Is it really necessary to display the Ten Commandments just outside the Philippine Supreme Court building? Are the Ten Commandments the epitome of all our morality?
Most Christians are familiar with the Ten Commandments, and even atheists like me won’t miss it. OK…if you’re not too familiar with it…
Exodus 20:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods
before me.
4 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:
5 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;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and
keep my commandments.
7 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.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work:
10 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:
11 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.
12 Honour thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15
Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour.
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.
Christians believed that the Ten Commandments remarkably display infinite wisdom and is a morally perfect code beyond criticism.
Yet the Decalogue is not a perfect moral code, nor at all superior to the religious and legislative codes of other ancient civilization. The first 5 ( Exodus 20: 2- 11) possess no moral value whatever. It is obvious that they are simply religious emanations from obsolete priestcraft. The last 5 ( Exodus 20:12-17 ) bears the same relation to natural morality.
Exodus 20:5 – 7 is a strange commandment that claiming to be coming from an “all-good” and “all-powerful” God. It is worthy to note why an “all-powerful” being will be “jealous”. Also, this make the Hindu god Brahma more sensible when He (Brahma) said, “Those who worship other gods worship me because I hear them, and correct their mistakes.”
Exodus 20:12 Now that’s a good commandment, but I have never learned that long-live persons have been more dutiful to parents than others.
Exodus 20:13 Yet the so-called “holy people” were killing all the time, in His own commands! Thus, violating this commandment.
Exodus 20:17 Here, a wife is treated as a mere property – same as a servant, an ox or a donkey.
The Bible is, for the most part, a crude literature of people who lived long ago and it emits the dissipated deeds and opinions of self-profess priests and prophets. Looking at the Ten Commandments, I may say that finer principles of morality are neglected.
The First Commandment irks me a lot
"I am the Lord your God, you will not have any other gods except me. = I don't need people with ideas other than mine."
I appreciate that PinoyAtheist raises up these points. For me, this is a way to see the other side of the story. I maybe straightforward with my responses to his points, but let me try to be as respectful and objective as I can. No offense meant in any of my words here. As a theist and a freethinker, these are directed to people like me. I will exercise my privilege to respond.
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Is it really necessary to display the Ten Commandments just outside the Philippine Supreme Court building? Are the Ten Commandments the epitome of all our morality?
No and arguably Yes!
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Yet the Decalogue is not a perfect moral code, nor at all superior to the religious and legislative codes of other ancient civilization.”
Old Testament Theology argues that the Decalogue is perfect not in the quantitative but in the qualitative sense.
It is also superior than others because it came from the Creator, while others were merely inventions of men and falsely attributing them to non-existent divine beings.
PinoyAtheist wrote: “The first 5 ( Exodus 20: 2- 11) possess no moral value whatever.”
What makes up a “moral value” from an atheistic worldview?
PinoyAtheist wrote: “It is obvious that they are simply religious emanations from obsolete priestcraft.”
This is a speculation. He did not provide historical backup to prove his claim.
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Exodus 20:5 – 7 is a strange commandment…”
Strange is a relative term. The Bible verses are indeed strange to atheism.
What’s objectionable about God’s jealousy? Jealousy in an “exclusive” relationship (like God and Israel; like marriage too) is a healthy indication of genuine love.
Hinduism takes a pantheistic worldview (and thus, those words attributed to Brahma is consistent with that worldview). But Hinduism is in sharp contradiction to Israel’s theism. (God’s jealousy is consistent with its theistic worldview.)
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Exodus 20:12 Now that’s a good commandment, but I have never learned that long-live persons have been more dutiful to parents than others.”
He missed the point. Long life is a blessing that God will give to His covenant-people when they honor their parents. It was not a meant to explain a natural occurrence.
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Exodus 20:13 Yet the so-called “holy people” were killing all the time, in His own commands! Thus, violating this commandment.”
The verse should be translated as “murder” (the illegitimate way of taking a person’s life), not the broader term “kill.”
God is the author of life. He has every right to take away man’s life. He commanded His covenant-people Israel to execute justice on His behalf by taking away the life of those whom He judged as guilty and ran out of time from the grace period He gave. However, God did not extend this command to His new covenant-people.
PinoyAtheist wrote: “Exodus 20:17 Here, a wife is treated as a mere property – same as a servant, an ox or a donkey.”
“Merely”? I believe that is a overstatement. It disregards other commandments about wives, esp in Lev. 18 & 20, which shows how God wanted women to be treated with respect and dignity.
this is an interesting contribution, kaibigan.
a reading of the bible is a bit more complex than what some would lead us to believe.
Indeed. Cause you really need all the imagination just to make it correct, not to mention consistent.
I'd like to add that it takes a lot of creativity to package one's holy book, to give it a semblance of being THE word of god.
certainly! you need lots of imagination to make things work out — that goes for all endeavors…
So would a copy of Musashi's "Book of the Five Rings" or Clauswitz's "On War."
