Should the Ten Commandments be updated -- for 21st century atheists..?

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Here is a fascinating article by a humanist (atheist) chaplain at an American university. (I had never heard of an atheist university chaplain before!)

This chaplain writes about, among other things, updating the Ten Commandments because it is felt commandments from a "stone age" society need to be updated to the modern, LGBT-friendly-type society we live in today.

What do you think?

Humanist chaplain John Figdor: “Religion introduces moral problems that wouldn’t exist otherwise” - Salon.com
 
I think that saying that there are superior alternatives to the 10 commandments is like saying that one religion is better then another. The commandments should be interpreted in the tradition they were born. If you follow other Laws of guidelines then they should be interpreted in it's own tradition and compared to the commandments.
 
It's an interesting article. The authors are kind of saying that when the definitions of the Words become more important than the intent, there may be a problem. Tradition is important and too often modern folk take the value of it too lightly. Or worse, consider it of no value at all.

At the same time, too many people are too lazy to think for themselves, and what they are calling tradition is in actuality stagnation. They take the Words as carved in stone, no joke intended, and become themselves intellectually carved in stone.
 
It is a fairly simple answer....er...no.

Like what about the other 604? Leave them alone?

Why update Judeo Christian stuff for humanists?

Why would humanists want to have 10 commandments? Why not 3 or 13? If you are going to develop your own code of ethics do it for Gods or Human sake. Start from scratch...why do atheists feel the need to change or compare to others...seems like a Christian thang...
 
"...and become themselves intellectually carved in stone."

--> I agree. I think that any organized religion becomes distorted and perverted as the centuries go by. (This is why we occasionally need new religions, and we will continue to need new ones for many centuries to come.)
 
Nick the Pilot said:
"...and become themselves intellectually carved in stone."

--> I agree. I think that any organized religion becomes distorted and perverted as the centuries go by. (This is why we occasionally need new religions, and we will continue to need new ones for many centuries to come.)
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume you think the religion is the problem rather than the people following it. No offense, but that is completely backward IMO. Personally I believe the religion should be maintained IF you know that religion to be true.

Although in a way I somewhat agree with you. Once the text gets to a point where it is not capable of being interpretted correctly, God should send a new reminder or new text altogether (in contrast to your statement that a new religion should be created, by what I assume you meant men). To Muslims, that is what happened.

As for rewriting them for the benefit of the Atheists. No, They don't have a say in what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus(Vedic followers), Buddhists, or even Pagans or any others believe is correct. What they can try to do is incorporate their ideals into laws of the land, if they aren't here already
 
I'm going to assume you think the religion is the problem rather than the people following it. No offense, but that is completely backward IMO.

Rather disagree with you on this statement. Or maybe am simply misreading your intent. For me the actions of the majority of the people following a religion defines that religion.

One can have all the high & mighty holy gospel one can desire. But if most of it is ignored by the religion's adherents, or if what they say they believe and what they actually do are very different there is a problem with that religion. Actions are what defines any group of people, religious or otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that people should try to be perfect, or even that such a thing is possible as we know people are imperfect by design/nature. That's not the kind of actions I am speaking of. Rather the habit of very many religious folk who do the Holy thing on Sunday (or other relevant Holy day), then go about doing the opposite the rest of the week.

If this is how the people act, it is the problem of the religion. Of course that is buy my opinion; I know there are a lot of folk who would disagree with me on this topic.
 
A third perspective is that religion isn't anything without how it is practices, and since every individual is a possible reflection of the religion, there is just the individual.
 
Why are we imperfect by design/nature?

Why is not what we are perfect?

There is this ten commandment issue...or 614 commandment issue...

The thinking since we are thinking we are better than animals...

So we shouldn't eat them...no we should eat them....just not those animals...and those....and ones we pet....and we should now raise and kill them this way....or that.

Oh and we should enslave people...no we shouldn't... and we shouldn't be gay...no it is ok...

kids should be quiet....speak only when spoken to....unless of course they have a good idea....but they can't tell us....

women...obey your fathers and husbands....no voting....ok...you can vote.....equality? What...who said that? Ok equality....but you still want me to open doors and buy lunch? What chivalry? Where does that fit in equality? Equal pay? but you want more hours off? What?

We create our own roadblocks, raise our own bar on perfection...and keep moving the goal posts...

Surely G!d thinks more of cats than humans....he makes us clean up their crap.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I'm going to assume you think the religion is the problem rather than the people following it. No offense, but that is completely backward IMO.

