Ten Commandments Revisited

Yeah, those are the good commandments.

And Christ brought another -- love thy neighbor as how you love thyself. This was also something listed in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

He summarized all of the commandments in two: love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as how you love yourself.

That is what I go back to and the totality of all good is encompassed in these two commandments, IMO. There is nothing that is moral that would not escape the bounds of this definition, and there is nothing that is immoral that would actually uphold this definition.

@kellyjay said
And yet here you are!

It's a debate and discussion forum. I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

@fmf said
Written by Paul.

So what?

@fmf said
It's a debate and discussion forum. I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

You told everyone to be believers here in this discussion, and then fill your input with unbelief. If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?

If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer! Since your rejecting the claims from the onset, there is nothing about your op that is truthful.

@philokalia saidThere is nothing that is moral that would not escape the bounds of this definition, and there is nothing that is immoral that would actually uphold this definition.

Cruelty to animals isn't covered by the two commandments, unless you define animals as neighbors (which is an unusual use of that word).

@kellyjay said
You told everyone to be believers here in this discussion, and then fill your input with unbelief. If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?

If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer! Since your rejecting the claims from the onset, there is nothing about your op that is truthful.

Your mundane/political objections to some of the additions along with how you carefully blanked out of some proposed additions [rape and slavery and others] has made you sound like you have been defending a manmade and not-divinely inspired set of rules. If that's an outcome of you addressing the OP, so be it. Assuming one was a "believer" did not mean one had to assume belief in the same things as you do.

@kellyjay said
If you planned rejecting from the get go, what is the point!? Pretend to be believers until you are not isn’t taking it as a believer!

You have simply got the wrong end of the stick.

At the end of 8 pages of discussion, I have begun to reach my own deduction in this thought exercise, in part due to consideration of the answers and claims you offered. You are entitled to reach your own conclusions

I think the two Assumptions fail to withstand scrutiny given answers '1. No' and '2. Yes' to the Questions because the Commandments do not provide timeless moral leadership and standards and because they appear, instead, to be merely some rules written by humans which reflected the morality of their time.

@kellyjay said
If you are going to discuss scripture with the mindset of believers, shouldn’t you be required to take the whole as a believer?

What about this one?

You shall not own human beings as chattel

And this one...

Thou shalt not have sexual relations with anyone, including thine own wife, without their consent.

And...

Thou shalt not physically assault any person, unless that person is acting to harm thyself or other innocents.

...and others suggested by BigDoggProblem on page 3?

@fmf said
Your mundane/political objections to some of the additions along with how you carefully blanked out of some proposed additions [rape and slavery and others] has made you sound like you have been defending a manmade and not-divinely inspired set of rules. If that's an outcome of you addressing the OP, so be it. Assuming one was a "believer" did not mean one had to assume belief in the same things as you do.

Wasn't this about the 10 Commandments, where do you see me saying anything here about rape, slavery, and others in this OP? If you want to assume the scripture is from God, then it’s the whole thing.

If you only want to discuss a couple of verses, then you are not really speaking to scripture. Most people can take a single verse here or there, making it mean whatever they want, as long as they can ignore the rest. This is what you are doing here, take a few verses, make them mean what you want, and ignore the rest without cause.

So much for your exercise, moving on.

@kellyjay said
Wasn't this about the 10 Commandments, where do you see me saying anything here about rape, slavery, and others in this OP? If you want to assume the scripture is from God, then it’s the whole thing.

Yes, I would say the hypotheses did not pass the test.

@kellyjay said
If you only want to discuss a couple of verses, then you are not really speaking to scripture. Most people can take a single verse here or there, making it mean whatever they want, as long as they can ignore the rest. This is what you are doing here, take a few verses, make them mean what you want, and ignore the rest without cause.

The thread was about what can be argued is missing.

@kellyjay said
So much for your exercise, moving on.

OK, by all means, let's be moving on, What about You shall not own human beings as chattel and You shall not rape? Were these crucial imperatives missing from the moral sweep of the commandments?

@kellyjay said
If you want to assume the scripture is from God, then it’s the whole thing.

Assuming it was from God, oughtn't it to have been more foresighted and comprehensive? That was the OP question.

@bigdoggproblem said
Cruelty to animals isn't covered by the two commandments, unless you define animals as neighbors (which is an unusual use of that word).

That's an interesting point.

However, we know that Christianity believes in fair treatment of animals. There is the Old Testament passage about not muzzling the ox while it treadeth out the grain, and there are also passages which equate gluttony with binging on meat in Psalms, and moreover, of the creatures of God praising God via their existence. It is also noteworthy that the Catholic priests pray int heir hours about how they praise God for these creatures.

And, of course, I am sure there are some other things that involve matter sof good stewardship that fall out of the bounds of this.

Well done, Big Dogg -- you have pointed out that I was wrong.

Much appreciated!

FMF, your complaints basically come down to two errors:

(1) This desire to enumerate far beyond what is there.

This could create a ridiculous circumstnace where the enumeration is basically never done, until we are writing "Thou shalt not litter!" must be among the Ten Commandments.

(2) The error of not understanding historical circumstances and thinking that you can 1:1 slavery as you understand it in the current context with the reality of that time period.