News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

10 Commandments for JohnnyB

Started by Mike Cl, May 14, 2015, 11:09:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

1liesalot

Quote from: aitm on May 19, 2015, 07:14:24 PM
well, he has been in "existence" forever and since he knew the very first day of his forever existence that he would be so fucking incompetent at humans that he has been suffering forever at how badly he fucked it up……got it?

Yes, that must be it.

Mike Cl

Thanks for your reply, Johnny.

You--I already made the comment here that for God to say 'I want you to obey these commandments' is not really a commandment in and of itself.
Me--I see.  So, sometimes god say 'commandment' and means it and other times he uses that word but does not mean it.  Which is which and how do you know?  (I think the real answer is that you cherry pick, or chose what 'interpretation' you feel meets your needs.)  God's Word does not make it known.

You--- I think in an earlier post you said " (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is) ".  The one commandment that you left off, which one was it then?  Because the list of ten you just wrote is the same that you have written in past descriptions.
Me--Sorry about that.  But this is your bible--you tell me.  This really illustrates another point.  The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number.  He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them.  So, why pick those 10?  So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.

You--Deuteronomy 10:4 shows Moses explaining how God re-wrote the 'Ten Commandments' on the new tablets just like how He wrote them the former time.
Me--You are correct--I was wrong.  The 'Ten Commandments' are listed more than once.  I had forgotten about the Deu 10 verse.  But that illustrates another problem--one I mentioned above--cherry picking.  Both the list from Deu and Ex. 34 are labeled the 10 commandments.  So, which is it?  The one you like?  Or the other--for they are both quite different.  How do you know which one to follow or make your objective morals?

You--  Also Jesus refers to the Ethical Decalogue as the 'commandments' in Matthew 19:17-20. Now I could still be wrong, but I think the term  'Ten Commandments' is used at least twice in the Bible, but the example in Matthew 19 shows that Jesus clearly thought of the commandments as consisting of the Ethical, not Ritual Decalogue.
Me--Several points here.  Nowhere are the designation of 'ethical decalogue' or 'ritual decalogue' used in the bible. They are simply terms used to try to rationalize away the fact that there are two widely differing lists of 10 Commandments, and someone is attempting to tell us why--but that 'why' is simply a matter of opinion.  That is shaky ground for me to build a set of morals on.  And yes, I said I said that the 10 commandments were listed only once--I was in error.  Yes, Jesus does appear to chose either Ex 20 or Deu 5 as his preferred list.  But read further in Matt--19:21.  It tells us, and this is straight from Jesus' mouth and it a strong suggestion on how to be perfect.  Do you follow it?  I doubt it--but I don't really know you, so I could easily be wrong.  But I don't really see any--as in none--of my christian neighbors following this guideline.  That is to give all you have to the poor--indeed, sell all you have, give it away, and then hit the streets following Jesus' word.  Have you done that?  Can you see yourself ever doing that???

You--The terms 'ritual decalogue' and 'ethical decalogue' are just words used to describe the two different set of laws we read in the Bible.  The word 'Bible' never appears in the Bible as well, its just a word we use to give a name to the book.  Same idea of labelling goes with these two different laws. 
Me--How do you know which set to follow?  Should you combine them, and follow all 20?  Why or why not?  This is quite typical for the bible.  It often contradicts itself ; for example, the first two chapters of the genesis tells us two different creation stories.  Right off the bat, it gives us a huge clue how the rest of this collected set of writings is going to go. 

You--I was going to use Matthew 5:17, but you beat me to it!  Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19 not an iota or dot will pass away until all of the law is accomplished.  Jesus then affirms that He will be responsible for accomplishing the law (Matthew 5:17 "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill").  The majority of OT laws (exception for the Ethical Decalogue) are ritual laws.  They involve sacrifices and various other rituals (see Ritual Decalogue).  This is what Jesus meant when he came to 'fulfill' the law.  Jesus perfectly followed all the OT laws in His life, yet died on the cross as if He broke them (punishment for sin is death).  So the point is, Jesus death is believed by Christians to be a sacrifice to end all sacrifices.  Christians no longer need to do the rather strange sacrifices and rituals in the OT because Jesus fulfilled them in His life and death on earth.  So when a Christian is saved through faith in Christ alone, he or she may want to try and live by the 'new covenant law' Jesus establishes in Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20.
Me--this is full of your supposition.  It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion.  It is not at all clear what is meant.  This illustrates a huge problem for me.  The bible is a collection of mostly unknown writers writing at mostly unknown dates.  This collection is only a small fraction of 'holy' material written within the broad time these were written.  The bible was developed by sifting through all the available material and selecting what that group wanted.  Who knows what those goals were, except that it was and is plainly political.  And today, not all bibles are the same.  There are literally hundreds of different versions of the book you call the bible.  This suggests to me that god had nothing to do with any of it.  If so, he is remarkably inept publisher of his Word.  If he cannot make his demands known, then how can he be god?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  But it makes a great deal of sense if we understand this collection to be the political tool of one group to control another group.  And your religion has been (and still is) a very, very successful mind control tool. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

JohnnyB1993

Quote from: Givemeareason on May 21, 2015, 08:11:32 AM
Clearly you are a very pleasant person to talk with.  But why would you bring a discussion like this to a group of athiests?

