A call to atheists...let's have at the Ten Commandments

[Trailblazer]

No, I wasn't asking about how you view your religion as compared to mine, but about how what the OP said would have made you atheist...

What would have made me an atheist is trying to make sense out of the Bible.... For example, the OP said:

Now, let's begin with the fact that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. For instance, the only version that actually says "The Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:1-28) in it doesn't even look a tiny bit like the one that everybody wants to carve in stone outside their legislatures and courthouses, and inscribe on the walls -- or petit-point, for those so inclined.

 

[joe1776]

Though I call this a call to atheists, I'm delighted to have others chime in...especially those who adhere to alternate lists. (Heck, even FSM's Eight I'd Rather You Didn't afficionados may enjoy the romp.)

Now, let's begin with the fact that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. For instance, the only version that actually says "The Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:1-28) in it doesn't even look a tiny bit like the one that everybody wants to carve in stone outside their legislatures and courthouses, and inscribe on the walls -- or petit-point, for those so inclined.

But for the sake of simplicity, let's just accept Exodus 20:1-17, and number them as the Talmud does (hey, it's the original, and they oughta know). That numbering is in bold red numbers below.

Also, please forgive me if I stay with KJV...it's the one I know best.

Exodus 20:1-17 King James Version (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (1)
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (2)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (2)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (2)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (2)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (3)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (4)
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (4)
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (4)
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (4)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (5)
13 Thou shalt not kill. (6)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (7)
15 Thou shalt not steal. (8)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (9)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (10)

Now, verse 1, of course, isn't a commandment at all. But oddly, neither is verse 2, which Talmud accepts as Commandment 1. But really, it's just a statement of supposed fact, isn't it? So, okay, I'll ease up a bit and say that Commandment 1 is really: 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Now, I think this deserves some criticism -- especially if you're going to post it anywhere that government is in control of. I mean, in the US, for example, the First Amendment makes this impossible! So, the US First Amendment to the Constitution is in direct opposition to the First Commandment! (I suppose I would be better off saying that the First Amendment is in opposition to the First Commandment, given the strict order of their production.)

Second, I can't help but notice that verse 5 is in complete contradiction to every civilized notion of justice -- the very idea of punishing the children, grand-children -- all the way to the great-great-grand-children (them's the fourth generation) -- is completely counter to the idea that nobody is punished except for that which they themselves are guilty of.

So, here's my invitation -- go ahead, but only if you are really willing to give an honest examination of the actual words, and their meaning, and to do so with some diligence, as I've tried to demonstrate.

Making moral rules and laws of any kind is a dumb idea because we humans would know nothing about morality if we didn't first feel the judgments of conscience (immediate-inuition emerging from the unconscious). We know that because "All knowledge begins with the senses." Since we can't see, hear, taste or smell the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it.

Moral rules and laws are the result of Reason Worship. We humans learned about morality from conscience and then, so enamored with our reasoning ability, we imagined we could improve on the judgments of conscience.

Depending upon how it's interpreted the Bible's commandment on killing is either useless or it conflicts with the judgments of conscience.

We need moral guidance in specific situations. If the commandment not to kill is interpreted as a general rule, allowing for exceptions, it's useless. It offers no help in the specific situation which might be an exception.

If the commandment is interpreted as an absolute rule, it will offer guidance in a specific situation that will often conflict with conscience. Conscience informs us that killing is justified when necessary as self-defense, for example.

Therefore, depending on how it's interpreted, the commandment on killing might be either useless or misleading in a given specific situation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Sabbath Day was given only to Israel...no one else. It was never imposed on Christians, especially when many who were not of Jewish heritage never had it as part of their previous worship. Only Jews were obligated by Law to observe the Sabbath. All of the first Christians were Jews, but Gentiles came in a little later.

Well, then, since the Sabbath was given in the 10 Cs, and it was only "given to Israel," then must one assume the rest of the Commandments were likewise only given to Israel, as there are no clauses, caveats or other indicators that only one of the Commandments is somehow different?

And I can't help but remember that Jesus himself said (Matthew 5;17)

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So unless you've got some evidence that the Sabbath was given only to Israel, I'm afraid I have to disagree, based only on what I can find in the Bible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That commandment does not say that God will punish the children, it says that the iniquities will be visited on them. If I am a drunk for example then my children suffer and learn from my drinking (either to be the same or to not do the same etc) and this suffering and learning gets passed down from generation to generation.

