Steven J said...
On the other hand, if one's perception of something ... is necessarily limited and incomplete, how can one ever be sure ... that one knows ...
@Steven J
That's an excellent question. It's a question that the great minds of philosophy have wrestled with for centuries.
I excerpted from your response, removing the references to "Ray" and "God" to highlight the essential question.
You may choose to believe that Ray's belief in God is the heart of the issue. But I submit to you that what is REALLY at issue is the "problem of knowledge", the framework of the your response.
The "absence of belief that there is a God" is ALSO subject to the problem of knowledge. (It really doesn't matter whether you frame it as an "absence of belief of existence" or a "belief of non-existence", both are subject to the same problem.)
All of which leads us back to the problem of evidence, that is, observations and interpretation of those observations, weighed as evidence. And that is informed by one's worldview (the philosophical framework by which one interprets the world around them.)
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Using God's Name In Vain
James Romance said...
In all of history, no one has ever used God's name in vain. How do I know that? Because no one knows what God's actual name is.
@James Romance
You make an extraordinary claim to a knowledge of history. I believe your knowledge is incomplete, and inaccurate.
The ancient Jews did know what God's personal name was. They held God's name in high regard, in reverence, that His name was not to be spoken.
God's personal name is Yahweh. (In the Hebrew, of course, it is just four consonants. We represent the Hebrew consonants using the Roman letters YHWH.
And God has another speakable personal name, the name of Jesus. The name before which every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
So, it's not at all true that no one knows the name of God. Put that silly notion aside.
The bigger question, of course, is: what does the Bible mean when it speaks of "taking the Lord's name in vain"? What is the actual meaning?
For one thing, it means taking a solemn oath in God's name, and then not honoring that oath. That devalues the name of God.
Actually, any usage of God's name that devalues God is consider "vain". That is, "taking the Lord's name in vain"would be any usage of His name that imparts a lack of substance or worth. Basically, any foolish (unwise) use of God's name.
Such usage is sometimes referred to as "swearing" or "cursing". (I think we get the idea of "swearing" from the meaning of swearing an oath on something of value, and we get the idea of "cursing" from the meaning of God causing a curse to fall upon a group or an individual.)
N.B. This notion of cursing is not to be confused with the more generic "vulgarity", which simply means an inelegant or coarse expression, one that could be offensive to good taste or propriety.)
In summary, a true understanding of the third commandment is much deeper than the superficial meaning you propose.
HTH
In all of history, no one has ever used God's name in vain. How do I know that? Because no one knows what God's actual name is.
@James Romance
You make an extraordinary claim to a knowledge of history. I believe your knowledge is incomplete, and inaccurate.
The ancient Jews did know what God's personal name was. They held God's name in high regard, in reverence, that His name was not to be spoken.
God's personal name is Yahweh. (In the Hebrew, of course, it is just four consonants. We represent the Hebrew consonants using the Roman letters YHWH.
And God has another speakable personal name, the name of Jesus. The name before which every knee will bow and every tongue confess.
So, it's not at all true that no one knows the name of God. Put that silly notion aside.
The bigger question, of course, is: what does the Bible mean when it speaks of "taking the Lord's name in vain"? What is the actual meaning?
For one thing, it means taking a solemn oath in God's name, and then not honoring that oath. That devalues the name of God.
Actually, any usage of God's name that devalues God is consider "vain". That is, "taking the Lord's name in vain"would be any usage of His name that imparts a lack of substance or worth. Basically, any foolish (unwise) use of God's name.
Such usage is sometimes referred to as "swearing" or "cursing". (I think we get the idea of "swearing" from the meaning of swearing an oath on something of value, and we get the idea of "cursing" from the meaning of God causing a curse to fall upon a group or an individual.)
N.B. This notion of cursing is not to be confused with the more generic "vulgarity", which simply means an inelegant or coarse expression, one that could be offensive to good taste or propriety.)
In summary, a true understanding of the third commandment is much deeper than the superficial meaning you propose.
HTH
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Measuring God's Morality
James Romance concludes...
Clearly the Bible's concept of what is moral/immoral falls short of many higher standards by which morals can be measured.
@James Romance
By what standards does one measure morality? And of these standards, which is of the most importance?
By what token do you esteem any standard "higher" than that of the Most High, the author and creator of the universe?
