Why not make the 10 Commandments enforceable (and punishable) law?

Hello bunny1ohio,

You said:

I'm not even going to discuss the abortion issue any further with you s2a... but I do have couple questions for you. You can decide whether you wish to answer or not.

Click to expand...

I do my level best to address all questions lent specifically for my consideration/reply in a time fashion. It's just good manners.

Are you this condescending to everyone who disagrees with your opinions?

Click to expand...

Nope. But I'm always willing to make exceptions for heedless, irrelevant, and purposefully incendiary stinkbombs - and for those that employ their use.

And do you always talk to people like some kind of a professor correcting a poor student?

Click to expand...

Always? No.

Or is it just me?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You are not the first, nor likely the last to express such sentiments. I estimate the lent feeedback ratio to be about 5:1 favorable vs. unfavorable as regards my commentaries (or "style") within REF. You may deliberate for yourself as to what such a ratio implies concerning my character, or of those generously lending their critical support on my behalf.


You said (to Mr. Guy):

It wasn't meant to be classy... it's an honest question as I haven't read enough replies from s2a to know if this is how he treats everybody or if it is only that he got irritated with me or had a bad day or what have you.

Click to expand...

I would deem the question disingenuous at best, for it was you that previously said (to me):
"I really don't want to read your commentaries, thank you... I've seen enough already."
Most would consider such a declarative statement as definitive in it's meaning and intent. Perhaps you have experienced a change of heart then?

The referenced suggested links (to my commentaries regarding abortion) I proffered for your benefit might very well have provided you the clarity and illumination you seek in your earnest estimations of my character and behavior, but you chose not to...

I'm actually quite a classy lady... but I really don't care if I impress anybody on the board as such or not... that's not what I'm here for... I'm here to debate.

Click to expand...

Good.

Me too (except, I'm no lady).

Welcome to the jungle.

FeathersInHair said:

I've always gotten the impression that it's simply the way s2a expresses himself. Some people try to use less words to explain a point... s2a does the opposite. I think his title even translates (unless I'm mistaken) to 'wordy backslider'.

Click to expand...

"palaver" - verb --"to discuss with much talk"

"palaverous" - adj. -- "full of or given to palaver: wordy, verbose"

"apostate" - noun --"A person who renounces a religion or faith"


"palaverous apostate" - presumptive title -- "aka. - 's2a'/Cal - (see also REF)"

;-)

bunny1ohio said:

Are you this condescending to everyone who disagrees with your opinions? And do you always talk to people like some kind of a professor correcting a poor student? Or is it just me? :areyoucra

Click to expand...

My suggestion to you is to simply relax and enjoy s2a's feedback to your questions...I was a bit put off at first but, only very briefly.

He's a gentleman, he's very intelligent and he gives thoughtful and complete answers to your queries. And there's usually a slap of humor thrown in for good measure.

You have to remember the topics before you are not your basic milk chocolate and gummy bear subjects. There's bound to be tart conversations ensuing.

mister simplisitic here again gang.... one phrase sums this thread up... seperation of church and state..... but hey if you want religious doctrine to be made law we can always go back to calling our leader your majesty and wondering whether or not he heard me say that outfit makes his butt look big... if he did then will i be thrown in the dungeon? all hail king bush? wait wait.... im sure i saw that title at an adult book store

s2a said:

I do my level best to address all questions lent specifically for my consideration/reply in a time fashion. It's just good manners.

Click to expand...

I did notice that

s2a said:

Nope. But I'm always willing to make exceptions for heedless, irrelevant, and purposefully incendiary stinkbombs - and for those that employ their use.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to employ any "stinkbombs"... I was just stating an opinion and it felt like you were attacking me for it... which is why I replied the way I did. Apparently it seems a majority concensus that you almost always speak this way, so for my ruder comments, I appologize :flower2:

s2a said:

I would deem the question disingenuous at best, for it was you that previously said (to me): "I really don't want to read your commentaries, thank you... I've seen enough already." Most would consider such a declarative statement as definitive in it's meaning and intent. Perhaps you have experienced a change of heart then?

Click to expand...

It was heartfelt, and no I haven't lol

s2a said:

Welcome to the jungle.

Click to expand...

It could have been an easier welcome.... but it's all good

*brings in chocolates and live plants* A better welcome for you! *hugs*

FeathersinHair said:

*brings in chocolates and live plants* A better welcome for you! *hugs*

Click to expand...

*Big Cheeky Grin* Tosses a couple Godiva's back*.... Thanks Feathers :flower2: .... quick question... I just noticed something today being relatively new here...

