the ten commandments

[Dale]

doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)


--
Dale

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:54:50 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

True but the ten commandments are just the start of a long list of
commandments found in Exodus and other books of the bible.

They stand alone only in the minds of Christians who want to ignore
all the other rules.

I'm surprised there are still ten.

Honor thy father and mother makes explicit promises.
Anyone who died young or who has no land clearly did not follow that
commandment.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
might agree.

The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
if it goes against omnipresence.

And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
harass others. His views were more advanced.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 11:59:11 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
>
> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

Neither does it warn against being tedious.

Mitchell Coffey

[jonathan]

"Dale" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:617e7r....@news.alt.net...

> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

Of course they do. They are precepts or general rules open to
interpretation, not a definitive list. No rational person would
consider assault and such as being morally consistent with
the concept of...love.

And they've been interpreted in this way since (literally) day one....

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

"Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept
of charity--love of God and of the neighbor; He proclaimed
them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the
Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted
them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with
false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by
enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence
of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery
(Matthew 5)."

"The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his
natural rights against the injustice of his fellows."

a.. His life is the object of the Fifth;
b.. the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
c.. his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
d.. his good name, of the Eighth;
e.. And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment
of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to
wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
f.. and in his property rights by the Tenth.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm




>


>
> --
> Dale
>

[SortingItOut]

I think a prohibition against slavery is a more glaring omission. Made it very easy for Christians to own slaves and rationalize it.

[RAM]

Do you mean "Thou shalt not kill" does not involve
assualt?

If so, please provide a rationalization theological
or otherwise to preserve this obvious ignorant
spin on the ten commandments.

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:54:50 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

They're an attitude adjustment. Anything not love falls under their control.

To reflect the point, Jesus gave us a new way to satisfy the big 10, and that is
to love and obey God and love our fellow man. And now you know.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
>That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
>you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
>he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
>harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
>time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
>you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
>might agree.
>
>The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
>measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
>him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
>it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
>if it goes against omnipresence.

God does not exist in time and space. He sees and judges you your entire
lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.

>And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
>harass others. His views were more advanced.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/13/2012 01:57 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>
>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
>> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
>> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
>> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
>> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
>> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
>> might agree.
>>
>> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
>> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
>> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
>> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
>> if it goes against omnipresence.
>
> God does not exist in time and space. He sees and judges you your entire
> lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.

I've been alive for 13.7 billion years? No wonder I'm so listless today.
Or does God judge me long before the creation of humans? In other words
he passes judgment upon his own future mistakes and blames the victim of
his ineptitude. Nice.

[Frank J]

That was #11. Blame Mel Brooks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:54:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:

>doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)

So? They also don't contain prohibitions regarding gangsta
rap "music", although arguably that would be included in
your example.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[John S. Wilkins]

God has given me 20 *crash* 10 commandments!
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kry97n.1homqbb80j2y3N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Oct, 23:59, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dale
> >
> > That was #11. Blame Mel Brooks.
>
> God has given me 20 *crash* 10 commandments!

Why couldn't he have deleted the one about adultery?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Dale]

I believe we need a simplification of law, if laws are so complex that
only lawyers can understand then only lawyers should be held in account
for them, but the ten commandments are two short

also, I don't believe Moses was jewish, I don't buy the basket in the
river story, I believe he was an Egyptian



--
Dale

[Dale]

On 10/13/2012 03:38 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:54:50 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> So? They also don't contain prohibitions regarding gangsta
> rap "music", although arguably that would be included in
> your example.
>

gangsta rap is clearly on the order of shouting fire in a theatre, so is
death metal, but neither is as bad as sportsfan mentality


--
Dale

[*Hemidactylus*]

Gangsta rap was a terrible turn for the worst in hip hop, though Ice-T,
Schoolly D and KRS One preceded the actual genre and did some
interesting stuff in the 80s. But even after the excesses of gangsta
which culminated in the East-West Coast feud and its tragic consequences
there were still decent artists that continued making music and some
degree of hip hop influencing rock in positive ways (Limp Biskit and Korn).

