PDA

View Full Version : "Professors Are More Likely to Believe ‘Ten Commandments are Irrelevant Today,'"



megimoo
02-23-2010, 09:01 AM
College Professors Are More Likely to Believe ‘Ten Commandments are Irrelevant Today,' New Study Says


- College professors are more likely than the average person to believe that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant today -- and to think that America is a corrupting influence on good people, according to a new study released Monday.

Those who teach on American college campuses are more likely to agree with the statements "America corrupts otherwise good people" and "The Ten Commandments are irrelevant today," according to the report, which was unveiled at a news conference at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, an educational organization based in Wilmington, Del.

Dr. Richard Brake, director of ISI’s Culture of Enterprise Initiative, cautioned that the survey results DO NOT say that all--or even most--college teachers think that America corrupts otherwise good people -- or that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant..

“But they are more likely to think that having taught college, and they are more likely to think that compared to the rest of the population,” Brake said.

Brake explained that ISI randomly sampled 2,508 Americans from all walks of life, asking them 39 questions designed to elicit their beliefs, including the question: “(Do you agree or disagree): America corrupts otherwise good people.”

The survey was designed to find out what impact having a college education makes on people’s beliefs.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/61703

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 09:50 AM
That's ironic because I'm more likely to believe that most professors are irrelevant today.

wilbur
02-23-2010, 10:11 AM
I'm inclined to think its mostly religious folk who find the 10 commandments relevant - so its no surprise to me that a group who is largely less religious than the general population finds them irrelevant.

And its true - in any judicial sense, the 10 commandments are irrelevant today, and are little more than a small laundry list of regulation, with no explanation or justification behind them at all. Completely useless as a code of law, or judicial system.

The golden rule is more ancient than the 10 commandments, is superior (as many commandments are simply petty demands for loyalty from "the jealous God"), and is a solid underpinning for quite a lot of ethical, legal and moral theory. Much more relevant than the 10 commandments, much more sensible, and also more interesting.

Jfor
02-23-2010, 10:39 AM
I'm inclined to think its mostly religious folk who find the 10 commandments relevant - so its no surprise to me that a group who is largely less religious than the general population finds them irrelevant.

And its true - in any judicial sense, the 10 commandments are irrelevant today, and are little more than a small laundry list of regulation, with no explanation or justification behind them at all. Completely useless as a code of law, or judicial system.

The golden rule is more ancient than the 10 commandments, is superior (as many commandments are simply petty demands for loyalty from "the jealous God"), and is a solid underpinning for quite a lot of ethical, legal and moral theory. Much more relevant than the 10 commandments, much more sensible, and also more interesting.

Sounds like somebody needs to grow up.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 10:53 AM
I'm inclined to think its mostly religious folk who find the 10 commandments relevant - so its no surprise to me that a group who is largely less religious than the general population finds them irrelevant.

And its true - in any judicial sense, the 10 commandments are irrelevant today, and are little more than a small laundry list of regulation, with no explanation or justification behind them at all. Completely useless as a code of law, or judicial system.

The golden rule is more ancient than the 10 commandments, is superior (as many commandments are simply petty demands for loyalty from "the jealous God"), and is a solid underpinning for quite a lot of ethical, legal and moral theory. Much more relevant than the 10 commandments, much more sensible, and also more interesting.

I see you're keeping your batting average at .000 on being right. :-)

Gingersnap
02-23-2010, 11:00 AM
The golden rule is more ancient than the 10 commandments, is superior (as many commandments are simply petty demands for loyalty from "the jealous God"), and is a solid underpinning for quite a lot of ethical, legal and moral theory. Much more relevant than the 10 commandments, much more sensible, and also more interesting.

Doubtful. I wouldn't want to be treated to be treated the way many people prefer to be treated themselves. There are a lot of screwed up people out there. Others simply couldn't meet my needs because they can't imagine what I want or need. Still others would like to impose their own limitations on me.

When I hear that a place of business prides itself on "treating customers like family", I always sincerely hope not. I'd like to be treated much better than that and I have a decent family.

You could argue that commandments 1 - 4 are only relevant for those who expect salvation. Commandments 5 -10 , however, are the basis for a sound society. Take care of your parents - that seems like a fairly just obligation for the vast majority of us. No lying, cheating, or gleeful murder. No acting out on envy and jealousy. Seems like common sense to me.

As for being "corrupted", that's a function of urban affluence - not nationalism. City dwellers everywhere are less community-minded, more suspicious of strangers, more apt to engage in rude, alarming, or unwanted sexual behaviors than their small town counterparts due to anonymity. City dwellers have more opportunities to cheat, steal, and bully. They have more access to the organizations of power such as governments, law enforcement, and business and so they have more opportunities to become corrupt and to corrupt others.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 11:33 AM
You could argue that commandments 1 - 4 are only relevant for those who expect salvation. Commandments 5 -10 , however, are the basis for a sound society. Take care of your parents - that seems like a fairly just obligation for the vast majority of us. No lying, cheating, or gleeful murder. No acting out on envy and jealousy. Seems like common sense to me.

