I Am The Lord, Thy God!

[amicus]

From a wiki piece "The Ten Commandments"

I am the Lord your God

You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

~~~

Watching Part One, "Russia, The Land of the Tsars" on History International, a spoken voice garnered my attention, "I am the Lord, your God!", with such clarity, I smiled.

The audacity of the man who wrote that line, those lines and dared speak them before others....imagine it...get a picture...

How many times have I/we read on this forum in assorted and sundry places, morals, 'carved in stone'? Well, it is said there were over 600 commandments, but then, who is to know anyway?

Having an idea of how the ancients felt about their gods and goddesses, spirits and demons, it must have taken one helluva set of cojones for a man to utter those words, eh?

Someone recently accused me of having absolute moral concepts not unlike Judeo Christian morality and there are some similarities without a doubt.

Are there any of the Ten that you would adhere to as a moral edict?

Could you make a logical case for each, any, all?

Since there have been so many comments concerning morals and ethics of late, I thought perhaps there would be a place for this.

?

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

I never gave much weight to the Ten Commandments, despite their significance in the Old Testament. Depending upon how you look at things, I've broken nine out of ten of those listed (the only one being the first -- but even then, my view of God is quite a bit different from the Judeo-Christian idea). It's ever my feeling that the commandments were a human invention, cloaked in the mysticism of religion. I simply don't think God would bother giving us rules to begin with. We're the ones who live with each other; it's our job to make the rules.

As far as audacity . . . heh. There's been a lot of that throughout history. Moses claiming to be the voice of God. Caligula claiming to be a god, as well as numerous pharaohs (or all of them, if you subscribe to the prevalent belief about ancient Egyptian history).

Once the line is crossed to expound the righteousness of one's beliefs over all others, audacity necessarily follows.

 

[amicus]

Once the line is crossed to expound the righteousness of one's beliefs over all others, audacity necessarily follows.

Ouch! I think I resemble that remark!



ami

 

[slyc_willie]

Ouch! I think I resemble that remark!



ami

Hey, you said it, Ami, not me.

I prefer to just stand back and smugly enjoy the fact that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[amicus]

Pleased to know there are at least da two of us!

ami

 

[slyc_willie]

I hope anyone who comes across this thread later understands the facetious tone in my reply above (and, I suspect, yours as well). Ah, well, what's said is said.

In thinking about such statements as "I am the Lord, thy God," I'm reminded of the power that religion and religious belief in general has over the majority of human beings. I mean, let's say I'm a military commander and I order my soldiers to attack a town. If they think my order is the result of a whim (maybe I had some bad sushi there or something), they might very well hesitate, even rebel.

But if I claim to have experienced a vision, or heard the voice of God, and am charismatic enough, then it's not just me ordering my soldiers to sack the town, it's God Himself. That's a powerful impetus, as well as a convenient excuse, to perform actions that might otherwise be against your moral nature. After all, God is telling you to destroy the town and everyone in it; therefore, you're automatically absolved of your actions.

We have thousands of examples of this throughout history. It seems that little more is needed than a convenient enough excuse of religion, or at least groupthink (such as Hitler's philosophy) to reduce much of humanity to bloodthirsty savages. Or stoic automatons.

 

[amicus]

I guess this can be a conversation between the two of us, at least for the time being; someone even commented on that per another thread.

With a tease of spring, mid May rains are falling again and dampening my spirits and limiting access to the great out of doors and this afternoon and evening I have been blessed with a plethora of offerings on the Science & History Channels, plus a bonus of Mission Coverage on NASA channel of the Hubble repair mission that begins tomorrow.

In light of this conversation and another thread concerning human actions, Battle of the Atlantic on the Military Channel, Uboat action against shipping, Russia, Land of the Tsars, and currently, PBS "World War 11: Behind", I have had my fill of man's inhumanity to man during wartime. Particularly pathetic is both the German and Russian treatment of the Polish people in Warsaw, events I would prefer not to know occurred.

