jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (570 posts)

The 10 commandments

  1. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    Are the 10 commandment applicable today? Are they applicable to non-Jews? Are they applicable to women? I ask because the bible says Jesus said one needs to follow them to get into heaven, but when I read them a few things stand out that makes me think they are not applicable to non-Jews or women.

    Example:
    For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Not millions or billions but thousands

    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Clearly this is directed directly towards men, It doesn't say to not covet your neighbour or your neighbours husband.

    What do you guys think?

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is a very good discussion topic if addressed as such. Also a bit of a loaded question though not in a bad way. Let me formulate a thought on it and will answer probably when I get off work and can refer to my materials

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am not trying to make a point with this at all, it's more of an ethical question rather than a religious question.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I know that. But sometimes (more often than not) when a biblical passage is mentioned it can sometimes change the real nature of the question based on perception.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe:
      * Adultery is adultery: end of story.  Women did not have the status they have today. The omission of women is just an indication of the customs or ways of that time.
      * A thousand:  This amount was a lot in those days.
      * Jealous:  I want your love, so don't give it away to idols etc.
      * Iniquity:  The consequence of grossly unfair and immoral behavior on the part of parents (of either sex) will affect future generations. It is an aspect of child psychology in that children learn what they live.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Covet means to want.

        So do you think they just got the language wrong? It would have been very easy to direct the language to all people, do you think it was simply an error.

        Do you think it's appropriate to punish generation of someone for not liking them. There must be someone who doesn't like Kathryn, they are some who don't like me, is it appropriate visit their families with iniquity (grossly unfair behavior)? I'm asking what you think not what the bible says.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          *Covet:  Desiring that which someone else possesses and could lead to all sorts of negative consequence. Men and women did not have equality at that time. ( I guess the women were fine with that... ) so, nowadays covet and all other laws should be applied equally. (It seems to me that God plays it by ear.) The laws were to guarantee a happy life. We follow the instructions to build an unassembled piece, otherwise it won't come out right... but instead a jumbled mess. I see the laws as a practical matter...so, things will go right for us while here on earth.

          *The language: The Bible was originally in other languages and passed down through verbal tradition. Maybe it was hard to decipher or translate. However, the gist of the message is still there. The laws are practical and helpful toward peace in one's daily life.  They will bring mankind to Heaven which to me is peace of mind and love for reality.

          Visiting the inequity: It is a matter of  c o n s e q u e n c e,  not punishment.  To illustrate: if my son hated me, he would pass it on to his children and they would pass it on to their children. And none of them would benefit from knowing me, which would be unfortunate for them and and for me.
          (PS Luckily my son loves me and his wife is pregnant. If my son did not love me and I were to be cut off from my grandchild, I would be really sad....which is an understatement.)
          TWISI

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Congratulations!!!!!!!

            If your son didn't like you it would be no loss to him or his family to not know you and they already don't like you. The only person punished would be you. And you would be punished for something you did or said to your son.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sometimes people hate each other for bad reasons.

              But in my experience these preferences do not cross many generational lines.  I would never say I "hated" a person I had never met.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Her scenario doesn't make sense to me because if the son hates his mom and didn't allow the mom access to his children he would be the one punishing her and not her punishing the grandkids. Where in the case of God he appears to be saying he will purposely punishing generations for anyone not liking him.

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank You, Rad Man.  smile

              *Punishment:  A deliberate action intended to hurt someone in effort to force that person to never do it again.

              Anything I said, as a mother was just an error on the side of ignorance, stupidity, anger, or unwanted wise counsel.

              Does God ever act like a human?
              (Sounds like a good Forum discussion...)

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well, why would someone hate him. I personally don't hate him as I don't think he exists.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm trying to illustrate the difference between punishment and consequences. If there is a God he does not punish. If there is a God, he allows us to learn by
                  1. The school of hard knocks, i.e. consequences.
                  2. Instructions (through those who wrote in the Bible) regarding how to avoid consequences by being proactive.

                  For instance, my brother disliked/ misunderstood (I agree, hate is too strong of a word) my mother and blamed her for his unhappiness. He passed that attitude on to his wife who passed it on to their kids. They have nothing to do with my mother. The point is, she would have, could have been a great joy in their lives; because she was not as bad as my brother thought. My mother did not punish. My brother did not punish. But the consequences were that his kids did not have the benefit of my mother's love and wisdom in their lives. (As my kids, thankfully, did.)
                  PS My mother still wonders why they don't call or visit.
                  TWISI

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But he does punish, the words are very clear. He says he is jealous and will punish generation for one person who doesn't like him. Never mind what you think God is, look at the words in front of you.

                    "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me,"

    3. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You show how the point of Jesus' message is easily missed. What was the purpose for the commandments? If you understand why the law had to be written, if you understand what the law hoped to accomplish, you'd understand why it applies for then and always. But, you get bogged down in the letter of the law.

      They say when he was very young he impressed the rabbis with his understanding. I doubt this meant he was adept at theology. He probably understood why. What the law meant to accomplish. We can all roll a collective eye at the harshness of the laws written, but the intent was to do no harm.  Don't covet things that don't belong to you. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Be kind to your parents. Take a day off once a week to rest and be thankful for what you have. Don't let manmade things become so precious that the love of them stops you from remembering to follow the simple rules that make you a good neighbor to others.

      Sometimes, in our mad rush to tear down we neglect to see the good we hope to leave by the wayside.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think I get what you are saying. It's not the letter of the law, we should ignore how badly it's written and get what we need to from it. That's all good, but one needs to understand who wrote those laws and who they were written for. This is where it all started and if that is tainted the whole is tainted.

        "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God"

        Do you think the God we think of in the bible would say that? It implies he is imperfect and it implies there are more than one God.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, yes and no. There being more than one god has nothing to do with divinity on some cases. Sometimes a god is also seen as something you worship above everything else.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So there could be many Gods. If that's the case why chose this when when we don't know if it's the best one.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are several reasons. You will not get the same answer from all believers. its like a thumbprint. There may be similarities but no two are exactly the same

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I get that everyone has a different version of what God is. That makes perfect sense to me, but are they open to the idea that there may be many Gods and they picked the Jealous vindictive one. Notice that a few people have already told me that I don't understand him and that this is my problem? "Who am I to judge a God, I'm only a person." They are not looking at the words. They have their own version of what God is and nothing will shake it even the words that think God gave us himself.

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There are a number of different directions this can go in. Give me a few minutes to decide which rabbit hole I wanna jump into

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That would contradict the need for any god or any set of scriptures or any wrath a god would have on its followers for not actually adhering to scriptures. If everyone had their own version of a god, like a thumbprint, then there are obviously no such thing as gods.