God is the sole author of right and wrong. He judges the thoughts and actions of all men perfectly.
On that appointed day, when you stand before the throne of judgment, what will be your defense before the judge that knows all things perfectly, even those things hidden in your heart. That there was a "higher" human morality which stands above God's perfect morality? That you have chosen to elevate your own morality above that of God?
"Behold, he has become like one of us, knowing right from wrong."
Make no mistake about this. The truth is that the wrath of God that will be poured out on those who use foolish and deceitful words to lead people astray from the truth of God.
You have an opportunity to turn away from evil and turn back towards God. He is anxious to forgive. The gift of God's mercy is free, there is nothing you need to do to earn it. There is nothing you can do to earn it. All you have to do is accept it.
The choice is yours. Choose wisely.
Clearly the Bible's concept of what is moral/immoral falls short of many higher standards by which morals can be measured.
@James Romance
By what standards does one measure morality? And of these standards, which is of the most importance?
By what token do you esteem any standard "higher" than that of the Most High, the author and creator of the universe?
God is the sole author of right and wrong. He judges the thoughts and actions of all men perfectly.
On that appointed day, when you stand before the throne of judgment, what will be your defense before the judge that knows all things perfectly, even those things hidden in your heart. That there was a "higher" human morality which stands above God's perfect morality? That you have chosen to elevate your own morality above that of God?
"Behold, he has become like one of us, knowing right from wrong."
Make no mistake about this. The truth is that the wrath of God that will be poured out on those who use foolish and deceitful words to lead people astray from the truth of God.
You have an opportunity to turn away from evil and turn back towards God. He is anxious to forgive. The gift of God's mercy is free, there is nothing you need to do to earn it. There is nothing you can do to earn it. All you have to do is accept it.
The choice is yours. Choose wisely.
Is Murder The Same As Hatred
captain howdy asks...
Spencer, tell me--Is murder morally really the same as hatred? Is thinking about doing something ethically the same as doing it? Because that's what your religion is saying here.
@captain howdy
Yes, in a sense, they are the same. God cannot abide even the tiniest amount of sin. God abhors all sins, great and small.
So, yes, in a sense, they are the same. The end result of all sin is the same. Sin separates me from God.
And it's not "religion" that is saying this. God says it clearly. This is exactly what Jesus said.
Let's be clear. All sin will be punished justly. I am free to choose my thoughts and actions. But I am not free to choose the consequences.
HTH
Spencer, tell me--Is murder morally really the same as hatred? Is thinking about doing something ethically the same as doing it? Because that's what your religion is saying here.
@captain howdy
Yes, in a sense, they are the same. God cannot abide even the tiniest amount of sin. God abhors all sins, great and small.
So, yes, in a sense, they are the same. The end result of all sin is the same. Sin separates me from God.
And it's not "religion" that is saying this. God says it clearly. This is exactly what Jesus said.
Let's be clear. All sin will be punished justly. I am free to choose my thoughts and actions. But I am not free to choose the consequences.
HTH
Pick Up Sticks
Steven J asks...
Are you suggesting that we (or you) are free to pick up sticks on the Sabbath because Jesus is the fulfillment of the fourth commandment?
@Steven J
Yes, exactly.
I am free in Christ to gather firewood on the (ritual Jewish) Sabbath. In Christ, I am not under the condemnation of the Law.
Recall that the religious leaders accused Jesus of violating the Law when he picked grain on the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:1
Mark 2:23
Luke 6:1
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and I am in Christ, the life of Jesus is in me.
Would also prohibit me from wearing fabrics woven of two kinds of thread, or prohibit me from having bacon on my cheeseburger?
I am not under the curse of the powerless law. I am set free in Christ.
HTH
Are you suggesting that we (or you) are free to pick up sticks on the Sabbath because Jesus is the fulfillment of the fourth commandment?
@Steven J
Yes, exactly.
I am free in Christ to gather firewood on the (ritual Jewish) Sabbath. In Christ, I am not under the condemnation of the Law.
Recall that the religious leaders accused Jesus of violating the Law when he picked grain on the Sabbath.
Matthew 12:1
Mark 2:23
Luke 6:1
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and I am in Christ, the life of Jesus is in me.
Would also prohibit me from wearing fabrics woven of two kinds of thread, or prohibit me from having bacon on my cheeseburger?