No lying? Lying isn't always bad, is it?


Doubtful. I wouldn't want to be treated to be treated the way many people prefer to be treated themselves. There are a lot of screwed up people out there. Others simply couldn't meet my needs because they can't imagine what I want or need. Still others would like to impose their own limitations on me.

How many people have you met who want to be murdered? How many people have you met who want to be raped? How many people have you met who want to be robbed? How many people have you met who want to be enslaved? Do you get the picture?

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 11:35 AM
Golden Rule?
What if your best friend is a masochist... ?

Gingersnap
02-23-2010, 11:48 AM
No lying? Lying isn't always bad, is it?

How many people have you met who want to be murdered? How many people have you met who want to be raped? How many people have you met who want to be robbed? How many people have you met who want to be enslaved? Do you get the picture?

Better than you do, apparently. People have nearly infinite capacity to endure abuse or privation if they believe it's for a good cause or makes them better members of the group.

I'd rather deal with a short list of laws than the limitless imagination of my fellow human beings.

As for lying, it's possible to make a hypothetical case for breaking any law, custom, or inherent behavior. Hypotheticals make for interesting discussion but bad social policy.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 12:09 PM
Golden Rule?
What if your best friend is a masochist... ?

There are always exceptions to any rule. They don't make a rule invalid or not useful.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 12:13 PM
Poor Wilbur, he hates the Law of the God he doesn't believe in, yet those laws are the basis for our laws. How frustrating that must be for him.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 12:16 PM
As for lying, it's possible to make a hypothetical case for breaking any law, custom, or inherent behavior. Hypotheticals make for interesting discussion but bad social policy.

Okay. Well, you said that "no lying" is the basis for a sound society. What you should have said was that "no lying for immoral purposes" is the basis for a sound society.

Though it can be used for either, deception is neither bad nor good. Deception is a weapon and like any weapon it can be used for bad or good.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 12:19 PM
Poor Wilbur, he hates the Law of the God he doesn't believe in, yet those laws are the basis for our laws. How frustrating that must be for him.

We have laws against blasphemy and heresy? Holy shit! I'm in big trouble.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 12:23 PM
We have laws against blasphemy and heresy? Holy shit! I'm in big trouble.

I'm sorry, after nanoseconds of research, I cannot find were I said that.:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 12:25 PM
I'm sorry, after nanoseconds of research, I cannot find were I said that.:rolleyes:

You said that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws and yet there are no laws against blasphemy and heresy. Perhaps you meant to say that you wish our laws were based on the Ten Commandments.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 12:29 PM
You said that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws and yet there are no laws against blasphemy and heresy. Perhaps you meant to say that you wish our laws were based on the Ten Commandments.

Do you need me to write it in Crayon? Stop being obtuse, you obviously knew what I meant.:cool:

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Do you need me to write it in Crayon? Stop being obtuse, you obviously knew what I meant.:cool:

Crayon is fine. Which of our laws prohibit us from coveting someone's wife and/or property? Feel free to write the answer in crayon.

wilbur
02-23-2010, 12:54 PM
The old masochist objections to the golden rule are pretty superficial treatments. It can easily salvaged.

A masochist will of course, prefer to have pain inflicted upon himself, so naturally it seems wrong if a rule tells him to do this to others. No argument there. But if we step back from the specifics for a moment, and try and generalize a little bit - we will find that we can say that the masochist really just treats himself, as he prefers to be treated. So therefore, we can say that he should treat others as they prefer to be treated. Treating others in a manner consistent with their preferences, is to treat them as you would treat yourself.

So the golden rule does not require that the masochist takes out his whip, and starts going to town on everyone he sees...

There are many other types of objections to the rule, but the old masochist objection isnt a good one. And the golden rule has been defended as argued for as a first principle of many different moral theories for a long time and by many people. I would surely take it any day, over the 10 commandments.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 01:03 PM
You said that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws and yet there are no laws against blasphemy and heresy. Perhaps you meant to say that you wish our laws were based on the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments are laws that have no penalty for breaking them assigned to them. Isn't that interesting. God thought assigning those regulations to man so that man could enforce them within himself. God gave us a picture of what our behavior should be so that we could understand how far from that image we are. The fact that we can't keep them or make up excuses not to speaks volumes about the depravity of man.

wilbur
02-23-2010, 01:12 PM
Commandments 5 -10 , however, are the basis for a sound society. Take care of your parents - that seems like a fairly just obligation for the vast majority of us. No lying, cheating, or gleeful murder. No acting out on envy and jealousy. Seems like common sense to me.


