My interpretation of the ten commandments

[Perinquus]

Just as a clarification...

Thou shalt not kill is clearly meant as an injunction against murder. Other kinds of killing are permissible, such as killing in defense of your life or that of your family and friends. In fact, I have been told that the original Hebrew word is more properly translated "murder" than "kill", but not being a Hebrew scholar, I can't say myself.

And then of course, there are all the many, many times in the Old Testament when God orders people to kill... But lets not get into that right now.

As for Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, it's not an injunction against lying. If it were, it could be far more simply and clearly stated "Thou shalt not lie", or "Thou shalt not utter a falsehood". Look at the words. It is an injunction against a particular kind of lying - lying with the aim of harming another person. To bear false witness against someone is to lie about them for your own ends. For example, if you are suing someone and you lie to the judge about something they did, it is a lie told for selfish reasons, and is meant to harm that person. Or if you tell a lie about someone that is intended to damage his reputation; say you tell your boss that you think a coworker is embezzling money, for example. Whether it's just to hurt the coworker because you don't like him, or whther you're hoping to move up in the heirarchy at this coworker's expense, it's a lie told for malicious purposes, and is meant to harm another.

That is the kind of lie you are forbidden to tell. This rule makes perfect sense. It's one of the good parts of the Bible. It also allows you to tell a "white lie". There is nothing wrong with a harmless falsehood that is not intended to hurt anyone. This allows you to be diplomatic, when the plain truth just won't do. It also allows you to keep secrets that other people simply shouldn't know, avoid telling the truth when the truth might hurt you or someone else, etc. As I say, this is a good rule. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where a white lie would do no harm and much good, I can't think of any where bearing false witness against someone would be a good thing.

[Sir Sirius]

Wager: he will start to claim "Christianity is good; so anyone who is not good is not Christian, no matter what they say"

You won this wager.

[SeebianWurm]

Was there any doubt?

[SeebianWurm]

Chris·tian, adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

You try to artificially narrow the selection so you can ignore the acts of Christians that disprove your theory of Christianity's superior morality. This is not something new; anyone who professes belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is a Christian in my book. Whereas in yours, there is apparently some entry test that no one is allowed to see.

Wager: he will start to claim "Christianity is good; so anyone who is not good is not Christian, no matter what they say"

First thing is first.You keep making the same error.You must follow christ and have him in your heart.How can you say you believe in christ and accept him as your Lord if you do not obey him?A fool can say they profess Jesus as christ.If they really did believe, they wouldn't do half the bad things they do.Secondly, attack the person not the following.The person is at fault for their acts not a following.If a vegetarian walks around in an obscene fashion to porotest you don't blame vegetarians, you blame the person.Finally chrisitians are normal people, only they've accepted christ.I don't know where you get the whole superior morality thing.Christians are more responsible for their actions since they should have Godly knowledge, where upon they may suffer more that's it.Truth is above all else, seek it and you will find.

Bullshit alert.

First thing is first.You keep making the same error.You must follow christ and have him in your heart.How can you say you believe in christ and accept him as your Lord if you do not obey him?A fool can say they profess Jesus as christ.If they really did believe, they wouldn't do half the bad things they do

I win the bet. Do you even realized you did exactly what my post said you would?

Secondly, attack the person not the following.The person is at fault for their acts not a following.If a vegetarian walks around in an obscene fashion to porotest you don't blame vegetarians, you blame the person

Does anyone here speak moron? I feel like I need this to be translated...but anyway, bullshit analogy. Vegetarians don't claim that all morality comes as a direct result of their imaginary friend, and then try to cop out by saying "he did something I don't like, so he's not really a vegetarian." Are you speaking in loops or is just all of us?

Finally chrisitians are normal people, only they've accepted christ.I don't know where you get the whole superior morality thing.Christians are more responsible for their actions since they should have Godly knowledge, where upon they may suffer more that's it.Truth is above all else, seek it and you will find.

Obviously you are not seeking it, as you still believe in Hayzooz.