I am not under the curse of the powerless law. I am set free in Christ.
HTH
Do Not Covet
James Romance said...
The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others", in real life it only says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors [things]", which Christians twist around to mean "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others". It says nothing about coveting things which belong to strangers, just neighbors.
@James Romance
You seem to make a careful distinction between "strangers" and "neighbors".
Have you ever considered what the Bible has to say about who your neighbor is?
Since it was God that gave the instruction concerning a "neighbor", perhaps should consider what God means by "neighbor".
---
One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?"
The man answered, "'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
'Right!' Jesus told him. 'Do this and you will live!'
The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Luke 10:25-29 (NLT)
Jesus gives the man an answer to his question, in the form of a parable. The answer is that a stranger is a man's neighbor.
HTH
The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others", in real life it only says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors [things]", which Christians twist around to mean "Thou shalt not desire things that belong to others". It says nothing about coveting things which belong to strangers, just neighbors.
@James Romance
You seem to make a careful distinction between "strangers" and "neighbors".
Have you ever considered what the Bible has to say about who your neighbor is?
Since it was God that gave the instruction concerning a "neighbor", perhaps should consider what God means by "neighbor".
---
One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?"
The man answered, "'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
'Right!' Jesus told him. 'Do this and you will live!'
The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
Luke 10:25-29 (NLT)
Jesus gives the man an answer to his question, in the form of a parable. The answer is that a stranger is a man's neighbor.
HTH
God Does Not Sin
Pvblivs said...
So, if Jesus ever got angry (according to your interpretation) he was a sinner. And if your deity "pours out his wrath" on people, he is a sinner as well. Anger is a prerequisite for wrath. You can be angry, but not act it out, in which case you are not wrathful. Or you can act on it, in which case you are wrathful.
Not all anger is unrighteous. And the righteous wrath of God is not preceded by unrighteous anger (contrary to your assertion.)
The anger of Jesus in the temple was righteous. The anger of Jesus was not of malice or spite. His anger was rightful at the desecration of his father's house. Jesus took righteous action. There was no sin in the anger of Jesus.
Jesus teaches the meaning of the commandment clearly. It's not just the action of taking an innocent life that breaks the commandment. It's the condition of a man's heart that finds him guilty of breaking the commandment. This isn't something I made up. This is the clear teaching of Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-23)
But you choose to disregard the clear meaning of God's word, and choose to substitute your own contorted thinking. For what reason? Do you find pleasure in misrepresenting the truth of God's word? Do you take delight in leading people astray from the path that leads to life?
I fear that you have fallen prey to Satan's desire to lead the whole world astray. (cf. Revelation 12:9)
So, if Jesus ever got angry (according to your interpretation) he was a sinner. And if your deity "pours out his wrath" on people, he is a sinner as well. Anger is a prerequisite for wrath. You can be angry, but not act it out, in which case you are not wrathful. Or you can act on it, in which case you are wrathful.
Not all anger is unrighteous. And the righteous wrath of God is not preceded by unrighteous anger (contrary to your assertion.)
The anger of Jesus in the temple was righteous. The anger of Jesus was not of malice or spite. His anger was rightful at the desecration of his father's house. Jesus took righteous action. There was no sin in the anger of Jesus.
Jesus teaches the meaning of the commandment clearly. It's not just the action of taking an innocent life that breaks the commandment. It's the condition of a man's heart that finds him guilty of breaking the commandment. This isn't something I made up. This is the clear teaching of Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-23)
But you choose to disregard the clear meaning of God's word, and choose to substitute your own contorted thinking. For what reason? Do you find pleasure in misrepresenting the truth of God's word? Do you take delight in leading people astray from the path that leads to life?
I fear that you have fallen prey to Satan's desire to lead the whole world astray. (cf. Revelation 12:9)
Two Sets of Ten Commandments
Coryat said...
Why Ray old bean, I'm afraid you'll have to be far more specific. More than one version of the commandments was given; see for example the contrasting versions given in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34.
Also, you've yet to answer how you decide what is for example 'ceremonial' law, and what isn't. Since I know you follow a straight sola scriptura reading, surely you could fill us in?
Curious minds want to know!
