The 10 commandments......

sirboby

So yea not entirely sure this is the right place to post this.

To start i am only 15, so really i probably don't have a clue what im talking about but hear me out.

So the at school during R.E we learned about all the main religions and there beliefs (catholic school). But what confuses me is the ten commandments, and how the church doesn't seem to follow some of them and change them to suit themselves...

Here is what im using but here il just use the short versions.


1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
Ok so obviously they would say this, fair enough.

2.You shall not make idols.
An idol in todays english means "a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered." So we cant admire role models parents etc?
But back then it probably reffered to an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship, so it is the same as number 1.

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
So this one has apartently been changed by the church, now it just means dont swear etc. but apparently it be different, il let you read this and decide for yourself

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
How does this mean go to mass on Sunday, and how is it acceptable to go on a Saturday night? I have asked 4 different priest now does this mean you must pray on a sunday and not go to mass? and all of them shruged off the question and did not answer it.
The way i see it the only reason the church wants you to attend mass at least once on the weekends it to get there collections. Not to keep you holy or to give you communion. (Edit 1:And why are we meant to get communion once a week? Jesus did it once, once! why not do it once every easter?(Edit 2: And why are we still going to confessions, they were brought in by a pope wanting to learn the powerful peoples secrets in and around Rome, but i could write anther page on this so mybe some other time))

5.Honor your father and your mother.
Self explanitory cant argue with it, but Pope Francis is now changing it to keep up with modern thinking and allow for same-sex parents. Good job Francis, but how can he just change this whenever he wants to?

6.You shall not murder.
Obviously cant argue with this. but Hypocritical coming from probably one of the most bloodthirsty organisation of History, this is excluding the crusades!

7.You shall not commit adultery.
Basically don't cheat, but the longer version prohibits homosexuality among other things, but Francis has changed this too .
I still dont understand how the church can change "sacred text" so easily, so is god now ok with gays but 500 years ago he was completly against it?

8.You shall not steal.
Again not arguing but it is easy to say this when you have the wealth of the church.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
From what i can gather this means dont accuse anyone of anything they did not do or lie. Did the church not repeatably lie about all of the abuse given by priests? Even the priests who did not partake in such awful things must of knew something about it, and they did nothing(or very little to stop it)

10.You shall not covet.
neighbor/neighbors wife, so basically don't desire anything, don't aspire to be anyone of importance or dream of being successful.....




So how can The church just bend these "rules from god" to suit their needs and modern day thinking? Personally I would half very little to do with the church If i were not forced by my parent to go every Saturday evening, but it would mean alot to them if i went so i go, because i respect them, not because some 2000 year old text told me to but because they do a lot for me.

When im older i probably never return to the church, their beliefs mirror my own on homosexuality. Not to mention the extreme sexism in the church. I may return when there are more openly gay priests/bishops and they begin to allow women to become priests/bishops etc.

For the reference i am a straight male, i just believe in equality.

alwald

Aside from the 10 commandments, do you believe in god? do you have faith? would you say you are more religious or more atheist?

smash

sirboby wrote: »

So how can The church just bend these "rules from god" to suit their needs and modern day thinking?

Probably for the same reason they pick and choose what bits of the bible to believe and what bits they just class as stories.

sirboby

alwald wrote: »

Aside from the 10 commandments, do you believe in god? do you have faith? would you say you are more religious or more atheist?

I was Catholic, but the more i listen to sermons the less i believe in it, the prayers now sound like chants to me
"God is good, God is almighty. God is good, God is almighty."

I would not class myself as either atheist or religious. From what i know an atheist is someone who believes there is no God or higher power, I am not saying there is not one but if there is one i don't believe i should be learning about it from the catholic church.

I plan to live out my life the best i can, without practicing any religion, so if there is an afterlife i hope i lived well enough to get into it and if not, so be it and i hope i made someone else life more enjoyable and contributed to the world.

alwald

sirboby wrote: »

I was Catholic, but the more i listen to sermons the less i believe in it, the prayers now sound like chants to me
"God is good, God is almighty. God is good, God is almighty."

