Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Some are relevant. Some are not relevant. For example, with so many one parent "families" where they don't even know who's their daddy, how can a child be expected to obey the commandment about honoring "Father?"
Chip- One parent families make it especially difficult to honor the absentee father. Sometimes, he can serve as an object lesson of what not to do. Then you can follow that commandment by honoring father figures in your life; an uncle, a coach, a teacher, or a stepfather.
You mean about all the commandments being equal? Most Christians believe, as jondaugh explained, that there are no lesser commandments. I'm different than most Christians though. Breaking the commandments have very different consequences depending on which are broken. That leads me to believe that, though you can't pick and choose, some are more important than others.
The individual commendments don't seem to be relevant for most people, although especially some jews like to make a point out of not working on the sabbath. I don't believe anyone refrains from murder because of the commandment against it, least of all the fundies who are more than willing to kill.
The commandments as a whole seems to be important to a lot of people though, and a symbolic political issue in the US.
Most of them apply today. Depends on how a person looks at it. The first four are the most important. But if you don't believe in God none of the commandments would apply to you.
I think what she says is that if you dont believe in god then these commandments are irrelevant. You have not particular need to follow them other than doing what you think is right or wrong.
Some Christians say if you break one Commandment you've broken them all.
I cannot see how not honoring an absentee father carries the same weight as killing someone, can you?
Probably not. Yet "fundies" believe whatever their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and in very rare cases great-great grandparents have told them.
"Some Christians say if you break one Commandment you've broken them all."
I think what you mean to say is that most Christians are taught that they are all commandments and are all to be treated as equally important. There are no "lesser" commandments. Therefore using the lords name in vain, is just as much a sin as murder.
Another thing, the bible was written long ago, in a different time and a different culture. It was told verbally many generations before it was written. Precise translations are open for interpretation. That being said, to me, the honor thy father and mother mean that you should take care of the people who took care of you when you were to young to do so for yourself. If you had a step-mom instead of a blood related mother who raised you, then I am assuming the bible is instructing you to care for her in her old age out of duty, honor and respect. I dont think the bible is commanding you to track down your biological father and honor him and his wishes. I do think it does say to love him as a person and to love that person as you would love yourself. Thats just my opinion and may differ slightly from the Pope.
I think it up to people to believe what they believe. No doubt that bible scholars who study the bible are better at judging the meaning behind what is written and the language it was previously written in and translations. I would think they probably have a better idea than I do, but for someone who doesn't believe in god at all I would say that any meaning they get from it is pure literary.
The prohibition is not against killing, it against committing murder.
And there are similar mistranslations throughout the Bible. It's not a witch who shall not be suffered to live, but a well-poisoner. And let us not forget the biggest trouble-maker of all, the translation of a word meaning 'young woman' as 'virgin.'
But these are not quite the same thing as latitude in interpretation.
The New Revised Standard Version says "murder" but the KJV says "kill." The Church evidently revised it perhaps urged by the State, not wanting soldiers and executioners to feel guilty about their State assigned jobs. 'Just typical manipulation to help keep people civil according to the mores of State and not their own hearts. I say it's bullshit. If an imaginary deity creates a LAW it is written in stone for eternity because if it isn't for eternity then that deity has even less intergalactical authority than any of his/her blind faith "believers" have given him/her or it.
The Church (WHICH Church?) had nothing to do with it. The NRS tried for better translations, at least some of the time. The specific word translates better as 'murder.'
I wouldn't think accidental death would be considered a crime in any situation. I figured they were talking about an execution by the government versus murder by a serial killer or a jealous husband. IMO either of those situations is murder. Of course if you belong to the school of thought that says state execution is not murder... well, in the event they were to ever execute the wrong man, would it be murder then?
I think anyone that would rationalize it is not murder makes me think that if people can twist the Word to make the government look blameless then they can twist the Word to use it as a justification for anything they want to justify.
[1 point]2 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 2 years ago by Chipmonk
As I stated in my comment directly above... if the state were to ever execute the wrong person, that would be murder then, ...right?
And how about soldiers that get killed by "friendly fire?" That is murder, isn't it? If not, why not? Just because it is the "government" saying it's okay should not be any excuse. Who is "government" but people just like us? Does the fact they were elected make them right? Or are they "right" just because they say they are right? If so, in my best Lenny Bruce... that's just bullshit.
[1 point]2 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 2 years ago by Chipmonk
Nope. Because the conviction, innocent or not, confers the right. Ask any DA who has refused to let an exonerated convict go free. Florida might be a good place to start.
Unknown
Not all of them, but I'm pretty sure that "Thou shalt not kill" is going to be hard to get off the books.
It sad to see so many of the extremists Muslims,Jews,Christians openly defy that one.
Some are relevant. Some are not relevant. For example, with so many one parent "families" where they don't even know who's their daddy, how can a child be expected to obey the commandment about honoring "Father?"
I agree, but even if the Father was known, I don't think respect can be demanded.
Respect is earned. Honor is given.
Chip- One parent families make it especially difficult to honor the absentee father. Sometimes, he can serve as an object lesson of what not to do. Then you can follow that commandment by honoring father figures in your life; an uncle, a coach, a teacher, or a stepfather.
So my reply to Lin below is not something you would agree on?
You mean about all the commandments being equal? Most Christians believe, as jondaugh explained, that there are no lesser commandments. I'm different than most Christians though. Breaking the commandments have very different consequences depending on which are broken. That leads me to believe that, though you can't pick and choose, some are more important than others.