I pretty much ceased listening to rap after Worldclass Wreckin' Cru
morphed away from their LA electro roots into NWA which eventually gave
way to Snoop Dogg and Ice Cube became a film star. But Busta Rhymes had
an interesting style as did Mos Def. I don't like Eminem much overall,
but there were a couple songs he did that I liked ("The Way I Am")

I always preferred technical hiphop along the lines of the original
Kraftwerk orientation of Afrika Bambaataa. Groups like Mantronix and
Dynamix II were more to my liking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro_%28music%29

And Latin freestyle and reggaeton were much better than gangsta music.

There's some death metal that's better than others. Slayer, Sepultura
and Meshuggah are OK. I don't know if Soulfly could be considered death
metal, but their singer came from Sepultura, and they mess with all
kinds of different styles. But I don't think I could handle the reallty
hardcore stuff that consists of caveman grunts and banging instruments
against the wall.

I like more technical metal, like Rush, Tool, and Mastodon. But I can
listen to Pantera once in a while too. They were tight, intricate and
pretty intense.

Crappy bubble gum hair "metal" (vomit) was the reason I started
listening to hiphop (like Public Enemy). Gangsta rap was the reason I
started listening to rock again (Pantera and Smashing Pumpkins).

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 13, 1:29 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.

But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't murder." The
verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term murder and
does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in self-
defense or accidental killing. And not killing does _not_ imply not

assaulting.



> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
> might agree.
>
> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
> if it goes against omnipresence.
>
> And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
> harass others. His views were more advanced.

Advanced and "agrees with me" is a widespread way of looking at
things. I don't give a flying fuck about the old testament jehovah or
Jesus but people basically pick and choose what pleases them.

--
Will in New Haven

[Will in New Haven]

First of all, there is no "Thou shalt not kill." It is simply "don't
murder." And it is very easy to conceive of rules of engagement that
forbid killing but allow smacking someone around.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 13, 8:59 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <1kry97n.1homqbb80j2y3N%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
>  j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

>
> > Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Oct, 23:59, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> > > > --
> > > > Dale
>
> > > That was #11. Blame Mel Brooks.
>
> > God has given me 20 *crash* 10 commandments!
>
> Why couldn't he have deleted the one about adultery?

What one about adultery?

[Will in New Haven]

No one gives a fuck what you believe.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:06:38 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:

I think he was a displaced Inuit; prove me wrong.

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY1c7hTmoBE

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/14/2012 03:07 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Oct 13, 1:29 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>
>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>
> But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't murder." The
> verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term murder and
> does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in self-
> defense or accidental killing. And not killing does _not_ imply not
> assaulting.

Point taken. Maybe the Jains are more advanced in their views then. As
Sam Harris says, the more extreme the Jain, the less we have to worry
about them.

>> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
>> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
>> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
>> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
>> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
>> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
>> might agree.
>>
>> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
>> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
>> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
>> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
>> if it goes against omnipresence.
>>
>> And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
>> harass others. His views were more advanced.
>
> Advanced and "agrees with me" is a widespread way of looking at
> things. I don't give a flying fuck about the old testament jehovah or
> Jesus but people basically pick and choose what pleases them.

I prefer the golden rule to all those tedious edicts in the old
testament, but don't think Jesus was anything more than a person if he
existed. I can pick the parts about Buddhism I prefer while discarding
the rest. I would uphold the Islamic prohibition against "riba" while
discarding most of the rest (eg- beekeeper suits). Maybe credit card
companies (legally "persons") are doomed to hell.

[walksalone]

Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
news:be6bb212-3efe-4416...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 13, 1:29 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>> > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>
>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not
assaulting.
>
> But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't murder." The
> verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term murder and
> does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in self-
> defense or accidental killing. And not killing does _not_ imply not
> assaulting.

Point of curiousity so to speak. When was that "updated", for most if
not all of the early English translations[1], & the hebrew ones said,
thou shalt not kill. I suspect this is a case of poitical respecability.

snip

[1] Those I've read or had read to me.


walksalone who supposes he just didn't get that memo.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother,
his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he
cannot be my disciple."
-- Luke 14:25-27

[Walter Bushell]

In article <GfydnW1OWJVMhebN...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I prefer the golden rule to all those tedious edicts in the old
> testament, but don't think Jesus was anything more than a person if he
> existed. I can pick the parts about Buddhism I prefer while discarding
> the rest. I would uphold the Islamic prohibition against "riba" while
> discarding most of the rest (eg- beekeeper suits). Maybe credit card
> companies (legally "persons") are doomed to hell.

