Posted by Jason on: 03.10.2008 /
The core belief system of the Abrahamic religions, the Ten Commandments as given in Exodus 20:2–17. Not Exodus 34 or Deuteronomy 5:6–21 because that’s not where they are given. Oh no! My problems with them are simple and it is more than just being told what to do. Here is my own skewed perspective.
And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the LORD your God…
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
There doesn’t seem to be a reason for this. God immediately says to the reader “I am jealous and if you like a different flavour of divinity then I’m not going to be your friend”. It has the strength of command behind it (funny that, for a commandment) that speaks volumes for the character of God. It doesn’t say, for example, I am chief among all the Gods or that all other Gods are false or that other Gods are aspects of one homogeneous whole that forms the one God. No. It says that there are other choices but choose me because I command it.
TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’
What does God have against art? Really Commandment number two is an extension of the first Commandment. It says that, not only can you not even consider any other deities, but that going to the effort of making a statue, cast, bust, finger painting or wood panel of anything other than me (glorious Me) is forbidden. It says that God is vain as well as jealous.
THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
Another extension to the first two Commandments. It says to the reader that you must pay due reverence to the name of God. It doesn’t say what the due should be for, what has been earned to deserve reverence, only that God must be respected above anything else. More than this, the phrase establishes and reinforces the position of God as LORD. As superior and deserving of reverence. It’s important to keep in mind that Exodus is the book after Genesis. God has just created …. well everything. He’s condemned humanity to suffering and toil and now he’s come back and he’s saying “Worship me, I deserve it so much that you can’t even question it.”
You could argue that God created everything and should therefore be respected and honoured. You’d have a point but for the fact that respect must not only be earned but it must be maintained. Doing something great should earn you respect but if you then go and do something cruel or just don’t do bother to do anything then that respect is eroded.
FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
The Sabbath. OK, after all that effort making the whole universe and stuff you might need a break. That’s fine, such an expenditure of energy is going to take it out of a deity. It’s even sensible that human beings should be instructed to take a day off to recover from the labours that must be performed for basic survival. Let’s not mention that these labours are required only because God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden which had fruit and free cake for all. Free cake!
There’s no explanation of what the Sabbath actually is though. Is it every seventh day? Every tenth? Ninety second? It is a day of rest. Tradition says that it is weekly but surely tradition is a man made thing? Even if the Sabbath is every seven days, which day is it? Is it the day named after Odin (Wotan)? Wednesday. Is it the Norse woman’s day, Frige’s day? The Roman Saturn’s day? Solis day is reverence to the Sun? How do we account for variations in calendars? Come on, be clear!
What does keeping it holy mean anyway? Should we spend the day in solemn prayer? In rest and contemplation? In dance and praise? Do we fast or feast? Praise or lament?
FIVE: ‘Honour your father and your mother.’
At face value this seems reasonable. Honour or show respect for your parents. That seems fair. I have two real issues with this though.
Firstly it says nothing of the worth of your parents. They may have been (may be) horrible parents, they could be abusive, violent, oppressive monsters. The power of the Commandment from God though is that they should be honoured no matter what they have done or how well (if at all) they raised their children. Respect is something that should earned, not just given.
Secondly the Commandment is not to honour your parents but to honour your father and your mother. There is an order of precedence here. Man comes before woman. The Commandment is inherently sexist. It says first respect your father, he is the head of the household and right about everything. Next respect your mother, she’s not quite as important as Dad but do as your told because Dad is very busy and shouldn’t be bothered with all this parenting nonsense. Shut up and do as your told.
It is telling, I think, that the Commandment is not “honour your children”. They are our future after all. They didn’t choose to be born, you made them and have a duty to care for them. Honour the children and it is quite likely that they will reciprocate (if you want to be mercenary about it).
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
If only the followers of the Abrahamic religions followed this one Commandment. Just one out of all ten. The world would be so much more peaceful.
You shall not murder seems perfectly reasonable at face value. Yet some versions say “kill” instead of murder. Is the killing of criminals a form of murder? Is abortion? Assisted suicide? Euthanasia? Is withholding medical treatment murder? Is someone who dies while in surgery a murder victim? Is combat during war time murder when an enemy soldier is killed? If I kill someone defending myself am I a murderer? What about defending my family? A stranger? Does the law apply to everyone or just to God’s chosen people, the Jews? Does the restriction on killing apply to humans only? Just followers of God? Why doesn’t God obey his own law?
