Introduction (Source)
It is often claimed, not only by believing Jews and Christians but also by some atheists and agnostics, that the ten commandments, as formulated in Exodus 20 of the Bible, constitute an ethical program which it is wise for people and nations to follow. Many voices in the political debate lament that the social problems of the day largely are the result of an abandonment of these commandments and that, in order to successfully combat the ills of society, people in general and, perhaps especially, political and economic leaders need to subject themselves to these ancient but ever-so-valid rules.

We strongly disagree with this sort of claims, on two grounds. First, because our metaphysics differs from the one espoused in the biblical commandments: we do not believe in the existence of any god(s). Second, because we think that if commandments are to be used, they need to be expressed differently than the ones of the Bible. Both of these points will be elaborated upon in this essay, as we take a closer look at each of the ten rules (in this essay quoted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible). It bears noting that we do not analyze Jewish or Christian ethics taken as wholes, but that we solely assess the ten commandments. Of course, these constitute an essential part of Jewish and Christian ethics, and so any criticism directed against the commandments notably affects the evaluation of the whole ethical systems of Judaism and Christianity, in an indirect manner. Furthermore, we will evaluate the ten commandments both from the perspective of personal ethics (i.e., as guides to personal decisions, without there being legislation) and law (i.e., as guides to legislation).

Our task here is to offer a critique of a certain set of ethical rules, which, naturally, does not reveal whether we are of the opinion that there are better alternatives. After all, even if a certain set of rules is found to be undesirable in many ways, it may be the case that there is no better alternative and, so, the original set of rules are preferable by default. However, we are of the opinion that there are better alternatives, although we differ somewhat on which alternative is best. (Fredrik considers himself a socialist and anarcho-syndi*spam filter*t; and Niclas considers himself a libertarian, on rule-utilitarian grounds.) At the end, we present a selection of links which, among other things, contain our own alternative views of ethics, which we think superior to the ten commandments.


The first commandment

Ex. 20:3: "You shall have no other gods before me."
There are at least three serious problems with this utterance.
1. The factual presumption of this, the very first commandment, is that there exist gods, one of which is Jahve (who utters the commandments). We do not think there is good evidence for such beliefs, for reasons we have outlined elsewhere, and if there are no god(s), then this commandment cannot be held to contain anything of ethical relevance at all, since its crucially presupposes theism.

2. If, however, one for some reason thinks theism true, and if one advocates the ten commandments on the grounds that they make up an ethical code, this very first commandment is problematic, on at least two grounds. First, it seems to present, on such a reading, the view that the existence of god(s) is a normative issue, not an issue of fact. That is to say, it commands us to believe in the existence of god(s) and to submit to one of these, Jahve - lest we are to be considered immoral. But how can one be required to hold a certain belief? We hold that an honest, non-chosen belief or non-belief stands outside the realm of moral judgement. (For more on this argument, see Niclas Berggren's essay "A Note on the Concept of Belief".) Second, this reading points us to Plato's dilemma, which states: 'How are we to understand the idea that God wills us to do what is good?' There are two answers we could give to this question:

A God wills us to do what is good because certain acts are good, and he wishes such actions to be performed.

B An act is good only because God wills it.

None of the alternatives are satisfactory for the theist. If A holds, then ethics is independent of God's existence and God cannot be said to be necessary for ethics, and if B holds such that something is good by virtue of the fact that God wills it, then the assertion that God wills us to perform good acts just reduces to the unenlightening assertion that God wills us to do what he wills us to do. And how can that form the basis of ethics?

3. In the political realm, this commandment cannot form the basis of legislation in democratic states, since it implies the abandonment of freedom of religion. This we would consider highly undesirable, as we adhere strongly to the right of every individual to belong to any religion, and thus worship any god(s) they desire, or no religion at all without any opposition from the state.

In conclusion, the first commandment builds on false premises and an unsatisfactory view of beliefs and ethics; and hence, it must be rejected.


The second commandment

Ex. 20:7: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

We wish first to point out that this commandment reveals that if the Jewish and/or Christian versions of theism hold true (which we think is not the case), then this deity called Jahve must be considered immature and, quite frankly, cruel. Otherwise, why would he - supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - care about how little humans treat his name, and why would he stipulate guilt on the part of someone who takes his name in vain? And if this commandment has to do with ethics, if anything, it contains an unpleasant view of morality, a view which has been referred to as "morality at gunpoint." Rather than explaining why a certain manner of behavior - in this case, to avoid taking God's name in vain - is a good means to fulfill an ethical goal, it simply mandates that it shall not be done. No explanation. Simply: "do this, or else…"

Aside from this, it seems odd to assert that this decree (put as a threat, no less) has much to do with ethics - unless one defines ethics in accordance with point B above and says that ethics is that which God has commanded. But we already showed this to be an empty motivation. And again, this commandment presupposes the existence of Jahve, and since we do not think this presupposition true, we asseverate that this commandment can have nothing in it of ethical relevance. It also seems useless, and in all circumstances undesirable, as law.