I think Mike Cl originally brought it up with me.  He wanted to discuss it a bit I think

JohnnyB1993

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 22, 2015, 08:52:39 AM
Thanks for your reply, Johnny.

Thanks Mike Cl,

You- This really illustrates another point.  The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number.  He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them.  So, why pick those 10?  So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.
Me-  Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what was left off the list of the Ritual Decalogue.  My original claim is that we actually see 9 (not 10) ritual laws stated in Ex 34.  Believe me, I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but when you said (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is), are you not making the claim that you left off one of the supposed ten commandments from Ex 34? Since I think you did directly make that claim, would the burden of proof not be on you to tell me what commandment you left off when I ask you to show me?
My suspicion is that when you read Ex 34, you will actually come out with 9 ‘ritual laws’.  The first commandment according to you is ‘observe the commandments’.  Correct me if I am wrong, but you have read that from the text which says ‘observe thou that which I command thee this day (Ex 34:11, KJV translation).  From that point, I would agree with you that there are 9 distinct ritual laws that follow.  We know these last 9 are commandments or laws because the exact wording or different form of the wording ‘thou shall’ is used throughout Ex 34:12-28).  But what about the first one?  If a political figure began his address by saying “I have some laws I want you all to follow.  I want you to obey these laws.  Now here they are…” would anyone really count the “I want you to obey these laws” as an actual law itself?  I doubt it, but I’m open to other people’s interpretation. 

Anyways, this is my attempt to harmonize the apparent confusion seen in Ex 20, Ex 34, Deut 10:
The ‘Ten Commandments’ described in Deut 10:4 says “He wrote on the tablets, like the former writing”.  The reader can now know that God re-wrote the commandents from Ex 20 onto new stone tablets (since Moses broke them in Ex 32:19).  I actually think that the reader should then understand that the verse “And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Ex 34:28) is referring to God re-writing the commandments from Ex 20 onto the tablets.  The ‘He’ is not Moses but is referring to God.  Only when one has all the information regarding this scene, can they then accurately piece the parts of the puzzle together. I honestly do not think this is cherry-picking but rather making the most logical assessment from the data we have regarding this series of events in Ex and Deut.

You-  Should you combine them, and follow all 20?  Why or why not?  This is quite typical for the bible. This is full of your supposition.  It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion.  It is not at all clear what is meant.
Me- I would agree that after Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue and God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue, there were indeed 20 (or 19) laws written on the stone tablets.  But do not forget that when counting the Levitical laws there are a total of 613 Old Testament laws or something like that.  The vast majority of these laws are ‘ritual’ or ‘sacrificial’ laws. My answer to why I do not follow these types of ritual laws are for the exact same answer I previously gave you.  Jesus’ death was a sacrifice in and of itself to fulfil these ritual laws. 

But to address your comments.  You said that my case is ‘full of supposition.  I have already tried to back up my claims through Bible references (Matthew 5:17).  I state my case as this, Jesus came to fulfil the OT ritual laws and to establish Himself as the true and only mediator for people to get to God.  In answer to one of your comments, I do not follow the Ten Commandments (ethical Decalogue) perfectly.  The problem is Mike Cl, NO ONE can.  This means that every human being, theist or non-theist, should be going to Hell.  This is a large answer to why Christ died, not just to fulfil the OT laws but to be our substitute so that if we truly believe in His atoning death, then we do not have to go Hell.  Your quote is “It is quite easy to read what you have suggested and come to a different conclusion”.  Can you give me a more logical conclusion then to when Jesus meant by ‘fulfilling the law’ (Matthew 5:17) and creating a ‘new covenant?’ (Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24).  Your conclusion would need to be more logical then mine which states that Jesus came to fulfil the OT laws and to be our substitute so that when God judges us, we do not have to go to Hell.