[Scorpius]

Scorpius* True christians/born agains wouldn't have to think about their morality.It is only those training to become a born again christian.

So what your saying is that once you become a true christian/born again you don't have to think about your morality? That explains a great many things. I find that the people I know with the highest morality are the ones who are CONSTANTLY evaluating right and wrong in their lives and it's simple-minded morons who fall back on handy catch-phrases...

By the way don't take someones word if they say they are a chrisitian.A group of klu klux klan members will say that, that doesn't mean they represent God.

So in other words, when "bad" groups quote some of the nasty stuff in Leviticus as an excuse to promote slavery, you've given yourself an easy loophole to disavow them. How convenient.

Secondly, attack the person not the following.The person is at fault for their acts not a following

And yet if that person does something "good" you'll be the first to claim divine inspiration and Christian goodness, won't you? You can't have it both ways.

[Priesto]

And you, through some rational process, decided that Hayzooz is not false? Or did you just start with that assumption?

There is no assumption.Not much rationalizing is really needed, when you've seen many things to come to the conclusion.Of course you investigate it.

Money is more intrinsically "real" than any religion's deities - anyone can see, feel, and use money. Anyone can feel greed or jealousy. No one has any evidence your Hayzooz exists that is not second-hand sayso. Before you spout that out of your ass again, see if you live by this checklist:

You can feel God, you can also let God use you.Money is paper where upon man puts value in.How much of this value is real if the economy is in shambles and money loses it?


1)I know nothing about what I'm saying, but start from a Biblical assumption arrived at completely on blind, groping belief.
2)When this is pointed out to me, and the person uses actual fact that depicts Christianity in a bad light, I will scream out of context or that they are merely trying to scapegoat Christianity.
3)I am correct.

God does.Jesus says that you will be saved if you follow him Matt 16:24,25.Men make whatever they worship a god.Money, greed, jealousy and so forth.They are false gods, because there is no true power.

Money has no power? That's not so true in the real world, and neither is Hayzooz.

You know not what true power is.Of course money has power, as much as man puts into it.Things that fade away are nothing but temporary fixes.You never are truly satisfied with "things".

[Priesto]

Scorpuis* true born agains are very rare.If someone is so moral, they would be able to discern bad from good at will.Most do think about it, cause they have to.God is not there to guide them personally.Simple-minded is not the word.Knowledge instilled in them would make them righteous in nature.
Seebianwurm* please make some points.The mentioning of me speaking truth is not needed.You refuse to accept that to be righteous you must be christ like.No problem with that, but what is your standard of morals? defenition of good?

[SeebianWurm]

And you, through some rational process, decided that Hayzooz is not false? Or did you just start with that assumption?

There is no assumption.Not much rationalizing is really needed, when you've seen many things to come to the conclusion.Of course you investigate it.

Concession Accepted. Emphasis mine.

Money is more intrinsically "real" than any religion's deities - anyone can see, feel, and use money. Anyone can feel greed or jealousy. No one has any evidence your Hayzooz exists that is not second-hand sayso. Before you spout that out of your ass again, see if you live by this checklist:

You can feel God, you can also let God use you.Money is paper where upon man puts value in.How much of this value is real if the economy is in shambles and money loses it?

But that is subjective, whereas money is objective - ANYONE can feel, see, and use money, regardless of who they are or what they believe.

Money has no power? That's not so true in the real world, and neither is Hayzooz.

You know not what true power is.Of course money has power, as much as man puts into it.Things that fade away are nothing but temporary fixes.You never are truly satisfied with "things".

Care to define what "true power" is without resorting to the Beeblay?

You haven't made any counterpoints. All you do is dodge the question and tell me how wrong I am, when I have a rationale behind what I am saying. You, as seen in practice, do not. That plus you are a fucking bigot, and I tire of hearing your verbal loops.

Make some points or shut the hell up.

[Setzer]

Chris·tian, adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

You try to artificially narrow the selection so you can ignore the acts of Christians that disprove your theory of Christianity's superior morality. This is not something new; anyone who professes belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is a Christian in my book. Whereas in yours, there is apparently some entry test that no one is allowed to see.