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think I get what you are saying. The thing I slightly disagree with is that as depending on ,as you put it, what God an individual believer created for themselves there is also a mindset created to go along with that creation that can lend itself to a need within that individual. For example, someone that has a fearful image of God need that fear to keep them from doing wrong. For those who take on the image of loving, they need that God in order to feel unconditional love from in a world where love needs conditions.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What I find is that people don't always get the version of God they need to make them better people, they get the version of God they want. For example one might get a version of God that doesn't mind them having multiple children from multiple men without ever being married. Ethically there is nothing wrong with that (except that the children may not understand what it means to be a man), but I think it's pretty clear what the bible thinks of that and somehow their version of God is Good with it.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So, what is wrong with reason and rationale? Having those images only serves to not allow the person to use reason and rationale to keep them from doing wrong or feel unconditional love.

                    Of course, God's love is under a set of highly restrictive conditions, hence that doesn't work, not to mention the atrocities caused by God that would negate any fear of doing wrong. You got it all backwards, my friend.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, let's think about it. We sit around pondering whether or not God exists. People of that time didn't stop to think: they believed every nation had a God. If I were a one God attempting to help a people come out of savagery into a civilized society I might make the same statement.

          Either way, built on a false premise or not; the intent of the whole is too valuable to throw out even if there is no God.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            True, I loved the Harry Potter series. But we need to understand that it's fiction if it's fiction.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just finished watching 'Life of Pi' again. It's appropriate to this conversation. You can certainly believe it to be fiction. It doesn't make it fiction for those who believe it to be true.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I loved that movie. He fooled himself to believe a separate reality just to survive. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Sometimes reality sucks so we invent a separate reality to cope, but it doesn't make it reality.

                You can certainly believe it to be reality. It doesn't make it reality for those who don't believe it to be true.

                Great great movie.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The book delves even deeper, actually, stating that taking a real event and making it into a work of fiction can bring out more truth and more meaning than simply recounting the truth often can.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, that is what you believe. Fine. Would you sit in his living room and attempt to dog him into believing the version that makes you most comfortable? The one you find more believable? The one that makes you most comfortable?

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought the same thing.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope, he needs to survive. But reality is reality. We have a big percentage of people not able to deal with reality.

                  3. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you speaking to Rad Man or some Christian evangelist your reality tells you has taken his place? smile

      2. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What was the purpose for the commandments?
        God knew when he gave Moses the ten commandments that no one could keep them. They weren't given so some perfect people could keep them and earn their way to heaven. They were given as an eternal statement and reminder to humanity that because we are sinners no one could ever keep all of these commandments and because of that humanity needed a savior to pay the price of our sins so we can spend eternity in heaven with God. Just as God had the Jews perform the ritual sacrifice of the unblemished lamb as a  foreshadowing of the coming messiah (lamb) who had to be slain to save the world God gave the ten commandments as a template and constant reminder to convict the lost and believers of their sin nature and therefore their need of a savior. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" save Jesus who btw is the only human to ever have kept all ten commandments.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So the Jews of Moses' day, sinners all and without Christ to save them, were given a set of rules that guaranteed they would end up in Hell.

          It's a different concept, I must say...

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            well maybe you shouldn't be commenting about things you know nothing about - this is a basic elementary fact of theology and plain reasoning confirms that if all humanity from the beginning is fallen and in sin so in need of a savior to pay the price of their sin (another basic tenant of the faith) then how could someone make their way to heaven by following 10 commandments...there is no other explanation for them and read them - no one on earth could ever keep them all - break one you've broken them all in God's eyes. I suppose you believe you could keep them all if you wanted to? Just as the sin of one man, Adam condemned humanity to be sinful so does the price being paid by one perfect man Jesus provide salvation for all humanity who repents from his sin and accepts God's sacrifice of his only (perfect) son. Those of Mose's day who repented from their sins and accepted God were saved by Jesus's sacrifice in the future because he was "slain from the foundation of the earth". The Bible itself says these things are not understandable unless you believe in the God of the Bible -and I'm certain you do not or you wouldn't be making such comments as you do.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I took my understanding from your words.  Did you lie?  No?  Then I understood fine.  All Jews were condemned to burn forever because they all sinned, a result of overly complex laws designed to produce that very result.  Laws given by the loving god sentencing them to eternal fire for being His creation, humans.

              Except that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the earth" - those words, strung together in that order, are without meaning.  Are you trying to sound mystical or something?  Better to stay in the real world, I think...

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Does that really make sense to you? The God you believe in knows the laws he has given us are impossible for us to hold and therefore needs to sacrifice a human like a lamb in order for all of us to get into heaven? Why would someone else's brutal death relieve sin? Did you ever think that there is a reason why the bible says it's impossible to understand? Do you claim to understand but really don't understand and that's why you can't explain it?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                NT - Jesus came to reveal God's love for his creations who were misusing free will…. actually abusing it: As in, not guiding their free wills to their best advantage and benefit... at all!!! Mankind was going wrong in the days when He sent Jesus.
                 
                OT - History: He had to wipe out mankind in the flood for some good reason…. genetic problems, detrimental habits, evil customs: All not conducive for human joy. Mankind had gone so wrong that he had to flood out the bad and keep the very few good. But, he said he would never send a flood again.

                So, the next time he wanted to get humans back on track, God sent Someone willing to show erring mankind how much He loved them with a reminder to please follow the commandments, but with a new understanding: Love yourself, your neighbor, and most importantly, love God, (Omnipresent Spirit) the source of all reality.
                TWISI

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So.  God makes man with free will.  He designs and constructs the innermost workings of the creature called "man".  He knows exactly how man will behave, what man will do and what man will think, and constructs them to His master plan.

                  Then He says "No, you can't use the free will I gave you unless you want to burn forever" and assigns penalties beyond belief for being His creation called man instead of a perfect god.

                  Not good enough, He then murders 99.99999% of the species, along with a similar percentage of all other plants and animals, including every last one of most species.  Because man is man, not god, and was constructed to be imperfect.

                  Still not good enough, He tortures and murders His son in a murder most foul again because He made His creations to be man, not gods.  And, He says, because He loves the creatures he screwed up so badly when He made them.

                  Interesting concept...

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Jesus was willing to do God's will. He loved God that much. He had been Elisha in his last life. Check out his devotional nature in that lifetime. We were meant to be gods, but we forgot and lost touch with our spiritual realities. Sin means to be ignorant of… in our cases our true natures.  He sent Jesus to get us back in touch with our true natures which is love, devotion to our Spirit Creator, and to help us get back to Him. Hint: Yoga means Union. We are from God. We go back to God. Spirit cannot be destroyed. (It stands to reason, that after he flooded out mankind, they probably did a lot of whining and complaining on the astral plane.)

                    BTW Where do you get that master plan stuff? We have freedom (to guide our own wills according to our interests and talents and motivations) within boundaries. When the boundaries are broken, things start to go wrong. Following the ten commandments gives us perimeters. Within them
                    WE HAVE FREE WILL!
                    TWISI
                    I'm starting to see that THE disagreement between atheists and theists IS the result of ONE opposing viewpoint: God hates vs God loves.