P.S.  I know I have written TOO much.  But what most people unfortunately never get to understanding is that there is much more to biblical teachings then meets the eye.  Please feel free to dismiss this video.  But if your open-minded and curious, this is a different perspective of your comments on how Jesus supposedly says that all Christians ought to ‘give everything they have to the poor’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLtN1PZuXo

Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM
Thanks Mike Cl,

You- This really illustrates another point.  The 'commandments' are listed in three places, yet none of them are designated by god by number.  He simply makes a list for some commandments and leaves it up to us to number them.  So, why pick those 10?  So, you tell me what was left off the list--this is supposed to be the bedrock of your objective morals.
Me-  Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what was left off the list of the Ritual Decalogue.  My original claim is that we actually see 9 (not 10) ritual laws stated in Ex 34.  Believe me, I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but when you said (sorry I left off one of them--they are not numbered in the bible; but I think you can figure out what it is), are you not making the claim that you left off one of the supposed ten commandments from Ex 34? Since I think you did directly make that claim, would the burden of proof not be on you to tell me what commandment you left off when I ask you to show me?
My suspicion is that when you read Ex 34, you will actually come out with 9 ‘ritual laws’.  The first commandment according to you is ‘observe the commandments’.  Correct me if I am wrong, but you have read that from the text which says ‘observe thou that which I command thee this day (Ex 34:11, KJV translation).  From that point, I would agree with you that there are 9 distinct ritual laws that follow.  We know these last 9 are commandments or laws because the exact wording or different form of the wording ‘thou shall’ is used throughout Ex 34:12-28).  But what about the first one?  If a political figure began his address by saying “I have some laws I want you all to follow.  I want you to obey these laws.  Now here they are…” would anyone really count the “I want you to obey these laws” as an actual law itself?  I doubt it, but I’m open to other people’s interpretation. 

Okay, Johnny, let's beat a dead horse.  Here is another rendering of the Ex 34 list:
In neither of these cases does the Bible refer to “commandments.” In the first instance, they are “words” which “God spake,” while the tablets contain “testimony.” It is only when Moses goes back for new tablets that we see the phrase “ten commandments” (Exodus 34:28). In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people, meaning that either Moses’ memory is faulty or God changed his mind.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.

There are ten of them.  Many comments.  I guess I'll jump in in the middle.  Moses was not a real person.  He did not write the first 5 books of the bible.  Why?  Because real people did.  I say people, because there were several.  The three lists of 10 commandments were written by 3 different people, with three different reasons.  I guess it is easy enough to say that God guided their fingers.  If so, then god does indeed work in mysterious ways.  And he works in ways all the ancient gods worked in those days.  Why would these authors focus on these sets of rules?  Because it fit their political agenda, that's why.  For me it is clear that the entire bible is constructed for political reasons.  For reasons of control.  Look at the above list.  For whom would it have the least bit of relevance today?  Maybe a couple of people who live in the desert, but nobody else.  And why give rules that apply only to living in the desert?  Why not those who live in other environments?  Or other parts of the world?  Is you god so shortsighted or so weak that he could not create a coherent  message or deliver it to more than one place?  Was his original creation so sloppy that it fell apart so quickly and to such an extent that he could not fix it?  And this happened more than once, apparently, since he  killed all living things in a flood.  He still couldn't get it right after that.  Isn't it kind of odd that all these commandments were issued in only one language?  Is god so shortsighted that he did not know more than one language was spoken then, as well as now?  Okay, I'll stop beating that horse now.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM

Anyways, this is my attempt to harmonize the apparent confusion seen in Ex 20, Ex 34, Deut 10:
The ‘Ten Commandments’ described in Deut 10:4 says “He wrote on the tablets, like the former writing”.  The reader can now know that God re-wrote the commandents from Ex 20 onto new stone tablets (since Moses broke them in Ex 32:19).  I actually think that the reader should then understand that the verse “And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Ex 34:28) is referring to God re-writing the commandments from Ex 20 onto the tablets.  The ‘He’ is not Moses but is referring to God.  Only when one has all the information regarding this scene, can they then accurately piece the parts of the puzzle together. I honestly do not think this is cherry-picking but rather making the most logical assessment from the data we have regarding this series of events in Ex and Deut.

You-  Should you combine them, and follow all 20?  Why or why not?  This is quite typical for the bible. This is full of your supposition.  It is quite easy to read what you suggested above and come to a different conclusion.  It is not at all clear what is meant.
Me- I would agree that after Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue and God re-wrote the Ethical Decalogue, there were indeed 20 (or 19) laws written on the stone tablets.  But do not forget that when counting the Levitical laws there are a total of 613 Old Testament laws or something like that.  The vast majority of these laws are ‘ritual’ or ‘sacrificial’ laws. My answer to why I do not follow these types of ritual laws are for the exact same answer I previously gave you.  Jesus’ death was a sacrifice in and of itself to fulfil these ritual laws. 