I went in the user CP and there are a bunch of "Karma" posts to me in there.... how do you send those? :kat: I would love to toss a couple back to the posters in here... this is one of the best debate boards I have been on for people actually giving "positive" feedback lol

I know I'm way off topic here, but not sure how to send messages and such yet :bonk:

Not at all! You can give 'karma' or 'frubals' by clicking on the little link at the top of a person's post. (The box has the word 'Frubals', and you click on that to give them to a person's post.) There's also a guide to them, but it's still got a few kinks I've got to work out!

*happily gobbles up the Godivas*

bunny1ohio said:

I wasn't trying to employ any "stinkbombs"...

Click to expand...

Yes, you were. But the odor has faded...

I was just stating an opinion and it felt like you were attacking me for it...

Click to expand...

Trust your feelings. ;-)

...which is why I replied the way I did. Apparently it seems a majority concensus that you almost always speak this way, so for my ruder comments, I appologize :flower2:

Click to expand...

Accepted.

It could have been an easier welcome.... but it's all good

Click to expand...

I do my best to lend added deference to REF "newbies", but you had already recorded in excess of 200+ posts...hardly virgin territory, or "newbie" status. You'll note that I record little more than twice the count of your own posts here within REF. As such, I have undoubtedly worn out my own particular welcome within REF by now...;-)

[The standing invitation remains for you to enjoin me in debate within the aforementioned, and twice referenced (and linked) thread that specifically addresses your contentions regarding abortion and a mother's right to choose. If you are here to debate such matters, I stand ready to deliberate the issue firsthand with you, at your leisure and pleasure].

michel said:

Well, let's examine them:

1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
   This commandment is to believe in the existence of God, that God exists for all time, that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that God determines the course of events in this world.
2. "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." One is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah. It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve, including any artistic representations of God or any sculpture of a human being. One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God.
3. "Thou shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..." This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. This includes four types of prohibited oaths: an oath affirming as true a matter one knows to be false, an oath that affirms the patently obvious, an oath denying the truth of a matter one knows to be true, and an oath to perform an act that is beyond one's capabilities.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" thou is to declare of the greatness and the holiness of the Sabbath, and observe each Sabbath day, as God defined for the Jews during the Exodus. Each day of the Exodus, God provided food to the Jews to collect except on the Sabbath. Instead a double portion was provided the day before the Sabbath. One is enjoined from performing work on the Sabbath.
5. "thou shall honour your father and your mother..." The obligation to honor one's parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one's actions towards one's parents. This commandment is an interesting development when compared to other laws of the Ancient East (for instance, the Code of Hammurabi) that do not call for equal respect of the father and the mother. Jewish sages note that the 5th commandment, on the border between commandments on relationship with God and those between humankind, is to "Honor your father and your mother...", and draw lessons from this that a person should respect parents (and by implication, elders) only somewhat less than one would God himself, and that parents should be moral guidance to a person as God is to society.
6. "Thou shall not murder" The Hebrew word ratsach, used in this commandment, is close to the word murder; kill is a mistranslation, but it does not translate directly to the word murder. While most uses of the word ratsach are in passages describing murder, in Proverbs 22:13 a lion ratsach a man to death, many argue since a lion cannot murder anyone, murder is a flawed translation as well. Also in Joshua 20:3, ratsach is used to describe death by negligence. A closer translation would be to kill in the manner of a predatory animal. Some Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which they hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another, or killing in self-defense. Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not dogmatically regard abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits abortion in most circumstances based on several other prohibitions.
7. "Thou shall not commit adultery."
8. "Thou shall not steal." This is not understood as stealing in the conventional sense, since theft of property is forbidden elsewhere and is not a capital offense. It can mean "do not kidnap".
9. "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" One must not bear false witness in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere and is not a capital offence.
10. "Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house..." One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.

You could not apply the 10 Commandments per se.

The 1st commandment could not be applied; no atheist or agnostic could accept it. The same would apply to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Commandments ; these four would be an infringement of the public's civil liberties. people need to work on the sabbath (doctors, nurses, firemen etc). What is more, you cannot force people to believe in God.


The fith commandment would be a good Social one that would reduce the Public's liability towards the elderly; I do honestly believe that we wash our hands of the elderly (certainly in the U.K). I looked after my Father after the death of my mother, and my Wife looks after her mother. Between us, we must have saved the state a lot of money, but it was our choice.

The sixth and eigth and 9th commandments are the law of the land anyway.

The 7th commandment would be uninforcable (and goodness knows we would not want to go back to the practices of some 3rd world countries where this law is applied).