                                                                       Which is it?

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Misusing Free Will? It's not free if he has to tell us what to do with it.

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Dude, don't you get it?

                    Free Will means being free to be enslaved to my will!

  2. peeples profile image89
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    The Christian bible is open for interpretation so long as you are Christian. If they choose to say well of course that means women too, then that's what they will believe. If the bible was not interpreted to fit the needs and wants of the people following it, they wouldn't follow it.
    Literal interpretation of that exact passage implies it is perfectly fine for me to sleep with my neighbors husband. However I am sure that same commandment is worded differently in some bibles.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Therefor that particular commandment doesn't apply to you?

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you know it is a sin for your neighbors husband to lie with you, you should not let him do it.

        So women could be seen to be covered in that sense.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Covet means to yearn for or crave. So the husband wanting his neighbours wife or goat or something is a sin. The wife doesn't know or can't control what in her husbands mind so she is not covered. She can want as much as she wants without sin. This is clearly directed only to men.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "If you know it is a sin for your neighbors husband to lie with you, you should not let him do it." is clearly referring to the wife he sleeps with (not the one he is cheating on).  I suspect she would know that was happening. If not, the dude has some problems beyond the 10 commandments

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's not talking about sleeping with anyone, it's talking about wanting to. How can she be responsible for what anyone thinks?

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I would have to say Rad, If how the bible describes this is true, then these people should not be guilty...
                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … CALLY.html

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, those to are guilty all right. The next door neighbour was guilty if he was coveting her. Guilty of having terrible taste. LOL

              2. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I always assumed the problem with coveting was a tendency to follow through.  But then I wasn't raised Catholic.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Can't even have a look. There's going to be no men in heaven. Maybe no women either.

              3. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                She is not responsible for what he thinks. He thinks what he thinks and thought police though out the centuries have tried and failed to force people to conform to what they "should think." She is, however, responsible for what she does.

                Yeah, the Commandments were 'addressed to men' but that doesn't exempt women from following them. It is more of a sign of the times, when men had all the power and it was rare (though not unheard of) for a woman to be head of household, which meant having the power over the money and the land as well as being the provider. Women still needed to not commit adultery.

                The Commandments were also meant as a way of showing the perfection of God, who did not covet stuff. This is why the sacrifices were instituted, because everybody, including God, recognized that even the 'best' people were going to think impure thoughts. And why the ultimate Sacrifice was made, because those that came before were insufficient.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I like your honestly Chris, you are the first to admit that these laws were written for men only. A few things come to mind however… If these laws are applicable to us why didn't an all knowing all powerful God that sees the future and past not include all of us? I think it's clear evidence it was written by people pretending to be Gods. Let's not forget the word thousands was used, not millions or billions, these guys were thinking small and trying to get their group a sense of entitlement.

                  Why would you say your God is perfect and covets nothing? He first admits he's a jealous God and then admits he's vengeful when doesn't get his way. And guess what his way is Chris… He wants all of our love and attention. So he is coveting our love and attention and when he doesn't get it he will ask us to go against his own commandments and kill those who aren't giving him the attention. I'm not saying that your God isn't all loving I'm saying this one described here isn't and I'm saying it's evidence that this story is a fake.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    His statement said that the laws were "addressed to men" not "written for men" There is a difference between the two statements. We can be addressing a person or a group of people,  but then have the word spread to others. That one particular (in this case men) is addressed does not mean that it is meant solely for that one group.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It is certainly true that God says He is "jealous" and "vengeful" but if all you do is:

                    A) Look at those words all by themselves and,

                    B) Use only a certain definition,

                    then you're missing a lot of the bigger picture.

                    The fact is that "jealous" is often thought of (by those who are believers as well as those who aren't) in the most negative modern sense, where a person is given to hair-trigger fits of jealous rage. But although this is one sense of the word, a related but not identical meaning would be like the jealousy that a spouse has to try to keep their house in order (and here, the church being the Bride of Christ is appropriate.) If you saw some guy paying inordinate attention to your wife, even if she wasn't responding, I'm pretty sure you would feel some jealousy. I certainly would. It doesn't mean that you fly into a rage and beat (or threaten to beat) someone but you do feel the emotion.

                    As for the vengeful part, while it's true that in the OT many of the disasters that happen to Israel are indeed seen as a result of God's wrath, the majority of them are hardly instantaneous or even very quick responses. Israel is allowed to go its own way for hundreds of years before bad things happen, and even then they get lots of warning.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny how that word (perfection) gets bandied around a lot, yet no one has yet been able to explain what it means in terms of their religion or god.

  3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
    DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago

    Well here are the Ten Commandments...Found in Exodus 34:14-26....Read Verse 28 carefully...

    1.  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

    2.  Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

    3.  The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

    4.  All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

    5.  Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

    6.  And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

    7.  Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

    8.  Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

    9.  The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

    10.  Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

    So I would think most of these don't apply today...Jesus spoke of following the commandments...He didn't say the "TEN" commandments...He was talking about the commandments...and of which ones where the greatest of these...So if we look at the Commandments that the Jews follow...we have a pretty good Idea of wheich commandments jesus was speaking of...

    1. Writer Fox profile image78
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You've got the wrong list.  Here are the Ten Commandments:
      http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

      1. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        both are lists of ten commandments, no?  You found the more popular one, but who's to say that there is a right/wrong list?

        1. Writer Fox profile image78
          Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No. There is only one list of the Ten Commandments.  It is found in two places in the Bible.  Here is the other record:

          http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            so what list of commandments is it in Exodus 34?  The list of more ten commandments?  There are 613 commandments in the old testament.  Why choose ten?

            1. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is the same list. It was chosen by God. There are actually thousands of precepts of law in the Covenant, not just 613.  (There are more statutes in books of the prophets.) It is the way of life for people who love Him.

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                but it isn't the same list.  Nowhere on the "popular version" do I see anything about boiling a kid in its mothers milk.

                1. Writer Fox profile image78
                  Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The Ten Commandments are the same in the two references I gave you. These are just the first ten laws, and they are the foundation upon which the entire relationship between God and humans is based. The food laws are given in another portion. Until you observe the first four commandments in your daily life, you will have great difficulty comprehending the rest of the laws of the Covenant.

                2. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you will find different religions will cherry pick

                  Religion is mans invention not gods.

      2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        According to the Bible...The list I provided is the only Ten Commandmants...As Verse 28 states as such and is the only place in the bible that says the TEN Commandmants...

        1. Writer Fox profile image78
          Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, that's not what the passage says.  The word דְּבָרִים means words, sayings, utterances, or speaking. 

          The passage reads: "And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the Covenant, the ten words/sayings/utterances/speeches."

          There is no word in Hebrew which specifically means 'commandments.'   The closest word is מצוות, which means 'laws.'

