Dawinists standing on the panic button.

#76
#76
rjd970 said:
VBH, here it is again....

Exodus 20:17 "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 ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's."

What is a house?

What is a slave (male or female)?

What is an ox?

What is an ass?

...these were all considered property in OT times. Tell me if I'm wrong, but you are assuming that wife meant something else other than property, even though that stipulation wasn't said. I am assuming wife meant property, because everything included in the list was obviously property.

Which interpretation makes more sense to you?
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming either - I'm saying that the word covet applies to more than possessions (objects to be bought and sold). More importantly I'm discussing this in the context of what the commandment means - don't be envious of what your neighbor has.
 
#77
#77
kptvol said:
Adultery, murder, lies, theft, jealously, respect for parents...
Click to expand...

No God before me, worship false idols, honor the sabbath, do not used the lord's name in vain.

Not one of those deals with morality in the least. They simply establish who's boss. I could break every single one of those on a regular basis, never bring harm to another soul, and be a completely moral person. And mind you, these rules were the only parts of the Bible physically written by God himself, that alone suggests they should be the greatest and most compelling words ever written down in any language in the history of mankind.

As for the ones your focusing on, they amount to common sense. You can't tell me that the Israelites made it all the way to Sinai without knowing murder was wrong.
 
#78
#78
rjd970 said:
No God before me, worship false idols, honor the sabbath, do not used the lord's name in vain.

Not one of those deals with morality in the least. They simply establish who's boss. I could break every single one of those on a regular basis, never bring harm to another soul, and be a completely moral person. And mind you, these rules were the only parts of the Bible physically written by God himself, that alone suggests they should be the greatest and most compelling words ever written down in any language in the history of mankind.

As for the ones your focusing on, they amount to common sense. You can't tell me that the Israelites made it all the way to Sinai without knowing murder was wrong.
Click to expand...

When I was in school I learned that 4/10 isn't half. I'd argue that if God himself spoke directly to you it'd be pretty common sense to not worship some stupid statue instead.
 
#79
#79
rjd970 said:
No God before me, worship false idols, honor the sabbath, do not used the lord's name in vain.

Not one of those deals with morality in the least. They simply establish who's boss. I could break every single one of those on a regular basis, never bring harm to another soul, and be a completely moral person. And mind you, these rules were the only parts of the Bible physically written by God himself, that alone suggests they should be the greatest and most compelling words ever written down in any language in the history of mankind.

As for the ones your focusing on, they amount to common sense. You can't tell me that the Israelites made it all the way to Sinai without knowing murder was wrong.
Click to expand...

You are confusing your moral code with the concept of morality - technically each of the commandments is consistent with morality as a guiding set of principles distinguishing right and wrong. The fact that you don't agree with the principles doesn't mean they don't deal with morality.
 
#80
#80
volinbham said:
I'm not assuming either - I'm saying that the word covet applies to more than possessions (objects to be bought and sold). More importantly I'm discussing this in the context of what the commandment means - don't be envious of what your neighbor has.
Click to expand...

Ok, I will agree that covet applies to more than possessions. In that passage, how are we not supposed to interpret the wife as being a possession, as opposed to an idea, knowledge, or any number of other things to be coveted?

You called the idea that the wife was considered property from that passage strange. I'm saying in the context of that passage, it is exactly what was meant. It's more strange to intepret it any other way.
 
#81
#81
rjd970 said:
Ok, I will agree that covet applies to more than possessions. In that passage, how are we not supposed to interpret the wife as being a possession, as opposed to an idea, knowledge, or any number of other things to be coveted?

You called the idea that the wife was considered property from that passage strange. I'm saying in the context of that passage, it is exactly what was meant. It's more strange to intepret it any other way.
Click to expand...

What I was calling strange was your larger premise. The distinction of possession or person is largely irrelevant to that premise.

Further, I was making the comment in regard to your overall tone of "if this is the word of God he's a chauvinist and against capitalism" critiques of religion. If the commandment does view women as possessions it is a contextual technicality that doesn't change the overall message of that particular commandment.
 
#82
#82
volinbham said:
You are confusing your moral code with the concept of morality - technically each of the commandments is consistent with morality as a guiding set of principles distinguishing right and wrong. The fact that you don't agree with the principles doesn't mean they don't deal with morality.
Click to expand...