The 10th commandment would stiffle the manufacturing industry, and retail.

Click to expand...

At least some of these are embedded in the Constitutions of some countries as more or less loosely framed rights. 10 might then appear as a right to private property. Judges may then apply rights as moral criteria in deciding cases, sometimes overiding legal rules. So at least for some commandments, making them explicit in law might even curtail the scope and influence they have already.

bill said:

At least some of these are embedded in the Constitutions of some countries as more or less loosely framed rights. 10 might then appear as a right to private property. Judges may then apply rights as moral criteria in deciding cases, sometimes overiding legal rules. So at least for some commandments, making them explicit in law might even curtail the scope and influence they have already.

Click to expand...

They are also embedded in the religious texts of many religions.

Apparently there is some consensus among humans about basic ethics.

s2a said:

I do my best to lend added deference to REF "newbies", but you had already recorded in excess of 200+ posts...hardly virgin territory, or "newbie" status. You'll note that I record little more than twice the count of your own posts here within REF. As such, I have undoubtedly worn out my own particular welcome within REF by now...;-)

[The standing invitation remains for you to enjoin me in debate within the aforementioned, and twice referenced (and linked) thread that specifically addresses your contentions regarding abortion and a mother's right to choose. If you are here to debate such matters, I stand ready to deliberate the issue firsthand with you, at your leisure and pleasure].

Click to expand...

Hi s2a, be a gentleman and take Bunny girl out for a drink of vokha. Or is it whisky or beer that you like, I have forgotten.

Booko said:

They are also embedded in the religious texts of many religions.

Apparently there is some consensus among humans about basic ethics.

Click to expand...

Pity there is no apparent ethical consensus amongst corporations, also individuals (fictitious) according to law.

the first 4 commandments deal with our relationship with God. Those must not be dictated by law, and can't be. The last 6 deal with our relationship to others and usually need to be enforced Covetousness can't be handled by laws, only the result of coveteousness and envy. Adultery leads down many paths, each leading to pain upon others, ourselves the economy,even. There must be discipline upon those who hurt others.

makra said:

There must be discipline upon those who hurt others.

Click to expand...

You're hurting my optimism regarding human rationality.

What's to be your punishment, then?

s2a said:

[Note: This topic is primarily directed to the attentions of those that seek to impose/mandate the biblical Ten Commandments (either Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish versions) as requisite and visible testaments of dogmatic faith in the public arena. However, perspectives of all bents are invited to comment.]​

Why shouldn't the biblical Ten Commandments be a part of the U.S. Code, and/or prospective State Law? If the 10 C's are (God's) "rules for living", then why not make them a part of foundational and enforceable legal jurisprudence? Should secular enumerated rights and pluralistic constitutional precepts be allowed to override mandated scriptural "Law"?​

Is there an argument to be offered that any of the commandments are lesser in comparison to another? Is blasphemy any less a sin than disrespecting one's parents, or is perjury more (or less) acceptable than a lacking reverence for honoring a day of rest? Is secret envy of your neighbor's shiny new lawnmower a wage of sin punishable by death? Should it be? If not, why not? Shouldn't public stoning of sinners be brought back as righteous justice, as commanded? Should our society endure idolaters, witches, and blasphemers without any judicial consequence? Do priests and preachers "work" on Sundays? Are all convenience store and retail salespeople condemned to eternal damnation for punching a clock on the "The Lord's Day"? Should they be, or should a conscientious society seek to avert their sinful ways in defiance of (the Biblical) God's Commandments? Within a nation of nearly 85% self-professed "Christians", surely such willful defiance and manifest improbations are displeasing to a God of purposed blessing and bestowments, and counter to His most fundamental "rules for living".​

So...if you earnestly believe and accept that God's Commandments are tantamount to all other laws (being either secular or pluralistic in nature), shouldn't it be incumbent upon you to argue and support the rationale of making ALL of God's Commandments enforceable (and righteously punishable) law today? Do (or should) foundational constitutional principles trump religious dogma in any way? Shouldn't violation of the Commandment stating that: "You shall have no other gods before [or besides] me" (Exodus 20:3 - NIV). How can any "true Christian" even abide the pluralistically deferential constitutional acceptance of all religions and faith-based beliefs as equally valid and legally protected under law?​