          When it was translated into English, a mistake was made.  But the passage you cite refers back to the previous chapter (Exodus 20) where the first ten sayings were given. It is the list from the passages I gave you which was carved on the stone tablets and placed in the Ark of the Covenant, which is why those ten sayings have priority significance. 

          But don't be upset that you didn't know what the Ten Commandment are; most Christians cannot even recite them from memory so, in one sense, they don't 'know' them either.
          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8459819_f248.jpg

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            1. I am not Christian
            2. I hold a PHD in Biblical Studies...So trust me when I say.. the Commandments I refered to are the "Ten Commandmants" all other "Commandmants" are just part of the "Jewish Laws"...And I know my Hebrew as well..So you don't need to Copy and Paste the Hebrew for me...

            And to clarify... The actual word used is

            had-də-ḇā-rîm which does mean "Commandmants" (For the english speakers)

            1. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, you don't know Hebrew and you display not even a basic understanding of the Biblical text.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                LOL.. This could be fun...

                And your qualifications...??

                Lets talk...This should be fun...

            2. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you don't know Hebrew.  You don't even know what הַ means.  I wrote a Hub which teaches the Hebrew alphabet.  Why don't you start there? You can find הַ from the Table of Contents.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously...

                And of course...When one word is taken and not context of the word within the "paragraph" as a whole...the meaning stays exactly the same, when translating?

                The "Word" when used as a command, would translate to "Commandmant"

                1. Writer Fox profile image78
                  Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no word for 'commandment' in Hebrew.  It doesn't exist. I presume that your degree was not from an accredited university.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't say that Hebrew had a word for commandmant...I said that the usage translates to the English word Commandmant.

  4. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    There is a great difference between "not liking" and "hate". Apparently the Creator will not tolerate those he has formed in the womb, brought to life, provided for and sacrificed for, hating Him. I don't think you have a healthy understanding of the difference between God and man.

    As far as the issue of lust in the heart etc... God knows that what we are in our hearts is who we are. Would you want your child to stay at someones house if you knew they had a desire to molest children simply b/c they hadn't? God wants us to have clean hearts, not just "clean hands".

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those are your thoughts, and again you make it personal by telling me I lack understanding, I'm asking you for your understanding of these words.

      "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands"

      Are you okay with all of modern day religion being bast on that?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Since non-believers don't hate or dislike God because they don't believe in any gods, they are not in that category and therefore that does not apply to them. It is only the believer who believes in God that could hate or dislike Him, hence they are ones not tolerated by God.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So if you don't believe... you could do something else with your time. Write a hub, build a birdhouse... if God is not real, then none of this is any consequence to you.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, personal. Please discuss the topic and don't highjack another forum.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Once again, Beth focuses on attacking the person, despite the fact we are engaging the subject matter.

  5. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    lol... and they accuse me of hijacking. I love that there's nothing men wont fight over. Hebrew letters... who would have thought.

    1. Writer Fox profile image78
      Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This thread is about the Ten Commandments.  Did you not know that they were written in Hebrew?  Every other language is a translation and translations involve interpretation.  If you really want to know what God said and what was written on the stone tablets, read the text in Hebrew.

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know Hebrew. Ive done words studies using Vines, but that is the extent. Im sure it does make the Bible come to life in an amazing way.

        I just think it's interesting how we as humans tend to puff up when our knowledge is questioned... no matter the subject matter. Ill get out of the way though. smile

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Personal.

    3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agree with Fox on this...This would not be a hijacking as, he/she is correct in that the original language was Hebrew...

      So now we are discussing the meaning of certain words contained within the "Ten Commandmants"

  6. Peggasuse profile image89
    Peggasuseposted 3 years ago

    Respectfully, I have to say that I don't believe everything that is in the Bible, simply because those words were written, and re-written and re-written again by humans who wanted to make a point, and I believe the point was to have people believe what the writer believed.  I truly think that if those words were inspired by God, they would not have any negativity in them.

    God is put love.  God is not jealous.  God does not punish people.  People punish themselves.  I could never believe in a God that professed destruction or punishment.

    To answer your question though, I think that those words in the 10 commandments were set up to keep people in line.  And I think that it was done by people who were in the high levels of power like priests and politicians.   I don't that God had anything to do with making people fear Him.

    I do believe though, that there are basic principles in those commandments.  Cheating on your spouse is bad, weather you're a man or a woman.  Stealing and killing people is bad and going through life, making money your "god" is also bad.

    God, who is pure love, would never spew vengeance on the children of the people who disliked him.  What kind of a being would do that....take revenge on the innocent?  Sorry, but that's why I don't believe every word that's in the Bible.  Some of the things that are said there, paint God as someone who has the same faults and humans.  To me, that is not God. 

    God is pure, God perfect, and God is love.  There is NO negativity in God, such as the Bible describes...

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How do you know God is all love? Jesus didn't take any of the OT back and he told people to follow the commandments if they want to get into heaven.

      Do you think God is pure love because you want him to be?

      1. Peggasuse profile image89
        Peggasuseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you read the Bible carefully, you'll see where the apostles ask Jesus what the most important commandment.  His answer was, "Love each other as I have loved you."  To me, that proves that God is pure love.  Love is the most important thing that you can give.  I believe that is was God is.

        Also, I have read enough accounts of people who have had near-death experiences to know that to be true.  (I also have had a near-death experience, so I can talk with assurance.)  When you get to that other place, all you feel is how much love there is there.  Everyone loves everyone else, and that feeling (some call it the breath of God) permeates that place. 

        There is no hate, no fear, no vengeance, only love.  That's what I felt too, when I had the NDE.

        I don't want to argue with you.  You don't have to believe me.  But you will find out the truth, when you pass over, yourself.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You understand that a near death experience is just that right… near. But you do what you have to to get yourself through life. I don't need to pretend, I'm good with reality. It's not that I don't believe you and others had experiences, I just don't believe we can trust the experience and memories of an oxogen starved brain.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but NDE's result in brain trauma, which makes the brain fire neurons randomly, which creates all kinds of hallucinations. You didn't actually see anything other than images in your brain.

        3. Writer Fox profile image78
          Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You did not quote the Christian testament accurately.  According to the CT, Jesus replied with the first of the Ten Commandments, in keeping with his roots:

          “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’  This is the great foremost commandment." (Matthew 22: 36 – 40)

          Jesus was quoting Hillel, the great teacher who died in Jerusalem in 10 CE.  The Ten Commandments, as I noted above, are divided into two parts: the first four are the bedrock requirements for a relationship with God and the next six refer to treatment of one's fellow man.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            “The Bible was not given to increase our knowledge. It was given to change lives.” –DL Moody

            1. Writer Fox profile image78
              Writer Foxposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the LORD my God made, that you should observe in the midst of the land whither you go in to possess it. Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there, that has God so near unto them, as the LORD our God is when we call upon Him?" – Moses

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Awesome! smile

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let's see here.  Moses says that having a whole bunch of laws will show other nations that they are wise and that a god is near to them. 

