Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

[loki09789]

"I am the Lord your G-d, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery"

"You shall have no other gods but me"

"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain"

"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day 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 goods. You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his bull, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's."
*(Please note: Because Shavuot is a Jewish celebration we are presenting the Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Different religions have different versions of the commandments)

No particular reason for this translation/interp of the TC, just the first one I could pull off the internet. Since we are dealing with transliteration, one is as good as another for this anyway:

Do you think of the TC as 'hard and fast rules' or a 'continuum/guidelines' that have to be reconciled relative to each other?

Take, for example, the relatively innocent (and lest politically charged) example of dealing with the standard joke starter of "does this dress make me look fat?"

If you 'shall not bear false witness' do you tell the 'truth' and say 'yes, you look fat as all get out'? Doesn't that put you in violation of "shall honor" philosophically because you are 'dishonoring' your wife/family/your in-laws indirectly by the pain you will cause with such a reply?

I know that there have been many occasions when people have used/quoted the TC as 'personal life rules' when, if you read the above contextual application, they were really more 'political/religious rules' that were used to maintain the social order and established the ground work for the MOSAIC laws (which became much more complicated than TC).

THIS is not a discussion about the TC as part of sacred work or whatever, it is a discussion intended to share different perspectives on how the TC work for you in the 'real world' - or even how TC might have worked historically as well.

 

[Tgace]

Take any criminal justice course and you will be taught that the root of all Law is based in religon if you follow the thread far back enough.

A large chunk of Philosophy is too....

 

[heretic888]

Laws, like religions, evolve and adapt and change over time.

 

[loki09789]

Laws, like religions, evolve and adapt and change over time.

H888,

You were one that I was hoping would respond with some comments on this one.

 

[Tgace]

The "shall not murder"+"shall not steal" has remained fairly intact though....

 

[heretic888]

The "shall not murder"+"shall not steal" has remained fairly intact though....

Historically?? No, they haven't.

The very two chapters after the Ten Commandments were given sees the 'Chosen People' going around pillaging and conquering the natives of the area. "Juedo-Christian" nations still have legal executions and have gone to quite a few wars. For quite some time (and some could still argue now), they took the land and belongings of other people (Native Americans, anyone?).

You will generally see that, historically, the "no kill, no steal" rules only applied to members of a specific social group. Foreigners were not part of that group, neither were criminals. By and large, this is still the case.

The fact that some people are reinterpreting the TC to refer to universal principles applicable to all people (i.e., I will not kill anyone without exception) represents a move from sociocentric ethics to worldcentric ethics, in my opinion.

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

I would still say the "law" has stayed intact....the application of it and who people believed it applied to may have changed. But amongst their own, killing and stealing would bring down punishment.

 

[heretic888]

I would still say the "law" has stayed intact....the application of it and who people believed it applied to may have changed.

Yes, but those very changes demonstrate a fundamental evolution and divergence in the law itself.

This would be akin to saying "freedom for all" didn't change before we abolished slavery, just because the same wording was used.

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

Did the "Law" change or just the application? The "Law" was "Thou shall not murder". The application turned into "except for those guys"...

IMHO laws have more of a tendancy to be subdivided to account for variables and levels of culpability/severity (1st,2nd,3rd degree etc) but the "core" of the law is a generalization that has remained more or less intact.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, the laws changed.

An idea or a principle or a value is not the law. A commandment or written rule is.

 

[Tgace]

I think at the root of it were going back to things like this...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#3

 

[Andrew Green]

Take any criminal justice course and you will be taught that the root of all Law is based in religon if you follow the thread far back enough.

Then take a philosophy course and do a chicken and the egg thing

Was the purpose of religion to keep order and "enforce" the laws? A lot of it is a punishment and reward system after you die, one that you get held accountable for your actions, but at the same time never see the system... until you die. Big punishment and a big reward though.

Laws govern society, as society changes, so do the laws.

Even if they are still worded the same.

"Thou shalt not murder"

Ok, define "murder"?

Kicking someones door in, slitting there throat and taking there money. Yes

You are assaulted and kill the attacker in self-defence? umm...

Assisted suicide? err...

Suicide? Does murdering yourself count...?

Killing a cow for super? well they aren't human...