My argument is not that killing is right but that the commandment is absolute and makes no regard to circumstance. As social animals we should avoid killing whenever possible. Do we really need a Commandment to understand this? I don’t think so.
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Another of my long list of grievances against religion is that they really have no business telling adults what to do with their sex lives. Adultery isn’t such a terrible thing anyway. Someone chooses to screw around with someone else. I’ve had sexual partners prior to my current relationship and that doesn’t bother my partner. The same standard applies to her as it does to me. The fact that we have now chosen to remain monogamous is a matter of personal trust.
If I take a lover while I am in a relationship then I am breaking a trust. That trust though is between the two of us. It’s not between me, the church, God, my next door neighbour, and my partner. Besides which there are many people who do not date exclusively, who have open relationships that are quite successful. Why should their lifestyle be restricted because it is outside the norm? Just because a person is not possessive does not mean that they do not love as deeply.
What actually constitutes adultery? There’s Matthew 5:28. ‘I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ This goes beyond an action to damning a person for their thoughts. Does this apply to other Commandments as well? If I’m having a bad day and think about killing the harridan in accounts who messed up my wages, have I committed murder in my heart? No. Our actions should be what we are judged on, not every stray thought.
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
This Commandment is another that seems reasonable at face value. People should have a right to retain their goods and should not fear that they will be taken from them. Who does this favour though? The poor? The starving? Or is it the wealthy? Like the Sixth Commandment it makes no regard to circumstance. A starving man stealing bread to feed his family is as guilty of breaking God’s law as a house burglar taking treasured family heirlooms or a shop lifter stealing for thrills.
The problem that I really have with this Commandment is this: it assumes that possession of goods is right. Greed is good. Avarice is placed above need. Simply because I own something does not mean that I need it or that I deserve it more than someone else. In some cultures the idea of ownership is different. If you carry an item then you have use of it. When you discard it then it is available for anyone to use. Such cultures are rare and prone to being exploited. Member of these cultures have little concept of theft because they have little concept of ownership. What is the point of stealing something when you can just use it when you like? By commanding people to not steal you also command them to covet and to not share. That encourages selfish behaviour and, frankly, isn’t how a benevolent deity should behave.
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.’
Essentially the Commandment is not to lie. As a divine order this obviously means that you should never lie. Ever. It’s up there with not killing people. So, when confronted with the question “Does my bum look big in this?” it is absolutely vital that you answer truthfully. More than simply not lying this Commandment says that deception is inherently wrong. Surely this means that deception by omission is just as onerous as falsehoods.
While I would love to agree with this there are many times in my life that I have been happier to be deceived and have preferred mild deception to harsh reality. Having said that, of all the Commandments, this one actually makes the most sense. Being truthful speaks of treating others with respect, even when it doesn’t benefit us to do so. Unlike the Commandments to not steal or murder each other it isn’t so obvious to be honest with others. Yet a Commandment is absolute, so while I agree, in principle, that honesty is the best policy I can still see plenty of circumstances where dishonesty can be valuable.
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.
I’m afraid the Commandment against coveting has a few sticking points for me. Initially it seems that it is about property (the house) but then it throws in your neighbours wife. Does this imply that she is to be treated as property as well? Is she less valuable that the house itself? Does the Commandment only apply to men?
Like the Commandment to honour your father and then your mother there is a clear order here. It says that not coveting your neighbours house is more important than not coveting his wife. Which, in turn, is more important that his male servant, then his female servant, then his ox, then his donkey, then all his other stuff. Again, that’s just sexist. At least the wife is more important than the servants and the working animals though. How much more important is unclear.
On the subject of servants it does seem that God is all for the idea of one human being serving another. Presumably this is based on economics rather than slavery but the bible does have some great advice on caring for slaves so I’m not too sure on this one. If the idea of people serving others is based on economics then God seems to desire a class based social structure with individuals keeping to their own assigned social class. There is no assumption of equality for everyone. Quite the opposite. This Commandment says that it is wrong to desire what your neighbour has and implies that your neighbour has things because they deserve them and you do not. That they are more worthy in God’s eyes than you are. Sit down, shut up and stay in your place.
I should be clear here that I’m not advocating the idea of killing, stealing, and disrespecting others simply because we are commanded not to. I’m simply saying that the Ten Commandments are absolutes and that many of them are oversimplified. In a society emerging from the Iron Age they probably made sense. Laws needed to be harsh and unequivocal to maintain social cohesion. Rocking the boat could be disastrous for tightly knit communities. Human beings have advanced somewhat since then but the Commandments remain the same.