                The US must have at least a dozen laws for every man, woman and child in the country, ranging from "do not kill" to "do not fish from the back of a camel".  Even a lowly HOA has more laws that Moses did - we must have a hundred gods just off stage!  Maybe a thousand! Plus be the wisest people on earth!

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

                And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

                And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

                Is this "Awesome" too, Beth?

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Was the incident great or is the word of God great?
                  I don't like holocaust stories at all. I can hardly tolerate them because they are stories of human suffering, but they are also stories of humans over coming great odds and survival...

                  So which would I rather hear, stories about Pearl Harbor, 911, and the holocaust or stories of inventors, scientists and humanitarians? The latter is obviously more palatable, but it is all history and therefore valuable for many reasons.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You must have forgot to address the fact that this genocide was directed (according to the bible) by your God?

                    Is it great for a God to direct genocide? Notice that God didn't do the killing by himself, he just ordered it. He asks us not to kill and then tells us to kill innocent people. Great words?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You realize you just contradicted yourself. You can't actually know anything about God without the Bible. lol

  7. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    The only relevant part of the Ten Commandments are the final few ("Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," etc.). And really, do we really need a plaque to remind us that killing people may not really be such a great idea?

    On second thought, maybe we do, because God and his followers certainly had no qualms whatsoever with infanticide and genocide...

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thou shalt not kill, unless otherwise directed by me.

      Sounds like a government. Murder would get us imprisoned for life, unless directed by the government.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Self defense killing is a different scenario than murder, as any lawyer will tell you.

        1. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry,  but invading an already inhabited area and then killing men,  women,  children and even ripping open the wombs of pregnant women and dashing the babies against the rocks and then slaughtering the cattle can in no way be called self defense.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Killing is killing. What happened to turn the other cheek? It's okay to invade another country to over through it's government killing innocent people along the way if it's sanctioned by the government, but try to do that same thing at home and where does it get you? Protecting yourself and family is one thing, and the laws a strict about how and what you can do to protect yourself. But invading an oil rich country to lower gas prices killing people along the way is something different.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, and what about governments that promote murdering and unjustified killing of the innocent through abortions!
            Right guys?

  8. 60
    sarahluvesyaposted 3 years ago

    Using a man is correct grammar! when you're using a person in a noun you are supposed to use him, his, he or man! instead of saying it....Plus do you think its ok for women and nonjews to kill? And btw that grammar rule has been updated, I think youre allowed to use "it " now but u used to not be able to! And God shows mercy to a few people, not everyone so maybe thats all that He was showing mercy to at the time! And it used to be that God only gave the jews the chance to be saved- with the exception of a few ppl- but after Jesus died on the cross God wanted the gentiles to hear the gospel also, because His people the jews rejected Him!

  9. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    I understand that that is your reasoning.

  10. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Whether there is a God or not, I do believe that , everything is going to work out for the best                (for humanity)  whether "I"  like it or not.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    @ Jerami: ...as long as we guide our wills according to the boundaries provided by The Ten Commandments.
         (Maybe Jesus will return when all of mankind is in support of Him. He doesn't want to get crucified a second time.)

          Furthermore, as I stated up there somewhere, The Ten Commandments give a lot of leeway. Being on earth is an amazing opportunity with so many joyful endeavors to pursue.  Promoting *Joy of Life* is the reason for The Ten Commandments. Most people know this. The few that don't, keep keyboarding here.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Calmness is a special power and probably the most useful of all special powers.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    God is not whimsical. God is not definable. I do think we are getting somewhere. I am finally feeling some amount of peace.

  14. Jonathan Janco profile image80
    Jonathan Jancoposted 3 years ago

    I think a lot of things written in OT are indicative of the primitive ignorance of that particular culture at the time. For instance, coveting your neighbor's wife is bad. However, raping your neighbor's maiden daughter was perfectly okay so long as you married her right afterwards. A man could marry as many women as he could afford. Women were barely a step up from cattle in that society. A woman was basically owned by her father until she was more or less sold to her husband. I find it difficult to believe that the characters in the OT were truly communicating with an all-knowing, endlessly forgiving being. Take Jacob, for example: a spoiled brat who basically blackmails his brother out of his inheritance, marries four women, hates his wife Leah despite her bearing him six sons and loves her sister Rachel, his second wife, simply because she is physically beautiful. He even uses Leah as a human shield when he feels threatened. This is the man 'God' found the most worthy to seed his chosen people? Really?
    So, yes, I find the OT to be extremely dated and am troubled by any person who interprets the work literally, let alone regards it as holy.

    1. 0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's odd to me how ppl will constantly twist the meaning of the Bible in order to cast aspersions on it. "raping your neighbor's maiden daughter was perfectly okay so long as you married her right afterwards."

      It was not ok. No one said it was ok. This was a book of law. We have books of law we live by as well. Here's a modern day law for you. "In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile."

      In that time, women had very little value to men. This was a daily prayer of a Jewish man during those times:
      "Praise be to God. He has not created me a Gentile.
      Praise be to God. He has not created me a woman.
      Praise be to God. He has not created me an ignorant man."

      If a man stole a woman's virginity, she was left with nothing... she would never be able to get married, and if she did, she would be publicly humiliated when it was revealed she was no longer a virgin. The law you mention tells a man that if he steals her value, he will then be responsible for her for the rest of his days. No where does it ever say it's ok to rape her.

      We know how man has esteemed women through the years. Let's look at how God esteems woman.
      Take the woman at the well. She was Samaritan. Jews did not associate with Samaritans... but the King of the Jews did. Men did not talk to women in public, but Jesus did. Upstanding citizens did not speak to women of ill repute, but Jesus made it personal... he told her how to be saved.

      He told countless parables where women were the heroes... the widows mite, the woman with the lost coin, the woman with the empty jars and the olive oil.

      God loves people... not Jew or Gentile, not rich or poor, not strong or weak, not male or female... people.

      "God does not show favoritism." Rm 5:11

      1. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You've missed the point. Why do you always make excuses for the laws in the OT?

        Ask yourself a few simple questions and answer them honestly. Here I'll help you.

        Do we have better laws to help protect rape victims and punish and prevent rape today? YES.

        If God is perfect why didn't he give us todays laws?

        Because a perfect God didn't write those laws. Men with little respect for women did.

        A perfect God would have made it law to give women respect. Don't you see how deeply flawed that law was. Man likes girl but can't get her because her Dad and her don't like the man, man rapes girl to get girl. Man gets girl. Girl has no recourse because of the law.

        Would a perfect God make an imperfect law?
        Would slave owners with no respect for women make that law?

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this
          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good then, we are on the same page. No more making excuses for the laws given to us by the bible.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Alright, but I get the feeling we're not on the same page. lol

        2. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If by 'perfect' you mean 'perfect according to what I think a perfect God should be' then you've actually missed the important questions entirely.

          You should ask why God didn't just make us enlightened 21st Century people in the first place, instead of allowing people to find their own way in anything.