Wager: he will start to claim "Christianity is good; so anyone who is not good is not Christian, no matter what they say"

Are you talking about me? Christianity is good when its tenets are being obeyed. How many of you here would consider religion bad if it hadn't been the source of so many killings throughout history?

[SeebianWurm]

That entire post was addressed to Priesto "Cant Think" McMoron.

[Uraniun235]

Well, what do you think? Is it full of half-baked ideas? Too pluralistic? Or is this a reasonable adaptation of Christian morality to modern life?

It seems the pinnacle of arrogance to assume that such basic moral concepts as "don't kill people" are a Christian invention.

[Uraniun235]

Are you talking about me? Christianity is good when its tenets are being obeyed. How many of you here would consider religion bad if it hadn't been the source of so many killings throughout history?

*raises hand*

I think it's inherently detrimental to indoctrinate people into believing in fairy tales for no reason at all.

[InnerBrat]

Are you talking about me? Christianity is good when its tenets are being obeyed. How many of you here would consider religion bad if it hadn't been the source of so many killings throughout history?

*raises hand*

I think it's inherently detrimental to indoctrinate people into believing in fairy tales for no reason at all.

I almost disagree. I think it's good for people in general to be ignorant and live their lives is a bubble of 'if I'm good, then I need not fear death.'
However, I do not live in that little bubble due to too much thinking. I have a drive to learn more, and what I learn makes me cynical and miserable because there is no purpose in life blah blah blah.
But I also cannot lie, so i can't pretend that everything's OK in a cosy religious bubble type way, so i spread the misery that is knowing life has no real purpose.

I wish I was ignorant.

[Setzer]

Are you talking about me? Christianity is good when its tenets are being obeyed. How many of you here would consider religion bad if it hadn't been the source of so many killings throughout history?

*raises hand*

I think it's inherently detrimental to indoctrinate people into believing in fairy tales for no reason at all.

So Hansel and Gretel and Little Red Riding Hood are tools for brainwashing.

[SeebianWurm]

If you believe it actually happened.

[Darth Wong]

You refuse to accept that to be righteous you must be christ like.

A statement you make but cannot defend. Christ was a bigot who thought that eternal torture was perfectly justifiable punishment for teaching people not to follow God. If you take the Biblical accounts literally, he was an asshole.

No problem with that, but what is your standard of morals? defenition of good?

Humanist morals all stem from the simple recognition that death, suffering and pain are bad things, while pleasure, freedom, and happiness are good things. Hardly a leap of faith.

[Darth Wong]

I would say that beliefs are perfectly harmless as long as you don't use them to justify an action which would be bad or immoral in the absence of those beliefs.

[Uraniun235]

Are you talking about me? Christianity is good when its tenets are being obeyed. How many of you here would consider religion bad if it hadn't been the source of so many killings throughout history?

*raises hand*

I think it's inherently detrimental to indoctrinate people into believing in fairy tales for no reason at all.

So Hansel and Gretel and Little Red Riding Hood are tools for brainwashing.

Hardly. How many children actually believe those stories are true? Or perhaps more appropriately, how many believe them and continue to believe throughout their adult life?

Consider. A grown man, upon proclaiming that he believes the events told in Little Red Riding Hood actually happened and that the talking sentient Wolf was real, will be laughed at for quite some time. (or pitied, depending on the people... or sent to the lunatic asylum)

Yet a grown man who proclaims a belief in the ludicrous events told in the Bible and in a magic man who can walk on water and turn water into wine is taken quite seriously.

Consider that no sane person models their life based on Hansel and Gretel, yet many would have us believe that a life rooted firmly in Biblical teachings (among them to kill homosexuals and women we vaguely suspect of witchcraft) is a rich and righteous life indeed.

When I see the insanity of these contradictions, I think there's something wrong with indoctrinating children to blindly accept for no reason whatsoever (except that their parents/teachers/peers taught them so) that a certain fairy tale is truthful.