That is brushing the definition of morality with a pretty broad stroke. A guiding set of principles in Nazi Germany was extermination and state sponsored racism, and it distinguished "right" from "wrong" at the time. It's not about the guiding principle, it is about the moral outcome of the said action. Using the Lord's name in vain brings harm to no one. If I decide to work on Sunday and get overtime, it hurts no one.

We've all heard the saying by Mahivira, the Jain patriarch...."do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, torment, torture, kill, or harm another life". As a statement on morality, it surpasses anything said in the Bible, and is more practical. The Golden Rule is the best thing I can find in the Bible as a guide to morality, and it is better than half the commandments (I'm including the now infamous last one too) because it specifically deals with the outcome of the action in question.
 
#83
#83
volinbham said:
What I was calling strange was your larger premise. The distinction of possession or person is largely irrelevant to that premise.

Further, I was making the comment in regard to your overall tone of "if this is the word of God he's a chauvinist and against capitalism" critiques of religion. If the commandment does view women as possessions it is a contextual technicality that doesn't change the overall message of that particular commandment.
Click to expand...

Whether it is a "contextual technicality" or not, it is still said in clear terms, and I don't see the statement as the work of an omnipotent and wise creator, coveting and capitalism aside.
 
#84
#84
emainvol said:
Perhaps you will enlighten me as to the evidence on the creationist side? Serious question, as I always found it interesting that both sides accuse the other of a serious lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

This isn't about one side or another, this is about holding up a theory to scientific scrutiny.
 
#85
#85
emainvol said:
As long as it isn't pornographic or adult in nature I don't really have a problem with it. It isn't my call though.
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with it.

Call it government indoctrination!!

Today the government is pushing pre-K education, we are talking about 4 years olds.

In today's Nashville Tennessean under the byline "KIDS REVEAL HOW TO MAKE THE EARTH FEEL BETTER", they show the pictures and statements of ten 5 and 6 year old public school children.

In the beginning was atom and atom was created by darwin and darwin chose marx as his prophet and the world was made one by socialist rhetoric yada yada yada.

sick-earth-wearing-bandaid-thumb2794696.jpg


I am fine with conservation, I always have been but the radical environmental indoctrination presented to young minds today is sick!!!!!

State Brainwashing Children To “Re-Educate” Their Parents For Green Dictatorship

Global warming aka climate change is highly theoretical, please represent it as such.

sundance.jpg


Same thing with darwinism, fine, present it as a theory, DO NOT teach it as a fact!!
 
#87
#87
vols4sure said:
Along the same lines what do people think about the ACLU wanting Knox and Davidson county schools to stop blocking gay websites from their computers.

ACLU demands schools stop blocking gay Web sites : Unknown : Knoxville News Sentinel

"The American Civil Liberties Union said today it is demanding that 107 of Tennessee's public school systems - including Knox County and Metro Nashville - stop "illegally preventing students from accessing online information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues."

I am not a big anti gay rights person, but I would tend to agree with the public schools blocking these types of websites. I know when my future kids are in these schools, I would rather other kids not be at school looking at these types of sites. Nothing is preventing them from looking at these sites elsewhere, but I would rather it not be at school.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

It's heartening to know I am not the only one with my ear to the ground.

Before Bubba 'slick willy' Clinton changed the reporting criteria, the FBI reported that 98% of the sexual crimes committed against children under the age of 12 were committed by adult homosexuals.
 
#89
#89
gsvol said:
Before Bubba 'slick willy' Clinton changed the reporting criteria, the FBI reported that 98% of the sexual crimes committed against children under the age of 12 were committed by adult homosexuals.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely no way that this is true.
 
#91
#91
OWB said:
Link?
Click to expand...

nickknx865 said:
There's absolutely no way that this is true.
Click to expand...

You don't actually expect gsvol to be burdened by things such as substantiated facts do you?

And by facts I mean actual pieces of evidence that have been accepted by more than one respectable source...not baseless conjecture and conspiracy theories...

The 98% should be enough to tell you how substantiated this claim is...that kind of percentage is basically impossible in a legit scientific study...

gsvol...if you're going to make something like this up and expect people to believe it you might want to come up with a number that's not completely laughable
 
Last edited:
#93
#93
Fun read. I see rj is back to stating his non-belief in God while telling anyone that does believe how his interpretation of their interpretation of God is senseless.
 