          And by the 23rd Century, if we get that far, people will be wondering why people in 2013 were such unenlightened idiots and what was wrong with them.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nice deflection, Beth. Notice how you immediately denied a fact by changing the subject.



        Yes, it is implied that it is perfectly ok, because there are no consequences for the crime of rape. And, of course, what woman would ever want to be taken care of for the rest of her life by her rapist? Since you changed the subject above to modern laws, why have not mentioned the laws of rape that are in place today?



        Again, you deflect from the issue, what does that have to do with women being raped?

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this
          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What is with the blue?

            The reference should have been obvious, Beth. You denied the fact of what Jonathan Janco was talking about from the Bible, then you deflected by bringing up modern law.

            Yes, you are defending the laws back then, you are not explaining anything because you keep deflecting from what is being said.

            Yes, the issue was about women being raped, you yourself attempted to address that issue, but failed miserably.

            Seriously Beth, your comprehension skills are abysmal.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Seriously Beth, your comprehension skills are abysmal."

              I get you.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But, you don't seem to get what others are talking about.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you say so. smile

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I said no such thing. I am saying a just God could not have been involved in the making of the OT. And you finally agreed.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Did I say that God was not involved in the making of the OT? Or did I say that the men of law, during those times as now, made the laws? There are specifics that God gave... the 10 commandments etc. But Moses was credited by many for writing the laws, however many dispute that and say they were written by others. Either way, my point was, men of that time devalued women, God does not, He esteems them.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Then he should have and would made that apparent to the men he was instructing to give the laws. Instead we have a bunch of slave owners making laws to protect themselves. No just God is apparent in the OT.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you say so Radman. smile

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Good, you agree then.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No argument from Beth, queen of the forums. lol

      4. 0
        MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        To be fair, most everyone twists the meanings in the Bible, Christians included. Some people do it to shed it only in a positive light, others in black and white, others in a negative light. Everyone does it.

        1. 0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are right... many ppl interpret the meaning of the Bible. Of course when it comes to truth, in any and every situation, there is only one. The goal is to spend your life seeking what the truth is... at least that's what I believe the goal is.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No Beth, we are simply reading the Bible, the actual words printed there. The goal is to understand whether or not the words written there have anything to do with gods or are they just words written by ignorant men who were simply providing a snapshot of how people behaved back then.

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If you say so ATM.

  15. Chris Neal profile image84
    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago

    Although this doesn't track completely, it does have some parallels with my own experience.


    And yes, I was very liberal before my conversion.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 … paging=off

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would give you both the same credibility when it comes to talking about being atheist/agnostic, which is none at all.

  16. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    I will leave you two to await the next Christian to cross your bridge, I have a few things to do.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sure don't answer the question.

  17. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    Chris, how and why would you believe something you admit you don't understand? There is good reason what you describe makes very little sense. I will agree that free will is a necessary illusion, but not because of any God. I do understand why it's comforting to think we are all part of a Gods plan, but it's also comforting to know that the malishous God of the bible isn't real.

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I believe it because it's true. It's pretty much that simple. I think about this often.


      I know millenials (and if you don't know what that is, it's the term for the post-Gen Y'ers who were born around the turn of the century) tend to want options, and the dirty little secret is that previous generations did too. I know I did. JM has talked about being able to recreate feelings while listening to music that she got in the church. I never have. And I've certainly tried.

      That may seem rambling but it is related.

      God is, by definition, something we can't truly understand. A being who can literally know everything, let alone be everywhere or do anything, is beyond our comprehension and most people (and I've been guilty of this) either then reduce God to some kind of outsized human being or deciding He must be a creation of human minds (both basically anthropomorphize God.) I can't wrap my mind around who God is, but I do know He exists. There is too much for me to ignore.

      And no, God is not malicious.

      And unbelief was comforting before all the stuff started happening. But like I said, too much has happened. And if you don't think I've had good cause (in human terms) to question my faith in recent years, well...

      1. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You believe it because it's true?  How do you determine truth?  You can't simply say that something is true with absolute certainty while being unable to demonstrate that it is.  For every Christian that asserts with absolute certainty that the bible is true and their belief in god is true, I can find a Muslim who feels the same way.  Or a Hindu.  Or a Native American.  there's nothing unique about that position for Christianity - and until anyone is able to actually prove what they're saying is really true, I really think that we don't have any reason to believe it.

        Personal experiences happen to people under the banner of almost any religion.  Someone living in the Middle East that had similar experiences to what you had would also attribute them to god, but that god would probably be Allah.  Someone living in India would probably attribute it to Krishna.  Until one of you can at least attempt to demonstrate how you came to the conclusion that a specific god gave you that experience other than just asserting it to be a fact, how do we sort all of the personal experiences out?  Should we just accept all of them - and accept all of the assertions as to where they came from?

        You believe that it is true because you WANT it to be true.  That's really the bottom line here.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Have you actually read what I've been writing? If you have, then the only way you can say that, and please forgive me because I'm not just trying to be argumentative, is because you WANT me to want it to be true.



          You think I don't think about this? In one sense the 'easy' answer is that they are supernatural events (which does not in the least go against what I believe). They're just not actually from God. I wish I knew more about the mystical experiences of Muslims or Hindus. I don't feel qualified to judge them and I have spent way too much time facing snap judgement from people because of my beliefs to subject others to the same. It doesn't mean I accept that they are experiencing God, but I do accept that they have indeed experiences something.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Trying to understand here…

            Muslims are experiencing something, but it's not God. You however are experiencing something and it is God? What makes you right and them wrong?

          2. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let me get this straight.  You're saying that this set of experiences has altered and shaped your ENTIRE life, but you DON'T want to believe that they're from a god - a very specific god at that?  I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

            I would be wary with labeling anything that you can't explain as a supernatural experience.  Just because you don't know the cause or the reason does not mean that it's supernatural.  It means that you can't, at this moment, explain it naturally - not that it doesn't have a natural explanation.  Saying that it must be supernatural as a result is simply a huge argument from ignorance.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not entirely.  Supernatural means that it is beyond natural  explanation. For the time being,Chris's experiences are supernatural as he cannot explain them. I think I get your point that he can't claim God did it just because he doesn't know, but he can still claim supernatural by definition

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                no, something is not supernatural just because someone at the time does not know a natural explanation.  That is the argument from ignorance.  You don't know how something naturally occurred so you say it's something supernatural.  Something is only supernatural when every natural explanation has been explored thoroughly and discarded.

                People used to think that volcanoes and lightning and thunderstorms were supernatural forces because they did not have the tools necessary to understand them naturally or scientifically.  That doesn't make them supernatural. 

                I think that a lot of people jump to supernatural explanations because they want things to to be supernatural actions on their behalf by a god/gods.  That doesn't mean that they are.  It means that they're as of yet unexplained.  Although in Chris' example, he says he looked for natural explanations, I don't see where that is the case in the things that he's posted.  He sees these events as evidence of a personal god that he knows, and I think (not to be offensive) that he's jumping to conclusions and using confirmation bias.