The third commandment

Ex. 20:8-11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."

We generally feel that ethics is the formulation of which actions that are good and which actions that are bad on the basis of a detection of how best to fulfill ethical goals, e.g., the satisfaction of human needs. In order to make people accept a certain ethical code, therefore, we think it best if one can provide sound reasons for why the proposed code is beneficial for the satisfaction of human needs. This commandment, like most of the others, simply states a rule, without explaining why it would be in our interest, as humans, to adhere to it. This must be considered unsatisfactory and, we posit, at odds with the idea of there being a perfect God behind it.

However, unlike the first two commandments, this one can be discussed rationally without recourse to a God. That is, even if one rejects theism, it cannot be ruled out that good reasons could be given for why it is the best interest of people in general to take a specific day off once a week. But we have not encountered such reasons.

First, this commandment is formulated in a destructively strict manner: it states a rule without exceptions. In fact, even Jesus agreed with this criticism (as is clear from, e.g., Matt. 12:1-8)! For instance, most people, ourselves included, wish for hospital staff, such as surgeons and nurses, to be allowed to work on, say, Sundays. How such work - or, for that matter, any other work - could be viewed as immoral, solely because it takes place on a certain day, escapes us. Even if one thinks it morally obligatory to take every seventh day off, we see no rational basis at all for making any particular day of the week - such as Saturday or Sunday - "holy". But we see no reason why people should be forced to take any day off against their will. The commandment clearly states that one day every week each and everyone must not perform any work at all. We question why individuals should feel any guilt for working seven days a week. We want to point out that we do not deny people the right to rest from work. What we argue against is the idea that people should be prohibited from working if they desire to do so.

Hence, the third commandment must be considered undesirable as part of an acceptable ethical code, both on the personal and on the societal level.


The fourth commandment

Ex. 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you."

This commandment also entails the unpleasant view of morality of the second commandment, in that it links a certain type of prescribed behavior to a reward (i.e., "do this, or you will not get the reward"). Instead of trying to cause people to desire to honor their parents, they are enjoined to do so, lest they be without long life. But we think that a useful and followed ethic must build on something else than a theistic metaphysics which takes recourse to unsubstantiated commandments, of the sort expressed in this commandment. Otherwise, on a change of metaphysics, people see no reason to follow a (possibly good) rule..

Here, too, it is possible to hold that it is morally required of one to honor one's parents even if one rejects theism. This, of course, can hardly constitute grounds for legislation, but is it a good rule for one's private life? As before, we think the rule to be too strictly formulated: while we agree that it is certainly good that people treat each other with respect (but this not only applies to children with regard to their parents), this cannot always be thought to be good (e.g., in the case of child abuse or incest or in the case where the parents urge their children to violate some other commandment(s)). So, in all, this commandment could be put much better and cannot, for that reason, be considered an essential part of a good ethical system. Also, it seems untractable to legislate on the basis of this rule: how could it be observed to what degree children honor their parents?


The fifth commandment

Ex. 20:13: "You shall not kill."

This ostensibly straightforward commandment is generally to our satisfaction, but it could be formulated in a better way. Its main problem is that it specifies a rule without offering guidance as to its interpretation. For instance, it is made clear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that it is alright to execute people for different crimes and in wars; it is not made clear how to handle active or passive euthanasia; and it only seems to apply to human beings - but it can be questioned on what grounds this exemption of other animals is made. We are not saying that a rule prohibiting killing should necessarily be applied to (all) other animals, but we think that a richer discussion is necessary for any rule against killing to be fully respectable.

We also do not think that an acceptable ethics should contain an absolute prohibition of all killing; rather, it should specify circumstances under which it is indeed morally right to allow killing. For instance, in the realm of medical ethics, we think that a "quality of life" standard is commendable rather than a "life is holy" standard of the form expressed in the fifth commandment. This means that in our opinion it may, under special circumstances, be morally acceptable to carry out abortions and euthanasia. Hence, we reject any absolute interpretation of this commandment.

