Community

General discussion

Locked

The New Ten Commandments

By jardinier ·
As I am so far the only nominee for the position of God in a new, universal religion, in another thread, I thought I would post these alternative 10 commandments which I drew up many, many years ago.

It occurred to me that this should start a new thread, giving anyone interested an opportunity to list what they think should be the ten most important rules to create an ordered, peaceful, unified society on earth.

1. You will daily give thanks to your heavenly Mother and Father, and to your earthly mother and father, for the precious gift of life.

2. You will show your respect and appreciation for this gift by striving always to make life a rich experience for yourself and others.

3. You will have reverence for the plant kingdom, which provides oxygen to breathe, food to eat, and beauty to uplift your soul.

4. You will love the members of the animal kingdom as brothers and sister.

5. You will not wantonly injure or destroy any vegetation.

6. You will not injure or kill any animal, except in self defence or for food.

7. You will not injure or kill any human, except in defence of your life, or your kin.

8. You will not wage war.

9. You will regard with equal dignity men, women and children of all races and creeds.

10. You will joyfully give succour and assistance to those less fortunate than yourself.

If I started from scratch now, quite likely my list would be different from that above, but as this was already on hand, it should do to get the discussion rolling.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I have read the whole lousy thing.

by Absolutely In reply to You should read the Bible ...

Your assumption that I have rejected it because of ignorance is incorrect.

Collapse -

He did more than simply replace these laws

by Montgomery Gator In reply to You should read the Bible ...

Good quotes, Julian.

What Jesus did was give the true meaning behind the Law, to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" as has been mentioned previously in this thread. Jesus was fulfilling the Law and giving its true meaning. The old ritualistic law which was followed by rote was enhanced and updated in a way so that believers would follow the true spirit of the Law.

Collapse -

You need to know the background as well!

I may have said this before, but I guess it bears repeating if only to allow it to sink in a bit more.

Jesus was at some time during his life, a Pharisee, who were the upholders of the law. My guess is that at the time of his bar mitzvah, when he was twelve and caught exchanging views with the priests in the Temple, the seed was probably sewn then.

That aside, Jesus himself was a fully law-abiding Jew, keeping the laws in a way he saw fit.

Now, unless a law (code, tradition, custom, habit, etc.) is explained down to the very last letter, there's always room for interpretation. And this has always been the way with (a great many of) the Jewish laws. They need to be interpreted.

Most of the Pharisees of Jesus's time had slipped into the (bad, tired) habit of 'rote', simply quoting what they read about the laws without bothering to interpret them any more, a kind of 'familiarity breeds contempt' approach, laws without meaning.

Everyone does it, even today, especially regular church-goers. How many people, for instance, rattling off a prayer (or similar) with the rest of the congregation really think about the meaning of that prayer anymore? Knowing something by rote saps the meaning out in short order.

And so it was with the Pharisees. They rattled off the answers to any questions concerning the law by rote and this is what made Jesus furious with them. He frequently quarrelled with the Pharisees about interpretation because they saw his 'new' answers as the thin edge of the wedge, so to speak -- an eroding away of the law to the point of amalgamation with the Romans, which is what the Sadduccees wanted.

It's easy to see the point the Pharisees were trying to make; they were afraid Jesus's comments would indeed eventually lead to at least a more co-operative manner with the Romans, if not complete amalgamation with them. That's because they didn't really understand where Jesus was coming from.

Just taking one of Julian's examples at random, let's see what it really says.

'Matthew 5:43-44 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."'

The (old) law had always prevailed upon the devout Jew to 'love your neighbour (as yourself'). Fine. Basically, that meant your family, your tribe, your fellow Jew.

At the time when the laws first came into operation, i.e. after the Exodus from Egypt, and later still when a series of Judges ruled the land, there were twelve tribes.

Following the Exile (sixth century BCE), this fell to two and by the time of Jesus, it was basically only two 'official' tribes left with a smattering of the remnants of some of the others.

Right from the beginning there was minor conflict between tribes, even internecine spats on occasion because certain of the laws forbade some dealings between some of the tribes, for instance, priestly marriage.

However, the particular law under discussion at the moment soon became '. . .and welcome the stranger in your midst, treating him (her) as one of yourselves'.

Not just a left-over from four hundred years spent in Egypt as slaves, but also a warning that even friendly rivalry between tribes would not be tolerated.

Then, especially after the ten tribes went missing, 'stranger' expanded in meaning to embrace those of other cultures and societies as well, not just Jews.