Reviewing your post for a moment, yes, the motivation behind war and those inhumane acts, leaves one gasping and grasping for comprehension and realizing, to use a cliche, the thin veneer of civilization that covers the naked ape.

If there are any profound statements about human conflict, they have already been uttered, many times by many others and I doubt I have anything to even add to the totality.

See, there is a touch of humility amidst the clutter of hubris I usually emanate.

Still, all in all, I do not condemn mankind nor society in general, for that beast, that naked ape, lives still within me and I imagine, you too, were you or your family threatened.

I do not fault a man, or men, or a nation, for defending themselves and those they love and cherish; instead, I fault those who would use force to take those things they desire.

I did, or participated in another thread, that evil can only exist when the good do nothing, theme, and I suggest that holds true. But there always comes a point where the evil seem to outnumber the good and violent acts become the last resort.

I have hunted before, Kodiak Bear, Rocky Mountain Elk, Deer, and there is an excitement, a thrill to the chase and the hunt. Although in modern society, hunting is no longer primarily a source of food, it still remains a sport for that very reason, the thrill of the hunt, the kill.

When there is individual risk of life, the level of stimulation is even higher and I think the heat of battle in war, approximates those risk taking activities that man seems to have proclivities towards.

Even in my fictional tribe of Native Americans, ten thousand years ago, they posted lookouts and guards around the encampment at night to protect from predators, animal and human. They also came into conflict with others when they encroached on their territory.

I guess in summation I would offer that the ability to use violence to defend one's self is part of the nature of man, a necessary ability to continue to survive and protect life. And that characteristic of our nature, like any other, can be corrupted and used for evil means.

I prefer to view those things you listed as virtues, not vices, regardless of the source, to bring a people together in mutual self defense. I do not, and would not wish to, view the entire history of man as one bloody conflict after another.

Amicus

 

[slyc_willie]

I prefer to view those things you listed as virtues, not vices, regardless of the source, to bring a people together in mutual self defense. I do not, and would not wish to, view the entire history of man as one bloody conflict after another.

Amicus

Nor I. For, if that were the case, we would not have evolved from the apes that came before us.

Violence holds a negative connotation for many people, in that, to engage in it is somehow debasing, even wrong or evil. No one calls a lion evil for killing the gazelle, yet we, as 'enlightened humans' are supposed to find a reasonable way out of a conflict.

Why can't violence be reasonable? If all other possibilities have been exhausted, and all that remains is kill or be killed, is it not reasonable to resort to violence?

On the other hand, there are too many to so easily resort to such a final and decisive act. And that is what gives 'violence' a bad name. If violence is the last resort for the enlightened mind, it is the first resort for the simple. Or, at least, the uncaring.

The ancient Greeks understood that diplomacy and tact, persuasiveness and charisma, had their necessary place. The right words at the right time could begin wars or end them before they were even started. They crafted an art out of that practice. But when there were no other options, and violence was the only means left available, they made damn sure they were the best at it.

Teddy Roosevelt was famous for saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick," meaning, essentially, play the political word game and use your charisma to its fullest, but when the dice are thrown and all chips are down, you better be able to back up those words with action.

Still, I cannot foresee a human future without violence. That would be anathema to our race. But what truly counts is what we contribute between the wars.

 

[Liar]

Having an idea of how the ancients felt about their gods and goddesses, spirits and demons, it must have taken one helluva set of cojones for a man to utter those words, eh?

Or delusion. Delusion does a long way.

If you think the voice in your head is God, is there an option to doing what you're told?

 

[slyc_willie]

Or delusion. Delusion does a long way.

If you think the voice in your head is God, is there an option to doing what you're told?

Whether it's delusion or not is practically immaterial. It's the actions of the followers that means the most.

 

[Vermilion]

I thought Ami was suffering from massive delusions of grandeur for a moment there...


Oh well, makes a change from just plain ol' deluded
x
V

 

[neonlyte]

'Thou shalt not fiddle expenses whilst a Member of Parliament'

Fucking Brits!!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm writing a story about the use of violence to manage government and corporate predators when the government is corrupt and the watchdogs look the other way.