This is clearly a rule which not only needs to apply to the private realm of ethics, but it also needs to form the basis for legislation.

Lastly, virtually all cultures have had a moral code which prohibits murder, and hence, perhaps this, the most useful of the commandments, is not in any way special to the Jewish or Christian religions. And the reason for this is that, unlike most of the other commandments, this one, properly interpreted, is useful for the attainment of general well-being, which is obvious.


The sixth commandment

Ex. 20:14: "You shall not commit adultery."

If we interpret this commandment as saying that sexual intercourse is only to be allowed within the confinements of marriage, then we think it clearly unadvisable to include it in a code of ethics. First, we do not think that marriage is a necessary requirement for engaging in sexual activities. For the latter to be morally acceptable, we hold that they take place voluntarily on the part of all those affected. If this prerequisite is met, then any type of sexual activity is ethically acceptable to us. However, we think that if a promise of sexual monogamy (or of something else) has been made between two parties, whether in a marriage or in some other form of agreement, then such a promise needs to be kept. But if two parties agree that one or both may engage in sexual activities outside of the relationship, then that is also morally right, in our view.

This commandment, like most others, is in any case unsuitable as the basis for legislation, both because it is practically difficult to enforce for a judicial system and because it deals with issues of private morality, which we feel should not be regulated in law, even if it was practically possible.


The seventh commandment

Ex. 20:15: "You shall not steal."

Our analysis of this commandment largely follows that of the fifth commandment. In essence, we think that under most, but not all, circumstances, it is morally wrong to take the possessions of others without their consent. We can identify the following two exceptions: in some cases of starvation (such as when a child which would otherwise die may be morally right in stealing a loaf of bread from a billionaire) and in the case of taxation (which means that we reject anarco-capitalism, which considers the takings of any part of the material means of the citizens immoral, in principle). Again, we see that the particular formulation of this commandment is insufficiently precise for it to make good ethics.

This rule, like the one prohibiting killing, can also be found in almost all cultures, and hence any precise reference to this commandment is not necessary for this socially beneficial rule (sufficiently specified) to prevail.


The eighth commandment
Ex. 20:16: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

This we regard as a decent ethical rule, in most, but not all, circumstances. We do consider it morally wrong to lie in the general case, but unlike this absolute rule, and, say, the Kantian idea of the categorical imperative, we think that lying is acceptable in cases where the gains from doing so greatly outweigh the losses (e.g., when it is possible to prevent crimes by lying on their behalf). Like some other commandments, then, this one contains a sound ethical idea, albeit expressed too stringently.



The ninth commandment

Ex. 20:17: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house."

First, we deem this commandment to be useless as the basis for legislation, as it deals with coveting the house of someone else - and how can laws deal with the mere desires of citizens? Second, as a rule in the private sphere, we regard it as sound in cases where the coveting is of a jealous nature (although we do not consider it suitable for legislation). But if one covets one's neighbor's house on the basis of a general desire to better one's own position, and if one is inspired to work hard and honestly to obtain what one's neighbor already has obtained, then this rule is not very good at all. So again, this commandment has an element of ethical attractiveness in it, but it is not specified precisely enough for us to find it wholly applicable to relevant ethical decision-making.


The tenth commandment

Ex. 20:17: "[Y]ou shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

This commandment is really the same as the ninth commandment, and our comments above apply here as well.


Conclusions

After having considered the ten commandments of the Hebrew Bible in some detail, we have found that the rather common assertion, that people and societies need to "return" to these rules if they are to flourish in proper ways, is clearly untenable. And this our critique of the commandments does not only stem from a genuine dissatisfaction with most of them, but also from a reflection on what rules that are needed instead. That is to say, even if some elements of the commandments are somewhat acceptable (such as the injunctions against killing, stealing, and lying, at least in most cases), as a set, they certainly do not constitute a complete ethical system. To mention a few examples, discussing such matters as cruelty to animals, rape within marriages, incest, and physical abuse of others, seems vital for any acceptable, minimum code of ethics. Here, the ten commandments falter by not including these matters. But, clearly, they also falter in themselves. It should also be noted that almost all societies (inspired by, e.g., Buddha and Confucius, as well as many Greek and Roman philosophers) have incorporated the good ethical rules against killing, stealing, and lying - so the claim that there is a need for a Biblical base for good ethics does not hold water for this reason as well.

