• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Forget a second about spiritual...

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Its like saying, you will not have other biological parents.
Not really. There are hundreds of other gods to choose from. You can't choose your biological parents.
It is more like saying "You will have no other friends than me".

The word "shall" is misleading. It is not written in the Hebrew text.
The Hebrew text says: You will not have any other god, rather than You shall not.
So a command then.
Or a prediction, which has been repeatedly proved wrong - not a good look for an omniscient god.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Not really. There are hundreds of other gods to choose from. You can't choose your biological parents.
It is more like saying "You will have no other friends than me".
Exactly. God says that no of the others are really god.
Hence, one should not prey, worship, etc. any of them ;)
So a command then.
No. A fact.
Or a prediction, which has been repeatedly proved wrong - not a good look for an omniscient god.
Nope again.
You might think other things are god, you are free to do so. The fact remains, that even you think such a thing, god is only one.
You can the sun is a god and that it possesses spiritual powers. You are free to do so. Yet the regality is, that it is not.
So does any image, statue, imagination or any thing you might think as one.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
You claimed that the words can have a variety of meanings and are often loosely translated. That means the actual meaning is not clear, or everyone would interpret them the same.
Yes. The human language is very limited. that is one of our problem as a specie.
The English translation is very different than the Hebrew words.
The Modern Hebrew is very different than the ancient Hebrew.
Well, that's god's fault.
If parliament enacted laws that were so vague and easily manipulated, they would be amended.
Can you give me an example of something vague in the Hebrew texts?
But "atom" has a very narrow definition.
So does "I am". It doesn't mean "You shall have no".
If I claimed that it meant "tree" or "to think", it would be demonstrably wrong.
Exactly my point.
Your argument is that those are both possible meanings of the word, even if you wouldn't use them.
The entire Hebrew language is constructed in a way that the meaning of a word derives from its "root" characters.
There are many Hebrew words that are translated to wrong words and it causes a lot of misinterpretations.
Not really. The latter is a logical implication of the former, not an alternative meaning of the words.
So based on this logic:
I am your parent => You must believe in me
?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
That is irrelevant. Each one begins with "Do" or "Don't". Those are, by definition, commands or orders.
In the entire OT, have you seen one time that god commanded something and it didn't happen?
Yet there is no commandment against rapacious capitalism
Actually... לא תחמד pretty much covers it.
and the exploitation of labour
Also covered in לא תחמד / לא תגנב
or the destruction of the environment. Bit of a shame really.
These are explained (or given) much earlier in the story.
Not true. Rates of sexual assaults have been in decline for decades.
The reported ones maybe.
However, there is no commandment against rape or domestic violence.
Yes there are. The commandments are not just physical, but this is a much more complex issue.
This seems like deliberate dishonesty on your part.
Not only is there no prohibition of slavery in the commandments, elsewhere in the Bible god actively encourages it.
That is far from true.
You are mixing it up (as most people) because you haven't really red the bible.
You are neglecting the entire story that precedes these rules.
I bet you also think god wants animal sacrifice... which is by far, one of the most false ideas people have from the OT.
Your are mixing it up with (slandered) permits, which is a whole different thing.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
If a leader speaks words to a subordinate, and those spoken words are "Do not do that", it is a command. Whether your argument is from ignorance or dishonesty is anyone's guess.
Non of the above. It is from reading the actual text.
There is a word "command" in the OT. when god commands... It clearly states that.
So no one in the history of the world has ever disobeyed one of god's commands?
Really?
Yet again, you are mistaking the "ten commandments" to be commandments.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Exactly. God says that no of the others are really god.
Hence, one should not prey, worship, etc. any of them
Which was exactly my point. God is bigging himself up, claiming he is better than all the other gods.

No. A fact.
Ok, so let's suppose that god is saying "You will not worship any god but me" as a definite prediction - like telling a child they will not be able to stay awake all night.
He is clearly wrong because since then, most people have worshiped other gods or no god. Whichever way you look at it, it makes god look foolish.

Nope again.
You might think other things are god, you are free to do so. The fact remains, that even you think such a thing, god is only one.
You can the sun is a god and that it possesses spiritual powers. You are free to do so. Yet the regality is, that it is not.
So does any image, statue, imagination or any thing you might think as one.
This is such a poor argument. And it is exactly the same argument that is made by every other type of religionist. "My god is real, yours are imaginary!" It really is amusing that grown people can actually say that with a straight face.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Yes. The human language is very limited. that is one of our problem as a specie.
Oh dear. There is no "human language". There are many different languages, some imprecise and ungainly, some sophisticated and capable of precision.