I don't think the lists can be harmonized.  This underlines one of my major concerns about the bible.  It cannot be read and understood by any rational person. I has to be interpreted for them by some expert who knows what god is trying to tell us.  God's message in this case is so unclear that the average person cannot understand it.  So, it has to be harmonized by a priest, or somebody that god has granted vision to.  These three lists illustrate that problem.  They are all different and those differences have to be accounted for if one wants to harmonize them.  And they really can't be, for they are different.  But in the hands of a priest, they can be harmonized if you take that priest's word for it.  And why would that priest be more insightful than you or me?  Because that priest in a priest in some religious hierarchy and that hierarchy's goal is to have as much of the world believe as they do, so they can then control more people.  Why do that?  For money and power, of course.  How do you suppose the Catholic Church has become one of the most wealthy institutions of the world?  Or why Joel Osteen can build and live in a multimillion dollar mansion.  The use of the terms 'ritual' and 'ethical' to label these lists is an illustration of this point.  They appear nowhere in the bible.  They are created as categories because there is no other way to explain the contradiction.   They are a device created to help explain that which is really unexplainable.  And who created this device?  The priesthood.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 24, 2015, 07:29:44 AM

But to address your comments.  You said that my case is ‘full of supposition.  I have already tried to back up my claims through Bible references (Matthew 5:17).  I state my case as this, Jesus came to fulfil the OT ritual laws and to establish Himself as the true and only mediator for people to get to God.  In answer to one of your comments, I do not follow the Ten Commandments (ethical Decalogue) perfectly.  The problem is Mike Cl, NO ONE can.  This means that every human being, theist or non-theist, should be going to Hell.  This is a large answer to why Christ died, not just to fulfil the OT laws but to be our substitute so that if we truly believe in His atoning death, then we do not have to go Hell.  Your quote is “It is quite easy to read what you have suggested and come to a different conclusion”.  Can you give me a more logical conclusion then to when Jesus meant by ‘fulfilling the law’ (Matthew 5:17) and creating a ‘new covenant?’ (Luke 22:20, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24).  Your conclusion would need to be more logical then mine which states that Jesus came to fulfil the OT laws and to be our substitute so that when God judges us, we do not have to go to Hell.
/quote]

A  more logical conclusion?  No problem, at least for me.  Jesus came to fulfill.  What does that mean?  How can the 10 commandments be 'fulfilled'?  It is a list, which can be followed or not; and if you follow them you have not completed them or finished them--they are rules to live by all the time, all 10, all at once.  It is impossible to fulfill them.  You either live by all 10 or you do not--it is a never ending process and cannot be fulfilled.  One does not say--'okay, I've now done all 10 commandments, I've fulfilled them and I can quit now.'.  Having Jesus say that he has come to fulfill the laws makes no sense.  So, the priesthood had to come up with another device to explain what was meant.  The average person reading this text cannot make much sense out of it.  A priest has to explain it.  Your minister had to attend seminary, did he/she not?  What do you suppose they were taught?  They were taught all the devices that your particular branch of christianity wants you to believe.  Why is the bible so convoluted that you cannot pick it up, read it and understand what it means?  Because your branch wants to use their devices to control you.  That is why there are so many different ways to think and act as a christian.  Clearly, Jesus states that he did not intend to change any law of the OT--period.  But you cannot accept that, for your priest tells you there is more to it than that.  Jesus clearly states that to be as close to god as you can possibly be, you must sell all you own and give it to the poor.  You then must follow Jesus.  Have you done this?  No, because your priest tells you that that is not what is really meant and then they supply you with the device that shows they are correct.  You will not find any of your priests who have sold all they have and given unto the poor.  Very few christians have.  Going to hell--that is easy to figure out.  What a wonderful device for the priesthood to use.  Fear is a great tool of the religious.  It is the whip to keep the flock in check.  And of course, the priesthood knows how to keep you out of hell--just follow what they tell you to do.  Do their dance and you will be dancing in heaven.  All religions promise that.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

JohnnyB1993

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 25, 2015, 10:43:18 AM

Going to hell--that is easy to figure out.  What a wonderful device for the priesthood to use.  Fear is a great tool of the religious.  It is the whip to keep the flock in check.  And of course, the priesthood knows how to keep you out of hell--just follow what they tell you to do.  Do their dance and you will be dancing in heaven.  All religions promise that.

