpretation) or the evil enemy (the less generous alternative), and overflows into our political and social life in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Something to consider.

Hmm, yes,  That would be the equivalent of believing in the One Commandment, to love Jesus completely.  The forgiving of all else renders the other commandments and their derivatives as irrelevant.  But if one lives that way, does one truly love Jesus as one rejects though action his core beliefs?

I see the above and the ideal that all evangelicals hold that world view as vile stereotype.  Most evangelicals are more complex than that.

But I am a devout agnostic, and should not say a lot about religious world views.  A lot of the devoutly religious make good neighbors, but the religious can be the victim of stereotyping too.

The evangelicals are often poor souls who have lost their way. They do say just as David says they do; it's not a stereotype, vile or otherwise. Although I'm sure evangelicals can be fine people, and Jesus said don't judge our fellows. All we can do is wait for them to wake up, and meanwhile take the moats out of our own eyes if we can. Meanwhile, what did Jesus say? "Keep the commandments." But he also seemed to narrow them down to two; not to "accept me as your savior", but "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." But then, for many evangelicals, the Bible is often not for actual reading; it's just for using as a political and/or religious weapon. Or why don't they quote that, instead of interpreting his other sayings to mean "accept Jesus as the only savior?"

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 05:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Or maybe you gave up too soon?

It's yours and anyone's business what they believe and think. Good ethics can be found in many places, and the best of these principles have much in common anyway. Myself, I don't think the obvious errors in the thoughts about the divine among many religious writers and leaders, have any effect on the reality or not of what we call "God." Nor is it "God's" fault if we mistake a convenient image or myth of God for the reality. 

This is only about our own human evolution of consciousness. What we need, I think, is higher consciousness; though I myself only see a glimpse of it enough to know that it's there, and that the usual debates among those who are not accustomed to considering mysticism, leave out what is closest to reality, and engage in debate about the old false authorities, scriptures, preachers, myths and images instead.

I think not. I had two world views at the same time, an engineers, and a seekers. The question was how one modeled reality, which world view to have. I ended up going from various religions to scientific psi research and coming up with a psi theory that accounted for the evidence. You didn't need god as a hypothesis to explain the data. The data showed an increase in emotion rather than a more benevolent reality. My world view went with the data.

People seek different things, fill different needs with their world views. I eventually found I needed an explanation of what was happening more than I needed to feel good. I found religions shifting with culture, no evidence of a benign omnipotent intelligence not supported by physics. That was enough.

Others, whether evangelicals, mystics or other, need otherwise.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-29-2018, 08:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some that might have been missed:

1. Never treat children as sexual objects.
2. Honor the helpless among you -- the children and the infirm.
3. Never judge any person by skin color.
4. Do not get drunk.  

Close.

1. Don't treat another living thing as a sex object. Bestiality and objectifying other humans is off limits.
2. Works by me.
3. Don't judge anyone except for actions.
4. It's OK to experience better living through chemistry as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-29-2018, 05:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The evangelicals are often poor souls who have lost their way. They do say just as David says they do; it's not a stereotype, vile or otherwise. Although I'm sure evangelicals can be fine people, and Jesus said don't judge our fellows. All we can do is wait for them to wake up, and meanwhile take the moats out of our own eyes if we can.

Apple Dictionary Wrote:Stereotype:  a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing: the stereotype of the woman as the carer

Apple Dictionary Wrote:Vile: extremely unpleasant: he has a vile temper | vile smells.
• morally bad; wicked: as vile a rogue as ever lived.
• archaic of little worth or value.

I just find the simplification of what all evangelicals believe to be vile.  Whenever you lump all your opponents into one unpleasant bucket you are inviting error.

(08-29-2018, 05:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, what did Jesus say? "Keep the commandments." But he also seemed to narrow them down to two; not to "accept me as your savior", but "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." But then, for many evangelicals, the Bible is often not for actual reading; it's just for using as a political and/or religious weapon. Or why don't they quote that, instead of interpreting his other sayings to mean "accept Jesus as the only savior?"

I don't read it as Jesus killing commandments, but on emphasizing a few important ones.  I note also that he commanded love, an emotion, which would go with respect and envy, with an attitude to have.  It is a very religious attitude and angle.

[Bob Butler 54]

Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism? Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

2. I'm sure there are some suckers who actually take time to be extorted by the prospect of burning in hell forever. There's also a another group of suckers who think that accepting the "advice" will result in prosperity.  See prosperity gospel.

[Galen]

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

[Eric the Green]

In the experience of many people, and certainly in mine, evangelicals invite stereotyping because their rap is so constantly narrow and stereotypical. Of course, there are some exceptions, as in any category.

[Eric the Green]

(08-29-2018, 10:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 05:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Or maybe you gave up too soon?

It's yours and anyone's business what they believe and think. Good ethics can be found in many places, and the best of these principles have much in common anyway. Myself, I don't think the obvious errors in the thoughts about the divine among many religious writers and leaders, have any effect on the reality or not of what we call "God." Nor is it "God's" fault if we mistake a convenient image or myth of God for the reality. 