But it doesn't say "learning." It says "the iniquities of the fathers" shall be "visited" unto the third and fourth generations...which means that down to the great-great-grandkids, what the fathers did wrong they will -- tragically for them -- also have to do wrong. And as I recall, doing wrong, in this regard, has a tendency to draw God's wrath.

So, sorry, I think that you are trying to find ways to salvage the unsalvageable with sophistries.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. It doesn't change the context.

Your overriding implication was that if an individual is a drug addict and/or a prostitute, they are thus morally reprehensible as a result of those characteristics alone.

Sorry, but that is NOT what I said, nor is it what I meant. There is a wide difference between saying that something is morally reprehensible, and saying I do not "honour" it. I "accept" a great deal that I do not "honour."

 

[Kenny]

In other words, why do I need to square the two? Why do you find them incompatible?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK...now, getting back to the actual OP....



I see these statements as reinforcing something that got a little lost on the liberated Israelites after their miraculous release from Egyptian slavery.
Reminding them that he was their God, when they had lived in a land that was teeming with false deities and their first action, when they thought Moses had got lost on the mountain, was to make a golden calf and do the very thing that God told them not to do, may add some dimension to his statement.



It is of note to realize that no government of this world can make rules or laws that are in opposition to God's laws. The actions and words of the apostles were proof of that. They were arrested for their preaching, but their response to being told NOT to preach was adamant ..."So they brought them and stood them before the Sanʹhe·drin. Then the high priest questioned them 28 and said: “We strictly ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet look! you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.” 29 In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:27-29)

The first amendment to your constitution or any other law of any nation, has no jurisdiction over Christian's right to obey their God. No human can override the conscience of another, nor can they force a person to renounce their faith. History is littered with martyrs who refused to do so.



Why would God punish the children of those who hate him? Probably because of being taught to hate God too. Atheism is often passed down to the children and grandchildren in a family.....who is to stop it? It is then countered in the next verse by God's loving mercy and forgiveness extended to those who love him.

Your judgments are a little hasty and not taking all the details into account.



The operative word here is an "honest" not "biased" examination....If we examine the verses honestly and without the atheistic bias we will see that the 10 Commandments are all very reasonable.

The most interesting part of your post is your claim that the operative word is 'honest" not "biased." the reason that is so interesting, of course, is that you immediately begin by citing -- as history -- events that never actually happened at all. How do you get "honest" out of that?

Your judgments are a little hasty and not taking all the details into account.

Why would God punish the children of those who hate him? Probably because of being taught to hate God too. Atheism is often passed down to the children and grandchildren in a family.....who is to stop it? It is then countered in the next verse by God's loving mercy and forgiveness extended to those who love him.

My judgements are hasty and ignore details? You just did it yourself in that last paragraph. Look at it -- you don't say that God doesn't punish the children and grand and great-grand etc. You say He does because they are taught by their forebears. But surely, the way for God to show that he is "loving and merciful" is to make sure they get taught correctly, rather than sit back, laissez-faire, let the damage
be done, and then get on with the punishing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In other words, why do I need to square the two? Why do you find them incompatible?

I was rather wondering why you DO, considering that they are not. But I see you are exercising your right not to answer again, but instead turn it somewhere else. Ah well.

 

[Kenny]

I think it's a contradiction. US tries to stay within biblical laws (marriage, for example) but then the first amendment says freedom of religion. As for the first commandment and amendment, yes, they contradict. But since there is freedom of religion and church and state are separate, the first commandment is irrelevant to US laws etc.

I think the contradiction here is trying to apply a OT Jewish Law within the context of a NT Constitution. There are laws that would be the same but there are laws that would differ (like the sacrificing of animals).

NT Constitution encompasses the OT and permits it so there is no need to choose between the two.

 

[ChristineM]

Though I call this a call to atheists, I'm delighted to have others chime in...especially those who adhere to alternate lists. (Heck, even FSM's Eight I'd Rather You Didn't afficionados may enjoy the romp.)