The English translation is very different than the Hebrew words.
The Modern Hebrew is very different than the ancient Hebrew.
"Oh, but all those bilingually fluent, religious scholars over the years didn't know what they were doing and got it all wrong. But I, Random Person of the Internet, shall correct them".
Do us all a favour.

Can you give me an example of something vague in the Hebrew texts?
You were the one who claimed that passages could have very different meanings.

So does "I am". It doesn't mean "You shall have no".
No one has claimed that it does afaiaa

Exactly my point.
So now you aren't claiming that Hebrew words can have widely different meanings, and have been mistranslated?
Could you make your mind up what your argument is here? Thanks.

The entire Hebrew language is constructed in a way that the meaning of a word derives from its "root" characters.
No, that is the way it evolved over time. It was not "constructed".

There are many Hebrew words that are translated to wrong words and it causes a lot of misinterpretations.
Oh, so now Hebrew is a vague and imprecise language.
Man, you are all ob=ver the place!

So based on this logic:
I am your parent => You must believe in me
I would suggest that believing in their existence is indeed a logical implication of having parents. :confused:
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
In the entire OT, have you seen one time that god commanded something and it didn't happen?
Yes. He commanded people to only worship him. Billions don't.
He told Eve to not eat the apple. She did.

[quote[Actually... לא תחמד pretty much covers it.[/quote] How is "do not covet" an command against rapacious capitalism?

Also covered in לא תחמד / לא תגנב
Well, if you really think that the best your god could manage as a prohibition of slavery or exploiting labour is "do not steal or covet", then either god or the Hebrew language is not fit for purpose.

These are explained (or given) much earlier in the story.
But no commandment against it. Quite the lack of foresight on god's part there.
Also, explain exactly how the Bible commands against environmental damage.
In fact, Genesis gives man the green light to **** the planet.

The reported ones maybe.
People are more ready and more likely to report sexual assault today than they were 25 years ago.
Also, the "I'm ignoring the evidence and citing imaginary stuff" is not a good argument.

Yes there are. The commandments are not just physical, but this is a much more complex issue.
There is no commandment against rape. Stop making **** up!

That is far from true.
You are mixing it up (as most people) because you haven't really red the bible.
You are neglecting the entire story that precedes these rules.
I bet you also think god wants animal sacrifice... which is by far, one of the most false ideas people have from the OT.
Your are mixing it up with (slandered) permits, which is a whole different thing.
Women taken captive or enslaved during god's divinely ordained wars could be used for sex, as concubines, forcibly married, etc. All of this amounts to rape.
Of course, such behaviour was commonplace at the time and should not raise an eyebrow in that context - but permitted and condoned by god in holy Scripture that is still revered today? Nah, it is indefensible. You either condemn it or you condone it. Don't try to mitigate or excuse it.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The difference is due to Roman Catholics follow the Decalogue, Deut.
I think you have misunderstaood. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews ALL believe in teh decalogue, but enumerate it differently.

For example, the first commandment in Judaism is really a statement rather than a command: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Protestants divide up having no other gods and not making graven images into two commandments, where as in Catholicism, having no graven images is PART OF the commandment to have no other gods.

And Protestants have only one commandment agaisnt envy in general, while Catholics divide it into two commandments, one against envying property and a second about envying your neighbor's wife.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I think you have misunderstaood. Catholics, Protestants, and Jews ALL believe in teh decalogue, but enumerate it differently.

