okay, While Rodimus is getting a little sideways on the idea, I see what he's saying, at least I think:
The 10 Commandments were a roadmap of piety, and more or less assured that by following them, when you died you didn't go to hell.
I think what he's driving at is that there are a lot of ideals there that are not being followed irrespective of how important they are.
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm">Interesting Breakdown here</a>
In life today, a lot of the Decalogue (or Ten Commandments) is applicable to keep peace and harmony... and are not exclusively Christian. A lot of the commandments resonate or appear in other religions (even pagan religions) as ideals set forth by God (or.. deity's... ). It's basically common sense.
The Christian slant and problem with today's society and the Decalogue is in:
Cmdmt 1:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
This is fine for purely Jewish and Christian believers, however, it necessitates conversion of the Hindus, Buddhists and Pagans to this God, when they're already worshipping (and hopefully believing) in another God. Taken on an purely personal level, this works, but many have no idea that the quest to find God is one for you and you alone... you don't need to spread the word or impose the beliefs on others.
This commandment is also at cross purposes with the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Basically, it is not a call to convert the masses, it's almost like installing Windows NT4 service pack 2 when you already have service pack 1 installed, you aren't getting it out. (sorry to use the geek anaology.. it's the best I could think of right now)
Cmdmt 2:
"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. 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. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
Okay, it's a long one, but there are a lot of theologians that see this whole thing and clip it down to the original intent which is the first 9 words: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Which can be applied pretty liberally... It was used to justify banning Rock and Roll in the 50's. Again, misinterpreting the words in the bible is a very powerful method of control.
Either way, if you look at the whole text, it means that basically any artist that makes a drawing of sculpture of God, Jesus, an angel, or what not.. is violating the commandment, and his progeny to is great grandchildren should have their fates decided and be delivierd not unto heaven. you can see, that this isn't conducive to the belief that we are free to live our own lives from the sins of the fathers. I believe that the original intent of this commandment was to pair hand in hand with the first Commandment, and keep the faithful from bring drawn away into smaller sects that worship other figures in the bible.
Cmdmt 3:
"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."
Again this ties in with the second commandment, because you dont want the sacred to become profane. I suspect it's meant to make you hold the name of God in reverence. Today, I have no doubt that even the pius same "oh God!" when they're in the throes of a orgasm that would make your toes curl like bacon in a frying pan.
We're all human... Either way, it's meant to tag team with the first 2 to make sure you hold God in reverence as the only deity (some say, the only truth... nevermind the Golden Rule).
I think it's outmoded... mainly because the word God does not JUST apply (at least in the english language) to the Judeo-Christian deity, it's applicable to every deity held in regard to every religion. Lord is the same thing... it's an english TITLE for crying out loud. I think the idea is you don't say Jehovah in vain, as in comparison to ones's self. I may be incorrect, but then again, I only use "jehovah" when describing people who claim to have witnessed "jehovah" and feel the need to bother me in the middle of dinner to tell me about it and give me a watchtower flyer while they're at it.
Cmdmt 4:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 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: 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."
The interesting thing that a lot of Christians do not follow and HAVE NOT followed since the Coucil of Nicea, is that the 7th day is actually SATURDAY. There are many examples of this littered throughout the bible, but, because Constantine had rule of the day, he moved the Christian day of Sabbath to the pagan day of sun worship, which is: Sunday. Handy that, eh? Consolodating his powerbase was the main move for that as well as merging numerous pagan or multi-deitistic ideals into the bible as reference.
Now, practically in today's society: We are a multicultural lot, and have to consider that Jews observe the Sabbath from Friday at sundown, through till saturday at sundown (wonder why saturday night is a fun time?), Christians have sunday services, and Muslims have friday evening prayers... Pagans have celebrations on solstices and equinoxes, full moons and new moons. Nice little menagerie eh? Now we hold another power in higher regard... Money. Anyone that's worked on Sunday or Saturday or Friday has violated one religions sabbath. It's not so bad here, they just pay you.. in Israel in some neighbourhoods, they whip bricks at your car.... Aren't you gald that we live in such a religiously tolerant world?
Basically, one Sabbath for all is impractical, and does it really matter what exact day it is? Not really, IMHO. As long as you recognise and follow the idea of paying respects to God, I don't think it's really going to matter the calendar day you practise sabbath. Who's to say what day Sabbath really is? Had to start someday right?
Cmdmt 5: "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."
I believed that this was pretty self evident, but then I started that damned thinking thing...
I honour people that deserve honour. I can't in any kind of good consience tell a kid that's been beaten to a pulp by either parent to honour them... the parents are not deserving of honour. I think we're learning that just because you can HAVE a kid, does not implicitly mean you can be a good father or mother... No, that takes responsiblity good judgment, compassion, firmness and sacrifice. Sadly, that's 5 things that are lacking in most people that live in today's society.
To say that your standards are the implicit measure of whom deserves honour is a little... arrogant, but I think that most people wouldn't think that in the father that routinely gets drunk and beats on his children and provides them nothing except the respite of sleep between drunken rages.. I can't see that anyone would expect the kids to honour that person. That person is not their father.. he's a sperm donor.
Cmdmt 6:
"Thou shalt not kill."
It's pretty ambiugous in the offing. Since the decalogue was taken from ancient hebrew "Kill" has the same connotations as murder. Although, livestock is not included.
Interestingly, before the advent of electron microscopes, and several other scientific inspection devices and DNA, the thought (rather Chrisitian if you ask me) is that a man's semen carried hundreds of thousands of little babies.. thus, masturbation was akin to mass murder. But, we've gotten better haven't we?