So that no one working for the credit card company is guilty of riba.
If one wants to buy a house, one could set up a corporation to buy the
house and lease the house from the corporation, thus avoiding riba.

Some muslims apparently think they are avoiding riba when they borrow
money by having an agreement to pay more money back than they
borrowed. A typical discount loan as covered in junior high business
math.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, *Hemidactylus*

If it has seen your entire life then there is no free will.

Not only that but this god has only existed for some 13.7 billion
years which removes it from the very concept he is trying to explain.


--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:06:38 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>I believe we need a simplification of law, if laws are so complex that
>only lawyers can understand then only lawyers should be held in account
>for them, but the ten commandments are two short
>
>also, I don't believe Moses was jewish, I don't buy the basket in the
>river story, I believe he was an Egyptian
>

There almost certainly was no Moses but the references found for him
in the Bible "prove" he was Jewish.

The little story about Moses fighting with God, who wanted to kill him
(!) was probably put in for this defense.

The Egyptians were circumcised long before Jews started doing it.

[Eugene Willow]

On 15 Oct, 18:39, Mike Painter <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/13/2012 01:57 PM, duke wrote:

> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> >>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> >>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
> >>> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
> >>> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
> >>> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
> >>> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
> >>> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
> >>> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
> >>> might agree.
>
> >>> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
> >>> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
> >>> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
> >>> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
> >>> if it goes against omnipresence.
>
> >> God does not exist in time and space.  He sees and judges you your entire
> >> lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.
>
> >I've been alive for 13.7 billion years? No wonder I'm so listless today.
> >Or does God judge me long before the creation of humans? In other words
> >he passes judgment upon his own future mistakes and blames the victim of
> >his ineptitude. Nice.
>
> If it has seen your entire life then there is no free will.

Not necessarily. Cdesign proponentsism postulates a perpendicular
universe, as opposed to the theory of parallel universe popuralized by
science-fiction. It avoids time-travel paradoci while still being
Ockam-compatible.

> Not only that but this god has only existed for some 13.7 billion
> years which removes it from the very concept he is trying to explain.

The perpendicular universe theory introduces at least two dimensions
of time, which means speaking about universe's age meaningless.

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/13/2012 01:57 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>>
>>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>>> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
>>> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
>>> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
>>> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
>>> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
>>> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
>>> might agree.
>>>
>>> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
>>> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
>>> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
>>> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
>>> if it goes against omnipresence.
>>
>> God does not exist in time and space. He sees and judges you your entire
>> lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.
>
>I've been alive for 13.7 billion years?

No, but God has been around that long and well knows how many hairs you have on
your head the day you die.

> No wonder I'm so listless today.
>Or does God judge me long before the creation of humans? In other words
>he passes judgment upon his own future mistakes and blames the victim of
>his ineptitude. Nice.

God doesn't make mistakes. Mankind does. What you get is what you ask for by
the way you conduct yourself.

See how simple that is.

[duke]

NOt at all. Seeing is not commanding. We're talking about God here. Miley is
still trying to figure out how to run a defib unit on hydraulics.

Cdesign proponentsism postulates a perpendicular
>universe, as opposed to the theory of parallel universe popuralized by
>science-fiction. It avoids time-travel paradoci while still being
>Ockam-compatible.
>> Not only that but this god has only existed for some 13.7 billion
>> years which removes it from the very concept he is trying to explain.
>The perpendicular universe theory introduces at least two dimensions
>of time, which means speaking about universe's age meaningless.

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:06:38 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/13/2012 01:50 PM, RAM wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 10:59 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dale
>>
>> Do you mean "Thou shalt not kill" does not involve
>> assualt?
>>
>> If so, please provide a rationalization theological
>> or otherwise to preserve this obvious ignorant
>> spin on the ten commandments.

>I believe we need a simplification of law, if laws are so complex that
>only lawyers can understand then only lawyers should be held in account
>for them, but the ten commandments are two short

They are generalized statements. Huge numbers of misadventures can be
categorized by the big 10.