Mike Cl,

From the information given about Moses breaking the original tablets (Ex 32:19), God saying He would re-write the original words on new tablets (Ex 34:1), and then the confirmation that the re-written words from Ex 20 were written on those new tablets (Deut 10:4) I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most.  Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture.  A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion. I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic. 
So, we do not have to go back and forth now over this discussion.  I simply ask just one question regarding your recent posts.
Below is a list of the 'Ten Commandments' you last wrote in one of your posts.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.

Now below is a post on the same 'Ten Commandments' that you wanted to present to me on May 14.

1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.

Looking at your May 14 Commandments, the 7 commandment (Celebrate Feast of the Weeks) has become commandments 5 and 6 in your latest rendition.  On your May 14 list, commandment 8 (Blood sacrifices to Yahweh) seems to have become commandments 7 and 8 in your latest rendition.  Finally commandment 5 on your May 14 list (Sacrifice the first born of every womb) appears no where on your most recent list.  I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically.  If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it.


Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on May 29, 2015, 05:33:15 AM
Mike Cl,

From the information given about Moses breaking the original tablets (Ex 32:19), God saying He would re-write the original words on new tablets (Ex 34:1), and then the confirmation that the re-written words from Ex 20 were written on those new tablets (Deut 10:4) I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most.  Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture.  A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion. I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic. 
So, we do not have to go back and forth now over this discussion.  I simply ask just one question regarding your recent posts.
Below is a list of the 'Ten Commandments' you last wrote in one of your posts.
I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest,
and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother’s milk.

Now below is a post on the same 'Ten Commandments' that you wanted to present to me on May 14.

1.Obey the commandments. Yahweh will conquer the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and cut down their Asherah poles.
2.Do not worship any other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god. Do not make treaties with those in other lands who worship other gods.
3.Do not make cast idols.
4.Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast during the first month of the Hebrew Year.
5.Sacrifice the first born of every womb, including all the firstborn males of your livestock. You can sacrifice a lamb in place of a firstborn donkey but if you do sacrifice the donkey break its neck. If your firstborn child is a boy sacrifice something else in its place. None shall appear before Yahweh without a sacrifice.
6.Do not work on the sabbath, even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
7.Celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Weeks" with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and celebrate the Jewish holiday "The Feast of Ingathering" at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the god of Israel and he will conquer surrounding nations before you enlarging your territory.
8.Do not mix blood sacrifices to Yahweh with yeast and do not let any sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
9.Bring the firstfruits of your land to the house of Yahweh, your god.
10.Do not cook a baby goat in his mother's milk.

Looking at your May 14 Commandments, the 7 commandment (Celebrate Feast of the Weeks) has become commandments 5 and 6 in your latest rendition.  On your May 14 list, commandment 8 (Blood sacrifices to Yahweh) seems to have become commandments 7 and 8 in your latest rendition.  Finally commandment 5 on your May 14 list (Sacrifice the first born of every womb) appears no where on your most recent list.  I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically.  If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it.

Thanks for your reply, Johnny.  You say "I continue to stand by my stance that the 'Ethical Decalogue' are the set of rules that God wants people to try and stick to the most.  "
Me--I'm sure you do.  But you have yet to say why.  Anybody with eyes that want to see can easily read the three versions of the 10 commandments.  And they can plainly see that God does not elevate any of them over the other two.  But you will have the faith (unseasoned belief ) that what you chose to believe is the Truth.  After all, God has guided your eyes to see what is necessary to see.  Why he chose you to believe this and not anybody else, is beyond my understanding.  You call it the Ethical Decalogue--of course you do, you are following the whim of those who teach you (and I say 'whim' since it is not labeled as such in the bible. At least not in any copy I've ever read.)

You---Now, I understand why you would think that the Bible was written for political reasons and to 'control' the people, but such notions unfortunately represent more of the ideas of the ill-informed secular culture.  A culture that does not have much of a foot to stand on in my opinion.
Me---Really???  You think I belong to the 'secular culture'?  You speak as tho there are two cultures.  Yours and those who think like you are the righteous culture and everybody else is of the secular culture?  Is the secular culture monolithic?  Do all secular cultures think alike?  Why is the secular culture ill-informed?  It does not know enough?  And your culture is not ill-informed?  I will assumed you are a creationist--so you think the world is 6 million years old--and just how does that make you 'informed' and not 'ill-informed'?