@Coryat
Exodus 34 says that words written on the replacment tables were the SAME WORDS written on the original tablets:
"The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." Exodus 34:1
God gives instruction to Moses. He tells Moses to write down other things, which are different from the words that God himself engraves on the stone tablets.
cf. Deuteronomy 4:13
cf. Deuteronomy 5:22
God himself engraves the Ten Commandments on the first stone tablets.
God himself engraves the SAME WORDS on the replacement tablets.
God also commands Moses to write down OTHER commandments for the Children of Israel.
Why Ray old bean, I'm afraid you'll have to be far more specific. More than one version of the commandments was given; see for example the contrasting versions given in Exodus 20 and Exodus 34.
Also, you've yet to answer how you decide what is for example 'ceremonial' law, and what isn't. Since I know you follow a straight sola scriptura reading, surely you could fill us in?
Curious minds want to know!
@Coryat
Exodus 34 says that words written on the replacment tables were the SAME WORDS written on the original tablets:
"The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke." Exodus 34:1
God gives instruction to Moses. He tells Moses to write down other things, which are different from the words that God himself engraves on the stone tablets.
cf. Deuteronomy 4:13
cf. Deuteronomy 5:22
God himself engraves the Ten Commandments on the first stone tablets.
God himself engraves the SAME WORDS on the replacement tablets.
God also commands Moses to write down OTHER commandments for the Children of Israel.
Universal Morality
derreckbennett said..
The Ten Commandments don't represent anything particularly innovative in Mediterranean antiquity, nor do they bear the mark of divine revelation. This is because, ultimately, all such codes of conduct represent "universals" among mankind that, over the course of time, naturally came about for the sake of social order and harmony within developing civilizations
@derreckbennet
Yes, you are quite right that morality (the idea that murder and theft are wrong) is universal to mankind. This is quite true. Mankind has morality written on his heart.
But, this is not the result of natural processes, as you assert it is.
You are right that it was not the Ten Commandments that brought morality to mankind.
The truth is that it was God that created man with a moral compass, and it is God that gives every man a conscience to inform his thoughts and behavior.
The universality of moral codes you observe is a product of God's handiwork, not of unguided natural processes and random chance.
HTH
The Ten Commandments don't represent anything particularly innovative in Mediterranean antiquity, nor do they bear the mark of divine revelation. This is because, ultimately, all such codes of conduct represent "universals" among mankind that, over the course of time, naturally came about for the sake of social order and harmony within developing civilizations
@derreckbennet
Yes, you are quite right that morality (the idea that murder and theft are wrong) is universal to mankind. This is quite true. Mankind has morality written on his heart.
But, this is not the result of natural processes, as you assert it is.
You are right that it was not the Ten Commandments that brought morality to mankind.
The truth is that it was God that created man with a moral compass, and it is God that gives every man a conscience to inform his thoughts and behavior.
The universality of moral codes you observe is a product of God's handiwork, not of unguided natural processes and random chance.
HTH
Those Infernal Parentheses
culberto said...
Don’t murder (violated through hatred). Don’t commit adultery (violated with lust--see Matthew 5:27-28).
You see Ray, the reason that you have to keep adding those infernal parentheses is that it *isn't* all there. Reading this post reminded me of my experiences reading the Bible you sent me. Just unbearable.
@culberto,
The truth is that those infernal parenthesis *are* there. They are there because Jesus teaches the full meaning of the Law and the commandments.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
Jesus reveals that the former Law was only a shadow. The commandment appears to prohibit the taking of an innocent life. But the reality is that the commandment is against anger. Anyone that has a heart of spite or malice, they are guilty of breaking the commandment.
(See my prior response to captain howdy.)
Don’t murder (violated through hatred). Don’t commit adultery (violated with lust--see Matthew 5:27-28).
You see Ray, the reason that you have to keep adding those infernal parentheses is that it *isn't* all there. Reading this post reminded me of my experiences reading the Bible you sent me. Just unbearable.
@culberto,
The truth is that those infernal parenthesis *are* there. They are there because Jesus teaches the full meaning of the Law and the commandments.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
Jesus reveals that the former Law was only a shadow. The commandment appears to prohibit the taking of an innocent life. But the reality is that the commandment is against anger. Anyone that has a heart of spite or malice, they are guilty of breaking the commandment.
(See my prior response to captain howdy.)
Exactly The Same Thing
captain howdy said...
