The Law (Ten commandments)

[Da Blob]

YouTube- The Ten Commandments

Looking from a distance there seems to be quite a disconnect between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The Old Testament can be seen as the story of a single promise made to Abraham known as the Abrahamic Covenant. Jews, Christians and Muslims all base a great deal of their respective religions upon this initial covenant between God and Man. The New Testament also can be seen as the story of a promise made to a single Man by God, the second Adam, Jesus the Christ. This resulted in a New Covenant.
For some odd reason, there always has been some confusion within the organized religions as to the relationships between these two covenants.

The Law as given to Moses in the form of the Ten Commandments is perhaps the source of this confusion. The Law was never intended to work as an effective moral code. Instead, it was put into place to illuminate the fact that man was not a moral creature and that it would take another intervention by God to redeem mankind. No one has ever been able to avoid transgression of the Law. It is simply impossible to obey this simply moral code without at least one episode of transgression during a person's lifetime. The original transgression by Adam of "eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" simply exposed the boundary between the two classifications of actions, good on one side - evil on the other. The Law was simply intended to merely Illuminate this boundary - not to create an effective barrier along this boundary...

ROMANS 7: 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful...

Unfortunately, this concept seemed to be over the heads of the common man and it came to pass that the Law was just seen as an ordinary moral code and therefore the Intent or Purpose was "lost"

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

The Law was never intended to work as an effective moral code. Instead, it was put into place to illuminate the fact that man was not a moral creature and that it would take another intervention by God to redeem mankind.

Exodus 20 says, "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal." These are moral precepts. Because they were handed down directly from the Lord, he must have intended them exactly as they are. So, the Old Law comprised, among other things, moral precepts (i.e., a moral code), according to the Lord's intentions.

No one has ever been able to avoid transgression of the Law. It is simply impossible to obey this simply moral code without at least one episode of transgression during a person's lifetime. The original transgression by Adam of "eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" simply exposed the boundary between the two classifications of actions, good on one side - evil on the other. The Law was simply intended to merely Illuminate this boundary - not to create an effective barrier along this boundary...

But "create an effective barrier along this boundary" is, in letter, exactly what it does. Exodus 20 does not say, 'these are the actions that are good and these others are those that are evil.' It says, rather, 'you are forbidden from these actions because they are evil, and obligated to these other actions because they are good.'

ROMANS 7: 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful...

Unfortunately, this concept seemed to be over the heads of the common man and it came to pass that the Law was just seen as an ordinary moral code and therefore the Intent or Purpose was "lost"

It seems to me that this passage demonstrates merely that the Old Law was insufficient, not that it was removed in its entirety.

[flow]

How is man not a moral creature? I couldn't possibly disagree with that statement more. Dammit Da Blob, I do everything I can to avoid your constant religiously minded threads but from time to time they manage to upset me too much. You really need a street corner to preach on, you'll probably be equally as effective. God didn't come up with the ten commandments, man did.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

God didn't come up with the ten commandments, man did.
It's actually relatively distinguished Biblically, since it came directly from God. So, not sure where you're getting that from.

Too many adverbs in that first sentence. :eek:

[flow]

That's assuming you believe the Bible was created or co-signed or inspired by god, not man. I for one, do not believe god (if there is one) had anything to do with the creation of The Bible. I am not a man of faith however.. though I do have 'faith' in people, and I believe we are moral creatures.. with or without religion. Religions are full of contradictions, if a supreme being had anything to do with any of them, they would make a lot more sense.

[Wish]

Isn't the Bible supposed to be the word of God? So either one accepts that man at some point was spoken to by God in someway or another, and wrote it down, or the Bible is just the work of man independent of any other force. Am I right in saying this?

[Da Blob]

It is a mere fantasy of the religion of Human Secularism that Mankind is by nature is a moral creature. Where is the evidence for this premise? I can point to any number of humans quite willing to butcher each other on the slightest of excuses. That has been the bloody history of our race - not some idealized version of our specie's behavior dreamed up in the shelter of the Ivory Tower where we all live together in Peace...

It was not as if the Ten commandments were insufficient - it is that Mankind is insufficient to follow even the most simple moral code - voluntarily...

Where does morality come from if not from god? Man seemingly detests morality and I have yet to see any "New Age" morality that does not encompass religious morality, while at the same time trashing those very same religions...(?)

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I agree that the moral law cannot be observed without religion.

It was not as if the Ten commandments were insufficient - it is that Mankind is insufficient to follow even the most simple moral code - voluntarily...

Yes, but we are obligated to follow them nevertheless. They're still binding, according to Christ.