You--"I refuse to call you ignorant since I do not think that is true, but I am sad to ponder that the ideas were you taught about Christianity are nothing more than hyperboles and subjective inferences from people who really have not done their research on the topic." 
Me--Well thank you.  I am much more ignorant than I want to be.  I suppose, in one sense, I'll die much more ignorant than I want to be, too.  But I do not base what I know about your religion from teachers.  I base it on the facts I learn from you own studies.  My studies are of people from all camps--from creationists, those who believe the bible is the literal word of god and those who think Jesus really did exist--to those who have some doubts about part of that--and from those who think all of those are simply fabrications.  The ideas and thoughts I give you are not from 'teachers' but from the facts I have dug out of the evidence--I do not employ wishful thinking or try to push the facts into shapes that I like.  It is what it is.  You, Johnny, I would not call ignorant, either.  I see you as a person who relies on wishful thinking or wishful believing.  Why because it is easier.  So, I simply see you as being willfully ignorant for you do not want to see factual studies of what you believe, nor do you want to believe those studies to have any merit.  I don't think you are stupid--or really ignorant; simply intellectually lazy.

You--" I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically.  If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it."
Me--Johnny, I don't care about any of those lists in a personal way.  I simply used two different web sites to cut-and-paste the list.  Ethically, logically, philosophically, and sense wise, they make no sense and I do not think they are relevant in my life.  So, I don't care.  Except I like to try to understand why people like you think the way they do--what are the reasons you want to have such a narrow set of beliefs and how those came about.  I'm just curious.

I'll make a little prediction to myself here.  This is the last I'll hear from you.  If so, too bad.  I still enjoy this type of discussion if you wish to continue. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

JohnnyB1993

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2015, 08:11:04 PM
You--" I am rather confused on why you changed your interpretation on the 'Ritual Decalogue' quite drastically.  If you wish to offer an answer, I will certainly read it."
Me--Johnny, I don't care about any of those lists in a personal way.  I simply used two different web sites to cut-and-paste the list.  Ethically, logically, philosophically, and sense wise, they make no sense and I do not think they are relevant in my life.  So, I don't care.  Except I like to try to understand why people like you think the way they do--what are the reasons you want to have such a narrow set of beliefs and how those came about.  I'm just curious.

I will say, I do find it interesting myself on understanding why people think the way they do.  If you do not mind Mike Cl, I would like to continue and ask a few more questions.  These questions, however, deal more with your comments on Christian theology and the Bible.   In some not too long ago past comments, you brought up a number of interesting reasons for why you doubt the 'divine-nature' part of the Bible.  This may seem to be at the heart of your atheistic worldview and so I am curious to read your opinions on a few things.

1.   'The Bible was constructed for reasons for control.'  Please correct me if I have misquoted you.   What do you mean by control?  Do you believe that there are people who are sincerely trying to live their lives for Jesus or are most church leaders just trying to get people's money?   I agree with you that in the past and even today, there are a number of churches that live for greed and power.  Do you think Jesus would approve of such behavior?  So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?

2.  Your comment regarding Hell as one of the 'churches devices' got my attention.  The idea of Hell is currently an object of fear for many Christians unfortunately.  I will have you know though, that my efforts to obey God's commands are not out of fear of going to Hell. I am just speaking for myself though honestly.  I would argue, that the most common theme in most religions is the idea that one must do good works in order to get to Heaven (and thus avoid Hell).  This is where I think the gospel message in Christianity is actually nothing like religion.  Religion teaches this:  You must become good by performing works.  Performing good works helps you to build faith in God.  If you continue doing good works, then you will 'earn' your way out of Hell and into Heaven.  Now, this is how I view the Gospel and how it has personally affected my life:  God's salvation was given to me as a gift of grace.  Since Jesus' lived the life I should have lived and died the death I should have died, now God sees my 'debt of sin' as being paid by Jesus' death on the cross. Knowing that Jesus suffered and died for me on the cross (even though He could have told me to screw off) makes me WANT to put my faith in God.  Out of love for what Jesus has done for me, I know try and do good works because I believe that God has already given me salvation through Jesus' deeds.  So that is my perception of Hell; I have also never came across a priest who used the device of Hell against me to say 'you must give us money or you'll burn in Hell'! But thats obviously not to say that those types of priests are not out there.  Regardless, all religions that I have learned about usually have some sort of 'chosen person' that give you a specific rule set on how to find God (Joseph Smith, Muhammad).  I see Christianity as sort of the opposite, rather God comes down to Earth and says I have come to find you. 

Ok feel free to critique now.  Oh and also, I am not a creationist, I think the Genesis creation stories are allegorical representations of the creation of the world and humanity.  Regardless, however God did it, I do believe God created the universe. 

Solomon Zorn

How's the air up there?

Johnny, you can pretend that your motives are all pure and positive, but I have been there. I know that the fear is just as much a motivator as the faith. They are two sides of the same coin. Jesus died to save us...FROM HELL!