It's really just common sense, isn't it? :-)
Some yes, some no, and of the yes ones, some more so than others.
I don't think coveting your neighbours ass is all that bad if she has a cute one :)
Bestiality is illegal over here. lol.
Depends on which state you live in, so I hear.
Same over here, though I think the authorities turn a blind eye about the Welsh and their sheep :)
The last six, not the first four.
The individual commendments don't seem to be relevant for most people, although especially some jews like to make a point out of not working on the sabbath. I don't believe anyone refrains from murder because of the commandment against it, least of all the fundies who are more than willing to kill.
The commandments as a whole seems to be important to a lot of people though, and a symbolic political issue in the US.
It's more accurately translated "murder" than "kill."
That means that different cultures define murder differently. Kill is pretty well kill across the board.
Too bad the criteria aren't defined in the commendments then. Seems it's up to everyone to decide what their god considers "murder".
Yep. That's true of any value. That's why there are so many sectarian differences.
Most of them apply today. Depends on how a person looks at it. The first four are the most important. But if you don't believe in God none of the commandments would apply to you.
You believe that your relationship with a mythical being is more important than how you treat real living human beings.
I think what she says is that if you dont believe in god then these commandments are irrelevant. You have not particular need to follow them other than doing what you think is right or wrong.
Some Christians say if you break one Commandment you've broken them all.
I cannot see how not honoring an absentee father carries the same weight as killing someone, can you?
Probably not. Yet "fundies" believe whatever their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and in very rare cases great-great grandparents have told them.
Foolhardy?
"Some Christians say if you break one Commandment you've broken them all."
I think what you mean to say is that most Christians are taught that they are all commandments and are all to be treated as equally important. There are no "lesser" commandments. Therefore using the lords name in vain, is just as much a sin as murder.
Another thing, the bible was written long ago, in a different time and a different culture. It was told verbally many generations before it was written. Precise translations are open for interpretation. That being said, to me, the honor thy father and mother mean that you should take care of the people who took care of you when you were to young to do so for yourself. If you had a step-mom instead of a blood related mother who raised you, then I am assuming the bible is instructing you to care for her in her old age out of duty, honor and respect. I dont think the bible is commanding you to track down your biological father and honor him and his wishes. I do think it does say to love him as a person and to love that person as you would love yourself. Thats just my opinion and may differ slightly from the Pope.
No question it's a very old document. That gives us complete latitude in interpreting it any way we please, right? :-)
I think it up to people to believe what they believe. No doubt that bible scholars who study the bible are better at judging the meaning behind what is written and the language it was previously written in and translations. I would think they probably have a better idea than I do, but for someone who doesn't believe in god at all I would say that any meaning they get from it is pure literary.
The prohibition is not against killing, it against committing murder.
And there are similar mistranslations throughout the Bible. It's not a witch who shall not be suffered to live, but a well-poisoner. And let us not forget the biggest trouble-maker of all, the translation of a word meaning 'young woman' as 'virgin.'
But these are not quite the same thing as latitude in interpretation.
The New Revised Standard Version says "murder" but the KJV says "kill." The Church evidently revised it perhaps urged by the State, not wanting soldiers and executioners to feel guilty about their State assigned jobs. 'Just typical manipulation to help keep people civil according to the mores of State and not their own hearts. I say it's bullshit. If an imaginary deity creates a LAW it is written in stone for eternity because if it isn't for eternity then that deity has even less intergalactical authority than any of his/her blind faith "believers" have given him/her or it.
The Church (WHICH Church?) had nothing to do with it. The NRS tried for better translations, at least some of the time. The specific word translates better as 'murder.'
kill... murder... same difference except in case B the state wants you to feel like a hero. :)
It's the difference between your wife being accidentally killed in a car wreck or being tracked down and shot by an old boyfriend.
I wouldn't think accidental death would be considered a crime in any situation. I figured they were talking about an execution by the government versus murder by a serial killer or a jealous husband. IMO either of those situations is murder. Of course if you belong to the school of thought that says state execution is not murder... well, in the event they were to ever execute the wrong man, would it be murder then?
I think anyone that would rationalize it is not murder makes me think that if people can twist the Word to make the government look blameless then they can twist the Word to use it as a justification for anything they want to justify.
I have been assuming that, as a nation of laws, the legal definition of murder is what counts in our discussion.
I'm OK with that, except that I'm uncomfortable how cavalier governments with great powers treat killing for cause.
As I replied to Dauguy below...
Granted "the law" is on their side, but is it RIGHT just because it's the law?
Doesn't ethics and equity transcend "law?"
The difference between killing and murdering is that one is legal--like execution in barbarian places--and the other is not.
As I stated in my comment directly above... if the state were to ever execute the wrong person, that would be murder then, ...right?
And how about soldiers that get killed by "friendly fire?" That is murder, isn't it? If not, why not? Just because it is the "government" saying it's okay should not be any excuse. Who is "government" but people just like us? Does the fact they were elected make them right? Or are they "right" just because they say they are right? If so, in my best Lenny Bruce... that's just bullshit.
Nope. Because the conviction, innocent or not, confers the right. Ask any DA who has refused to let an exonerated convict go free. Florida might be a good place to start.
It is a matter of legality, NOT INTENT.
Granted "the law" is on their side, but is it RIGHT just because it's the law?
Doesn't ethics and equity transcend "law?"
I have so argued in the past, but you did not agree.
It's a "man" thing. :-)
http://bit.ly/1kOKoN
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5519239193881956619#