Taken by themselves, they really don't amount to much. Yes, they are good and necessary rules, but they don't give us any kind of foundational principle with which to make future judgements, in situations where the terse rules are inadequate or incomplete guides. They are only applicable narrowly.

So they arent really a sufficient foundation at all. Those commandments would be a given, if one took natural rights to be a first principle, for example. And with a principle of natural rights, one can derive all kinds of other things which are not possible to derive by way of the commandments, but are necessary parts of a good society. Something like natural rights can be the basis for a sound society, but the commandments cannot be.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 01:14 PM
Taken by themselves, they really don't amount to much. Yes, they are good and necessary rules, but they don't give us any kind of foundational principle with which to make future judgements, in situations where the terse rules are inadequate or incomplete guides. They are only applicable narrowly.

So they arent really a sufficient foundation at all. Those commandments would be a given, if one took natural rights to be a first principle, for example. And with a principle of natural rights, one can derive all kinds of other things which are not possible to derive by way of the commandments, but are necessary parts of a good society.


A swing and a miss! Strike!

wilbur
02-23-2010, 01:16 PM
A swing and a miss! Strike!

Translation: "I got nuthin".

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 01:21 PM
The Ten Commandments are laws that have no penalty for breaking them assigned to them. Isn't that interesting. God thought assigning those regulations to man so that man could enforce them within himself. God gave us a picture of what our behavior should be so that we could understand how far from that image we are. The fact that we can't keep them or make up excuses not to speaks volumes about the depravity of man.

To suggest that humans, a species which has figured out how to get to the Moon and back, can't have come up with basic rules for getting along with each other is absurd in the extreme. I realize that your Chistianity is an anti-human doctrine but at least give credit where credit is due.

wilbur
02-23-2010, 01:26 PM
The fact that we can't keep them or make up excuses not to speaks volumes about the depravity of man.

Speaking masochistic self-flagellation...

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 01:28 PM
Translation: You have less understanding of Biblical things than you do of future climate changes and that ain't much.

The Ten Commands are considered by many scholars to be the basis of how man is to relate to God, society and family. The God part is rather obvious. The societal laws are those which prohibit one from harming society. The coveting restrictions are set in place so that people will consider the things that will lead to breaking the societal laws. Finally the honor thy mother and father is a request/command to take care of them and to treat them with respect. We have laws against stealing and murder that were derived from the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic. We had laws against adultery until our immoral society decided that respecting the marriage of other humans was not a good enough reason to be faithful to your spouse. We have laws about harming the elderly which descend from the honor your mother and father commandment.

Perhaps instead of looking at a one to one relationship between the Ten Commandments and today's laws look at the parallels between the classes that the Commandments represent. As I pointed out. The Ten Commandments are intended to be more of a mirror in which you can see what you can't live up to and what you should strive to be, namely a decent human being.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 01:30 PM
Speaking masochistic self-flagellation...

You would know about that. You are the one who shows up here every day for your daily dose of abuse by just about every other member of CU. It seems you have an affinity for being verbally abused by others.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 01:36 PM
To suggest that humans, a species which has figured out how to get to the Moon and back, can't have come up with basic rules for getting along with each other is absurd in the extreme. I realize that your Chistianity is an anti-human doctrine but at least give credit where credit is due.

God gave man the intelligence to go to the moon and back, yet man can't use that intelligence to find peaceful solutions to his conflicts, can keep a simple request like not cheating on his or her spouse with someone else's spouse. Can't keep from murdering their own off-spring because raising the child would be too much trouble.

Christianity is an anti-evil human doctrine which is why relativists have such difficulty grasping it's simple tenents to love your neighbor like yourself and to pray for blessings upon your enemy.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 01:40 PM
God gave man the intelligence to go to the moon and back, yet man can't use that intelligence to find peaceful solutions to his conflicts, can keep a simple request like not cheating on his or her spouse with someone else's spouse. Can't keep from murdering their own off-spring because raising the child would be too much trouble.

Humans don't all adhere to the ideal for behavior but most recognize it. The challenge for you is to show that humans can't have come up with the ideal for behavior on their own. How are you going to do that?

wilbur
02-23-2010, 01:41 PM
We have laws against stealing and murder that were derived from the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic.

No - they weren't - they were derived and justified by the principle of natural rights and based on their universality.



We had laws against adultery until our immoral society decided that respecting the marriage of other humans was not a good enough reason to be faithful to your spouse.


We don't have enforced laws against adultery any more, in part, because we realize that to grant government such overreaching authority is to put at risk, one's natural rights. If society followed the commandments as a basis for law here, the law would be overtly authoritarian and oppressive.



Perhaps instead of looking at a one to one relationship between the Ten Commandments and today's laws look at the parallels between the classes that the Commandments represent. As I pointed out. The Ten Commandments are intended to be more of a mirror in which you can see what you can't live up to and what you should strive to be, namely a decent human being.