Well then how about a non-believer... a servant of satan? ...

Is a soldier commiting murder durring war?

How about a excecutioner?

How about if I acidentaly kill somone?

Different cultures might give different answers. And over time those answers might change with the culture.

 

[heretic888]

Well said, Andrew. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

Yeah. I guess Im misusing the word "Law". What Im trying to communicate is the "Moral Value" (i.e. unnecessary killing is wrong) at the base of written law.

 

[heretic888]

Yeah. I guess Im misusing the word "Law". What Im trying to communicate is the "Moral Value" (i.e. unnecessary killing is wrong) at the base of written law.

Uhhhh.... well, that's debatable.

I don't see a particularly great deal of worldcentric or universal moral values in much of the Old Testament, and definately not in any of the earlier books. In fact, the entire notion of "Chosen People" implies a very strong and pervasive sociocentrism and xenophobia.

A notable exception to this is Proverbs, which was clearly influenced by the "wisdom traditions" of ancient Egypt.

The chapters immediately following the institution of the Ten Commandments leave little room for the idea that they were meant to be applied to all human beings, as opposed to strictly applying to Jews only.

Then, again, the Kabbalistic practice of midrash could be evoked here, with there being differing "levels" of interpretation in regards to the commandments....

 

[Mark Weiser]

I am not a Rabbi but I will try and do my best to give insight into this subject matter.

One of the requirements for fully understanding the Ten Commandments is an working knowledge of Hebrew. This way you can fully get the meaning of the words.

For Instance the Ten Commandments

יב לֹא תִרְצָח

The verse in Hebrew is Exodus Chapter 20:12 and being translated means you shall not commit murder. Now we could go over Hebrew Grammar and learn a great deal.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Herry,

I don't see where your argument of ethnocentrism on fits in here. Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions, then the discussion is probably meant to be about the different interpretations - verbatim or otherwise. At least that's the way I see it. Andrew made one heck of a good case for the interpretation side of things, and I must agree that in light of what he said, the Ten Commandments are guidelines upon which law is based, depending upon the situation. I'd like to hear what you have to say about interpreting "an eye for an eye..." Most Fundamentalists would take that as literal. How do you see it?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions

*blink*

Uh, where did you get the idea that the Ten Commandments are accepted by "most, if not all religions?" Or do only the religions based on Hebrew texts really count?

 

[heretic888]

I don't see where your argument of ethnocentrism on fits in here.

Because, traditionally, the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments were assumed to only apply to Hebrews. That is why you see Jewish armies slaughtering and pillaging and enslaving two chapters later.

It was only later that other interpretations of the Law saw the light of day.

Assuming the topic is exactly as it appears, and that the Ten Commandments are accepted, in one form or another, by most, if not, all religions, then the discussion is probably meant to be about the different interpretations - verbatim or otherwise. At least that's the way I see it.

No, the Ten Commandments are not accepted by most religions.

The Ten Commandments shares many moral rules in common with other religions (do not steal, do not lie, do not kill, adultery is bad, etc), but these are not specific, particular, or exclusive to Judaism in any sense. Also, such precepts as "you shall have no other God but me" is most definately particular and culture-specific to the "monotheistic" Hebrews.

And, if we compare say similar laws in Buddhism to Judaism, well, the Buddhists have always held that they applied universally to all people (i.e., murder is wrong --- period). The Hebrews did not (i.e., murder is wrong --- if you're a Jewish non-criminal).

Andrew made one heck of a good case for the interpretation side of things, and I must agree that in light of what he said, the Ten Commandments are guidelines upon which law is based, depending upon the situation.

Yes. But, what needs to be understood is that the laws of Judaism, like those of any religion, are social constructions. As such, they reflect the culture of the time, and as that culture changes so to do the laws.

The "interpretation side" that Andrew is pointing to is a more recent evolution of Jewish thought --- one that moved from a sociocentric to a worldcentric perspective. Its arguable as to when exactly this change took place, but the fact is that it did.

We see similar changes in Christian thought when some say, for example, that 'hell' is a state of being and not a place, there is holiness in other religions, not all non-Christians are heathens, etc. Again, these are historically recent innovations. Like the traditional Jewish Law, they do not reflect a traditional understanding or interpretation but a more modernist, humanistic, or deist one.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about interpreting "an eye for an eye..." Most Fundamentalists would take that as literal. How do you see it?