Any difficult book would require heavy study – the problem is that so many people take the bible literally, when it should be treated with the same degree of disbelief and criticism as anything else I have on my shelf.
I agree. The reason is because the Bible wasn’t written in one sitting by one person. It is a collection of writings (1) by different people from different ages, (2) written within a time span of around 1.5 millennia, (3) too distant from our time, (4) speaking of different cultures (ancient Near East, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman et al), whose background and customs are weird from our perspective, and (5) written in at least three different ancient languages.
So, it will really take a lot of study to understand it.
"It is also superior than others because it came from the Creator, while others were merely inventions of men and falsely attributing them to non-existent divine beings."
You are assuming they are non-existent. Until anyone of the many other Dec 25 birthday boys of the Jesus, Horus, Mythras really show themselves, your only advantage of reality is only your conceit.
Anyone can dismiss all the other dieties as non-existent and claim theirs as the undisputable true one. What right do you have, IsangKaibigan, say that your dogmae are superior, moreso the moral foundations of your religion?
I don’t claim any right to say those, Gundam.
My goal has been to know the objective truth. It wasn’t about dogma at all. I question dogma. But if a dogma is truthful, then what wrong with concurring with it?
For me, truth is not relative to any person’s belief. Truth must be able to defend itself. That applies for any dogma or moral foundation.
“Conceit”!!! Whoooa!
I don’t assume “they are non-existent.” I have studied them.
“Until anyone of the [them] really show themselves”: not a sufficient methodology for knowing facts.
wow that's rich knowing the others do not exist, through what words of others? which brings you back to square one. you're gonna make big changes all right. good luck boy. and yes you are conceited.
There are ways of knowing if a thing exists or not.
One is if there is historical evidence to the contrary.
Another is if it is a physical impossibility, “if” what one is arguing against is also subject to the laws of nature.
Another is if the suggestion is logically impossibility or intrinsically contradictory; in other words, it is falsifiable.
When you have good reasons to believe one thing, you can share it. (Don’t we believe in freedom of speech!) Conceit is the attitude attached with how you say it.
I love one example given by a philosopher. He said that if a doctor successfully found a cure for AIDS. Then, he bashes on all other doctors in the world, irritatingly in a very conceited manner, because he alone was able to discover the cure for AIDS while the rest were so “dumb.” But then you have AIDS. Are you going to refuse to take that medicine just because the inventor of the medicine was the most conceited person in the whole world?
But conceit is a morally condemnable attitude to theism. My professor in philosophy, Dr. D.C. Barnes, said: “Love without truth is hypocrisy. Truth without love is cruelty.” I still hold on to those words. It’s just sad when one misinterprets your attitude in communicating your thoughts. I apologize if I was offensive.
So in the end, all you say is that "My deity is better than the others."
Get in line Isang Kaibigan – you're not the first one who's told us that rhetoric, and I doubt you will be the last.
No, I wasn’t claiming that. I am a theist, a monotheist to be exact. So “better” would not apply.
Better would not apply…
Because you don't even assume that any competition exists.
Ingenius
Yes, I don’t assume that. Just as some atheists do not argue against god since how can one argue against a presumably a non-existent being (god), I also don’t argue against Brahma. I would rather argue against the words attributed to Brahma (not even to those who made up those words for Brahma).
So what stops the Supreme court from posting verses from the Koran, or the Humanist manifesto alongside the copy of the ten commandments?
If the SC cannot establish that it has enough space to include ALL of the moral codes of all the beliefs in the Philippines on its doorstep to show it is inclusive of all Philippine citizens, then it has no business playing favorites.
Either take them all, or none at all.
Old Testament Theology argues that the Decalogue is perfect not in the quantitative but in the qualitative sense. It is also superior than others because it came from the Creator, while others were merely inventions of men and falsely attributing them to non-existent divine beings.
Pinoy Atheist: There is nothing godly with the Decalogue nor does it show anything divinly unique to assume it as heavenly mandated. In fact, there are no original moral concept in the last five commandments. The Laws of Solon seems to be more better and it even eliminated birth as basis for government office. and created the basis of Western democracy – laws that a so-called benevolent god seems to forgotten.
Exodus 20:5 – 7 The Bible verses are indeed strange to atheism.
What’s objectionable about God’s jealousy? Jealousy in an “exclusive” relationship (like God and Israel; like marriage too) is a healthy indication of genuine love.
I'm not really convince with this explanation. You see, jealousy exemplifies the stupidity, insecurity and loser-ness of someone. It shows a lack of confidence and put it bluntly, jealousy is the irrational fear of losing someone, at the hands of a contender. Ther footnote of the New American Bible even says that jealousy here means demanding exclusive allegiance…Demands? Wow!
Now how on Earth does a "perfect being" still have such irrational fear and demands His people to worship Him?
(See: Deut. 4:24; 5:9, Joshua 24:19, Ezekiel 38;19, Nahum 1:2 and Zec. 8:2)
Exodus 20:12 – Long life is a blessing that God will give to His covenant-people when they honor their parents. It was not a meant to explain a natural occurrence.