So, for the Ten Commandments to be literally true, murder has to be exactly the same thing as hate. And if murder and hate aren't exactly the same thing, then the Ten Commandments is false. Right, Ray?
@captain howdy
The Ten Commandments were not made false by God. Jesus "filled out" the Law to its full meaning.
The commandment says "do not murder". Jesus fills that commandment out, and says that it's not just the act of murder that is sin, but that it's really the condition of a man's heart that makes him guilty of breaking the commandment.
Jesus is teaching people who are already familiar with the Ten Commandments:
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'" Matthew 5:21 (NIV)
God's commandment says "Do not murder". Breaking the commandment means judgment from God.
Jesus goes on to teach something that is not familiar to his listeners. He "fills out" the commandment, bringing it to its full meaning:
"But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." Matthew 5:22 (NLT)
Jesus says that its the condition of a man's heart, not just his actions, that make him guilty of breaking the commandment.
With careless words, a man my find himself brought before the court of man.
But with purposefully angry words, Jesus says that it is certain that man will find himself judged by God.
So, no, captain howdy. The commandment "do not murder" is not false. It is a true shadow of the full meaning of the law.
HTH
So, for the Ten Commandments to be literally true, murder has to be exactly the same thing as hate. And if murder and hate aren't exactly the same thing, then the Ten Commandments is false. Right, Ray?
@captain howdy
The Ten Commandments were not made false by God. Jesus "filled out" the Law to its full meaning.
The commandment says "do not murder". Jesus fills that commandment out, and says that it's not just the act of murder that is sin, but that it's really the condition of a man's heart that makes him guilty of breaking the commandment.
Jesus is teaching people who are already familiar with the Ten Commandments:
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'" Matthew 5:21 (NIV)
God's commandment says "Do not murder". Breaking the commandment means judgment from God.
Jesus goes on to teach something that is not familiar to his listeners. He "fills out" the commandment, bringing it to its full meaning:
"But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell." Matthew 5:22 (NLT)
Jesus says that its the condition of a man's heart, not just his actions, that make him guilty of breaking the commandment.
With careless words, a man my find himself brought before the court of man.
But with purposefully angry words, Jesus says that it is certain that man will find himself judged by God.
So, no, captain howdy. The commandment "do not murder" is not false. It is a true shadow of the full meaning of the law.
HTH
Without The Ten Commandments ...
T.A.Lewis said...
Hey Ray,
Since humans wouldn't know what is wrong without the Ten Commandments, why did God punish Cain for killing Abel?
I mean, apparently killing wasn't wrong until God zapped the Ten Commandments down on the slabs of rock. Right?
@T.A.Lewis
Wrong. You seem to have skipped over a couple of verses, Genesis 4:6-7.
God tells Cain that he has the capacity to know and the freedom to choose to "do what is right" or "do not do what is right".
If you recall, the Ten Commandments were spoken to the Children of Israel, not to the Gentiles. (cf. Exodus 20). The Ten Commandments were first spoken, and then later engraved on stone tablets for the Jews.
Even though the Gentiles were not given the Ten Commandments, God says that the Gentiles know them, because God's law is written in their hearts:
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." Romans 2:14-15 (NLT)
The story of creation reveals that man was created in God's own image, in the likeness of God. One aspect of our "likeness" with God is our God-given conscience, which informs of us right and wrong. Obviously, man was not created omnipotent or omniscient. But, in the likeness of God, we find ourselves with some degree of capacity for free will, power, and knowledge.
HTH
Hey Ray,
Since humans wouldn't know what is wrong without the Ten Commandments, why did God punish Cain for killing Abel?
I mean, apparently killing wasn't wrong until God zapped the Ten Commandments down on the slabs of rock. Right?
@T.A.Lewis
Wrong. You seem to have skipped over a couple of verses, Genesis 4:6-7.
God tells Cain that he has the capacity to know and the freedom to choose to "do what is right" or "do not do what is right".
If you recall, the Ten Commandments were spoken to the Children of Israel, not to the Gentiles. (cf. Exodus 20). The Ten Commandments were first spoken, and then later engraved on stone tablets for the Jews.
Even though the Gentiles were not given the Ten Commandments, God says that the Gentiles know them, because God's law is written in their hearts:
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." Romans 2:14-15 (NLT)
The story of creation reveals that man was created in God's own image, in the likeness of God. One aspect of our "likeness" with God is our God-given conscience, which informs of us right and wrong. Obviously, man was not created omnipotent or omniscient. But, in the likeness of God, we find ourselves with some degree of capacity for free will, power, and knowledge.