Do we really need a deity to tell us how to behave? We evolved as social animals. The group effort also benefits the individual. Individual effort within the group benefits the group. You see it with other animals, wolves for instance. As we developed intelligence and more complex means of communication it is reasonable to assume that greater cooperation leads to greater benefits for all. Damage to the individual by murder, theft, or the breaking off a trust also damages the social group. We develop rules to help individuals to be more effective members of society and not to damage it. This is how society functions.
Where does God fit into that?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Pseudonym
1 03/10/08 5:31 AM | Comment Link |I’m not aware of any Abrahamic religion where the Ten Commandments form the “core belief system”. (This, incidentally, is why I think that the reconstructionist attempt to put copies in US courts is doubly ridiculous.)
Jews have something like 500 commandments to to follow. Christians have far fewer (Jesus specifically mentioned three that really cover it all). Not sure about Muslims.
I don’t want to downplay their importance to the Abrahamic religions (they are, after all, the first written code of laws in those traditions) but they’re not “core” in any meaningful sense.
You also have to understand the context in which they were written. The Hebrews have just been released from slavery, they’re crawling in the desert and experimenting with idols (the famous golden calf). They’ve also always had the thing about being “set apart”, “chosen people”. Quite a few of the Pentateuch commandmnets (the “no graven images” commandment, for example) are designed to target specific misbehaviours, either “stuff you used to do” or “stuff that those neighbours who worship False Gods do”.
The law against “adultery” is probably similar. Remember, in OT Israel, polygamy was still practiced and surrounding cultures practiced ritual prostitution. It follows that it probably doesn’t quite mean what you think it means. (Oh, and there’s a difference between “adultery” and “fornication”. Just thought I’d mention it.)
I’m not going to go through this in detail, but I will point out that some of the objections here fall squarely into the category of “legalese”. I’ll take one as an example.
Of course not. And the law saying which side of the road you should drive on says nothing of whether or not that side of the road is blocked. It doesn’t need to.
Legal fine print that covers every possibility won’t fit neatly on a stone tablet, and would require a lawyer to interpret (a vocation that nomadic recent ex-slaves were probably a little short of). A simple rule that can be applied intelligently makes much more sense.
Now that’s an argument that only a lawyer could love. (It also ignores the realities of Hebrew culture, but that’s a different topic.)
It’s also an argument that is, in a way, a little sexist. If the titles were mentioned in the other order, nobody would be saying there was any precedence being implied.
Anyway, this is interesting, and thankyou for it, but I really think that if you understood these commandments a bit more, while you wouldn’t follow them (if you’re not Jewish, anyway), at least they’d make a bit more sense.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2 03/10/08 5:34 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your thoughts on the commandments, Jason.
Based on the rest of the Old Testament, it seems that God didn’t intend “Do not murder” to apply to wars God commanded the Jews to fight or to situations where God commanded the death penalty. It was rather selective.
Comment by: Karen
3 03/10/08 3:42 PM | Comment Link |;-)
I’m finally getting around to reading “Who Wrote the Bible?” after having it recommended myriad times over the past few years. The first thing I’ve learned explains why we so often have “doublets” or “triplets” of certain OT stories. The first five books of the OT were written by at least four separate authors, many 100s of years after the events they describe.
Some author/editor centuries later “mashed up” these accounts and put them into a sometimes-coherent whole. This explains why there are so many duplicates of stories like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, Abraham’s covenant with Jehovah, etc., and sometimes the stories contradict each other. (I guess the editor didn’t worry about those conflicts in his text!)
It’s interesting that Richard Friedman relates the history of how scholars over the centuries put forth theories about this subject, but got silenced, ex-communicated, persecuted, fined and even jailed. The traditional view held that Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch. I remember learning that in church myself - although the “Documentary Hypothesis” (the multi-author theory) has been widely accepted since the 1940s.
Helen, I’m trying to remember what BSF said about the authorship of the OT books. It’s been a while, so I don’t recall exactly. It seems to me we were usually told “we don’t know” who wrote the various books of the bible, but since they were divinely inspired, it didn’t really matter who the human authors were. Is that what you recall as well?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4 03/10/08 6:14 PM | Comment Link |Karen, are you referring to the Documentary Hypothesis regarding the authorship of the first five books of the OT?