Now, let's begin with the fact that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. For instance, the only version that actually says "The Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:1-28) in it doesn't even look a tiny bit like the one that everybody wants to carve in stone outside their legislatures and courthouses, and inscribe on the walls -- or petit-point, for those so inclined.

But for the sake of simplicity, let's just accept Exodus 20:1-17, and number them as the Talmud does (hey, it's the original, and they oughta know). That numbering is in bold red numbers below.

Also, please forgive me if I stay with KJV...it's the one I know best.

Exodus 20:1-17 King James Version (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (1)
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (2)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (2)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (2)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (2)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (3)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (4)
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (4)
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (4)
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (4)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (5)
13 Thou shalt not kill. (6)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (7)
15 Thou shalt not steal. (8)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (9)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (10)

Now, verse 1, of course, isn't a commandment at all. But oddly, neither is verse 2, which Talmud accepts as Commandment 1. But really, it's just a statement of supposed fact, isn't it? So, okay, I'll ease up a bit and say that Commandment 1 is really: 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Now, I think this deserves some criticism -- especially if you're going to post it anywhere that government is in control of. I mean, in the US, for example, the First Amendment makes this impossible! So, the US First Amendment to the Constitution is in direct opposition to the First Commandment! (I suppose I would be better off saying that the First Amendment is in opposition to the First Commandment, given the strict order of their production.)

Second, I can't help but notice that verse 5 is in complete contradiction to every civilized notion of justice -- the very idea of punishing the children, grand-children -- all the way to the great-great-grand-children (them's the fourth generation) -- is completely counter to the idea that nobody is punished except for that which they themselves are guilty of.

So, here's my invitation -- go ahead, but only if you are really willing to give an honest examination of the actual words, and their meaning, and to do so with some diligence, as I've tried to demonstrate.

Different branches of religions who consider the 10 commandments to be set in stone cannot agree among themselves how to number the commandments. See...
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

For an example of how 8 major abrahamic sects differ.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm asking precisely what I said, because I am interested in human culture, and in philosophy. Please feel free to ignore it if those things are not of interest to you.

... or you are simply tired of adolescent bible-bashing.

 

[Kenny]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So unless you've got some evidence that the Sabbath was given only to Israel, I'm afraid I have to disagree, based only on what I can find in the Bible.

1) It was given to the Jewish people
2) If something is "fulfilled", then it doesn't need to be filled again. The context of the statement was to the Jewish people and not to the world. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, dealt with this reality calling it a "shadow" pointing to Jesus. Now, all days are days that can be, and should be, a day of reflection,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Though I call this a call to atheists, I'm delighted to have others chime in...especially those who adhere to alternate lists. (Heck, even FSM's Eight I'd Rather You Didn't afficionados may enjoy the romp.)

Now, let's begin with the fact that there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. For instance, the only version that actually says "The Ten Commandments" (Ex 34:1-28) in it doesn't even look a tiny bit like the one that everybody wants to carve in stone outside their legislatures and courthouses, and inscribe on the walls -- or petit-point, for those so inclined.

But for the sake of simplicity, let's just accept Exodus 20:1-17, and number them as the Talmud does (hey, it's the original, and they oughta know). That numbering is in bold red numbers below.

Also, please forgive me if I stay with KJV...it's the one I know best.

Exodus 20:1-17 King James Version (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (1)
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (2)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (2)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (2)
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (2)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (3)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (4)
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (4)
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (4)
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (4)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (5)
13 Thou shalt not kill. (6)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (7)
15 Thou shalt not steal. (8)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (9)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (10)

Now, verse 1, of course, isn't a commandment at all. But oddly, neither is verse 2, which Talmud accepts as Commandment 1. But really, it's just a statement of supposed fact, isn't it? So, okay, I'll ease up a bit and say that Commandment 1 is really: 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Now, I think this deserves some criticism -- especially if you're going to post it anywhere that government is in control of. I mean, in the US, for example, the First Amendment makes this impossible! So, the US First Amendment to the Constitution is in direct opposition to the First Commandment! (I suppose I would be better off saying that the First Amendment is in opposition to the First Commandment, given the strict order of their production.)