There is no problem in the issue of honoring ones parents – but why the rewards? Can't you not honor them without expecting anything?
That's the problem with religious morality. it is only effective through rewards and punishment and according to how well one snaps into line with a perscribe sets of rules. Motivation to the act is base not on the agents's primary motive for acting but on the sactions and recompenses accompanying the rule.
Exodus 20:13 – The verse should be translated as “murder” (the illegitimate way of taking a person’s life), not the broader term “kill.”
God is the author of life. He has every right to take away man’s life. He commanded His covenant-people Israel to execute justice on His behalf by taking away the life of those whom He judged as guilty and ran out of time from the grace period He gave. However, God did not extend this command to His new covenant-people.
Murder…not kill huh? So I suppose those 47 revisers that James I called in January 1604 erred huh?
Ah OK…the NIV (New International Version) say it is "murder" not "kill". Yet some Christians say that the NIV is not textually trustworthy and they would not trust the NIV rendering of a (take note) word and phrase without first consulting the original languages (Translation On Trial – Is the Bible the Word of God? Robert G. Gromacki p.50) It is also noted that some Bible translation used "kill" not "murder".
Hebrew Transliterated20:13 L'a ThUrTShCh.
Latin Vulgate20:13 non occides
King James Version20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
American Standard Version20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Darby's English Translation20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Douay Rheims Bible20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Noah Webster Bible20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
But even if I accept the excuse, it still doesn't get God off the hook. You see, murder is defined by the Philippine Revised Penal Code as:
Title 8, Chapter 1, Sec. 1, Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
(BTW: God is a person.)
Now, let us read the following: "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)
In where I stand, when someone orders a person to kill defenseless babies and erderlies, that tantamount to murder. (See; U.S. vs. Charles Manson)
BTW: Murder has nothing to do with justice.
Exodus 20:17 – It disregards other commandments about wives, esp in Lev. 18 & 20, which shows how God wanted women to be treated with respect and dignity.
Will you please re-read Leviticus Chapter 18 to 20. Notice that the laws were made not to respect women but how not to disgrace your father, your uncle, your son, your brother and your neighbor.
Also, the same book says that when a woman gave birth to a female child, she is unclean for 2 weeks compare to a male child. (Lev. 12: 2-5). The Bible will always treat women as a mere property of man. She was created on Adam's rib and Adam named her as he has named all the animals. She doesn't share Adam's status, his glory and his divine image. Her role was Adam's helpmeet, his companionship and to bring him pleasure…that's until the time when gender vanishes (Gal. 3:26-28)…according to the woman loathing Paul!
"Love one another as I have loved you."
I prefer that commandment myself.
@pinoyatheist
"Christians believed that the Ten Commandments remarkably display infinite wisdom and is a morally perfect code beyond criticism."
I think should be written as "Christians still believe…". 😉
Thanks f241vc15. I just placed your correction on my "how to perfect my English grammar" note for future reference.
We should all keep in mind that the Bible has gone through many years and hands of translation from the original Hebrew text. The resulting translation may have been infused with the translator's own biases but we don't know for sure. What we know for sure is that if we believe everything written in it, we are all sinners. Just for example in the Ten Commandments – I've broken the third commandment as have to work Sundays every other weekend; I've broken the 5th commandment as I have killed many cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, ants and other insects; and, I've broken the 7th commandment – I download stuff online (come on, everybody else who has access to it does it one way or another). Am I going to hell? Judge me.
An episode in the second season of the West Wing hits the nail right on the head… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6xCvZgpc
i love the west wing! the lesson of that scene is that fundamentalist interpretations of the bible are wrong, because they are usually a cover for their own biases…
The show was not about fundamenalism interpretations, it's about Christian hypocrites. Kala ko ba nanonood ka ng West Wing?
President Bartlett just gave us a good insight which is very much needed in the Philippine scenario. People always follow some parts of the Bible, and ignore other parts based on their own agenda, they are hypocrites for doing so. Tama si "nobody", President Bartlett hits the nail right on the head!
twin skies is right about fundamentalism. you are right too… fundamentalism and hypocrasy is similar…
also, president bartlett grew up catholic. check out 'red mass', and how poignant that scene is.
I never said anything about Pres. Bartlett' religion…remember there are what we called "luke-warm Catholics".
Speaking about Christian fundamentalism, well, I'm just a fan of Karen Armstrong.
John, fundamentalists are shunned by progressive and moderate Christians as well for being, bigotted, hate-mongering hypocrites, and for giving the rest of the community a bad name.
That much I observed in my experience before I left Catholicism completely.
a fellow West Wing fan I see…
unfortunately the idea that the holy books could be tainted by personal biases and lost records across the generations is not something people think about. they don't question it period.
But I question it.
Not to mention the dozens of subtypes of the English version of the bible alone.
It's amusing how people in RP don't realize that the King James Bible is not the only version of the book that exists. There's also the New International, and the New English versions to name a few.
Each uses a slightly different english translation of the text, which can in turn alter the meaning of the passages.