I think I was told in BSF that Moses is commonly believed to have written those five books (except the part about his own death). And as you mentioned, whichever human(s) wrote them they are considered divinely inspired so in effect God wrote them.
Comment by: Karen
5 03/11/08 9:25 AM | Comment Link |Yes, exactly, Helen. Thanks for the refresher on BSF. I know they do a series on Moses but I never took that course.
This book I’m reading is really interesting, and it’s written kind of like a detective story so it’s fun and easy to read. It explains a lot of the questions and contradictions in the OT that are brought up over and over again in religious discussion.
Comment by: Stephan
6 03/11/08 11:39 AM | Comment Link |Jason, I have to say that a lot of this reads like someone who doesn’t want to believe looking for excuses for his unbelief. Rather than a critical look at the text it is an unbeliever just telling me why he doesn’t believe it. I expect someone who is a “free thinker” to have an open mind.
One of the biggest fallacies you are riding on here is applying modern criteria to something that was written 4000 or so years ago. For instance, you said:
In many cultures at that time women were indeed treated as property. The laws handed down by Moses did not make women equal, but they made progress in that direction. Read in that context they were revolutionary.
You also said:
Sure, by 21st century criteria it may be sexist. By the standards of that time it was a great step forward and provided new stability for their culture.
My belief, and that of many Christians, is that there is a trajectory of morality hinted at in scripture. God started with a rather messed up group of people and tried to steer them in the right direction, a little at a time. The laws given by Moses were not the final and perfect law, but they were a huge step in the right direction.
Reading the Old Testament laws in their historical and literary context makes them much easier to understand, although I have to admit there are some things in the OT that still leave me scratching my head and I won’t even try to justify and explain all of it.
Comment by: Jason
7 03/12/08 3:07 AM | Comment Link |Pseudonym, you might well be right. I seem to remember that there are over 700 rules in Judaism but that was from a book where someone tried to follow them all for a year. I have no idea what they actually all are. A lot of Christians do point to the 10 Commandments as the core beliefs of their faith and particularly like to cite them as the basis of their morality. That’s really where I was heading with this.
We have a society that takes or is built upon large sections of the bible (OT and NT). The Victorians took it to extremes, so did the Puritans. The US seems to be heading in this direction too.
I must say that I enjoy taking a passage or something that is simply accepted as right and turning it around so that it either means something else or stops meaning anything. If nothing else it sparks debate. ;)
Helen, selective is right.
Karen, whether the OT was written by divine revelation is an interesting topic. I’d say not but wonder if the authors believed that they were or not.
Stephan, your criticisms are noted. I could probably have spent more time on my arguments in order to refine them and make them clearer. Something for the future perhaps…
Can I ask why we should not apply modern criteria to something that was written 4000 or so years ago. If we accept that the bible was divinely inspired then why should advances in technology and thinking make it any less valid? Surely a omniscient deity would be able to take the 21st century into account. The fact that it doesn’t does diminish the value of the moral lessons in the bible. I was hoping to get that across but obviously didn’t.
Another point that I should have made is that the 10 Commandments are a reasonable starting point for morality. They aren’t the end of it. A point that you make well but one that many Christians seem to overlook.
Thanks for your comments.
Comment by: Stephan
8 03/12/08 6:29 AM | Comment Link |Jason asked:
I suppose that is a fair question, given the view of many Christians today. As you note, many see the Bible as the “End” of God’s work rather than the “Beginning”. With that view it would be hard to interpret the Bible in a way that can flex at all.
While I see the Bible as divinely inspired, I also see it as a human work, written by and directed to humans. I also do not believe that everything (every law, every decree, every prophecy) is written to everyone. Much of the Old Testament law was written specifically for the Israelites during that time. It could easily be argued that what we call the Ten Commandments fit under this umbrella. Not that I think they aren’t good ideas, but they may not have even been meant for me. I may still choose to follow them, but only because I believe they are good principles for living, not because I think God specifically gave them to me.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Ten Commandments are a good starting point. I think Jesus would also agree with this:
Apparently He was adjusting the bar somewhat higher.
Comment by: Pseudonym
9 03/12/08 7:34 PM | Comment Link |Stephan:
But I’ll bet that you don’t follow the “no graven images” commandment as originally spelled out. Like the rest of us, you probably interpret it for the modern era as “no idols”.
Jason:
I think the best answer to them is Matt 22:34-40, and throw in the whole of the Sermon on the Mount for good measure.
I think that Jesus was fairly clear on this point: the basis of Christian morality is love.