Ok, they are a mirror - but they arent foundational for a society, or really all that relevant.

Gingersnap
02-23-2010, 02:44 PM
Okay. Well, you said that "no lying" is the basis for a sound society. What you should have said was that "no lying for immoral purposes" is the basis for a sound society.

Though it can be used for either, deception is neither bad nor good. Deception is a weapon and like any weapon it can be used for bad or good.

The religious prohibition against lying is first a social prohibition: it's morally wrong to falsely claim that others have (or have not) done something that will result in judicial action or loss of good reputation. That's what 'bearing false witness' is all about.

Christians and Jews extend that out to lying to avoid punishment, lying to self-aggrandize, con games, false representation, and so on. Responding to "Do I look fat in this?" with a noncommittal or falsely positive answer isn't the kind of lying that we are discussing.

As someone who has been lied to and seen it cost me a great deal in time, energy, and money, I'm okay with the standard "no lying" restriction as it's commonly understood.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 02:50 PM
The religious prohibition against lying is first a social prohibition: it's morally wrong to falsely claim that others have (or have not) done something that will result in judicial action or loss of good reputation. That's what 'bearing false witness' is all about.

Christians and Jews extend that out to lying to avoid punishment, lying to self-aggrandize, con games, false representation, and so on. Responding to "Do I look fat in this?" with a noncommittal or falsely positive answer isn't the kind of lying that we are discussing.

As someone who has been lied to and seen it cost me a great deal in time, energy, and money, I'm okay with the standard "no lying" restriction as it's commonly understood.

That's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that lying is acceptable or even noble in certain circumstances. Don't you agree?

AmPat
02-23-2010, 03:45 PM
Crayon is fine. Which of our laws prohibit us from coveting someone's wife and/or property? Feel free to write the answer in crayon.

Feel free to slap yourself. I have better things to do than hold your hand while you find examples that I CLEARLY were not referring to. Grow up!

AmPat
02-23-2010, 03:51 PM
No - they weren't - they were derived and justified by the principle of natural rights and based on their universality.
Really? I understood there were Indian societies that had no concept of private property.

[
QUOTE]We don't have enforced laws against adultery any more, in part, because we realize that to grant government such overreaching authority is to put at risk, one's natural rights. If society followed the commandments as a basis for law here, the law would be overtly authoritarian and oppressive.
And yet we have laws that allow for divorce because people could not follow "Thou shalt not covet."



Ok, they are a mirror - but they arent foundational for a society, or really all that relevant.[/QUOTE]

I'd expect you would find them "relevant" if someone were to murder your family.:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 04:02 PM
We had laws against adultery until our immoral society decided that respecting the marriage of other humans was not a good enough reason to be faithful to your spouse.

We may have had laws against adultery but we've never had laws against coveting a neighbor's wife or property, have we?

lacarnut
02-23-2010, 04:07 PM
We may have had laws against adultery but we've never had laws against coveting a neighbor's wife or property, have we?

Do you have a fetish for coveting a neighbor's wife or property? Just checking.

AmPat
02-23-2010, 04:10 PM
We may have had laws against adultery but we've never had laws against coveting a neighbor's wife or property, have we?

Still obtuse huh? No we haven't. Now will you grow up? If we had or at least followed God's 10 commandments and refrained from coveting the neighbor's wife, we wouldn't have to worry about the bullet between the eyes.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 04:12 PM
Do you have a fetish for coveting a neighbor's wife or property? Just checking.

I'm all in favor of lust. If a neighbor has say a hot wife or say a hot car then what is wrong with lusting after them? To my way of thinking, lust is healthy as long one can control it.

Jfor
02-23-2010, 06:03 PM
I'm all in favor of lust. If a neighbor has say a hot wife or say a hot car then what is wrong with lusting after them? To my way of thinking, lust is healthy as long one can control it.

bullshit

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 06:18 PM
I'm all in favor of lust. If a neighbor has say a hot wife or say a hot car then what is wrong with lusting after them? To my way of thinking, lust is healthy as long one can control it.
Their has to be a conservative web site out there somewhere that needs a commie moonbat mascot! We already have Wilbur.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Humans don't all adhere to the ideal for behavior but most recognize it. The challenge for you is to show that humans can't have come up with the ideal for behavior on their own. How are you going to do that?

Easy, we are all creations of the God and his creations can only know what he makes it possible for them to know. Now the challenge for you is to show that we aren't the creation of an all powerful God.

Let's take a further look at your example of rockets to the moon. What we do with the knowledge is up to us (free will and all that). Now what does man dow the the consciousness that He gave us? We spend absurd amounts of time perfecting the methods of killing so that we kill them most numbers of people in the quickest amount of time. Man's quest for violence drives man's technological advances. For example, He gave us the brains to work out how to create propulsion systems for rockets that allowed humans to launch explosives at each other from long distances. Later on man realized that he could enhance those same propulsion systems to send people to the moon. Man's desire to kill his fellow man drove the technology that he later used for exploration. Why wasn't it the other way around?