The bible was collected as a means to control the beliefs of the growing Christian cult, which in addition to it's oral traditions, had amassed quite a number of manuscripts, reported to be gospels or epistles. These men who collected these writings were not themselves divinely inspired, nor did they any miracles to show their consecration as determiners of the Word of God for all men. They simply wanted to control the situation as they saw it. There's nothing necessarily sinister about it. But there's nothing holy about it either. It's just human.

You, as I once did, think that there is some Christianity out there that is separate from religion. Some perfect version of faith. But that is not true, Johnny. The people who practice Christianity, do so in many different ways and have many different beliefs, right down to the deity of Jesus. They are all branches of the same tree. You don't get to dismiss whatever doesn't fit your preconceived notions. You are very prone to rationalizing, instead of reasoning, which is why I gave up on the morality discussion, and why I am wondering why I've chimed in here...
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Munch

I've imagined theres this proverbial line, invisible, that is the cross between then rationality sets in, and before it. With scripture, rationality should set in and you cross the line when you read into the words it talks about shit like those bizarre rules you are meant to follow, otherwise the ultimate punishment is eternal suffering. I've seen parents use things like this with children "You either behave and do what I say or this monster in the closet will take you away!".
The children end up realizing their is no monster, and it was just words their parents said to get them to behave.

Why is it children learn this, and grow up putting it behind them, and yet adults can't?
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 01, 2015, 05:43:10 AM
I will say, I do find it interesting myself on understanding why people think the way they do.  If you do not mind Mike Cl, I would like to continue and ask a few more questions.  These questions, however, deal more with your comments on Christian theology and the Bible.   In some not too long ago past comments, you brought up a number of interesting reasons for why you doubt the 'divine-nature' part of the Bible.  This may seem to be at the heart of your atheistic worldview and so I am curious to read your opinions on a few things.


I would be glad to talk about anything you'd like.  To further explain my thinking.  I do not see anything as divine.  Nothing.  There is only nature.  All that we see is natural.  All man-made objects are ultimately natural for all the materials used were produced by nature.  There is no supernatural.  Just natural.  So, nothing produced by man is supernatural--nothing known by man was supplied in a supernatural way.  Supernatural is impossible.  And so, because of that I don't even think the word 'theology' is correct for me.  Mythology is more accurate in my way of thinking.  Why?  Because I see all religions as myth based.  And Christianity is no different.  It is not a special case that transcends all other religions; it is simply one of the more successful ones.

I will address you questions in another set of posts.  Thanks for your questions.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Quote from: JohnnyB1993 on June 01, 2015, 05:43:10 AM

1.   'The Bible was constructed for reasons for control.'  Please correct me if I have misquoted you.   What do you mean by control?  Do you believe that there are people who are sincerely trying to live their lives for Jesus or are most church leaders just trying to get people's money?   I agree with you that in the past and even today, there are a number of churches that live for greed and power.  Do you think Jesus would approve of such behavior?  So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?


Wow!  That's a few big questions.  I mean entire books have been written and will continue to be written about that paragraph.  BTW, have you ever read books that are quite pointed in attacking your understanding of the Bible and God?  Anything about the history of the bible, or your religion or Jesus?  I understand that it would be a difficult task for you, but to get an honest and well informed set of facts to deal with one has to visit those who are opposed to what you believe. 

The issue of control is a long and complicated story.  Start with the beginning of your religion.  It has been fairly well established that 2,000 years ago it was simply another sect of reform Jews, who were looking for the messiah to come.  Apparently there were many, many of slightly differing ideology.  That Christianity would survive was not a given--but it was a given that some sect would come out on top--and Christianity did.  But we know little of the actual fighting from within and without for the period of about 50--110 ce.  Why?  Because most of what was written during that time was destroyed or allowed to rot away.  What do we have?  We know that there were at least 85 gospels and epistles written during that span.  What has survived is in the form of the NT.  Paul is the first NT writer.  He is attributed 13 NT books.  Of those, Hebrews is universally recognized as being fake--not written by him.  Of the remaining 12, 6 are thought to have been authored by him.   Other than Paul the authors of the rest of the NT are unknown.  Plus, it is well established that not one of Paul's epistles are one continuous letter, but a mishmash of several.  It does not mean he did not write them, only that they were heavily edited and combined--by him or somebody else.  There is evidence of the like in most of the NT books.  An interesting job for you, if you are up for it, would be to arrange the books of the NT in chronological order.  That would put the writings of Paul first.  Then followed by the Mark, Matthew, Luke and last John.  That would give one a totally different view of who Jesus was.  For Paul one can not find almost no biographical data for Jesus--he is written about as though Jesus Christ is an ethereal being living in heaven--not a physical man living on earth.  Of course, establishing the actual dates is not easy.  There is much conjecture as to the real dates of authorship.  But I subscribe the writings of Paul to be pre 60 ce.  Mark at 7- to90 ce; Matt as 90 to 100 ce, Luke a little after Matt and John as 90 to 120.  Also, you need to be aware that not a single autograph (that's what the students of textual criticism term the original authors of a work) of any of the NT exists, so we cannot be sure what the authors actually wrote. 