                I would also like to add that I don't view it as exactly honest to attribute any experiences you have to a particular god/gods that you already believe in.  There is no way to verify where these experiences came from - or if they're even supernatural at all.  How does anyone know that it wasn't really Krishna that gave those experiences to you, trying to demonstrate that they're the true god?  It's not like these experiences came with a photo ID of the person responsible for them.  Yet the inclination is to attribute them to the one thing that the person already believes to be true.  You don't see Muslims attributing their experiences to the Christian god, or Christians attributing their experiences to Allah.  For me, the honest approach would be to say that they were of unknown cause and origin until further options can be thoroughly explored.  I'm genuinely trying to be as delicate as possible, but it's the definition of confirmation bias to go about things this way.

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Merriam-Webster.com lists one definition of supernatural as "departing from what is usual or normal so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". Now a lot of people do prefer to attribute occurrences to a deity or higher power (I don't deny that). But still whether or not an actual deity is involved, his experience is still supernatural at this present time. Yes I'm debating technicalities and semantics, but they fit here...lol

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Semantics aside,  there is a difference between something appearing to transcend natural laws and something actually doing it.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure… I can assert that my computer is supernatural because I don't understand how it works.

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure, and dictionaries define unicorns as white horselike or goatlike animals with a long horn and cloven hooves, but that doesn't mean they are real.

                    The supernatural has never been shown to exist, obviously, hence it cannot be used as an explanation for anything.

                2. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is another dimension to this that both you and Deepes are ignoring, although possibly for different reasons.

                  Some of us trust in supernatural experiences, not because we just look for any flighty explanation but because there have been so many of them that have fit a particular pattern

                  I'm very, very aware that Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans all make similar claims and I do think about and ponder it. But you're not discussing which supernatural source might be the actual source of the experiences, you're saying that I should simply dismiss any supernatural explanation at all, and since fair is fair, I would need a bit more than your (or anyone else's) conviction that not such thing exists to simply discard my own experiences and write them off.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    To be fair, Chris, I wasn't necessarily ignoring a specific dimension at all. My point was two fold. First point was that you or anyone did not need to specify a certain source for something to be supernatural. My other point was that although we may speculate on how you arrived at your answers, we cannot truly say we know for sure How you arrived at your answers. In either case, I pray that you are at peace with your answers but I also pray that you do not shut any new revelations that may or may not affect those answers. I'm not referring to anything that any of us say. I mean what you find for yourself.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure if he explored other explanations. Newton thought he had the math that explained the gravity that explains individual planet orbits, but he thought the solar system was supernatural and it would never be able to be calculated. He may have been the smartest person to ever live, but he gave up. Someone else came along later with the math that explain the gravity of the solar system.

                Chris is unwilling to look at other explanations.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That is a broad assumption, and in this particular case what they say about assumptions is true. Well, it doesn't make one out of me but you're still making an incorrect assumption.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, Chris cannot make that claim as that would imply he has knowledge of the supernatural and how the supernatural works. He might as well state it was an invisible dragon in his garage or a unicorn or a leprechaun or Santa Claus. They are all equally invalid claims.

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But by definition supernatural is that the workings of which cannot be explained. Hence the term supernatural. Chris isn't claiming knowledge of how it works. He is attributing to a deity. Not the same thing.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That is incorrect...

                    "Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

                    Notice that the definition specifically shows that an event is attributed to some force, that is a positive claim.



                    He is claiming the supernatural and he is claiming a deity, neither of which have ever been shown to exist. He is claiming working knowledge of both.

            2. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What I WANT to believe is the truth, whatever it may be. What I have done is examine the specific experiences in the light of context and history. Despite the efforts of some to offer alternative possible explanations (that would be mainly you, and a bit of Rad) or, more often, a failure to actually offer any kind of explanation that does not cast aspersions (to put it mildly, and you know who I'm speaking of even if you don't agree with my analysis) no good theory has actually come forth. And although you haven't said this, those who do say they're just 'voices in my head' ignore 1) context, 2) history, and more often than not 3) what I've actually written.

              You said,  That isn't so. I'll admit that my tendency to kind of power through my responses does not really give good indication to how much time I spend thinking about all  this stuff, but one thing I do NOT do is engage in wishful thinking.



              I'm generally not quick to do so but some things have no other explanation. Your reasoning is not unsound but I would like to point out that your base assumption, that there must be a natural explanation that we don't know yet, is based on your experiences (and I don't mean supernatural, I mean life experiences) and how they have shaped your reasoning.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm.  Every single action that has ever been actively examined has been proven to have natural causes.  It might take years of research and effort but a cause has always been found.  Only those actions that have not been thoroughly examined and tested are said to be supernatural.  Or possibly supernatural.

                Given that, you still use your ignorance as to actual causes as a reason to say it is supernatural?  When something happens that you do not have a cause for you are content to claim there cannot be a natural cause for even though there has never been an action that was not found to be natural?

                A truly alien viewpoint to me - I simply cannot wrap my brain around making such a call based on ignorance.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If you ignore certain things that I've actually said, then you are correct. But my 'ignorance' would also be your ignorance, i.e. you can't produce a natural explanation but you have faith that everything that has happened can be explained without any supernatural cause. You state that I am 'content' to claim there cannot be a natural cause but you are equally content to claim there cannot be any other kind of cause. I know what I went through. I may not do the best job of explaining it, but so far the alternate explanations offered don't do any better job of explaining things and rest just as much, and sometimes more, on faith than mine does.

                  You don't need to insult me, you know. If I don't know something that doesn't mean I'm stupid.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Chris,  I'm going to respond to your post to me later, but I have to step in here.  No one insulted you or called you stupid.   Being ignorant of something doesn't mean you're stupid, it means you don't know,  and I'm pretty sure I've seen you admit to not knowing things more than once.   There's a reason that there's a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance,  and it has nothing to do with being stupid.

                    You are incredibly defensive and emotional when it comes to these issues, and I understand why but you have to be able to see how this type of reaction every time this conversation comes up makes it incredibly difficult to communicate and relate with you.   It's off-putting,  even for me.  You seem to just want everyone to not only accept these experiences at face value without question, but also to accept the cause that you're attributing to them as well,  and with nothing more than the fact that you say it,  that's just not going to happen.  Maybe you shouldn't bring them up anymore or take some time away for your own benefit.  I'm trying to be sympathetic and understanding,  but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do when you react this way towards others that can't just take your word for it.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry Chris, but Julie and myself produced natural explanations for your experiences. You may not like or except them but it's unfair to claim no one can produce a natural explanation when you yourself have not tried and you don't except the explanations from others.

                    I can if you like produce many more possible explanations. Have you yourself made a list of possible explanations?