And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. To fulfil... By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies; and perfecting all that was imperfect. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. Amen... That is, assuredly of a truth. This Hebrew word, amen, is here retained by the example and authority of all the four Evangelists. It is used by our Lord as a strong asseveration, and affirmation of the truth. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[fullerene]

These are moral precepts. Because they were handed down directly from the Lord, he must have intended them exactly as they are.

This is a bad claim. Jesus very often spoke in parables, and Matthew 13:11-17 is as clear of a counter-example as I can think of.

With regards to your view of the Law in particular, you may want to read Galatians 3:19-22

And with regards to "being bound by the Law", you may want to read Romans 7:1-4

[flow]

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense to behave 'morally', religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. And for every one of these people 'quite willing to butcher each other on the slightest of excuses', I can think of an equal number that would defend perfect strangers on the slightest of excuses.

Do people who understand the 10 commandments treat others more equallly than those who have never heard of the 10 commandments? Are Christians more moral than indigenous tribes living in Brazil? Absolutely not. Religion doesn't influence our behavior, our genes do.

[Vrecknidj]

Read Jung's Answer to Job. It's helpful here.

And, yes, Plato addressed the issue of the relationship between morality and religion and showed, 2400 years ago, that there's no real connection.

Interestingly, Aquinas himself suggested that morality had to do with reason.

Dave

[Da Blob]

Bah Humbug!
Every has a religion because everyone has a belief system. I get quite irritated by those priests of a certain 'philosophy' denigrate religion while practicing their own under the heading of "philosophy". Any line that one draws between personal religious views and personal philosophical view is completely arbitrary. So one goes to the Ivory Tower to worship instead of a Tower with a steeple on it ?

I agree it is possible to speak of morality, other than in a religious context, but can one practice morality except in a group that shares that morality? Morality requires a congregation for it to be 'real' and not just be abstract words written on a page somewhere.

[Wish]

Bah Humbug!
Every has a religion because everyone has a belief system. I get quite irritated by those priests of a certain 'philosophy' denigrate religion while practicing their own under the heading of "philosophy". Any line that one draws between personal religious views and personal philosophical view is completely arbitrary. So one goes to the Ivory Tower to worship instead of a Tower with a steeple on it ?

But isn't there a difference between an established religion and a personal belief system that one develops from their own experience and spiritual discovery? A personal belief system changes as someone gains experience, and with an established religion, your moral laws have already been predetermined, no?

And why does morality have to be practiced with a group of like-minded individuals to be considered morality?

[Da Blob]

Yes, but we are obligated to follow them nevertheless. They're still binding, according to Christ.

No, No No NO! We do not follow the Law. We do not focus on the Law to obtain righteousness by staying on the correct side of the line between good and evil. We change our focus - turn our backs on the Law and begin to follow Christ. "To him that knows to do good and does it not -To him it is Sin!" Christ sets a much higher standard to avoid sin than the Law did. Of course, we obey the Ten Commandments, but that is just a byproduct of who we are as Christians . We should not even have to aware of the Law if we are truly loving our neighbor as ourself, we should be aware of our neighbor. It is a matter of focus and a matter of setting goals.

Sorry double post- but there seems to be two trains of thought in this thread...

[Tyria]

I thought the Law was to love God with all your heart and mind and soul.

Followed closely by loving everyone else...

[Darby]

No, No No NO! We do not follow the Law. We do not focus on the Law to obtain righteousness by staying on the correct side of the line between good and evil. We change our focus - turn our backs on the Law and begin to follow Christ. "To him that knows to do good and does it not -To him it is Sin!" Christ sets a much higher standard to avoid sin than the Law did. Of course, we obey the Ten Commandments, but that is just a byproduct of who we are as Christians . We should not even have to aware of the Law if we are truly loving our neighbor as ourself, we should be aware of our neighbor. It is a matter of focus and a matter of setting goals.

Sorry double post- but there seems to be two trains of thought in this thread...

If I'm getting this right, and I'm pretty sure I am, what your saying is that The ten commandments are no less valid after Jesus came than before. The difference is that before Jesus, the only expectation is to follow the Commandments and your pretty much set, while after Jesus came, he said 'If you were really good, you wouldn't need the commandments because you already care enough about your brethren to look after them and take care of them without fear of being punished'

The commandments are the lowest level of law, and if you follow that your ok, but your not "good," because if you were good, then you would do all the things the ten commandments say just for the sake of doing them. Where sin comes in, is the fact that we have to be reminded of the Ten Commandments, because we are not good enough to remember to do good on our own

(sorry for not getting everything out the first time, I dropped my mouse and I guess I clicked the "post" button, and had to go through and edit everything in)

[Da Blob]

I thought the Law was to love God with all your heart and mind and soul.

Followed closely by loving everyone else...

That is the new version - a lot easier to say than to practice;)

Generally though Reference to "The Law" is speaking of all the regulations that Moses initiated- including a great variety of blood sacrifices, that become unnecessary and obsolete, once Christ had made the Ultimate sacrifice...