>also, I don't believe Moses was jewish, I don't buy the basket in the
>river story, I believe he was an Egyptian

[Kermit]

On 13 Oct, 10:59, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> >That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
> >God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
> >you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
> >he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
> >harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
> >time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
> >you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
> >might agree.
>
> >The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
> >measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
> >him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
> >it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
> >if it goes against omnipresence.
>
> God does not exist in time and space.  He sees and judges you your entire
> lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.
>

Any evidence for this?

> >And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
> >harass others. His views were more advanced.
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
> democracy in America as we know it. Let the
> rolling thunder guide your decision at the
> ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
> May God bless America.
> ********************************************

Kermit

[Kermit]

On 13 Oct, 10:34, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:

> On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:59:11 PM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
> > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>

> > --
>
> > Dale
>
> I think a prohibition against slavery is a more glaring omission.  Made it very easy for Christians to own slaves and rationalize it.

But at least the slaves were never assaulted.

Kermit

[jillery]

And they got a free cruise to the New World. They should be more
grateful for all that.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 14, 3:59 pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 03:07 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 1:29 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> >>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> >> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>
> > But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't murder." The
> > verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term murder and
> > does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in self-
> > defense or accidental killing. And not killing does _not_ imply not
> > assaulting.
>
> Point taken. Maybe the Jains are more advanced in their views then. As
> Sam Harris says, the more extreme the Jain, the less we have to worry
> about them.

Yet Jain advisors, advising Hindi rulers, are thought to be
responsible for a lot of violence. And why is pacifism "more
advanced." You remind me of people who talk about "higher life forms."

>
> >> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
> >> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
> >> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
> >> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
> >> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
> >> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
> >> might agree.
>
> >> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
> >> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
> >> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
> >> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
> >> if it goes against omnipresence.
>
> >> And Jesus proclaimed a golden rule which kinda means don't assault or
> >> harass others. His views were more advanced.
>
> > Advanced and "agrees with me" is a widespread way of looking at
> > things. I don't give a flying fuck about the old testament jehovah or
> > Jesus but people basically pick and choose what pleases them.
>
> I prefer the golden rule to all those tedious edicts in the old
> testament, but don't think Jesus was anything more than a person if he
> existed. I can pick the parts about Buddhism I prefer while discarding
> the rest. I would uphold the Islamic prohibition against "riba" while
> discarding most of the rest (eg- beekeeper suits). Maybe credit card

> companies (legally "persons") are doomed to hell.- Hide quoted text -

And I prefer the scene in the Gita where God tells Arjuna it is ok to
kill people. So we all pick and choose. And if we all pick and choose,
what are all these old documents but background noise.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 14, 7:29�pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote innews:be6bb212-3efe-4416...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 1:29 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> >> > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>
> >> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not
> assaulting.
>
> > But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't murder." The
> > verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term murder and
> > does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in self-
> > defense or accidental killing. And not killing does _not_ imply not
> > assaulting.
>
> Point of curiousity so to speak. �When was that "updated", for most if
> not all of the early English translations[1], & the hebrew ones said,
> thou shalt not kill. �I suspect this is a case of poitical respecability.

It isn't a matter of being updated. The unsuitability of the flowery
language aside (Hebrew is a harsh and abrupt language) the word is
clearly the word for "murder." There is another, more general word for
"kill."

The "legislative history" of the commandment supports this. It was
never suggested that the people receiving the commandment become
pacifists or vegetarians. If the "kill" word had been used, causing a
death accidently would have been prohibited, a silly rule.

[TimR]

You're using the wrong Ten Commandments, and that has always bothered me.

The familiar versions of the "Ten Commandments" are based on Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5.

But if you go back to the actual verses, it is quite clear that neither place actually has Ten, nor is it stated in either place that these are the Ten.

There are a number of biblical references to Ten, so the Ten Commandments do exist, but the aren't the ones you know.