Rather disagree with you on this statement. Or maybe am simply misreading your intent. For me the actions of the majority of the people following a religion defines that religion.

One can have all the high & mighty holy gospel one can desire. But if most of it is ignored by the religion's adherents, or if what they say they believe and what they actually do are very different there is a problem with that religion. Actions are what defines any group of people, religious or otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that people should try to be perfect, or even that such a thing is possible as we know people are imperfect by design/nature. That's not the kind of actions I am speaking of. Rather the habit of very many religious folk who do the Holy thing on Sunday (or other relevant Holy day), then go about doing the opposite the rest of the week.

If this is how the people act, it is the problem of the religion. Of course that is buy my opinion; I know there are a lot of folk who would disagree with me on this topic.
Click to expand...

I think this is where most debates get off track. To define religion or "organized religion" most individuals would refer to the doctrine of said religion based on how it is intended to be followed. The followers who claim that religion but do not adhere to that religion's doctrines are not representative of that religion. For example, Islam should not be defined by ISIS's actions
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I think this is where most debates get off track. To define religion or "organized religion" most individuals would refer to the doctrine of said religion based on how it is intended to be followed. The followers who claim that religion but do not adhere to that religion's doctrines are not representative of that religion. For example, Islam should not be defined by ISIS's actions
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the distinction can be rather subjective.
 
All of this is getting into the definition of the word "religion". I define religion as a set of religious practices that are practiced by a group of people.

There are individual people who have their own, separate religious ideas, but I call this a belief system, not a religion. I think a religion is, by its very nature, a "group activity".

It is fascinating to consider the differences between a "religion" and an "organized religion".

I'd be curious to hear everyone's definition of "religion".
 
NFL... thou shall have no gods before me...and worship in coliseums every sunday of the season.

anything you do religiously....

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Dalai Lama
 
either we believe that our 'Manufacturer' had spoken at Sinai,
or let's not bother with the commandments at all.
But if u believe them to be Gd's word,
hey ignore it at ur own peril.
 
hey, some ppl aren't comfortable with eating kosher. so let's decide it doesn't apply anymore.
or, bcuz some guy got the hots for neighbor's wife,
or for poking his neighbor's butt,
let's just forget the whole 'holiness' thang...
 
lol shlomo....

appears you do have a bee in your bonnet...

You are aware not all Jews are kosher right? And many are gay? and Atheist and Agnostic?

As Christians yup, the new testament moved us beyond food restrictions. Of course 400 years later the Muslims took them back up eh?
 
wil said:
lol shlomo....

appears you do have a bee in your bonnet...

You are aware not all Jews are kosher right? And many are gay? and Atheist and Agnostic?

As Christians yup, the new testament moved us beyond food restrictions. Of course 400 years later the Muslims took them back up eh?
Click to expand...
An Atheist Jew? I'm going to have to assume you are referring to Jew as a race, and not Jew as in a follower of Judaism.

Also 400 years later? Are you counting from the days of Paul? Only Paul issued the decree that there were no more food restrictions. He also preached that people should be as Jesus was. How can you do that while eating what he never ate, or without following the Law that he followed?
 
How can I? Accepted by Christians worldwide....bacon and lobster are on the menu...or haven't you noticed.

Jesus said it ain't what goes in your mouth one should worry about, but what comes out.
 
According to the Bible sexual immorality, lewdness, theft, envy, slander come from the heart... But it doesn't, it comes from the brain... your heart has no control of your body or thoughts. This also leads to a scientific error in the statement. Food passed through the stomach and is broken down to send to all parts of the body through blood which passes through what organ? Heart disease is primarily (Here in the US) caused by cholesterol buildup. That cholesterol comes from many sources. primarily oils and fats. Once that food is in the bloodstream it is passed to every part of the body including the organ actually in charge of making you do good or bad things.

But past that, You are referring to Mark 7 if I'm not mistaken. Where the Pharisees are asking Jesus why he allows his followers to eat with dirty hands. He is establishing a difference in the traditions of man and the law of God. Did he ever say to go against the Laws of God? No. He did say however at 1 point that - until the last day no part of the law would be removed. Pork, was against the Laws of God, not against traditions.
 
Cholesterol in our bloodstream is created mostly from other than cholesterol laden foods...

Yeah. we ugly americans are obese and lazy....but G!d hasn't frowned on us for our slovenly ways.... if anyone has shown to be 'the chosen' people it is these that slaughtered the natives and buffalo, manifest destiny and all that...

We are definitely members of the lucky sperm club here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top