You call God a killer but it is man that uses his ability to kill much more prolifically than God. Man dreams of turning the earth back to the paradise that he lost but his fallen nature turns that dream in to a nightmare every time someone dares to dream it.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 06:33 PM
We may have had laws against adultery but we've never had laws against coveting a neighbor's wife or property, have we?

We sure do. It falls under the laws pertaining to conspiracy to commit a crime. I don't have to rob a bank to be arrested, I just have to conspire to commit the act. I attempt to hire a hitman to kill my neighbor so that I can get the chance to make time with his wife I get arrested. When I attempt to put my coveting into action I can be arrested without actually committing the crime.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 06:41 PM
No - they weren't - they were derived and justified by the principle of natural rights and based on their universality.



We don't have enforced laws against adultery any more, in part, because we realize that to grant government such overreaching authority is to put at risk, one's natural rights. If society followed the commandments as a basis for law here, the law would be overtly authoritarian and oppressive.



Ok, they are a mirror - but they arent foundational for a society, or really all that relevant.

If that is true then I will simply point out that God's law is universal to all His creation and it makes fallen man even more guilty of transgression. If man knew of these laws before the Ten Commandments were written down and still could not keep them, then man's nature is truly depraved. He can't keep the laws he knows in his heart and he can't keep them when God writes them down. What hope is there for mankind?

lacarnut
02-23-2010, 07:11 PM
I'm all in favor of lust. If a neighbor has say a hot wife or say a hot car then what is wrong with lusting after them? To my way of thinking, lust is healthy as long one can control it.

Sickoh

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 07:39 PM
We sure do. It falls under the laws pertaining to conspiracy to commit a crime. I don't have to rob a bank to be arrested, I just have to conspire to commit the act. I attempt to hire a hitman to kill my neighbor so that I can get the chance to make time with his wife I get arrested. When I attempt to put my coveting into action I can be arrested without actually committing the crime.

One has to take some kind of action to be convicted of conspiracy. There is no law against thinking about committing a crime. LOL!

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 07:44 PM
One has to take some kind of action to be convicted of conspiracy. There is no law against thinking about committing a crime. LOL!
Have you ever thought about jumping off a tall building? Your an owl you can fly! try it.

The Night Owl
02-23-2010, 07:52 PM
Easy, we are all creations of the God and his creations can only know what he makes it possible for them to know. Now the challenge for you is to show that we aren't the creation of an all powerful God.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've provided no evidence that the Ten Commandments are of supernatural origin. It's true that I can't prove the Ten Commandments aren't of supernatural origin but so what? I also can't prove Carrot Top is not Jesus Christ. Who cares?

In order to believe the nonsense you're trying to float here, one has to believe that humans are and have always been too stupid to figure out that, for instance, prohibiting murder is a good idea.

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 07:54 PM
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've provided no evidence that the Ten Commandments are of supernatural origin. It's true that I can't prove the Ten Commandments aren't of supernatural origin but so what? I also can't prove Carrot Top is not Jesus Christ. Who cares?

In order to believe the nonsense you're trying to float here, one has to believe that humans are and have always been too stupid to figure out that, for instance, prohibiting murder is a good idea.

Your an expert on stupid! It's a way of life for you, global warming boy!:rolleyes:

AmPat
02-23-2010, 08:31 PM
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've provided no evidence that the Ten Commandments are of supernatural origin. It's true that I can't prove the Ten Commandments aren't of supernatural origin but so what? I also can't prove Carrot Top is not Jesus Christ. Who cares?

In order to believe the nonsense you're trying to float here, one has to believe that humans are and have always been too stupid to figure out that, for instance, prohibiting murder is a good idea.

Ever watch The Spear? Murder was ok for them.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 09:34 PM
One has to take some kind of action to be convicted of conspiracy. There is no law against thinking about committing a crime. LOL!


I thing there are a few who have arrested in the united states and charged with terror related crimes who might disagree with you.

At any rate I stand by my statement that board categories for laws have been based on the Ten Commandments. You are looking at things backwards. Instead of finding a commandment that has a matching law, take the law and trace it back to it's base commandment. Just about every law being enforced can be connected to one of them.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 09:57 PM
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You've provided no evidence that the Ten Commandments are of supernatural origin. It's true that I can't prove the Ten Commandments aren't of supernatural origin but so what? I also can't prove Carrot Top is not Jesus Christ. Who cares?

In order to believe the nonsense you're trying to float here, one has to believe that humans are and have always been too stupid to figure out that, for instance, prohibiting murder is a good idea.

I can prove Carrot Top is not Jesus. Carrot Top sins and Jesus does not.