HTH
Tenth Commandment
Rabbitpirate said...
The question was Why are wives listed with things like oxen, houses, asses, which are property?
Ray did not answer this question, he simply claimed that it is not the case.
And yet many verse can be found the fully support the idea of women as property.
@Rabbitpirate
Yes, that was part of the original question. But, actually, the question goes on to suggest that what the Bible is teaching that wives are considered property, because "wives" are listed in the tenth commandment. (That crux of the question was not really a question, but was really an assertion that the Bible says something.)
And Ray did, in fact, address the question, primarily by addressing the assertion.
Perhaps I can offer you a more thorough answer.
The tenth commandment prohibits "coveting". Let's review.
cov·et
(v.t.) to feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's).
(v.i.) to feel immoderate desire for that which is another's.
(v.t.) to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.
The thrust of the commandment is prohibiting a condition of one's heart. The commandment says:
You shall not covet.
The commandment does go on to clarify the meaning of the word "covet".
You shall not covet ... ANYTHING that belongs to your neighbor.
That is, you shall not covet ANYTHING that DOES NOT BELONG to you and BELONGS to someone else.
The commandment lists some specific things that DO NOT BELONG to you: your neighbor's house and your neighbor's wife.
So, does the fact that your neighbor's car and your neighbors daughter are not in the list, that it's okay to covet them? Obviously not.
The commandment prohibits you from desiring anything that doesn't belong to you and that legitimately belongs to someone else.
That's the point. That's what God is saying in the tenth commandment.
---
The purpose of the obtuse question, of course, is to distract us from what God is saying. The intent of the question is to twist Scripture, and to make us think the Bible says something that it doesn't say.
The question implies (mistakenly) that the Bible declares that a wife is considered property.
This implication is plainly wrong. As Ray already answered, this accusation against the Bible is spurious and sorely unfounded.
The Bible, in fact, does not teach that a wife is property, your unsupported claim of "many verse" notwithstanding.
The tenth commandment DOES NOT say that a wife is property, or is owned. The commandment lists "your neighbor's wife" as something you should not have a desire for.
The question was Why are wives listed with things like oxen, houses, asses, which are property?
Ray did not answer this question, he simply claimed that it is not the case.
And yet many verse can be found the fully support the idea of women as property.
@Rabbitpirate
Yes, that was part of the original question. But, actually, the question goes on to suggest that what the Bible is teaching that wives are considered property, because "wives" are listed in the tenth commandment. (That crux of the question was not really a question, but was really an assertion that the Bible says something.)
And Ray did, in fact, address the question, primarily by addressing the assertion.
Perhaps I can offer you a more thorough answer.
The tenth commandment prohibits "coveting". Let's review.
cov·et
(v.t.) to feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's).
(v.i.) to feel immoderate desire for that which is another's.
(v.t.) to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.
The thrust of the commandment is prohibiting a condition of one's heart. The commandment says:
You shall not covet.
The commandment does go on to clarify the meaning of the word "covet".
You shall not covet ... ANYTHING that belongs to your neighbor.
That is, you shall not covet ANYTHING that DOES NOT BELONG to you and BELONGS to someone else.
The commandment lists some specific things that DO NOT BELONG to you: your neighbor's house and your neighbor's wife.
So, does the fact that your neighbor's car and your neighbors daughter are not in the list, that it's okay to covet them? Obviously not.
The commandment prohibits you from desiring anything that doesn't belong to you and that legitimately belongs to someone else.
That's the point. That's what God is saying in the tenth commandment.
---
The purpose of the obtuse question, of course, is to distract us from what God is saying. The intent of the question is to twist Scripture, and to make us think the Bible says something that it doesn't say.
The question implies (mistakenly) that the Bible declares that a wife is considered property.
This implication is plainly wrong. As Ray already answered, this accusation against the Bible is spurious and sorely unfounded.
The Bible, in fact, does not teach that a wife is property, your unsupported claim of "many verse" notwithstanding.
The tenth commandment DOES NOT say that a wife is property, or is owned. The commandment lists "your neighbor's wife" as something you should not have a desire for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)