Surely, none of God's Laws are subject to mitigation or amelioration in bland acceptability or righteous countenance? Or does God suggest that only He should dispense appropriate justice in the afterlife? If so, then whom does He especially empower - within this mortal realm - to righteously adjudicate guilt or innocence on His behalf?. Scripture does not allude to any concepts of a trial by jury of one's peers, much less of a self-governing republic that is free to establish it's own laws of enforceable conduct and behavior. If a democracy - inhabited by an overwhelming majority of self-ascribed Christian adherents - rejects their responsibility to insure universal compliance to God's Will and Commandments, then what purpose does personal piety and service to His Will ultimately serve?​

Why should "God Bless America"? America permits His Word to be construed as a matter of singular personal choice amongst numerous "heretical" and (errantly?) constitutionally-protected faith-based beliefs.​

[One may argue that Scripture suggests that believers "render unto Caesar what is his", but that refers to the collection of taxes and claims of personal ownership, not a forfeiture of individualistic choice nor of veritable faith. If a federalized Caesar were a Christian today, whom would He feed to the voracious lions of righteous justice; adjudicated by a dispensational jury of one's peers, or by empowered and scripturally enlightened priests? God Bless America?]​

Click to expand...

Let me note some of the commandments in question:

Thou shall not kill, well unless you kill in the name of god, otherwise you are forgiven... numerous examples in the bible.

Thou shall not commit adultery, well a man named jesus in the bible changed all that.

Thou shall not obey other gods. Due to this murdureous god depicted in the bible, humanity had been mislead. Why not adore another who would do a better job. For religious people who say its god's plan, well the slaugther and rape of innocence is part of its plan then.. Adore something that would do a better job.

Honor your father and mother.... even though they would abuse you and even kill you. Read the crimes within families..

Honor the sabbath... calendars where made my man... I will honor what ever day I want.....

Well there are more..........

I might as well open this up for more discussion.

And, confusion.

DakotaGypsy said:

The Book of Exodus goes on to expound on the child in the womb:

Exodus 21:22-23:
In other words, if the woman dies, a murder has occurred and a more severe penalty exacted, a life for a life.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance on the meaning of these passages could fill volumes of book's. Perhaps, it would be in your best interest to invest in a Chumash. Think of it like this, for a mere 30$, you'd be able to stop making ignorant assumptions about Torah passages.

It's actually Jayhawker who you should thank, he's the only reason I bought this translation of the Chumash along with the JPS.

The passages you so eagerly quoted are talking about what happens when two men are fighting with each other with the intent to kill each other, and not the pregnant wife. In the first scenario, her child is killed w/ no injury to herself. Keep in mind casusing the death of a unborn baby is not a capital offense in Jewish law. A court would be summoned and damages in a monetary value would be assessed. Rashi says that in this case, the value of the newborn alone would be repayed. In the case that talks about if the woman dies as well, it would be wise of you to read up on what Sanhedrin 79A and I believe Baba Batra 50A or 50B states (not sure which it is since I'm not looking it up). Anyways, it's clear that the two men had the intent to kill each other, but it's also clear that niether of them had the intent to kill her. As per the death penalty requirements, the judges must prove that the accused (one of the men in this case) clearly wanted her dead, which is pretty difficult.

Deut 13:1 said:

Your ignorance on the meaning of these passages could fill volumes of book's. Perhaps, it would be in your best interest to invest in a Chumash. Think of it like this, for a mere 30$, you'd be able to stop making ignorant assumptions about Torah passages.

Click to expand...

Just a couple of notes...DakotaGypsy is no longer online, and my guess is the vast majority of non-Jews in this country don't even know what a Chumash is.

It's actually Jayhawker who you should thank, he's the only reason I bought this translation of the Chumash along with the JPS.

Click to expand...

And you didn't even tell us what translation you're using? The synagogue I've been in for my neighbor boys' bar mitzvahs uses Stone. I keep thinking a Chumash would be really helpful to have handy.

Booko said:

Just a couple of notes...DakotaGypsy is no longer online, and my guess is the vast majority of non-Jews in this country don't even know what a Chumash is.

Click to expand...

Chumash = Torah

Booko said:

And you didn't even tell us what translation you're using?

Click to expand...

Originally when I came here I didn't use translations, since coming here, jayhawker - a naturalist (a cute word for athiest ) convinced me to buy a set of the JPS, along w/ that I bought a stone adition Chumash.

Booko said:

The synagogue I've been in for my neighbor boys' bar mitzvahs uses Stone. I keep thinking a Chumash would be really helpful to have handy.

Click to expand...

The stone edition is good, but I actually perfer the JPS as far as translations go. I think the Stone gives better commentary in some aspects and explains it better for people who don't grow up with Chassidus. The whole eye-for-an-eye was never meant to be literal, which is why I blasted Dakota.