Comment by: Glenn
10 03/12/08 9:41 PM | Comment Link |Jason wrote:
This is a point I often argue: that much of the Bible is still applicable today, regardless of a particular book’s context or history. However, like many doubters, you have fallen prey to “cherry-picking” verses to make your point. It’s that old argument, “Well, this passage doesn’t make sense to me, so therefore I don’t believe it.” Oddly enough, even Christians use that argument about some passages of the Bible.
But the Bible is much more than the Ten Commandments (whichever book you get them from), and it is much more than just the Old Testament or the New Testament. For that matter, the Old Testament is much more than just the Pentateuch, because it includes the Psalms, Proverbs, and all those other little books we often ignore, including the “minor prophets.” Still, as Pseudonym mentioned, Jesus did sum up pretty much the whole thing in just a couple of sentences in Matthew 22:34-40 and in the Beatitudes. But when the Bible is read as a whole (a rare occurrence, I’ll grant you), the Ten Commandments actually do make a lot of sense. But the way you’ve presented them here is kind of like reading the 18th Amendment without reading the rest of the Constitution and the history that surrounded that period. “What? I can’t drink in the U.S.? What’s wrong with these people?!?”
Comment by: Jason
11 03/13/08 8:43 AM | Comment Link |Stephen, if the bible is the inerrant word of God then why does it need adjusting? What has context got to do with it at all? If it is perfect then it doesn’t need to “flex”. I would say that the bible was written by men who wanted a system of moral law. Many Christians would disagree with me. They would have reason to as neither of us can prove our own theories.
Pseudonym, the golden rule (treat everyone as you wish to be treated) seems to be common in all human moral systems, regardless of religion. It isn’t a Christian idea by any means.
Glenn, guilty as charged, Cherry picking should be encouraged. I don’t want Christians to avoid cherry picking or we’ll have women becoming property again, slavery and public executions for minor crimes (or non-crimes). Nope, cherry picking is good. I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again.
Your point about the bible being more than the Ten Commandments is well made. However the bible is also more that the books that are included in the current version. How much has been removed over the centuries? I’m not just talking about the apocryphal writings. How much has been added? Or reinterpreted? It’s not as if you can go back and look at the original documents.
Comment by: Stephan
12 03/13/08 9:38 AM | Comment Link |Jason asked:
Only everything. The laws of the Old Testament were written to a nomadic tribe of people living in barbaric times. They had very little moral code up to that point. They were surrounded by tribes of people who wanted to kill them. Taken in that context the laws of Moses make more sense.
Looked at in today’s context some of them make very little sense.
Simply because God gave an instruction to one group of people at one time does not mean that it can be applied to everyone at every time. God told Moses to throw down his staff and it would become a snake. Does that mean I should throw down a staff and it would become a snake? Of course not - that was something for that person at that time. And I don’t even have a staff!
I believe the principles behind the Ten Commandments are applicable now, and I think you would agree with me on that. But I don’t think God meant for me to adhere to the Mosaic law as a whole.
You said:
I’m not saying that the laws given by Moses were perfect. They were right for that time and those people, but that time was horrid and those people were a mess.
Rules change all of the time with context. Speed limits vary depending on where you are driving. You need to go slower in a residential area than out in the country. I’m sure there are parts of town that you walk through during the day that you would avoid at all costs at night. You entrust some people with more responsibility than others based on circumstances and the character of the people involved.
I don’t think it is at all inconsistent to say that God’s laws, as given in the Old Testament, and not entirely relevant today, even though I still believe in that God and the principles behind those laws.
Comment by: Jason
13 03/13/08 1:47 PM | Comment Link |OK Stephan, you need a staff. The whole wandering in the wilderness thing more or less requires one. :)
The OT laws are still viewed as many to be current. There’s no expiry date on them so it’s easy to see why people think that. I’d say that it is rare for anyone to question these old laws, particularly the Commandments. It may be because, as principles, many are still relevant. At least in basic form.
How can you tell? How do you choose which parts to obey and which to discard? If OT law no longer applies then does the advice in the NT apply?
Comment by: Pseudonym
14 03/13/08 6:53 PM | Comment Link |Jason:
Indeed. I didn’t claim otherwise. But it’s also the basis of Christian morality.
Even amongst those who believe that the Bible is “inerrant” (something that the Bible doesn’t even arguably claim for itself), context is almost always seen as crucial for understanding. The majority of “inerrantists” follow the Chicago statement. I respectfully disagree with much of the statement, but note Article XVIII, which explicitly acknowledges that you need to understand the context in which the Bible was written to understand it.