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Then, everything you say about God as an explanation is a contradiction to those very words. If you can't understand or comprehend God, then you don't know anything about Him and you can't opine anything that He may or may not have done.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nice try.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Then, what I'm saying is true if you have no rebuttal.

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No.

              What you are saying does not need a rebuttal and if you're simply going to declare victory then whatever. It doesn't mean you've won. It's just Sheldon Cooper telling the other guy that because he's the last man standing, he's one, facts notwithstanding.

  18. JMcFarland profile image93
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    Chris,  the point I'd like to reiterate is very simple.   You have experiences,  and you claim repeatedly that these experiences were as a result of a specific God,  and for you, they prove that this God exists.   The simple fact is that people all over the world have experiences that are hard to explain,  but these people have no problem attributing them to a different god than the one you believe in.   For them,  it is equal proof that their God exists.   You believe that your God is the only one,  and that these other,  contradicting claims are what ... false?   Really the doing of your God that makes no attempt to identify himself and correct their mistaken attribution to a false deity?

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You take the generic even of having experiences, but I'm talking about a specific set that happened over a long period of time that fit a specific pattern. I suppose I could take the macro view and say, "Eh, everyone has experiences" but for me that would miss the mark.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, you really have no idea what experiences you had nor can you relate directly to the existence of God, but that's what you really, really, really want to believe. Gotcha.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And if I needed any proof that what you are saying is twisting my words to fit your point even though it won't actually support it, you always cheerfully provide that proof.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They are your words, you are making the claims, that is, until someone calls you on your claims and then you shift the goalposts somewhere else and then get called on that, and so on and so on...

  19. Chris Neal profile image84
    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago
  20. JMcFarland profile image93
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    in other, semi-unrelated content, I just watched this video:  http://www.amazingoasis.org/2013/11/bes … spent.html and it gave me chills and made me cry all at the same time.

  21. Bethany DeWolfe profile image81
    Bethany DeWolfeposted 3 years ago

    Christ does say if you love him, you'll obey his commandments. Salvation is obtained through grace by faith. But once we have acknowledged Jesus Christ for who he is- the Son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, fulfilled the law, died a sinner's death and rose again after 3 days then ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of the Father- and we have admitted we do indeed need a Savior for we fall short of God's standards, it is at that point that the Holy Spirit begins to work in our hearts and change our values and priorities. The ten commandments no longer seem like a list of rules not be broken, but more like advice given from a loving Father to His child on how to succeed while still on this sin-ridden earth. The commandments don't save us, but our efforts to obey them and yield to the Holy Spirit in our every day life is evidence of our salvation. And it's part of our witness to others.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Would that mean that we are not a creation of God if we don't meet His standards? Wouldn't an all powerful God create us with whatever standards He needed?

      If I want to create a clock with the standard of keeping accurate time, would I not just do so if I had all the power and resources at my disposal?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No.  Best guess is that God has a need to fill Hell with tormented souls at the same time He takes His new pets into His home.  So, no, most people are not created with the standards He requires as that would deprive Hell of it's needed citizenry.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny, I haven't done any of that and I find the big 10 easy to live by.

  22. Bethany DeWolfe profile image81
    Bethany DeWolfeposted 3 years ago

    He could have easily creates us to meet those standards, but the choices we make with free will he has given us means that we don't. It's human nature since the fall to make choices that are bad for us and create a gap of our unrighteousness vs. God's righteousness. And everyone breaks the Ten Commandments. Christ says it's about following the spirit of the law, not just the letter. If we look at someone with lust, in our hearts we've committed adultery. If we serve ourselves, or money, or something/someone else above God, we've broken the First Commandment. Thankfully Christ bridges the gap for us.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He could have, but didn't.

      So even the thought of lust is a sin.

      Completely ridiculous nonsense.

      It's time to use your own brain to understand lust and why we have it.

      According to you God set us up to fail. Sorry but the world makes so much more sense when you delete your nonsense.

      1. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think that in a nutshell explains our conversation.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why didn't He create us to meet those standards if it was so easy?



      That makes no sense, if He created us to meet those standards, we would regardless of free will.



      I don't understand that. What does our human nature have to do with anything if God created us? Isn't God's nature the embodiment of human nature if He created us in His image?



      That's not true. Do you have any supporting data to confirm that claim?



      What does that mean? What is the difference between spirit of law and letter of law? How are we supposed to know the difference?



      If we all have lust, that is because God created it. Of course, committing adultery is not the same thing as looking at someone with lust. Do you know the meaning of adultery?



      That isn't what the first commandment says.



      How does Christ do that?

  23. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    Come one Chris, you think I've never had the experience of being in the presence of something bigger than myself?

    Monks meditate to achieve that exact feeling. When their brains were studied it was found that the can alter brain waves to achieve that exact sensation. Does it mean they are in the presence of something like a spirit? No, it means they altered their brain wave to give them that sensation.

    Stating that anyone who doesn't believe that the holy spirit visited you "just doesn't get it" or didn't experience what you have is simple not a valid argument, after all we are all humans and all bleed the same way.

    When I was much younger I used to think that those Déjà vu moments must be a link to something spiritual until I read an explanation that made more sense. But those Déjà vu moments just seem so real.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lab experiments have show that magnetic forces applied to specific areas of the brain produce a strong feeling of being watched.  Those test subjects that believe in god reported not only that someone was watching, but that it was God. 

      A magnetic field impinging on brain tissue is God watching you?  Apparently so.  Heaven must be in a magnet, perhaps the big one at the earth's core.  That would be ironic, wouldn't it?  Heaven being down, in temperatures high enough to melt steel and rock, while Hell is the frozen rocks and moons above us?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I also read recently that sounds waves beyond our limit can affect our brains and vision.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely subsonics affect our brains; they are commonly recognized to give a feeling of dread.  Supersonic I haven't heard anything about.

          But beyond that, sound waves at a very specific frequency can dissolve the C-C bond in our flesh.  I'd call that "affecting" us...

          My high school chemistry teacher caught another student and I trying to build a generator of those sound waves for extra credit.  We'd found the plans in his big file of extra credit projects for lab assistants.  He wouldn't let us continue, even with the help of the electronics teacher (who didn't know what we were building) and the lab there. Even confiscated the plans. sad

    2. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, but you're still not getting it.

      That, though, was a much better attempt than usual.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it.

        What makes more sense when describing a Déjà vu?

        1. Memories of past lives suddenly and fleetingly come to consciousness

        or

        2. A misfire or and irregularity in a part of your brain that triggers a memory that wasn't there before?

        Déjà vu's feel very real as I'm sure your experiences feel very real as did mine.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, but how does that cover my own experiences, let alone my wife's? The utter insufficiency of the explanation is why I keep saying you don't get it. I'm not looking down on you for it, we've all done it. I certainly have.

          The experiences you've described have all had to do with music. And what you describe leads me to believe that you still haven't quite grasped what actually happened.

 
working