The table below presents our assessments of each of the commandments, where "Absurd" refers to a commandment being without ethical relevance, where "OK?" makes a rule hard to assess: under some circumstances it is acceptable, but certainly not generally, and where "Good" means that, in general, the rule is an important part of an ethical system. (Continues)

The second commandment

Ex. 20:7: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

I would dare say everyone does this from time to time....ie - JHCHRIST WHAT HAVE YOU DONE NOW??? LOL ive had it said to me a lot in the past


What I never understood was..the covet your neighbors house and another to say dont covet your neighbors wife

To covet means to want/wish...crave wrongfully...jealous if you like

so I wondered why didnt the two come together..like thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife and home??

and what about covet your neighbors hubby too??? whats good for the goose is good for the gander

Good thread GW and I agree BM, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

OK to be serious now, my dad is a Christian and he has a plaque on his wall with the ten commandments etched on a gold metal plate. In several of our discussions, he has pointed to this plaque and said "God gave us those because he knows we can't follow them". Through further conversation with him, I finally undestood what he meant. He means that the 10 commandments exist as a form of proof to accept Jesus as your saviour because it is only through him that salvation can be achieved.

I think this is an interesting take on the ten commandments. For the most part they seem ridiculous to me, but as far as Christian explanations go I think that my dad's makes the most sense.

your dad is a smart man...

and his belief becomes more obvious as you read through a lot of them... there are way more than 10...

some of the others are so tedious that you find yourself thinking... "how could anyone possibly keep all of these?"

so tell your dad... i give him a ...

Ex. 20:8-11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."

Who's going to fix my pipes when they burst? Or my toilet when it's blocked? Who's going to police the streets? Who'll put out the fire when a house is burning down? And most importantly... who's going to deliver my pizza?

I agree...and I also belive that WE ALL can't follow every last one...I doubt anyone can

That is an interesting way to look at it.

But doesn't that mean the game's rigged?

From my beliefs as an ex chrsitian....I always thought that it meant --->> God has gave us life...he created all for 6 days....so in the 7th day, he rested...we also class that day, as a day of rest..but to also give God a bit of your time too.......after all he gave us his time......................thats just my thoughts on it...well lol where my old thoughts on it

I dont think it meant...dont do any chores LMAO.........a day of rest...and I like it...I hate the thoughts of having to go into work on a Sunday grrrrrr..thats why i now refuse to work weekends

har har...and if asked -- i say..well God said so

I think it an interesting commentary and a bit of a refreshing change in what seems to be a trend in topics, of late. Repeats of former topics, like Nihilism, satanism, etc... I think it's especially relevant today because of former threads wherein womens issues are matters of legislation, like abortion predicated upon mandated ultrasounds, in South Carolina. Legislation like that is sponsored, often enough, by advocates of a christian agenda. Relating gods laws, to those of secular authority, when claiming thou shalt not kill applies to fetal tissue as well. It's also relevant to the current campaign to remove idols , as some would call it, of the law of Moses, from government properties. Wherein the argument, often enough, is those specific tenets of moral conduct are at the heart of the secular government system and should remain in place as moral icons relevant to everyone, regardless of faith.

The conclusion in this piece is what summarizes itself in attention to those particular concerns. And that's why I thought it would be relevant to post, because when people argue the great 10 are valid for all of society , the dogmatic dictum of such a claim is hardly resisted with any scholarship. This piece may not be scholarly, by some standards, however I think it is pointed in defining the difference between a free secular model, and that which would be imparted from a judeo-christian perspective, if secular society codified itself according to the laws of a religious jewish patriarch would indeed be untenable, in sustaining a diverse liberal secular society.

Or not.

i would love for the author of what we read to give their opinion on the other 603 laws in the Bible...

that was an interesting read though...

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this sh** up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bull list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bull. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
______________________________


I love George Carlin.

I love that show...I still keep it on my HD and watch it occasionally

Love Carlin! Wasn't he the comedian that said, "Take the lords name in Vain? Never! I mean every god*amn word!"

I look at the ten commandments more as recommendations... or warnings of potential conflicts if one strays from the basic principle within them.

"You shall have no other gods before me." Ok, this could apply to anyone. What is your god? What do you hold the highest respect for, more than anything else? If you truly know what that is, and actively betray it through your actions or thoughts... then you are not doing yourself justice and most likely, you will end up suffering emotionally or physically, and of course that will affect the people closest to you also. Nobody wants to go through that.

