kingdaddy said:
Except of course when Luther revised them...
Only marginally, to be sure, but still. And even so, it was done by a man, not by a deity. Whether we choose to believe the men passing on messages from a divine being are truly inspired or just stating what they themselves think is right is another issue.
Ultimately it makes no difference to me. I do what I do because I feel it's right. This happens to coincide, most of the time, with what is prescribed by most major religions, but that doesn't mean I do it because of the religion.
If there's a supreme intelligence which once conjured up a massively compressed body of matter, only to let it explode and gently prod it to become conducive to life here on earth, then so be it. That cannot mean I should fall on my knees and pray, sacrifice a lamb or fast to please it. What possible difference would that make? A deity so self indulgent as to bother with the length of my hair or my frequency of communion is just not worthy of respect, anyway. I've been given a free will, and I will excercise that free will as I see fit.
The design around us does not, in my eyes, give evidence of intelligence. It looks much more like the programs I write for a living. Unfathomable amounts of trial and error, but eventually something useful emerges, And even then I'm prone to kill my darlings when they're no longer useful.
Rune
kingdaddy said:
Two big revisions happened when it went from Hebrew to Greek and then to English. Any hope of the subtle nuances go out the window. In general a sensible set of guidlines thou.
dave
pinkmouse said:
Ahh, beauty! It touches on my feelings of guilt visavi that pair of socks that are at the bottom of the drawer and never get used. Am I treating them unfairly? Should I hold some kind of ceremony when I throw away that old favourite sweater? Is there a place in hell for those who let milk go stale in the fridge?
Rune
kingdaddy said:
I'm a bit rusty on this, and my knowledge of the Bible in English is sketchy, but I seem to recall that the second commandment in the Old Testament tells us not to make images of worship. That didn't quite go well with all the Jesuses hanging off of crosses in all the churches, so that had to go.
Otherwise certainly a good set of fundamental rules, for sure.
Rune
IIRC, Jesus knocked it down to just 4 that he thought were important. Personally, I'm sorry that the traditional Jewish value of polygamy was trampled...
planet10 said:
There is always something lost in translation but I dont see where any meanings have changed, do you?
kingdaddy said:
So you're fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew then? Congrats! And all through observation, no doubt...
SY said:
I thought he knocked it down to one, Love the Lord above all. It takes care of the rest anyway.
A glutton for punishment...
But seriously, Jesus selected a couple of laws and made them tougher, advised that the spirit of the old law is what counts, and added another deadly sin, hypocrisy.
John
Then there are all the cuts and rewrites that the first few Popes made to the whole Bible - who knows what it said before they modified it for their own use.
No, that was already said in Exodus. "V'ahavtah et adonai elohekha, v'khol l'vavikhah, u'v'khol naphshikhah, u'v'khol m'odekha."
runebivrin said:
No but I have heard a translation from someone who is fluent in the original text and even though the words weren’t exactly like the King James version they had the same meaning to me. Also I was asking for someone else’s opinion if they thought there was any change in the meaning in case I am missing something, wasn’t bragging about my linguist skills.
Being fluent in truth can also be of great advantage in such matters, if it rings true then it probably is and the meaning I get out of the Ten Commandments rings true to me, and they make perfect sense, even a tiny inaccuracy will contradict or fall short when put to the test. I don’t see where any of the commandments fall short of standing up to real life trials, do you?
With due respect that is, in a general sense, rather fragile. History shows that most new findings in natural science have been rejected by the majority of scholars and laymen alike, simply because it didn't "ring true". We tend to believe that is true which we have heard repeated since we were kids, and only the really imaginative are able to break tha mold and see new angles.kingdaddy said:
But then, I suppose this is some particular kind of ID truth, right?
kingdaddy said:
Noone is contesting the value of the ten commandments. It's the origin that's the topic for discussion. My firm belief is that there has been quite a few people of sufficient intellectual and spiritual (in a broad sense) elevation that the Ten Commandments are nowhere near any proof of divinity or intelligent design.
Rune
Oh, how did I miss this discussion? 😉 The funny thing about all of this is that a bunch of people who have been alive for what, somewhere between 13 and 90 years, are debating the origins of the earth. This might make you the most egotistical people alive. 😀
To the nonbelievers: What is the purpose of your crusade to convince us there is no God? Are we somehow attacking you personally by saying there is a God? If there is no God, there is nothing to be so defensive about... it's only an idea.
To the believers: What will you gain by arguing about faith? Will you ever through words or intellect convince someone to believe what can only be seen by faith?
To the nonbelievers: What is the purpose of your crusade to convince us there is no God? Are we somehow attacking you personally by saying there is a God? If there is no God, there is nothing to be so defensive about... it's only an idea.
To the believers: What will you gain by arguing about faith? Will you ever through words or intellect convince someone to believe what can only be seen by faith?
runebivrin said:
Well, my point of discussion was my belief that science/man has no fixed reference point to test their hypothesis’s and religion does (Ten Commandments).
kingdaddy said:
???
There is indeed a fixed reference point- experiment. That's where hypotheses are tested in science. Religion doesn't deal in hypotheses, it deals in faith and revelation. I'm still baffled about why you try to equate the two.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.