 

[WRJames]

The close of Martin Luther King's last speech before his assassintion

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

We have seen prophets walk among us in our time.

Yes, it talks more than courage to declare that you are speaking for the Lord. If you were at all familiar with the Bible, you would know that Moses ran away as hard as he could from that task. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to his destiny. Almost every prophet is recorded as having the same reaction.

You might want to take a look at The Son, which deals with this issue at some length.

 

[CharleyH]

Are there any of the Ten that you would adhere to as a moral edict?

Could you make a logical case for each, any, all?

Since there have been so many comments concerning morals and ethics of late, I thought perhaps there would be a place for this.
Amicus

I think all ten commandments are good moral ethics. But commandments of God?

 

[JamesSD]

One interesting thing noted in the wikipedia article is how various groups don't actually agree on how to count the ten commandments. They agree on the content, and that there's ten of them, but the way I learned them as a Lutheran lumps:
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
Together into the first commandment.

Let's go with the way Jewish scholars break them down, as they are generally the true experts on the Torah, and can actually, you know, read Hebrew.

The first Four commandments deal with God's divinity and jealousness. I'm your god. I'm your only god. No other gods. Worship me on the Sabbath.

#5 is to honor your father and mother. Most people agree with this in principle. But mothers and fathers are human beings with flaws. At the time it was probably intended to instill blind faith in the traditions passed down.

No murder, adultery or stealing are the next three, arguably the "criminal" commandments. It's interesting that adultery was wedged right in there between murder and stealing. Of course, during biblical times marriage was seen as a property transaction. Adultery was defined as a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband, but not to a married man, unless the woman was married. In our present world view, while we can agree that murder, adultery and stealing are all things to be avoided, we typically think of murder as a much worse offense.

#8 is to not bear false witness. Very for a code of laws, and certainly something most people can get behind.

#9-10 are the tricky "coveting" commandments. It's arguably not a gigantic challenge not to kill, steal, or commit adultery. However, every one of us has lusted after something that belonged to someone else. From a societal stability standpoint, having people not want each other's stuff and being content with what they have has obvious benefits. You also can strongly argue that happiness comes not from the accumulation of wealth, but contentment with what one has. Still, it's remarkable that we have two commandments that are extremely difficult, and deal not with action, but with thoughts and desire.

My understanding is the commandments borrowed heavily from existing jewish law, which in turn borrowed heavily from the code of hammurabi and other sources. Most codes of law are designed to protect people and property, and that's what commandments 5-10 do, in effect.

 

[JackLuis]

What I find interesting is that as soon as the Hebrews got to the edge of Israel, they immediately started "coveting", the land, the water, even the cities they found.

Next when the people who were living in the "Promised Land" objected, the Hebrews started killing them.

I guess once a prophet dies, the tendancey is to "bend" the rules a little?

 

[JamesSD]

What I find interesting is that as soon as the Hebrews got to the edge of Israel, they immediately started "coveting", the land, the water, even the cities they found.

Next when the people who were living in the "Promised Land" objected, the Hebrews started killing them.

I guess once a prophet dies, the tendancey is to "bend" the rules a little?

Which rules are you speaking of?

I'm pretty sure that the understanding of "murder" would have been an adult male jew. Women and children were considered property, so killing one of them (aside from perhaps the firstborn son) would generally be along the lines of killing an animal. And "Neighbor" would literally translate to other adult male Jews.

Killing in time of war is rarely called "murder". If you believe the Bible, it pretty explicitly says that the Jews are God's chosen people, and god wants them to have israel. It treats the other tribes and people living there quite poorly.

I'm not supporting commonplace ancient behavior. Just saying it's consistent within their law.

 

[Pure]

note on covet; other note

#9-10 are the tricky "coveting" commandments. It's arguably not a gigantic challenge not to kill, steal, or commit adultery. However, every one of us has lusted after something that belonged to someone else. From a societal stability standpoint, having people not want each other's stuff and being content with what they have has obvious benefits. You also can strongly argue that happiness comes not from the accumulation of wealth, but contentment with what one has. Still, it's remarkable that we have two commandments that are extremely difficult, and deal not with action, but with thoughts and desire.

