Meaning you can't just answer the question asked. Got it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Absence of good in atheism
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Dualism isn't very practical, IMO. Black and white thinking tends to leave out lots of important stuff in the gray areas.
So, projection by anecdote? Or are you going to extrapolate 'some' behaviour onto all? Know what the word 'most' means?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No, there's not more than ten.
No where in the New Testament does it mention 'Ten Commandments' nor does it list the Ten Commandments, Various citations in the describe five different commandments from Exodus and Deuteronomy. In the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy it describes God' commandments in variable different ways of 'Ten Commandments' but mostly within lists of many commandments and laws.
Last edited:
Exodus 34:10-28
So those versus aren't in the Bible, then?
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Ok if you want it in depth:
In Exod 34:28, Deut 4:13, and 10:4 are “Ten Words,” which is also the etymology of the term Decalogue (from the Greek deka ‘ten’ + logoi ‘words’).
However, Moses says the Ten Words were “commanded” (Deut 4:13), and Jesus also calls them “commandments.” (Matt 19:17-19).
They are the only portion of the Bible that we are told was “written with the finger of God” (Exod 31:18, Deut 9:10; cf. Exod 24:12, 32:15-16; Deut 5:22.
They are the only part of the Bible that was placed in the ark of the covenant.
(Exod 40:20-21, Deut 10:1-5)
God says in 34:1 that he, not Moses, would write the Words on the new tablets,( the same he had written before with his own finger.)
In short, there are commandments given to Moses in Exodus 34 that were not part of the ten commandments. But the " he" writing the ten commandments on the new tablets refers to God, not Moses.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” doesn't exactly apply to everyone today. There were a lot of rules that were part of the old covenant that are no longer in effect, but I don't know of any New Testament verses that cancel out the 10.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
They are mentioned. Jesus directly mentioned some of them. Just because he didn't mention all doesn't really change anything.
Bottomline is the 'Ten Commandments' are NOT in nor listed in the New Testament.
stvdv
Veteran Member
True
Hence I gave this subtle hint to @questfortruth, because I 'hate' it if people demean others
True again. I hope @questfortruth reads this line of you, as he might have missed my subtle hint (hence I made your line RED, hope you don't mind)
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Which nobody claimed ..
Then there is no argument for the ten commandments from the Christian New Testament perspective,Only the Old Testament Hebrew perspective. Actually, there are more commandments than ten in the OT.
As far as the secular world there is a long history of evolving common law going back millennia before Christianity.The East has an ancient moral and ethical system that dates back to the Neolithic.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Except that Jesus quoted some of them.
No one here is saying we go to hell for breaking commandments. But they are still God's will. The only one that might be in question is the Jewish Sabbath, because of various scripture indicating that the day is no longer important but taking time for Sabbath rest is.
Your neglecting the fact that in the millennia of history of other cultures of the world there is well established standards of good and evil, without the Judeo-Christian God. There are also Humanist standards of good in history that I consider more than adequate and superior in considering all science as 'good' to many contemporary standards of Christians that consider 'some' science not good.
Again . . .
As far as the secular world there is a long history of evolving common law going back millennia ro establish standards of 'good' before Christianity.The East has an ancient moral and ethical system that dates back to the Neolithic.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I don't see what that has to do with the subject.
Some Christians and you, claimed that the standards of 'good' required the guidance of the Abrahamic God,and scripture in the Bible, therefore atheists cannot cannot be 'good.' The evidence demonstrates that all cultures throughout human history had consistent morals and ethics for 'good' and evil or bad, regardless of what their religions believed concerning God(s).
Not sure if C S Lewis was mentioned in this thread or another, but I think he should have stuck to fiction if this is true. 
Arguing that Morality Proves the Existence of God
Finally, Lewis argues that atheists contradict themselves when they act morally because they have no inherent basis for morality. Instead, he insists that they forget their ethical subjectivism and act like Christians — that they borrow from the morality of Christianity without acknowledging it.
It is far more likely that we mostly get our morality from our parents, peer group, and all others in our early environment, and any innate characteristics we might have, or lack - such that how can any of that be objective? I certainly feel I have a basis for my morality since it makes more sense than not having such, even when it might conflict with what any particular religious doctrine might say - and since they don't all coincide, why would anyone trust any particular one?
Arguing that Morality Proves the Existence of God
Finally, Lewis argues that atheists contradict themselves when they act morally because they have no inherent basis for morality. Instead, he insists that they forget their ethical subjectivism and act like Christians — that they borrow from the morality of Christianity without acknowledging it.
It is far more likely that we mostly get our morality from our parents, peer group, and all others in our early environment, and any innate characteristics we might have, or lack - such that how can any of that be objective? I certainly feel I have a basis for my morality since it makes more sense than not having such, even when it might conflict with what any particular religious doctrine might say - and since they don't all coincide, why would anyone trust any particular one?
Not sure if C S Lewis was mentioned in this thread or another, but I think he should have stuck to fiction if this is true.
Arguing that Morality Proves the Existence of God
Finally, Lewis argues that atheists contradict themselves when they act morally because they have no inherent basis for morality. Instead, he insists that they forget their ethical subjectivism and act like Christians — that they borrow from the morality of Christianity without acknowledging it.
It is far more likely that we mostly get our morality from our parents, peer group, and all others in our early environment, and any innate characteristics we might have, or lack - such that how can any of that be objective? I certainly feel I have a basis for my morality since it makes more sense than not having such, even when it might conflict with what any particular religious doctrine might say - and since they don't all coincide, why would anyone trust any particular one?
It is a true an unfortunate belief of CS Lewis including many Christians. CS Lewis is more than a little moldy oldy in his world view, logic, and lacks the science and the evidence of the millennia of the history of consistent human morals and ethics in all the cultures of the world going back long before the existence of Christianity.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
All cultures? Really? I think not. The barbarians had the same ethics? Nonsense.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Lewis was brilliant and he was correct.Not sure if C S Lewis was mentioned in this thread or another, but I think he should have stuck to fiction if this is true.
Arguing that Morality Proves the Existence of God
Finally, Lewis argues that atheists contradict themselves when they act morally because they have no inherent basis for morality. Instead, he insists that they forget their ethical subjectivism and act like Christians — that they borrow from the morality of Christianity without acknowledging it.
It is far more likely that we mostly get our morality from our parents, peer group, and all others in our early environment, and any innate characteristics we might have, or lack - such that how can any of that be objective? I certainly feel I have a basis for my morality since it makes more sense than not having such, even when it might conflict with what any particular religious doctrine might say - and since they don't all coincide, why would anyone trust any particular one?