The traditional Christian argument is that the Law hasn’t expired, but it has been satisfied, or fulfilled. Make of that what you will.
Stephan:
A better way to understand this is what Paul of Tarsus pointed out in 1 Cor 6:12 and 1 Cor 10:23. The new (testament) way of thinking is not in terms of “right” and “wrong”, or “lawful” and “not lawful”, but in terms of “good” and “bad”.
Comment by: Jason
15 03/13/08 11:15 PM | Comment Link |Pseudonym, even the Golden Rule is only the beginning of moral thinking. It isn’t right to point to the bible and say that human morality originated there. OK, you haven’t but there are plenty of Christians that have and do, who will not accept that morals are independent of religion. Given the nature of things like the Ten Commandments I can’t really blame people for thinking this. Although I will argue against it.
Comment by: Pseudonym
16 03/13/08 11:33 PM | Comment Link |Jason, let me be clear on what I said (or, at least, meant to say):
The teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mouth, the Golden Rule and the New Commandment, is the basis of Christian morality.
What I’m not saying is that this is the first time it appeared in history, or even in Rabbinical thinking, although the “Kingdom of God” framework that Jesus presented it in was a bit different from what came before. I meant it in the same sense that a lot of people think the Ten Commandments play are the basis, even though “thou shalt not murder” wasn’t new.
Make sense?
Comment by: Stephan
17 03/14/08 6:32 AM | Comment Link |Jason asked:
By reading the context, which is, admittedly, not always an easy thing. This is why many Christians choose to ignore context and more or less cherry pick. The Old Testament laws were very clearly given to a specific group of people at a specific time. That is why I feel free to look at the principles behind the laws without feeling beholden to the laws themselves.
Another good question. I believe there are things in the NT that apply peripherally (or not at all) based on the context. For instance, Jesus told the apostles to “go into all the world and preach the gospel”. I believe this was a command directly specifically toward the apostles, and also toward the church as a whole, but not to every specific individual. So I believe it is the job of the church to go into the world and preach the gospel, but I do not believe that each and every Christian is to leave their home, move overseas and become a missionary.
But I believe that the general principles laid out by Jesus most definitely apply. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said, this sums up the law.
Comment by: Jason
18 03/14/08 12:02 PM | Comment Link |Pseudonym, “Sermon on the Mouth” ? I wish I’d been there for that. ;)
Your comment makes perfect sense. I hope I didn’t come across as attacking you. I just wanted to express that many Christians don’t make that distinction.
Stephan said:
Great. I won’t argue that the principles are a good start for a moral framework. I just wish that they were either taught as you describe or were much clearer. Wishful thinking and an empty sack are only worth a sack though.
Comment by: Stephan
19 03/14/08 1:05 PM | Comment Link |Agreed, and I think that have been taught this way in the past and that it is growing again in many churches. Fundamentalism will never go away, but I think its influence (at least in the US) is diminishing at the moment.
Comment by: Karen
20 03/14/08 1:57 PM | Comment Link |Makes perfect sense to me. But why, do you think, are there so many people today in the U.S. crusading to get them put up in courtrooms and other public buildings? Even when I was growing up in evangelical churches, there wasn’t this extreme emphasis on the 10 Commandments. We saw them as much less important than Jesus’s teachings in the NT, in fact.
Do you have any insight into that whole 10 Commandments movement? It really perplexes me, but then I haven’t been in the church for several years now.
Comment by: Pseudonym
21 03/14/08 11:35 PM | Comment Link |I am so accidentally clever! :-)
Nope, I didn’t get that impression.
Karen:
I think it’s related to reconstructionism. When you were growing up, the church you were in probably stayed out of politics, and might even have encouraged members not to vote.
The excellent documentary series, “The Power of Nightmares” goes into this as part of a larger story abut both neo-conservativism and Islamic fundamentalism. If you’ve got a spare couple of hours, I recommend watching it. Free download on the Internet Archive.
Comment by: Karen
22 03/15/08 4:26 PM | Comment Link |This is true up until the 1980s, when the churches I attended became increasingly politically active. Of course, outlawing abortion was the number one priority at that time.
Thank you. I have done quite a lot of research on the theocracy movement, but I haven’t seen this documentary.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23 03/19/08 4:56 AM | Comment Link |FYI on Hemant’s blog today: Ten Commandments Weekend