Where does control come in?  We know of at least 85 gospels and epistles that were written during this time.  Where did the non-survivors go?  And why?  If you were a true believer of a certain set of 'true' beliefs about jesus, what works would you keep?  Those that profess what you believe.  You would not even need to actively destroy those who write against that belief, just not keep them.  And over the centuries they would simply go away.  What was in those writings?  Obviously things that undercut the christian beliefs.  Read what Paul was trying to do--he was trying to get people to follow his precepts of who and what Jesus and God were.  That in itself is about control.  As the christian religion grew and became stronger a priesthood hierarchy grew.  What was their goal?  To maintain themselves as leaders and to control the thoughts and actions of the flock.  How was that accomplished?  By limiting scriptures  to those works that allowed them to do that and to interpret those  scriptures to allow them to do that.  That priesthood has now grown to 10,000's of different sects all claiming to be the 'true'  Christianity.  Every christian sect has a hierarchy.  And I do not know of any sect in which the leaders are as poor, generally, as the flock.  And many times, they are mega-more richer.  In both political and monetary power. 

Throw into the mix that there is not just one agreed upon bible.  There are literally hundreds that profess to be the one true bible.  Why?  Because different sects want different material either added or deleted.  Why?  To further whatever agenda that sect has.  Consider the history of the bible--the different languages with was written in and translated to--the number of mistakes or additions those those books.  Study the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible, the Latin Vulgate, the various early English bibles and the textus recepticus and the writing of the KJ versions.  It is not one continuous uninterrupted line  but messy and complicated.  It takes real effort to dig this stuff out.  It is far easier to simply listen to your hierarchy and accept what they tell you is the correct way to look at things. 

You ask the following:  So basically the control that we do see in some churches, is that a result of those churches following God's word or is it a result of those churches doing certain acts that are self-centered and thus angled against what God's true will is for the believer?

My response--it does not need to be that churches are overtly lusting for control and money.  It is deeper than that.  There are many, many churches and leaders and people who are honest and sincere in their thoughts of doing good for people and the world.  But honesty and sincerity does not always equal truth.  Many people sincerely believed the world flat at one time--did not make it so.  But all church hierarchies are built to survive.  How does an organization survive?  By gaining control, power and money.  How else can they survive?  They can't, so that is simply inherent within each hierarchy.  What did Jesus (I think he is a myth, but that is another post) do when he was teaching?  Construct a church or series of churches and entice people to come listen?  Did he even suggest any churches be built?  Did he visit churches and preach?  No.  He wandered the land gathering his flock as he went.  He taught on the fly.  Did he demand money?  No, he demanded that those who had money give it all away and follow him.  So, would Jesus approve of any church on the face of the earth today?  What do you think?  I think not.  He would be active in trying to destroy them. 

I eagerly await your response.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

JohnnyB1993

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 01, 2015, 11:07:10 AM
I would be glad to talk about anything you'd like.  To further explain my thinking.  I do not see anything as divine.  Nothing.  There is only nature.  All that we see is natural.  All man-made objects are ultimately natural for all the materials used were produced by nature.  There is no supernatural.  Just natural.  So, nothing produced by man is supernatural--nothing known by man was supplied in a supernatural way.  Supernatural is impossible.  And so, because of that I don't even think the word 'theology' is correct for me.  Mythology is more accurate in my way of thinking.  Why?  Because I see all religions as myth based.  And Christianity is no different.  It is not a special case that transcends all other religions; it is simply one of the more successful ones.

I may have underestimated the breadth and scope of the information regarding the questions I asked.  Sorry about that.  Anyways you address some interesting points,
1.
I first would just like to point out that my conversion to Christianity really began from evaluating the two biggest questions that I believe face mankind.  1.  Does God exist?  2.  Did Jesus rise from the dead?  Of the arguments given from both Christian and atheist philosophers, I have actually found the evidence for God’s existence and Jesus’ resurrection the more plausible explanations regarding these questions.  Before I attempt to address your most recent comments, I have another question in which I am very curious to see your point of view.  Do you really think that the supernatural is impossible?  If so, could you please provide some evidence regarding your claim?