The bible has one and only one place where it says here are the Ten Commandments, and that is Exodus 34. 8 of these 10 would be unknown to modern Christians. (there is one about not worshipping other gods, and one about honoring the sabbath) Thou shalt not kill, or murder? Not there. Don't be boiling a kid in its mother's milk? Oh yeah, that one exists.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 10/18/2012 03:30 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2012 01:57 PM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 01:26:10 -0400, *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>>> doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
>>>>
>>>> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not assaulting.
>>>> God is jealous and stalked and harassed the Jews through the years. If
>>>> you made a graven image he might harass you about that problem because
>>>> he is petty. If you fail to keep the sabbath holy your neighbors may
>>>> harass you, like if you violate blue laws. Having proselytizers take
>>>> time from your day is a form of theft. If you covet your neighbor's ass
>>>> you might tend toward harassment til they give it to you. The donkey
>>>> might agree.
>>>>
>>>> The thought of some bearded old jerk watching my every move to see if I
>>>> measure up to his exacting standard constitutes harassment and I asked
>>>> him to cease and desist. Stop hanging out in my front yard God. I mean
>>>> it. 100 feet means 100 feet. Abide by the restraining order please, even
>>>> if it goes against omnipresence.
>>>
>>> God does not exist in time and space. He sees and judges you your entire
>>> lifetime and has for 13.7 billion years minimum now.
>>
>> I've been alive for 13.7 billion years?
>
> No, but God has been around that long and well knows how many hairs you have on
> your head the day you die.

So this god you talk of *is* some sort of imaginary creepy stalker.

>> No wonder I'm so listless today.
>> Or does God judge me long before the creation of humans? In other words
>> he passes judgment upon his own future mistakes and blames the victim of
>> his ineptitude. Nice.
>
> God doesn't make mistakes.

How many creation accounts are there in Genesis (God's own word) and how
do you keep them consistent?

As for human anatomy the appendix, lumbar vertebrae, and wisdom teeth
are mistakes. Why does God have us develop a notochord only for it to
become a structural liability later in life?

Since God allegedly created me and is omnipotent, omniscient and an
omnipresent stalker, every mistake I make is his mistake too. And given
his benevolence, evil must therefore be good.

> Mankind does. What you get is what you ask for by
> the way you conduct yourself.

The just world fallacy. I don't believe in original sin. I don't believe
in karma. Regardless of how I live my life, if I don't accept Jesus, I
am damned in Christian eyes to hellfire like all the other heathen. Yet
I will actually wind up in the same eternal state as you, the Dalai
Lama, all the Popes, and an ornery Rottweiler who kills cats for fun.
That is why I have no need of religious neurotoxicity.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zOmdnYJDm8rxSBzN...@giganews.com...

That is false, as is your "neurotoxic" inference to religion.

>Yet
> I will actually wind up in the same eternal state as you, the Dalai
> Lama, all the Popes, and an ornery Rottweiler who kills cats for fun.
> That is why I have no need of religious neurotoxicity.
>

Because of your faith that you will wind up in the same eternal state?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Religion poisons the mind via its effect on neurons. It causes aberrant
behavior* like other drugs as it makes one delirious. It also makes one
imperious.

*-getting up early on Sundays to go listen to nonsense

>> Yet
>> I will actually wind up in the same eternal state as you, the Dalai
>> Lama, all the Popes, and an ornery Rottweiler who kills cats for fun.
>> That is why I have no need of religious neurotoxicity.
>>
> Because of your faith that you will wind up in the same eternal state?

I have faith in the eternalness of zilch:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zilch

[Dale]

if the supreme being created a utopia with everything perfect there
would be no discovery, exploration, discourse, etc., it would be boring
for him and us, guess he chose a different path, or left it up to the
evolution free wills to accept a utopia and handle it

>
>> Mankind does. What you get is what you ask for by
>> the way you conduct yourself.
>
> The just world fallacy. I don't believe in original sin. I don't believe
> in karma. Regardless of how I live my life, if I don't accept Jesus, I
> am damned in Christian eyes to hellfire like all the other heathen. Yet
> I will actually wind up in the same eternal state as you, the Dalai
> Lama, all the Popes, and an ornery Rottweiler who kills cats for fun.
> That is why I have no need of religious neurotoxicity.
>
>

--
Dale

[Dale]

On 10/19/2012 06:56 PM, Glenn wrote:

in the new testament it says those who seek the truth are the same as
christians


--
Dale

[eridanus]

El viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012 15:53:51 UTC+1, Will in New Haven escribi�:

the prohibition of killing was mostly referring to their own people,
not to putative enemies, neighbors, or foreigners.
Or perhaps, you should ask permission before murdering or killing
anyone.