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." Same as above, if you disrespect the one thing you truly respect the most, then emotional damage will occur... and that will in turn effect your daily performance. If you truly felt your best when that source held your deepest respect and you accept that the source is inherently flawless or blameless, then it only makes sense that you would not want to take it in vain.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God;" I believe this to be common sense. And I believe if everyone did this on the same day, the world would be a more peaceful place. If all business closed on this day, and no one worked, what would happen? A day of rest? A day to reflect? A day to spend with your family and community? A day where no one expected to be served or to serve? This is a healthy thing. Like I said, this sounds like a good, common sense recommendation.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you." Straight forward, common sense. You either honor them or you have nothing to do with them, I see no gray area here. But, I believe if you honor them, you put your mind at a more gracious level, which in turn will produce more positive thoughts.

"You shall not kill." Simple, to the point. If you kill-- I believe out of malice, don't be surprised of the negative repercussions that will surely occur.. in some form or another. Simply, its not healthy for the mind or society.

"You shall not commit adultery." Same as above, just replace 'kill' with 'commit adultery'.

"You shall not steal." This is never a good thing, no matter what.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Same as above^^, just replace 'kill' with 'lie'.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house." Don't be jealous of what someone else has. If you want something of your own, then work for it, do not think that just because your neighbor has a nice car.. that you deserve one too. Again, a jealous mind will lead to emotional damage.

"[Y]ou shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's." Same as above, don't be jealous... this can lead to irrational thought, and potential 'breakage' of a few above recommendations. Which would not be healthy.

the game is rigged... that's the point of Jesus...

He wanted us to sin so he'd have a reason to forgive us?

So if I set a really hard test for a class, knowing that the class can't possibly complete it because they don't have the right tools/information to complete it, and then fail the lot of them... and then I say "hey kids, I forgive you for failing, here have a chocolate bar each" and they all think "aaaw, I love teach, she's so kind even when we screw up"... that would make me what? A cunning manipulative control freak perhaps?

And that leads me to wonder if there's not a sado-masochist christianity article somewhere. I swear it reminds me again of that Devils Advocate line.

It's the greatest gag reel of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste but don't swallow. Create sin, but admonish the created not to sin. Sin, but ask salvation. Gain salvation, but still sin.

Gw i have felt that at a certain awareness the meaning and understanding of these change meaning...., example take gods ( god meaning a generic term to mean alot of things) name in vain... , one understands the dymanics of the universe and has a reasonable knowlede of the forces and how it all works and you know that all thought is creative... so much care would be put into your thoughts words deeds.etc....cause and effect....

honoring the parents you would understand that they have done they very best they could based on what they knew therefore you would honor their path as valuable too.....



thou shalt not steal, sure if you know that there is enough for all, but we have a whole system based on haves and have nots change that and you eliminate stealing.. keep that and you have stealing.....how cruel of a system that celebrates some are worthy some aren't....we create our own issues as a humaity get that and change will begin....


anyways the point is based on your awareness is how one will see these, command why would a diety need to command anything???LOL only one that is very tyrannical and insecure to begin with....I find it more interesting that many beleive in this sort of diety as opposed to a more toghether one LOL.....

If something is rigged...then it's nothing more than a con game,and is completely useless to the average person.

Amd they criticize LaVey for being a former Carny turned high priest of a satanic religion! For the Wiki fans

I'm still shocked a christian even said that about the rigging. I'm waiting to see how other christians read that.

So...free-will is effectively pointless?

yes thats the biggest con ever...... many fall for it though...he most dangerous human is the one who thinks he knows already the way or knows whats best...Trouble in the making....

nope... He wanted us to realize that we couldn't get into heaven by our own works... thus the need for a final sacrifice and forgiveness... if one chooses to accept it...

not really... you don't have to accept the gift... lol...

i find it funny that people who CHOOSE not to believe in God are arguing the concept of free will...

you are your own contridiction... if we didn't have free will... that would make you a believer.. wouldn't it?

interesting take on free will phantum, gift??? LOL there is no such thing, if there is a choice there is no free wil...In the Um archives we have some really good debates on free will check them out...

God makes heaven, God makes man... he decides that he doesn't want man getting into heaven unless man does a whole heap of worshipping and feels unworthy, so he creates commandments that man can't adhere to to bring about the requirement of forgiveness... forgiveness from God, the one who made heaven and decided man couldn't get in unless... oh heck, why did he bother? Don't tell me... his plan.

There's a lot of conjecture involved in being a Christian isn't there.

Sort of like beleiving in santa forever or peter pan , It may have its place to be able to tell the diffenrce between real and make beleive .....*shrugs*