Proof that God created the Ten Commandments?

Why would man create a law that he is incapable of keeping. We have laws against stealing and I would be willing to bet that just about everyone has stolen something. Why would man create a law he is incapable of monitoring the compliance of? Would man create a law to prohibit coveting when, to my limited knowledge, no other human society has created such a law and only God would be aware of if someone broke it?

wilbur
02-23-2010, 10:12 PM
I thing there are a few who have arrested in the united states and charged with terror related crimes who might disagree with you.

At any rate I stand by my statement that board categories for laws have been based on the Ten Commandments. You are looking at things backwards. Instead of finding a commandment that has a matching law, take the law and trace it back to it's base commandment. Just about every law being enforced can be connected to one of them.

What one should do, is dispassionately examine the history of law, not do your best to plot some path back to the conclusion you desire to find.

This type of thing is a HUGE problem with Christian historical claims today - you have apologists just doing their best to trace some vague path back to Christian ideology from some moral good we experience or know today in order score the point for their team, with little regard whether there's any concrete causal connection, or any dis-confirming evidence.

Slavery? Hey, look there were lots of Christian abolitionists, therefore Christianity did it!
*those pro-slavery Christians weren't real Christians after all....

The Holocaust? Wow, some churches converted Jews to Christians to avoid concentration camps! Christianity did it!
*nevermind all that Christian Lutheran anti-semitism stewing in Germany - that doesnt count...

Law? Our laws say do not murder... Oh wow, there is a commandment against murder.... THEREFORE Christianity did it!
*nevermind that there are almost no examples of pro-murder societies in history, even the 10-commandment-less ones...

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 10:17 PM
"not do your best to plot some path back to the conclusion you desire to find"
Isn't this what your global warming church does Wilbur?:rolleyes:

wilbur
02-23-2010, 10:17 PM
Proof that God created the Ten Commandments?

Why would man create a law that he is incapable of keeping.

We have laws against stealing and I would be willing to bet that just about everyone has stolen something. Why would man create a law he is incapable of monitoring the compliance of? Would man create a law to prohibit coveting when, to my limited knowledge, no other human society has created such a law and only God would be aware of if someone broke it?

Because having laws works better for human flourishing, than does having no laws, even if we sometimes break them. Duh.

Why on earth would you make such a daft presumption, that laws are somehow non-sensical because we might sometimes fail to follow them? That doesn't make one bit of sense. There is precious little that we can perform with perfection, 100% of the time - by the logic you employ here, we'd just have to do nothing, all the time.

As for coveting.. well, who says humans always make sensible laws? Congress is certainly proof positive that we don't, most of the time.

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 10:23 PM
What one should do, is dispassionately examine the history of law, not do your best to plot some path back to the conclusion you desire to find.

This type of thing is a HUGE problem with Christian historical claims today - you have apologists just doing their best to trace some vague path back to Christian ideology from some moral good we experience or know today, with little regard whether there's any concrete causal connection, or any dis-confirming evidence.

Slavery? Hey, look there were lots of Christian abolitionists, therefore Christianity did it!
*those pro-slavery Christians weren't real Christians after all....

The Holocaust? Wow, some churches converted Jews to Christians to avoid concentration camps! Christianity did it!
*nevermind all that Christian Lutheran anti-semitism stewing in Germany - that doesnt count...

Law? Our laws say do not murder... Oh wow, there is a commandment against murder.... THEREFORE Christianity did it!
*nevermind that there are almost no examples of pro-murder societies in history, even the 10-commandment-less ones...


You guys raised the questions don't blame me because you don't like the answers. Now try to stay on topic. We're not talking about the holocaust or slavery. We are discussing the Ten Commandments. I know how you like to change the context of conversions away from areas you know little about like you are attempting to do here.

Oh, and for the record (see the quote I highlighted), since you seem to be ignorant of the fact, the Ten Commandments were given to man 1500 years before Christianity. I know that your grasp of the Bible and History is tenuous at best but you should be aware that Christians were not around when God delivered the Commandments to the Hebrews. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 10:24 PM
who says humans make sensible laws? Congress is certainly proof positive that we don't, most of the time.
Wilbur your not referring to your libtard congress are you?:confused:

FlaGator
02-23-2010, 10:25 PM
Because having laws works better for human flourishing, than does having no laws, even if we sometimes break them. Duh.

Why on earth would you make such a daft presumption, that laws are somehow non-sensical because we might sometimes fail to follow them? That doesn't make one bit of sense. There is precious little that we can perform with perfection, 100% of the time - by the logic you employ here, we'd just have to do nothing, all the time.

As for coveting.. well, who says humans make sensible laws? Congress is certainly proof positive that we don't, most of the time.

You missed the point again but that doesn't surprise me. You should stick with Global Warming conversations... laws and morals obviously put you out of your element.