This is only about our own human evolution of consciousness. What we need, I think, is higher consciousness; though I myself only see a glimpse of it enough to know that it's there, and that the usual debates among those who are not accustomed to considering mysticism, leave out what is closest to reality, and engage in debate about the old false authorities, scriptures, preachers, myths and images instead.

I think not.  I had two world views at the same time, an engineers, and a seekers.  The question was how one modeled reality, which world view to have.  I ended up going from various religions to scientific psi research and coming up with a psi theory that accounted for the evidence.  You didn't need god as a hypothesis to explain the data.  The data showed an increase in emotion rather than a more benevolent reality.  My world view went with the data.

People seek different things, fill different needs with their world views.  I eventually found I needed an explanation of what was happening more than I needed to feel good.  I found religions shifting with culture, no evidence of a benign omnipotent intelligence not supported by physics.  That was enough.

Others, whether evangelicals, mystics or other, need otherwise.

Curiosity drove me. I needed an explanation, and I found it in mysticism. The deeper I seek, the more I find. What I have found though, is that most people, especially people our age today, are dogmatically fixed in their opinions and are deaf to rational persuasion. Too bad.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

2. I'm sure there are some suckers who actually take time to be extorted by the prospect of burning in hell forever. There's also a another group of suckers who think that accepting the "advice" will result in prosperity.  See prosperity gospel.

Hmm... I was trying to find someone who fit David's notion, not someone who has a similar notion.

To me, an evangelical is one who believes on interpreting and living the Bible as best he can, and yes he often believes everyone should share his belief, and yes some even use or try to use the mechanisms of the state to enforce their belief. They have a problem that the Bible is a historical document written over many centuries which reflects many cultures, so a wide variety of belief sets can be built from the Bible. Many, including myself, do not believe the government should enforce religious beliefs. This should be a pain to the Evangelicals.

David puts the emphasis on Jesus, rather than the Bible, which narrows the field somewhat.

The 6th, 7th and 8th commandments forbidding murder, theft and adultery seem to be of the interests of both church and state, and I'm not sure of adultery.

Was it JustPassingThough who pressed such a deep commitment to the Bible?

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-30-2018, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 03:05 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 02:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Just as an oddity, does anyone fit David's idea of evangelism?  Will anyone claim that worldview or anything like it?

David's post is just a bit verbose.  Here's my definition.

1. Evangelism is the practice performed by annoying busybodies who butt into folks' business by telling said folks they must accept Jesus or else burn forever in hell.

Then there are their secular equivalents you would know them as liberals, progressives and socialists to name a few.  Their god is the state and it is far less merciful.  Come to think of it their followers are even more destructive than Christians have ever managed on their worst day.

This is why do gooders of all types are truly terrifying since they believe their good intentions justify their actions no matter how evil the results are.  Which explains Antifa and their antics.

I think the label progressive fits me better that the alternatives listed.  I reject the Agricultural Age, notably kings, slavery and autocratic government.  I would work to address future anticipated problems, such as waste, global warming and population, though I see that those who live in less populous areas than I would consider these problems less.  I hold to the Enlightenment virtues of equality, human rights and democracy.  I see the virtues of using taxes to provide services, though I acknowledge some taxed services might be less effective or not effective in less populous regions.

I fail to see how any of the above is religious, is the equivalent of the Bible or Jesus's teaching.

I know you are sincere and intense in your belief in your stereotypes, that you are projecting ideas on many, and these ideas are clearly false, but it does little good to present how false they are.  How can one hold a discussion with someone when they think you believe many things that you do not?

At least you are good in illustrating the dangers and falsehoods of stereotypical thinking, in attributing false motivation to people, and thus your logic falls meaninglessly into space.

[David Horn]

(08-29-2018, 11:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-29-2018, 10:17 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your list comports with traditional religious belief and practice as we've understood it for a long time.  Does it comport with more modern forms -- evangelicalism for instance?  For evangelicals, there is only Jesus, and failure to believe is tantamount to breaking all 10 commandments.  On the other hand, believing and calling on him to be your personal savior is almost a get-out-of-jail-free card.  This also makes Jesus the center of a personality cult, with non-believers being the sad and misinformed (good interpretation) or the evil enemy (the less generous alternative), and overflows into our political and social life in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Something to consider.

Hmm, yes,  That would be the equivalent of believing in the One Commandment, to love Jesus completely.  The forgiving of all else renders the other commandments and their derivatives as irrelevant.  But if one lives that way, does one truly love Jesus as one rejects though action his core beliefs?

I see the above and the ideal that all evangelicals hold that world view as vile stereotype.  Most evangelicals are more complex than that.

But I am a devout agnostic, and should not say a lot about religious world views.  A lot of the devoutly religious make good neighbors, but the religious can be the victim of stereotyping too.

I don't think that all evangelicals hold these black-and-white views, but many do.  At least one a day has a Letter to the Editor in our local paper with some variation on the theme I noted.  It's not remarkably different from the views of some Roman Catholics that a trip to confession resets the clock.  

Religion as an opiate of the people (Karl Marx, of course) is not as far fetched as it seems.