Because of the current situation in Palestine (Canaan) at the time of Jesus, namely, the Roman occupation, this particular law had been in disrepute. How did anyone know who a 'stranger' might turn out to be? A Roman spy, perhaps, given the bloody conditions of the time with so many uprisings, assassinations, the zealots and all manner of negative vibes.

So 'stranger' had become 'enemy' (with fairly good reason) and Jesus simply sought to reverse this thinking, much to the horror of the Pharisees.

'Enemy' in this case then, was basically any Roman. Anyone (other than the Sadduccees) seen to be on good terms with 'the enemy' was immediately suspect, but this is exactly what Jesus was saying the people should be!

'Be nice to them, no matter what they might do to you,' he was saying. 'Invite them in, carry on as if nothing untoward was happening just to show them you mean no harm.'

I'm not going through the rest of Julian's quotes or I'll end up writing a book! Anyone can do that themselves. Just remember to think of the background against which all this was happening, how things had been in the beginning after Egypt, and how everything had slowly changed over time.

None of the Gospels were written in a vacuum. Everything they say, especially on the subject of the laws, finds a base and meaning somewhere in the OT. The (then) present situation bore heavily on what was said, and all these things need to be taken into account when either reading or quoting from them.

OK, I've said my say! Back to you now, Julian and Tom!

G

Collapse -

You know something Absolutely?

by jardinier In reply to "are they paranoid or som ...

Your version of logic is so bizarre that I am sure Aristotle would die laughing at your absurd "reasoning" -- that is if he didn't clip you on the ear for being such a smart-***.

There is no point in attempting to reply to your posts rationally because they take irrationality to new and as yet undiscovered realms of stupidity.

As you have had minimal contact with Christians let me enlighten you. I know personally of any number of Christians who welcome death because they are actually looking forward to spending eternity with Jesus.

They do not necessarily stick to the teachings, but they sure as "****" believe in the afterlife.

Fortunately certain rabid fundamentalist Christians who used to clutter up these religious discussions with their rigid dogma haven't as yet discovered these current two.

But they were forever saying, completely in earnest, that they were merely concerned about saving we heretics from eternity in ****. Yes, Absolutely, many Christians do absolutely believe in the teachings, but do NOT necessarily practise the ethics.

But don't take my word for it -- ask any of the brainwashed American evangelicals who voted your idiot president in for a second term. They believe the teachings fervently.

There is not necessarily any correlation between believing and doing. Some of the nastiest people I have met have been Christians, but yet they believed in the doctrines.

Anyhow I am glad for you that you are enjoying playing in the sandpits that I have created.

Hopefully one day you will become an adult and actually look back and see how irrational are most of your assumptions.

Collapse -

One thing I know is that I don't believe in fairy tales.

by Absolutely In reply to You know something Absolu ...

"Hopefully one day you will become an adult and actually look back and see how irrational are most of your assumptions."

ROFL!

Collapse -

Creeping paranoia

by levannah44@smartchat.net. In reply to Thanks Gret

Point taken, Julian. I guess some people are just too thick to see the joke! -- or paranoid!

G

Collapse -

This is an IT forum

by tabby80 In reply to The New Ten Commandments

As you posted above, yes, this is an open forum. HOWEVER, it is an IT forum, not a religious one. This post has no place here, and I find it mildy offensive that you are trying to force your beliefs on others.

Collapse -

If you choose to be offended. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to This is an IT forum

.
....why be only mildly offended?

Go for it! Go for the gusto!

If you choose to be offended, why not be EXTREMELY offended? After all, anything worth doing is worth doing well, all deserving of a 100 percent effort.

Collapse -

LOL

by Absolutely In reply to If you choose to be offen ...
Collapse -

Where have you been for the past three years?

by jardinier In reply to This is an IT forum

Well that is how long I have been participating in discussions at TechRepublic.

In the "Miscellaneous" category, there are frequently "off topic" discussions, that is to say, not related to IT.

Religion has always been a popular topic, as have politics, ethics, sex, personal relationships, all manner of social issues.

If you would care to check some of the discussions in which I have participated recently, you will find these listed with my personal profile. You will also find that of the 20 most recent discussions in which I have participated, only two are about religion.

And it just happens to be sheer coincidence that I have started the two most recent discussions in which I have participated. At any other time period, you would quite likely find that there were no religious discussions.

Nor am I trying to force my beliefs on anyone. As it happens the discussion: "Does religion do more harm than good" has been a very popular discussion with significantly more input from atheists than from those who profess to follow some religion or other.

This discussion in which you have posted was started deliberately by me because the previous discussion had already attracted some 800 or so posts and was starting to get a bit unweildly.

Related Discussions

Related Forums