Darby - If I'm getting this right, and I'm pretty sure I am, what your saying is that The ten commandments are no less valid after Jesus came than before. The difference is that before Jesus, the only expectation is to follow the Commandments and your pretty much set, while after Jesus came, he said 'If you were really good, you wouldn't need the commandments because you already care enough about your brethren to look after them and take care of them without fear of being punished'

The commandments are the lowest level of law, and if you follow that your ok, but your not "good," because if you were good, then you would do all the things the ten commandments say just for the sake of doing them. Where sin comes in, is the fact that we have to be reminded of the Ten Commandments, because we are not good enough to remember to do good on our own

Yes and the Law did not have to power to save us. It was like a fence, if you stayed on the right side of the fence, you were O.K. However, a fence is just a fence - it doesn't have any power to be pro-active - so to speak. It was a passive, temporary measure, that kept tribes of Israel from dissolving into chaos, while waiting for Christ to appear...

[Da Blob]

But isn't there a difference between an established religion and a personal belief system that one develops from their own experience and spiritual discovery? A personal belief system changes as someone gains experience, and with an established religion, your moral laws have already been predetermined, no?

And why does morality have to be practiced with a group of like-minded individuals to be considered morality?

Yes, there are differences. However, what I was trying to say, but could not find the words is that "objectively" there does not seem to be any significant difference between the manner in which a 'spiritual' person and a philosophical person utilizes his or her on belief systems. They are both operating on "mere" belief. Again, I get rather upset, when that distinction is not made. Many beliefs are being stated as fact but in actuality those 'facts' are just tenets of some popular philosophy...

Morality in essence is a social contract. A contract that is made voluntarily by or imposed on all members of a social group. Although there is a type of morality involving the care of the environment that an individual can practice, A person living alone and isolated really would not have to be "moral" at all... In Most religions that social contract has been 'set in stone" and it is up to the individual to grow beyond that particular morality and thereby grow into a greater sense of society and the morality thereof...


EDIT: well at least it wasn't a triple post....

[Darby]

Thanks for all the clarification. and I forgot to say, sweet video, Moses is awesome

[Wish]

Yes, there are differences. However, what I was trying to say, but could not find the words is that "objectively" there does not seem to be any significant difference between the manner in which a 'spiritual' person and a philosophical person utilizes his or her on belief systems. They are both operating on "mere" belief. Again, I get rather upset, when that distinction is not made. Many beliefs are being stated as fact but in actuality those 'facts' are just tenets of some popular philosophy...

So you're saying that any moral distinction made by a religious belief system or a philosophical belief system is simply a theory for moral law? If so, I agree.

Morality in essence is a social contract. A contract that is made voluntarily by or imposed on all members of a social group. Although there is a type of morality involving the care of the environment that an individual can practice, A person living alone and isolated really would not have to be "moral" at all... In Most religions that social contract has been 'set in stone" and it is up to the individual to grow beyond that particular morality and thereby grow into a greater sense of society and the morality thereof...


EDIT: well at least it wasn't a triple post....

And at the end here you're saying that morality derived from the Bible should be used as groundwork for a person in determining his/her own personal belief system? I think I'm wrong here..

[Tyria]

Well why don't people practice the new version? Sure it's difficult, but it's much easier to read and understand than the entire Old Testament.

I'm not saying here that the New Testament overwrites the Old Testament. But if God gives you the Law in two sentences, I think it makes it much more user friendly than an entire book.

[TheHmmmm]

It is a mere fantasy of the religion of Human Secularism that Mankind is by nature is a moral creature. Where is the evidence for this premise? I can point to any number of humans quite willing to butcher each other on the slightest of excuses. That has been the bloody history of our race - not some idealized version of our specie's behavior dreamed up in the shelter of the Ivory Tower where we all live together in Peace...

It was not as if the Ten commandments were insufficient - it is that Mankind is insufficient to follow even the most simple moral code - voluntarily...

Where does morality come from if not from god? Man seemingly detests morality and I have yet to see any "New Age" morality that does not encompass religious morality, while at the same time trashing those very same religions...(?)

The morality of the Ten Commandments sounds like common sense to me. You claim that "humans are not naturally moral" but I claim that most people have some shred of empathy and can understand to not do harmful things to others because they understand how it hurts them. Where is the evidence of this claim? Guilt, for one. Reparation, for another. Now whether society and culture grooms us away from this is an entirely different tangent, but I think most people experience some form of guilt or another when they recognize they did something "wrong" and that leads me to believe that it can exist without religion.