Second, I can't help but notice that verse 5 is in complete contradiction to every civilized notion of justice -- the very idea of punishing the children, grand-children -- all the way to the great-great-grand-children (them's the fourth generation) -- is completely counter to the idea that nobody is punished except for that which they themselves are guilty of.

So, here's my invitation -- go ahead, but only if you are really willing to give an honest examination of the actual words, and their meaning, and to do so with some diligence, as I've tried to demonstrate.

I'll have an off-the-top-of-my-head swing at them...

Since these are mostly posited by believers as being of moral value, or even the very foundation of morality, I'll "review" them based on moral merrit.


1. no other gods before me
2. no idols
3. don't take god's name in vain
4. keep the sabbath

I'ld say each of these is of practical irrelevancy. These rules are often posited as having some kind of moral value, in some cases even proposed to be the very foundation of morality. Yet, I see no moral connection whatsoever in any of these.

There's nothing "immoral" or "wrong" or "bad" about working 7 days a week.
And if it's morally okay to worship the god of abraham, then it should be equally okay to worship zeus or thor or odin.

On the other hand....... I submit that the very practice of "woship" in that sense is immoral. No matter who is being worshipped. So really, what I'm reading here is from my perspective actually a commandment to engage in immoral behaviour. As all 4 have to do with worshipping him and only him, the sabbath being part of that worship in some kind of ritualistic sense.


5. Honor your father and your mother

Sure, sure. I agree this should be the default.
However.... I would nuance it more and follow it up with an "except when..." and then some sensible generic exception schenario, where your mother and father's behaviour actually make it so that they don't deserve being honerd. And it's not even hard to imagine...

Consider a mother and father who force their kids into prostitution in an underground pedophelia network, for example.

6. You shall not murder

No argument there. Although it's kind of a redundant thing to say... as "murder" is a very very specific category of killing. Defined as "the unlawfull killing of someone".

Obviously not all kinds of killing are equal in terms of moral merrit. In some scenario's, killing is actually the moral thing to do.

7. You shall not commit adultery

Ok. In the sense of that people shouldn't cheat.
However, here also there should be an "except when..." follow up, in case "adultery" refers purely to the physical act of sex. Swingers for example, who are very happy in their open marriage, don't engage in immoral behaviour.

8. you shall not steal

Ok. I again agree this should be the default position. Once again though... there is an "except when..." required here. Scenario's where stealing would be the right thing to do, are again possible.

9. don't bear false witness against your neighbour

I understand this to say that one should claim someone said or did something while knowing it's not true.
So knowingly falsely accusing someone of something.

No argument there.

10 You shall not covet

Hmmm. Depends. "To covet", much like with the "murder" thing, can actually be defined as "to desire wrongfully". In that case, it is off course again just a redundant thing to say.

However, it can also mean to simply want or wish for very eagerly, without regard for the wants and wishes of others.

I'ld say this would once again be scenario dependend.

Scenario 1:
2 tennis player in the finals of wimbledon. They both very very eagerly want the trophy, regardless of what the other wants and also at the expense of the other. Because one winning it means another can't.
Nothing morally wrong there.

Scenario 2:
A hungry village in africa where a food-aid truck stops to hand out sacks of rise. There's not enough for the whole village. People flood the car begging for a sack. Among them, a hungry person with 5 starving kids to feed. A rich guy comes along who very eagerly wants the entire truck at the expense of the entire village and wants it so bad that he buys it for half a million bucks and drives off with it.

Much morally wrong there......

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Wow. There has been some serious diversion from the main thrust of the OP in this thread.


OK then...The OP (my slight diversion here is that I’m agnostic......so sue me).
As the OP suggests, there have been multiple versions of the Christian “ten commandments”, but they come down to:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. — Umm...yeah. No. Whatever being actually bothers to prove its existence will at least get recognition as an existant entity from me, but not my worship. Save my family from certain doom that you yourself didn’t initiate, and I’ll thank you....a LOT, but still not worship.

2. You shall not make idols. —. See number one above. But not to worry. I’m really not taken to worshipping either non-corporeal maybes, or solid gold statues of cows (or whatever). By the way, what gives with all the crosses and images of the Christian god’s dead son. Sheesh.

3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. Why the heck not? See number one above.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. It’s nice to have a day off, but if I need to work, then I need to work.