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 10:28 PM
You guys raised the questions don't blame me because you don't like the answers. Now try to stay on topic. We're not talking about the holocaust or slavery. We are discussing the Ten Commandments. I know how you like to change the context of conversions away from areas you know little about like you are attempting to do here.

Oh, and for the record (see the quote I highlighted), since you seem to be ignorant of the fact, the Ten Commandments were given to man 1500 years before Christianity. I know that your grasp of the Bible and History is tenuous at best but you should be aware that Christians were not around when God delivered the Commandments to the Hebrews. :rolleyes:

Now if Wilbur was on his game he would be trying to tell you that the Ten commandments were based on The Code of Hammurabi and not on our God of the Hebrews. but he actually knows so little!

wilbur
02-23-2010, 10:30 PM
You guys raised the questions don't blame me because you don't like the answers.


What answers? You've done little more than pose truly bizarre, silly questions, (with obvious answers) such as asking why man would create laws if he could not live up to them 100% of the time.

wilbur
02-23-2010, 10:31 PM
You missed the point again but that doesn't surprise me. You should stick with Global Warming conversations... laws and morals obviously put you out of your element.

Have you figured out yet, that this sort of response isnt actually an argument?

Rockntractor
02-23-2010, 10:35 PM
Have you figured out yet, that this sort of response isnt actually an argument?

Wilbur he is talking to a block of cheese, what do you expect?

FlaGator
02-24-2010, 08:35 AM
What answers? You've done little more than pose truly bizarre, silly questions, (with obvious answers) such as asking why man would create laws if he could not live up to them 100% of the time.

And this is a small example of what I pointed out earlier. You attempt to define whether the answers are appropriate or not and disregard those for which you have no answer. It is not my issue that you fail to understand the obvious.

I pointed out that man would have no cause to create a coveting commandment because he could not monitor its compliance and most importantly enforce it. The best you can do is to say that nothing prohibits man from creating stupid laws which really does nothing to address the issue of why the law was created in the first place (which I've already answered in a previous post).

OT: If you are going to argue Biblical things then try to obtain a more complete understanding of scripture and Biblical history. Watching the history channel just doesn't cut it. One of the reasons I quit responding to the specifics on the AGW stuff is because I realized that my understanding of the science involved was rudimentary and I could not properly defend my case. I also wasn't interested in spending the time necessary to learn what I needed to know. I would suggest that perhaps you should take the same track with those things you do not grasp. Pretending that you understand do fools no one.

FlaGator
02-24-2010, 08:37 AM
Have you figured out yet, that this sort of response isnt actually an argument?

You are correct. It is a way of saying 'you obviously don't get it'.

wilbur
02-24-2010, 09:10 AM
I pointed out that man would have no cause to create a coveting commandment because he could not monitor its compliance and most importantly enforce it.

By this rationale, you must think hate crime legislation is divinely inspired.



The best you can do is to say that nothing prohibits man from creating stupid laws which really does nothing to address the issue of why the law was created in the first place (which I've already answered in a previous post).


I really don't have to say more than that. Man has and continues to create poor laws, at a breakneck pace. This is a pattern that has existed throughout all of recorded history. Your theory, on the other hand, wants to suggest that here lies a special exception, that in a world of countless other similarly silly and unenforceable laws, one particularly unremarkable instance of one, must have come from a divine source.

In other words, you are making the exceptional claim, and have the heavier burden of proof.

As to why the law was created, we can only hypothesize - but there is absolutely nothing outrageous or implausible about suggesting that it simply resulted from some persons belief (justified or not), that their village/town/city would be better with such a law, than without - and thinking of this as a perfectly reasonable or even likely explanation. Or hell, it could have been the first ever law to combat stalking.

Divine inspiration on the other hand... well sorry, you haven't made the case at all. That explanation certainly does not get preference over a completely reasonable mundane possibility.



OT: If you are going to argue Biblical things then try to obtain a more complete understanding of scripture and Biblical history. Watching the history channel just doesn't cut it. One of the reasons I quit responding to the specifics on the AGW stuff is because I realized that my understanding of the science involved was rudimentary and I could not properly defend my case. I also wasn't interested in spending the time necessary to learn what I needed to know. I would suggest that perhaps you should take the same track with those things you do not grasp. Pretending that you understand do fools no one.

I'm sorry, but your presumption that I was unaware that the ten commandments were BC, was not accurate in the least. And I don't get the history channel.

The Night Owl
02-24-2010, 07:19 PM
Why would man create a law that he is incapable of keeping. We have laws against stealing and I would be willing to bet that just about everyone has stolen something.

No offense but you're not even trying. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Applying your logic to determining the origin of speed limits we could conclude that speed limits can't possibly have been set by humans because not all humans obey them. Such a conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.