Really, this one is the most broadly interpreted, there were sieges of jewish settlements (the names escape me) but after the battle became hopeless, the defenders ritually slaughtered the women, children and infirmed and then allowed the others to kill each other until only one was left to deliver the message of resistance, and then let him die either at the sword of the insurgents. There were also justifications behind that to say "thou shalt not kill within your own kind," which implicitly paved the way for the wholesale slaughter of mud people, Muslims, Jews, and other "inferior races..." even today, Orthodox Christian Serbs committed Genocide on Muslim Croats following a long and proud Christian tradition.
It escapes me that the translation was not absolute... "Thou shalt not commit Murder upon thy neighbour." Is that so damned hard to figure out?.
Cmdmt 7:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Okay.. this is one that has about 2000 years of subjugation of women at the heart of it. Basically, humans do not have to pair bond... we do not have a mating season. Humans, like simians and apes that we are descended from (but let's not get into that, it's not germaine to the thread) are by nature promiscuous. We have no determined genepools etc... so we're basically on the make as often as we can be.
Women, at the time of the writing of the decalogue were considered chattle. My idea is that this commandment focused on women in particular because, as the weaker vessel, they are unable to say no to a little extra dick (thanks Chris Rock!). Basically, in the jewish faith, they percieved women to be ones that could not resist seduction, and more or less excused the man, because, hey... he can't help himself. What about a man seducing a betrothed or married woman's husband? I find it interesting to say the least.
Basically, in a society that has long-term marriage or pair-bonding, this rule is pretty much a foregone conclusion. If there is temptation, you pass it up because you have a deep and abiding love of your mate. Temptations are abound in this society, and adultery is pretty rampant... I think its because we don't hold the core values I described under Cmdmt 5. Adultery isn't the cause of a lot of relationship breakdowns.. it's a symptom if it.
Cmdmt 8: "Thou shalt not steal."
This one, if you look at the link I provided in the beginning, is a little ambiguous.. I'm going to copy from the page and the footnote:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm wrote: "...this Commandment has been interpreted to refer to only one kind of theft; namely, to someone who kidnaps a person, forces him or her to work for him, and then sells him or her into slavery. This, like the previous prohibitions mentioned in the verse, murder and adultery, is a Capital Crime; that is, punishable by the death-penalty." 2 Since slavery has now been abolished in North America, this commandment is no longer applicable.
# " 'Aseret HaDibrot' - (English: Ten Commandments or Ten Utterances)," King David Community, at: http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/
Basically it breaks down as kidnap in furtherance of slavery. We've expanded this into the meaning of property as well, because it is pretty self serving. At the time of the decalogue, most people that followed the Jewish and Christian faiths were pretty poor, and it wasn't as though there was much material wealth to fall prey to thieves.. Today, we include material goods because it suits us.
Cmdmt 9:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Again, this is a great idea.. everyone tell the truth. It's a nice IDEA, but even in the Bible it's impractical.. there are points at which the main characters lie to save themselves or others. The ends justify the means... how Machiavellian. Again, it's a noble ideal, but in reality, if you want to find the ends to a goal, sometimes that means having to conceal the truth. While I don't like it at all, it's sometimes necessary to tell a "little white lie" in order to keep the Big ugly truth at bay until it suits your purpose.
The idea is that you tell the truth when under scrutiny (either of court or tribunal). That part hasn't changed.
Cmdmt 10:
"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."
This is again, fraught with irony. While it was against the decalogue to force someone into slavery, it was not against it to have man/maid servants... the word "servant" is window dressing for slave. It basically meant that a person became chattle, and the owner could beat the person to death without cause of concern because it was not illegal, the person was property.
I'm going to again quote from the page, because it pretty much summs up what I wanted to say, and my fingers are getting numb, just know that the Westminster Larger Catechism takes many liberties with the commandments, and iterprets most of them very, very broadly.
Quote:
-The Westminster Larger Catechism interprets this commandment, close to its original meaning: "The sins forbidden in the tenth commandment are, discontentment with our own estate; envying and grieving at the good of our neighbor, together with all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his." It seems to recognize that a man's wife, slaves and children are among his possessions.
-Modern-day society has abandoned many of the biblical concepts mentioned in this commandment. Women are generally regarded as free individuals, with a value and status equal to men; they are not classed as property -- as something to be owned. Slavery has been abolished in all but two countries, although near slavery is still found in many areas of the world.
There we have it... It's applicable, but only to one's self... if you follow the first few words, you're in good shape.
I'm going to quote one last time, but this was something I read a while ago.. it again is on the page, and it seems pretty reasonable to me.
Quote:
Harry Binswanger a professor at the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Graduate Center is not impressed by this series of commandments. He says that they are: "unobjectionable but common to virtually every organized society -- the commandments against murder, theft, perjury and the like. But what is objectionable is the notion that there is no rational, earthly basis for refraining from criminal behavior, that it is only the not-to-be-questioned decree of a supernatural Punisher that makes acts like theft and murder wrong. The basic philosophy of the Ten Commandments is the polar opposite of the philosophy underlying the American ideal of a free society. Freedom requires:
- A metaphysics of the natural, not the supernatural; of free will, not determinism; of the primary reality of the individual, not the tribe or the family;
- An epistemology of individual thought, applying strict logic, based on individual perception of reality, not obedience and dogma;
- An ethics of rational self-interest, to achieve chosen values, for the purpose of individual happiness on this earth, not fearful, dutiful appeasement of 'a jealous God' who issues 'commandments'."
That was fun... I'll see y'all in an hour
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