5. Honor your father and your mother. I do, but I was raised in a Norman Rockwell ideal family/childhood. Some abusing and neglectful parents do NOT deserve any respect or caring at all. Many of them should have been removed from society, or preferably never have been allowed to procreate. But this is fodder for an entire other thread.

6. You shall not murder. Hmmm....”Murder” is a legal term..... “Kill” (as is another human being) is not necessarily wrong or evil. If I’m defending myself or someone else, then killing the offender is justified. Killing a murderer would be justified (IMO), but our human legal system keeps messing up the convictions such that many innocent men (and some women) are punished for murders which they did not commit, so life in prison with ZERO chance of parole is fair enough. But.....”Murder”....hmmm....is there ever a justification for killing someone without reason, or simply to profit myself.
.
. OK....I can’t think of a good enough reason to justify killing without cause......so I’ll go along with this one, at least as I’ve excepted above.

7. You shall not commit adultery. This is really the only commandment in the Christian list of 10 that I agree with. And I’m not saying this as an embittered criminal or victim of adultery. Its just slimy and dishonorable. You swear to be faithful, and you bail. Yer scum. Period.
If your marriage is on the rocks and you find a new “perfect match”, or whatever Then at least have the courage to divorce your spouse, before running off to fornicate with another. Really. Grow a pair kid, and a backbone while you’re at it.

8. You shall not steal. I’ll try not to. But if my own and/or my family’s welfare is in the balance, then don’t expect to keep that solid gold statue of a cow for very long. Just saying.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Good idea. When do Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, etc...etc....get dragged into hell by screaming demons? Because I want to have some popcorn ready.
But again. While not bearing false witness is the honorable and right thing to do, the defense of my family (assuming my family is innocent) comes above defending others.

10. You shall not covet. Yeah. Good luck with that one.


Alrighty then. Now for an analysis of the verbage in the OP.
————————————————————
Mind you, as @Evangelicalhumanist points out, the verbage changes from text to text, but at least the ideological thrust remains the same.

While a god might be finite, puny, and “jealous”, The God would not be. So all that ranting about (booming voice) “I shall smite thee and thy children’s emu farms for 4 generations” (/booming) BS is a pile of steaming crock.
It is also very interesting that the text, supposedly as written/spoken by the Christian God, admits to the existence of other deities then Jehovah himself. Also even these descriptions of himself with jealousy, vindictiveness and other such pettiness, immediately indicate without doubt that the Christian God is a small and very limited “diety”. Very disappointing.

Regardless: who exactly are all these other dieties than the Christian god is in competition with? How intense is the conflict. Does worship make a diety stronger, while removing worshippers of the other dieties make those dietites weaker? What are they competing for? Since they are all clearly finite,....then can we humans become one of the “divine” and compete too?

 

[rational experiences]

O God the stone planet, created.
O God the stone planet, male human says I will make it into a thesis/story and compile reasons to fusion existing and to fusion of stone not existing.

Reason, because I already knew that the Sun could remove or anti the stone presence...and make it disappear back to a space.

Science laws, how to create by invention more space. I am the Creator copier says the male scientist.

So says…….mass and energy equates to a formula. Yet O God the stone is just mass, O God the stone is not any Number.

The theist then says I can count....I will begin from the Number 1.

Reason I, he says, or me, as me, myself and I, the thinking state, consciousness....so I thought through 3 beings of my own self......fact in reality, science began on lying, for the self is only one identity, not 3.

So he said 1 and also I is the same....first he says. Yet he contradicts everything he says...such as he is creating, when in fact he is destroying.

Scientist, the contradiction. Fact of self appraisal.

A he says is one and the first....I know because I said so...so I will call A one, yet I already said I is 1, the me self and I self, one self....the contradiction.

A in science ^ mountain - cut off and left flat top...reality of my science lying.

For I was not there, meaning me, myself and I...contradiction in action.

So says 0 meaning O God is present by cold space...reality I know he says that cold space allows O stone to exist.

So I have to change it he says....so I will say shift time by I....meaning in science yodh Hand of God....and also I meaning intensity of magnetisation.

Which means great change. Not a good idea really.

So then he says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 1 again and 0 God.