The context in which that passage existed clearly was meant to be the way of handling disputes among Hebrew people several thousand years ago. The Torah consists by and large of laws and rules for Jewish people in regards to how they operate as a society. That, too, was clearly meant to be taken literally --- only later re-interpretations would cast a different light on it.

Once again, as the culture changes so to do the laws.

I'm an American living in the 21st century. Legal precepts from a foreign culture of 3,000 years ago aren't particularly relevant in teaching me how to live properly. You guys got Yahweh, and I got my way.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Because, traditionally, the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments were assumed to only apply to Hebrews. That is why you see Jewish armies slaughtering and pillaging and enslaving two chapters later.

It was only later that other interpretations of the Law saw the light of day.



No, the Ten Commandments are not accepted by most religions.

The Ten Commandments shares many moral rules in common with other religions (do not steal, do not lie, do not kill, adultery is bad, etc), but these are not specific, particular, or exclusive to Judaism in any sense. Also, such precepts as "you shall have no other God but me" is most definately particular and culture-specific to the "monotheistic" Hebrews.

And, if we compare say similar laws in Buddhism to Judaism, well, the Buddhists have always held that they applied universally to all people (i.e., murder is wrong --- period). The Hebrews did not (i.e., murder is wrong --- if you're a Jewish non-criminal).



Yes. But, what needs to be understood is that the laws of Judaism, like those of any religion, are social constructions. As such, they reflect the culture of the time, and as that culture changes so to do the laws.

The "interpretation side" that Andrew is pointing to is a more recent evolution of Jewish thought --- one that moved from a sociocentric to a worldcentric perspective. Its arguable as to when exactly this change took place, but the fact is that it did.

We see similar changes in Christian thought when some say, for example, that 'hell' is a state of being and not a place, there is holiness in other religions, not all non-Christians are heathens, etc. Again, these are historically recent innovations. Like the traditional Jewish Law, they do not reflect a traditional understanding or interpretation but a more modernist, humanistic, or deist one.



The context in which that passage existed clearly was meant to be the way of handling disputes among Hebrew people several thousand years ago. The Torah consists by and large of laws and rules for Jewish people in regards to how they operate as a society. That, too, was clearly meant to be taken literally --- only later re-interpretations would cast a different light on it.

Once again, as the culture changes so to do the laws.

I'm an American living in the 21st century. Legal precepts from a foreign culture of 3,000 years ago aren't particularly relevant in teaching me how to live properly. You guys got Yahweh, and I got my way.

So, you're saying you don't believe in that type of moral code as a template for living? I also don't see where there isn't a similar set of rules, tenets, laws, or whatever you (and Peach) choose to call them for every society. Maybe they don't exist as the Ten Commandments, and my not stating that earlier was a mistake, but the concepts do exist in all cultures.

I understand that you are [probably] saying that each lives his life the way he sees fit (is that true?), and, if your screen name is any indication of your beliefs, then you don't subscribe to any type of religious tenets, either. Or maybe you do and choose not to share that.

The Hebrews were as barbaric a race as any back then. Remember, we've been around for almost 6,000 years, give or take a century. I think maybe whoever was responsible for the initial interpretation of the Ten Commandments was making an attempt at establishing a viable, lawful culture instead of allowing everyone to do as he pleased (yes, he - women were chattel back then). No one ever said that those Hebrews were a peaceful people - not entirely, at least. My tribe was responsible for waging war (Maccabee, derived from the Hebrew Maccabiah, or war) and defending our people against our enemies. All cultures have had and continue to have a sector of the population which is responsible for just that. It's human nature to fight. Don't you argue with anyone? (Who, you? Never? ) I also seem to recall you implying in another thread that the Bible and its stories were rewritten extensively and, therefore, subject to question. (I know you'll correct me on this one if I mis-remember.) One must take into account the times in which people were living. I don't know that we can really understand what life was like that long ago. Perhaps it was okay to do all those horrible things in order to survive. Who knows. If it was a matter of your own survival, I'll bet you'd do what you had to. We're martial artists - that's what we do.:samurai:

[Now don't 'go Robertson' on me. This is purely discussion.]