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 04:30:38 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You assume what would be boring for your supreme being. You make the
same mistake as Hemidactylus, to assume that your personal motives and
understanding are in any way similar to that of an omni-everything
deity. Neither of you have any way of knowing this.

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:34:19 -0400, *Hemidactylus*

If you have adult children, you're not responsible for their mistakes.
ISTM if you blame God for your mistakes, you are obliged to give him
credit for your accomplishments. Contrariwise, if you accept credit
for your accomplishments, you are obliged to accept responsibility for
your mistakes. Same for same. Fair is fair.

[Will in New Haven]

It wasn't a prohibition against killing at all. It was a prohibition
on a small subset of killings. Everyone went right on training for
war, slaughtering livestock, etc.

[jillery]

and foreskins.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I'd say God was created by humans. Makes more sense.

[Dale]

On 10/20/2012 09:26 AM, jillery wrote:
> If you have adult children, you're not responsible for their mistakes.
> ISTM if you blame God for your mistakes, you are obliged to give him
> credit for your accomplishments. Contrariwise, if you accept credit
> for your accomplishments, you are obliged to accept responsibility for
> your mistakes. Same for same. Fair is fair.

what say you about the determinism viewpoint that you are not
responsible for your actions, everything is predetermined?

note: I don't believe in determinism


--
Dale

[SortingItOut]

> >> No, but God has en around that long and well knows how many hairs

> >> you have on
> >> your head the day you die.
> >
> > So this god you talk of *is* some sort of imaginary creepy stalker.
> >
> >>> No wonder I'm so listless today.
> >>> Or does God judge me long before the creation of humans? In other words
> >>> he passes judgment upon his own future mistakes and blames the victim of
> >>> his ineptitude. Nice.
> >>
> >> God doesn't make mistakes.
> >
> > How many creation accounts are there in Genesis (God's own word) and how
> > do you keep them consistent?
> >
> > As for human anatomy the appendix, lumbar vertebrae, and wisdom teeth
> > are mistakes. Why does God have us develop a notochord only for it to
> > become a structural liability later in life?
> >
> > Since God allegedly created me and is omnipotent, omniscient and an
> > omnipresent stalker, every mistake I make is his mistake too. And given
> > his benevolence, evil must therefore be good.
>
> if the supreme being created a utopia with everything perfect there
> would be no discovery, exploration, discourse, etc., it would be boring
> for him and us, guess he chose a different path, or left it up to the
> evolution free wills to accept a utopia and handle it

So, if we knew nothing else, utopia would be boring. But if we no something else and then choose utopia, it won't be boring?

I think it's likely that if it's boring in one case, it's boring in the other. Besides, how could 80-100 years in non-utopia make any lasting impact on billions of years (well, eternity) in utopia?

[Dale]

On 10/21/2012 01:31 AM, SortingItOut wrote:
> Besides, how could 80-100 years in non-utopia make any lasting impact on billions of years (well, eternity) in utopia?

its relative to those involved


--
Dale

[Stephen]

Will in New Haven wrote:

> On Oct 20, 8:08�am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > El viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012 15:53:51 UTC+1, Will in New Haven
> > �escribi�:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 14, 7:29�pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote
> > > > innews:be6bb212-3efe-4416...@n16g2000yqi.googlegr
> > > > oups.com:
> >
> > > > > On Oct 13, 1:29 am, Hemidactylus <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> On 10/12/2012 11:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> >
> > > > >> > doesn't even contain assault (or harassment)
> >
> > > > >> That's a tough one. Thou should not kill seems to imply not
> >
> > > > assaulting.
> >
> > > > > But it doesn't say "Thou should not kill." It says "don't
> > > > > murder." The
> >
> > > > > verb involved is precisely the Hebrew for the legal term
> > > > > murder and
> >
> > > > > does not include killing animals, killing in war, killing in
> > > > > self-
> >

> > > > > defense or accidental killing. And not killing does not imply

Yes. Note also that killing is prescribed and required in certain
circumstances.

--