The difference in numeration by Roman Catholics was my point.
Not a matter of belief in one over the other. Teaching of the Ten Commandments, or Words as presented in the CCC.
Immersive Reader (google.com)
There is a shortened catechetical formula for the purposes of examination of conscience in preparation for confession.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Which was exactly my point. God is bigging himself up, claiming he is better than all the other gods.
It is not "bigging" it self, simply stating there is no other ;)
If I say "there are no other earth's", it doesn't make earth bigger or more important, rather unique.
Ok, so let's suppose that god is saying "You will not worship any god but me" as a definite prediction
We can suppose that, but that is not what it is saying.
- like telling a child they will not be able to stay awake all night.
Ok.. Lets say Commanding the child.. not telling ;)
He is clearly wrong because since then, most people have worshiped other gods or no god.
Indeed. Free will.
Yet no matter how much they worshiped them.. they were not really god.
Whichever way you look at it, it makes god look foolish.
Lol
This is such a poor argument. And it is exactly the same argument that is made by every other type of religionist. "My god is real, yours are imaginary!" It really is amusing that grown people can actually say that with a straight face.
One can say what ever he likes. This doesn't make it true :)
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Oh dear. There is no "human language". There are many different languages, some imprecise and ungainly, some sophisticated and capable of precision.
I meant the ability of humans to talk and generate languages.. not the "Human language" as a whole :)
"Oh, but all those bilingually fluent, religious scholars over the years didn't know what they were doing and got it all wrong. But I, Random Person of the Internet, shall correct them".
Not what I claimed.
There are many people who understand the ancient Hebrew. much much more than me.
I use them as a resource, I don't invent interpretations like most religious leaders do.
Also, the resources I use are non religious. That's what makes it more reliable in my POV.
Religion (any of them) is one of the worst thing when it comes to reliability.
Do us all a favour.
Gladly :)
You were the one who claimed that passages could have very different meanings.
No. I claimed words have a different meaning based on context.
No one has claimed that it does afaiaa
Yet every time you talk about commandments, you say "You shall not" or "You shall", while the fact is, it is not really written in the OT.
So now you aren't claiming that Hebrew words can have widely different meanings, and have been mistranslated?
No. I claim translation of the Hebrew language of the OT are not what the actuall meaning is.
I Also claim that each Hebrew word have a "rooted" meaning similar to other words in the language with the same root.
Like the word "Mizva" (מצווה).
It is not really a "Command" ;)
The word מצווה and צוות are of the same root.
They describe different idea, but same meaning.
Could you make your mind up what your argument is here? Thanks.
You are welcome :)
No, that is the way it evolved over time. It was not "constructed".
Construction is a time consuming process.
I fail to see your point here.
ANY language have a structure and rules.
Oh, so now Hebrew is a vague and imprecise language.
Ancient Hebrew is indeed vague to modern Hebrew, same as any other modern language to its ancient ones.
Man, you are all ob=ver the place!
Nope... that's God ;)
I would suggest that believing in their existence is indeed a logical implication of having parents. :confused:
Yet it is not.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Where does it say that?

Where does it say that?

Yep.
Nothing spiritual here, its even the other way around.

Where does it say that?

Actually.. It seems you are the one who is confused, inventing texts that are not really there.
Those are all clear implications of the phrases used.
If you are just resorting to the pedantic "Show me where that exact word is used in the Bible" type of apologetics, then you really have reached a dead end.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Those are all clear implications of the phrases used.
If you are just resorting to the pedantic "Show me where that exact word is used in the Bible" type of apologetics, then you really have reached a dead end.
If there were so clear, there will be no different interpretations of the texts.
How can you explain thousand of denominations if everything is so clear?
The problem starts when people interoperate the actual texts to fit their own needs.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
If there were so clear, there will be no different interpretations of the texts.
How can you explain thousand of denominations if everything is so clear?
The problem starts when people interoperate the actual texts to fit their own needs.
We are not talking about "texts" The issue is the 10 commandments.

"I am your god. You can have no god but me" is clearly saying "I am the best god".
Are you now claiming that Jehovah is not the best god?

"You can have no god but me" and "Do not worship false idols" clearly means "Worship only me".
Or are you now claiming that god allows us to worship other gods as well as him?

"Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy" is clearly saying there is a special day dedicated to worshiping god.
Perhaps you believe that god didn't make the sabbath day special?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
We are not talking about "texts" The issue is the 10 commandments.

"I am your god. You can have no god but me" is clearly saying "I am the best god".
I think this debate is useless as you keep changing the words of the texts.
The text does not say you "CAN have no other god", rather "You have no other god".
Are you now claiming that Jehovah is not the best god?
It is the only one. there is no best out of one.
"You can have no god but me"
See above.
and "Do not worship false idols" clearly means "Worship only me".
Nope.
It means don't worship idol gods. You seem to deduct out of this that God asks for your worship. It is not.
Or are you now claiming that god allows us to worship other gods as well as him?
No. I claim that god clearly explains, that there are no other gods.
"Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy"
What do you mean by "holy"?
In Hebrew the word קדוש means unique.
is clearly saying there is a special day dedicated to worshiping god.
No it is not. where does it say you need to worship god on the sabbath? or for that matter... worship god at all?
Perhaps you believe that god didn't make the sabbath day special?
It did. It is clearly stated several times and also detailed why.
 
Top