I added + he said.....falsification of the cross, God is an addition. When I was in a contradictory status....I wanted to minus mass and energy by counting.

To add in reality is to force my AGE...which is my death.

In reality I want self removed by time shifting...to Age to die to be removed....no mass, no age, a contradiction, nothingness he says is better than living.

10 commandments of God....I hear voices speaking he says after I irradiate/convert and sacrifice my life....Oh the Angels of God he says...as he hears AI encoded speaking voices o f his own science themes.

That state a whole lot of messages, that make some form of sense...as it shared DATA of the scientific formula and gave answers back. So those answers are nearly correct, but not quite...for AI is not consciousness.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What are you asking exactly? And what do you hope to achieve with this thread? And why?

Wow... it seems incredibly obvious to me.
'
Note then: "Let's have at" wording of the thread title - this means, in no uncertain terms, to attack or to criticize. Now, whatever "knee jerk" reaction one may have to the word "attack" - we're talking about a scrutiny and open deconstruction of IDEAS here. No one can actually be hurt. And if they claim to be, it is their own responsibility, surely.

So, now we have established that this is a thread designed to gather people's criticisms of the ten commandments. And the purpose of such an exercise is to expose their weaknesses. And the reality of "why" one might want to do this is also plainly obvious to me - in order to attempt to get people to see things from a different perspective. If people think these ridiculous "commandments" are the best thing before sliced bread, then perhaps those of us who do not think they are (of which I certainly count myself one) will have a crack at changing their minds. And why not? What's going to happen to anyone if some of us do this? What is literally going to happen? A few tears shed? Someone runs away screaming? Again... reactions like those to ideas being shared are entirely the responsibility of those having the reactions. If one can't defend something like these commandments from easy pot shots, then perhaps it is time to admit to oneself that they are perhaps simply indefensible - and should therefore be discarded in favor of a stronger position.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ignoring your harsh judgement about drug addicted sex workers, I would put to you that morality is a fluid concept forever drenched in subjectivity rather than empirical truth.

The "harsh judgment" wasn't pointed at "drug addicted sex workers" - it was pointed at someone who has given up their child as if it were meaningless. The frame up of who did this was only to arrive at a common point of understanding that this has actually been done in real life by actual people. It could have, as easily, said "not everybody is the child of a suburbanite, privileged teenager who threw them into a dumpster the moment they were born." It frames up a real-world scenario that both parties can understand has happened due to shared anecdotal evidence. It may also have been for effect... but oh well. Care to address the ACTUAL POINT being raised there? That is, that perhaps mothers and fathers who behave in certain, irresponsible ways should not, in any way, be "honored?" Try a crack at telling Gabriel Fernandez that he ought to honor his mother because The Bible says so. Your attack of the wording is merely a dodge... because you know for a fact you have no other ammunition to come at the actual points being raised with. All you have are deflections and dodges. The commandment is too hyperbolic... and is crap for that very reason.

And if you are going to be railing on against the 10 Commandments in Christianity, I think it should be acknowledged that its origin was first a centuries old oral tradition which was then heavily manipulated and revised throughout the centuries that succeeded it.

Exactly why it should be discarded, or at least heavily revised. It's old. Very old... very outdated. Times change. If anything can be considered objectively true, it is that change is inevitable. What could ever possess someone to believe that The Bible should get a pass on changing with time? Because The Bible tells you it should get this free pass? Have anything better than that?

Are you really that surprised that there are inconsistencies in the bible?

Not surprised at all. Not at all. I am not even sure that this point was ever raised. Also... it seems very, very strange that you mentioning this fact is supposed to somehow be in defense of the text. I can't think of a single instance in which "inconsistencies" are a good selling point. Can you?

Or are you just trying to manufacture a talking point to get angry at Christianity and religion in general?

Is someone not allowed to be angry at Christianity, or religion, in your estimation? Do you imagine yourself some sort of police over people's feelings about religion?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... or you are simply tired of adolescent bible-bashing.

You tired then? Why don't you give us a few yawns? It's always so refreshing to see you post virtual yawns.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I obey #3.

Sophistry, pure sophistry. You're just playing with words!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<yawn>

You tired then? Why don't you give us a few yawns? It's always so refreshing to see you post virtual yawns.

</yawn>