Rockntractor
02-24-2010, 08:36 PM
No offense but you're not even trying. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Applying your logic to determining the origin of speed limits we could conclude that speed limits can't possibly have been set by humans because not all humans obey them. Such a conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't understand why F. Gator even wastes his time on you two idiots, and on his birthday too!:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-24-2010, 10:27 PM
Christopher Hitchens on the Ten Commandments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSlCGnBfdwI

FlaGator
02-25-2010, 08:16 AM
Question for TNO and wilbur, why is it that you are so opposed to the idea that much of western laws are derived from the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic? What about that concept repells you so much? This is not a argument on the nature of the decalogue or if it was from devine origin. It seems that we are dealing with the fact that it exists and how much influence it has over the laws of western society? Is it the fact that it is a document that is attached to a religious belief that bothers you. If it was a secular document minus the commandments on man's relationship with God would you still have issues with it being cited as an influence on modern law?

AmPat
02-25-2010, 08:33 AM
I don't understand why F. Gator even wastes his time on you two idiots, and on his birthday too!:rolleyes:

Hell needs fuel too.:cool:

FlaGator
02-25-2010, 08:37 AM
By this rationale, you must think hate crime legislation is divinely inspired.



I really don't have to say more than that. Man has and continues to create poor laws, at a breakneck pace. This is a pattern that has existed throughout all of recorded history. Your theory, on the other hand, wants to suggest that here lies a special exception, that in a world of countless other similarly silly and unenforceable laws, one particularly unremarkable instance of one, must have come from a divine source.

In other words, you are making the exceptional claim, and have the heavier burden of proof.

As to why the law was created, we can only hypothesize - but there is absolutely nothing outrageous or implausible about suggesting that it simply resulted from some persons belief (justified or not), that their village/town/city would be better with such a law, than without - and thinking of this as a perfectly reasonable or even likely explanation. Or hell, it could have been the first ever law to combat stalking.

Divine inspiration on the other hand... well sorry, you haven't made the case at all. That explanation certainly does not get preference over a completely reasonable mundane possibility.



I'm sorry, but your presumption that I was unaware that the ten commandments were BC, was not accurate in the least. And I don't get the history channel.

Hate crimes can be monitored because they are based on actions and not thoughts so I am not sure how you equated these two things. The decalogue is a list of ethics that have been used as the basis of laws. If I understand correctly, ethics are "ought to bes" They are the ideal to which we should strive to live up to. Some of these ethics lend themselves to becoming laws and it is my argument that these ethics have been used as the basis for western law so that would make the decalogue relevant for today's society.

I am not sure how we got off on the divine inseparation of the Ten Commandments since their origination is irrelevant to this discussion. If I did that then I apologize for going off topic (but reviewing the discussion we all have a hand in that). Can we agree that for the sake of this discussion where they come is not the issue, only their relevance in today's world?

The Night Owl
02-25-2010, 09:46 AM
Question for TNO and wilbur, why is it that you are so opposed to the idea that much of western laws are derived from the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic? What about that concept repells you so much? This is not a argument on the nature of the decalogue or if it was from devine origin. It seems that we are dealing with the fact that it exists and how much influence it has over the laws of western society? Is it the fact that it is a document that is attached to a religious belief that bothers you. If it was a secular document minus the commandments on man's relationship with God would you still have issues with it being cited as an influence on modern law?

Considering that only 2 or at the most only 3 of the Ten Commandments bear any resemblance to our laws, I see no reason to assume that our laws are derived from them. Moreover, in order for me to believe that our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments, I would have to believe that the Founding Fathers would have been okay with murder, stealing, and libel if not for the Bible. I just don't believe that and I doubt you do either.

FlaGator
02-25-2010, 10:23 AM
Considering that only 2 or at the most only 3 of the Ten Commandments bear any resemblance to our laws, I see no reason to assume that our laws are derived from them. Moreover, in order for me to believe that our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments, I would have to believe that the Founding Fathers would have been okay with murder, stealing, and libel if not for the Bible. I just don't believe that and I doubt you do either.

That you see this as merely a question of U.S. Laws and how they were derived may be causing the disconnect. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were ok with murder or stealing, but those ethics were engrained in them due to their up bringing in a largely Christian environment. If even if they later rejected the source of the laws that does not change from wince they came.

I see it as a migration process where Christianity received their laws from their Jewish foundations and the basic commandments were then adopted by the Roman empire when it became a Christian nation. The Romans seeded Europe with their laws and those laws were adopted by the European kingdoms when they became autonomous at the fall of the Western Rome empire. When Europeans migrated to the New World they brought with them the basic concepts and laws that had been the norm in Europe. The basis of this migration of Ethics is linked to the spread of Christianity and Christianity derived its ethics from both the teachings of Jesus who expounded upon Jewish law and Jewish law itself. Whether we agree or disagree that the laws are of divine origin does not change or alter the flow of ethics from then to now.