it's kind of an axiom that a morality deals in actions, and, further, we know the ancients did NOT generally look within when the law was broken, e.g. ask 'what was your motive," and "does the motive exculpate". the Greek and Hebrew stories are full of inadvertent acts that have forbidden consequences and the doer pays full price.

in that light, and i don't have the sources nearby, but 'covet' has to mean more than 'want' or 'have a hankering for.' iirc, in orthodox judaism we are talking about a state something like "a craving that's about to erupt into action." you're 'coveting' the neighbors wife, and in another minute will be climbing over the fence into his back yard where she's sunning herself

==

an 'odd' omission from the 10 C is stuff on incest.

it might be remembered that 10C is now quite the Christian concept: although i'm no expert, as i understand it, the "ten" are more like file folders or the headings of them. the 613 official list, mostly fall into these ten 'folders' or categories.
===

as to numbering, i believe this site gives the accurate versions:
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible Studies/10 Commandments.htm

 

[WRJames]

it might be remembered that 10C is now quite the Christian concept:

Yes and no. Jesus is criticized for healing on the Sabbath -- an apparent violation of the original ten, and he offers up some new, more important, commandents.

 

[mythtrav16]

From a wiki piece "The Ten Commandments"

The audacity of the man who wrote that line, those lines and dared speak them before others....imagine it...get a picture...

The number of different religions on this planet is mind boggling when you stop to think of all the people who believe themselves to be god.

it might be remembered that 10C is now quite the Christian concept: although i'm no expert, as i understand it, the "ten" are more like file folders or the headings of them. the 613 official list, mostly fall into these ten 'folders' or categories.

That's funny, because during my christian upbringing, a religious teacher said that Jesus actually summed them all up into a more concise two commandments: Love God and love humanity.

 

[JackLuis]

Which rules are you speaking of?

I'm pretty sure that the understanding of "murder" would have been an adult male jew. Women and children were considered property, so killing one of them (aside from perhaps the firstborn son) would generally be along the lines of killing an animal. And "Neighbor" would literally translate to other adult male Jews.

Killing in time of war is rarely called "murder". If you believe the Bible, it pretty explicitly says that the Jews are God's chosen people, and god wants them to have israel. It treats the other tribes and people living there quite poorly.

I'm not supporting commonplace ancient behavior. Just saying it's consistent within their law.

So no commandment on war one way or the other, eh? How convenient.
That is exactly like the "Hair Splitting" that is going on in Washington's City.

War is a sin, it diminishes all who engage in it. Fuck War!

 

[Handley_Page]

War is a sin, it diminishes all who engage in it. !

Sadly, there are all too many in this world who do not subscribe to that view.

 

[amicus]

JackLuis, Handley Page....I know there is and has always been an, 'anti-war' contingent among populations and I have never quite understood why.

Beginning with the innate right to self defense against predators, animal and human, by what reason do you reject the concept of self defense expanded to a national level?

I am curious as to the mind set if you would care to expound, for I truly do not comprehend those who would turn the other cheek and subject themselves and their loved ones to rape and pillage.

Amicus

 

[mythtrav16]

Sadly, there are all too many in this world who do not subscribe to that view.

Too true. Do you remember that fact that came out in the lead up to the year 2000? That during the entire last millenium, there were only twelve days when there wasn't a known war occurring somewhere in the world?

JackLuis, Handley Page....I know there is and has always been an, 'anti-war' contingent among populations and I have never quite understood why.

Beginning with the innate right to self defense against predators, animal and human, by what reason do you reject the concept of self defense expanded to a national level?

I am curious as to the mind set if you would care to expound, for I truly do not comprehend those who would turn the other cheek and subject themselves and their loved ones to rape and pillage.

I don't know about the others on here, but I am cool with self defense, if it is in response to real, not hypothetical agression. It is the agression itself that is the problem for me, as too many see it as a solution to their troubles.