#94
#94
BigPapaVol said:
No. Not just like gravity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You're right, but it is worth noting that both are theories and parts of them should be taught as fact. Is it possible that the specifics of evolutionary process are currently misunderstood? Of course, and probably true. And if so, mother nature has a lot of explaining to do. But the chances that evolution didn't happen in some form is effectively zero. Just like gravity...is it possible that gravity is completely misunderstood? Sure, anything is possible. But what are the chances that an objects mass has absolutely nothing to do with its gravitional pull? It is effectively zero.
 
#96
#96
rjd970 said:
That is brushing the definition of morality with a pretty broad stroke. A guiding set of principles in Nazi Germany was extermination and state sponsored racism, and it distinguished "right" from "wrong" at the time. It's not about the guiding principle, it is about the moral outcome of the said action. Using the Lord's name in vain brings harm to no one. If I decide to work on Sunday and get overtime, it hurts no one.

We've all heard the saying by Mahivira, the Jain patriarch...."do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, torment, torture, kill, or harm another life". As a statement on morality, it surpasses anything said in the Bible, and is more practical. The Golden Rule is the best thing I can find in the Bible as a guide to morality, and it is better than half the commandments (I'm including the now infamous last one too) because it specifically deals with the outcome of the action in question.
Click to expand...

I'm just going on the definition of the word "morality". The ten commandments all fit within the definition.

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Click to expand...

The 10 commandments fit the definition; particularly points 1, 2 and 4. Some of the commandments clearly don't fit what you believe to be necessary codes of right and wrong behavior. That doesn't mean they don't deal with morality - the entire set is a code of conduct which puts them squarely in line with the concept of morality.
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
rjd970 said:
Whether it is a "contextual technicality" or not, it is still said in clear terms, and I don't see the statement as the work of an omnipotent and wise creator, coveting and capitalism aside.
Click to expand...

Chauvinistic language (if that's what it truly is) from more than 2000 years ago does not discredit the existence of a omnipotent and wise creator. It's a red herring argument. I'm sure there are much better arguments against the existence of the Hebrew/Christian God.
 
#98
#98
volinbham said:
I'm just going on the definition of the word "morality". The ten commandments all fit within the definition.



The 10 commandments fit the definition; particularly points 1, 2 and 4. Some of the commandments clearly don't fit what you believe to be necessary codes of right and wrong behavior. That doesn't mean they don't deal with morality - the entire set is a code of conduct which puts them squarely in line with the concept of morality.
Click to expand...

So does islamic Sharia law by those definitions. Anybody that doesn't happen to be Muslim just happens to disagree with what they believe to be necessary codes of right and wrong. Just like I disagree with the Christian codes of right and wrong. See what I did there? It doesn't make the requirement for women to be second class citizens any less immoral. And it doesn't make working on the sabbath any more moral.

It's still a very broad stroke your brushing here to justfiy a set of rules which have nothing to do with real morality. Your getting dangerously close to relative morality being the deciding factor on right and wrong.
 
#99
#99
volinbham said:
Chauvinistic language (if that's what it truly is) from more than 2000 years ago does not discredit the existence of a omnipotent and wise creator. It's a red herring argument. I'm sure there are much better arguments against the existence of the Hebrew/Christian God.
Click to expand...

What in your view would discredit the exsistence of an omnipotent creator?

I generally find that the answer to this question says more about why people believe the way they do, more so than coming up with evidence for their beliefs.
 
#100
#100
rjd970 said:
So does islamic Sharia law by those definitions. Anybody that doesn't happen to be Muslim just happens to disagree with what they believe to be necessary codes of right and wrong. Just like I disagree with the Christian codes of right and wrong. See what I did there? It doesn't make the requirement for women to be second class citizens any less immoral. And it doesn't make working on the sabbath any more moral.

It's still a very broad stroke your brushing here to justfiy a set of rules which have nothing to do with real morality. Your getting dangerously close to relative morality being the deciding factor on right and wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the Ten Commandments are right or wrong. I'm saying they deal with morality as a concept. Likewise, Sharia law deals with morality. Claiming they deal with morality is not the same as sanctioning them - it is a definitional issue. Since each is essentially a code of conduct outlining good/bad; right/wrong behavior they meet the definitional requirements.

In truth, I don't see how you can get away from relative morality to some degree since moral codes are sanctioned by society(ies). Since society(ies) change and evolve over time, I'm not sure there is a universal moral code but their are some bits of that code that seem relatively uniformly accepted.

Put another way I don't have to believe in a rule of conduct for it to meet the primary definition of morality.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top