As far as "I can point to any number of humans willing to butcher each other..." I fail to see how Christianity has rectified that at all or how it proves that morality must come from God. Theists still murder, jails still overcrowd, nothing has changed. In fact, the ever-crowding prisons seem to stand as a testament to the failure of the morals of Christianity.

[Oblivious]

I've never read the bible. Should I be locked up? D:

[Da Blob]

I've never read the bible. Should I be locked up? D:

Well, if you even have had the opportunity to read the Bible, that makes you blessed. I used to know some members of the Underground Church. They would risk their lives smuggling Bibles into countries where it was illegal to possess a Bible. There were a few that were caught in the Mission and were killed or imprisoned.

Until the invention of the printing press, basically only priests were allowed to own and read a Bible... However, since that time the Bible has been at the top of the "Best Sellers' list for several centuries now...


TheHMMMM - As far as "I can point to any number of humans willing to butcher each other..." I fail to see how Christianity has rectified that at all or how it proves that morality must come from God. Theists still murder, jails still overcrowd, nothing has changed. In fact, the ever-crowding prisons seem to stand as a testament to the failure of the morals of Christianity.

Morality only benefits those who make a commitment to fulfill a particular social contract. Although it is now illegal to have a Christian community in this country, if it were still possible, one might see less crime in a Christian community than in a secular community because of the different social contracts that bind those communities together...

[Da Blob]

Well why don't people practice the new version? Sure it's difficult, but it's much easier to read and understand than the entire Old Testament.

I'm not saying here that the New Testament overwrites the Old Testament. But if God gives you the Law in two sentences, I think it makes it much more user friendly than an entire book.

Yes, Christianity is a very simple philosophy. However, can you imagine the distress that the control freaks that were in the ruling class experienced when they realized just how simple it was? They, of course, had to complicate so that they could divert the philosophy for their own benefit... Otherwise, all of the priesthood would have been out of a job...

LOL, talk about perversion of the Bible by priests and clergymen. There is a verse in the Old Testament where it talks about tithes that virtually every Christian clergyman has quoted. However, the system of tithes was set up so that one of the twelve tribes of Israel, the Levites, could function as full time priests and ministers. If one takes a tenth of the income from eleven tribes one would get a average income. The whole idea that it is the plan of God for ministers to be wealthy, upper-class individuals because of tithes is just so not right...

The value of the Old Testament, now, is to simply provide examples and provide a context...

[TheHmmmm]

Well, if you even have had the opportunity to read the Bible, that makes you blessed. I used to know some members of the Underground Church. They would risk their lives smuggling Bibles into countries where it was illegal to possess a Bible. There were a few that were caught in the Mission and were killed or imprisoned.

Until the invention of the printing press, basically only priests were allowed to own and read a Bible... However, since that time the Bible has been at the top of the "Best Sellers' list for several centuries now...




Morality only benefits those who make a commitment to fulfill a particular social contract. Although it is now illegal to have a Christian community in this country, if it were still possible, one might see less crime in a Christian community than in a secular community because of the different social contracts that bind those communities together...

Didn't we try that with the Puritanical society of Massachusetts in colonial days? Doesn't get more Christian than fundamentalism.

EDIT: We do enter into a particular social contract. It's called the law (secular) and when we break it (crime) we are punished. I'm pretty sure the societal law of today incorporates a lot of elements which fall in line with Christian dogma, at least in America.

[Xel]

Why does it seem to me in that passage Paul is trying to get over the fact that now the law is no longer enough to please God and simply practicing it is futile. That Jews alone are no longer special or chosen in any way. Trying to make sense of the fact that Jews are no differnt from idol worshipers, and somehow God's plan or standards have not changed. Somehow.

[Da Blob]

I do believe that Mankind was expected to evolve or change with the advent of Christ. The manner in which one made sacrifices or atonement for sins and mistakes changed dramatically. It seems to me that much of the Old Testament was concerned with behavior, the actions of the physical body. It seems to me that the addition of a spirit through the process of being "born again" allows us to carry the battle of morality into the realm of the mind.
in that context this verse is particularly significant..

Matthew 5: 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart..

Concerning the Jews I believe that there has always been a debate as to whether one is justified by genetics or justified by 'faith". That is to say, my reading of the scriptures concerning the nature of "Abraham's Seed" was that it was those who had similar Faith with Abraham and not just similar genomes that would be counted as Abraham's Seed.
Advancement beyond "The Law", meant that the tribe of the Levites, the priesthood of the "Old Time", no longer served God as such... So a power struggle ensued between the status quo and the revolutionaries who believed Christ. It is sad to note that this same battle has been fought for two thousand years. Christ's Rebellion against the status quo, the spiritual rulers of this world, has yet to succeed...

re: Eph. 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

This scripture also reflects the internal battle for the mind that was made possible by Christ, we are no longer striving to just subdue our own flesh and blood, but our Minds as well...