I would not class myself as either atheist or religious. From what i know an atheist is someone who believes there is no God or higher power, I am not saying there is not one but if there is one i don't believe i should be learning about it from the catholic church.

I plan to live out my life the best i can, without practicing any religion, so if there is an afterlife i hope i lived well enough to get into it and if not, so be it and i hope i made someone else life more enjoyable and contributed to the world.

You sound more of an agnostic than anything else, I am agnostic as well.
Religions are fascinating, they survived centuries, wars, natural catastrophes and they spread as quick as a virus, I am very interested about learning about them but if there is one thing I learnt is that logic and religion don't go well together.
Religion is a blind belief/faith in whatever is written in the books, religious people tend to believe in their own holy book (Bible, Koran, Torah....) as it is without questioning any aspect of it, and how dare they question the holiness of the divine book?? the priest/Imam or whatever will go mad.

homer911

You sound like most of us on a faith journey. The bible also tells us not to add to or take away from it, which sounds exactly like your perceptions. The fact is that we are all human and we all err.


Are you part of a Christian youth group? It sounds like you need with other young Christians, perhaps outside the RC tradition, to discuss these. Most importantly though you need to understand the fundamentals of faith and then these points become secondary

hinault

sirboby wrote: »

So yea not entirely sure this is the right place to post this.

To start i am only 15, so really i probably don't have a clue what im talking about but hear me out.

So the at school during R.E we learned about all the main religions and there beliefs (catholic school). But what confuses me is the ten commandments, and how the church doesn't seem to follow some of them and change them to suit themselves...

Here is what im using but here il just use the short versions.


1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
Ok so obviously they would say this, fair enough.

2.You shall not make idols.
An idol in todays english means "a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered." So we cant admire role models parents etc?
But back then it probably reffered to an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship, so it is the same as number 1.

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
So this one has apartently been changed by the church, now it just means dont swear etc. but apparently it be different, il let you read this and decide for yourself

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
How does this mean go to mass on Sunday, and how is it acceptable to go on a Saturday night? I have asked 4 different priest now does this mean you must pray on a sunday and not go to mass? and all of them shruged off the question and did not answer it.
The way i see it the only reason the church wants you to attend mass at least once on the weekends it to get there collections. Not to keep you holy or to give you communion. (Edit 1:And why are we meant to get communion once a week? Jesus did it once, once! why not do it once every easter?(Edit 2: And why are we still going to confessions, they were brought in by a pope wanting to learn the powerful peoples secrets in and around Rome, but i could write anther page on this so mybe some other time))

5.Honor your father and your mother.
Self explanitory cant argue with it, but Pope Francis is now changing it to keep up with modern thinking and allow for same-sex parents. Good job Francis, but how can he just change this whenever he wants to?

6.You shall not murder.
Obviously cant argue with this. but Hypocritical coming from probably one of the most bloodthirsty organisation of History, this is excluding the crusades!

7.You shall not commit adultery.
Basically don't cheat, but the longer version prohibits homosexuality among other things, but Francis has changed this too .
I still dont understand how the church can change "sacred text" so easily, so is god now ok with gays but 500 years ago he was completly against it?

8.You shall not steal.
Again not arguing but it is easy to say this when you have the wealth of the church.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
From what i can gather this means dont accuse anyone of anything they did not do or lie. Did the church not repeatably lie about all of the abuse given by priests? Even the priests who did not partake in such awful things must of knew something about it, and they did nothing(or very little to stop it)

10.You shall not covet.
neighbor/neighbors wife, so basically don't desire anything, don't aspire to be anyone of importance or dream of being successful.....




So how can The church just bend these "rules from god" to suit their needs and modern day thinking? Personally I would half very little to do with the church If i were not forced by my parent to go every Saturday evening, but it would mean alot to them if i went so i go, because i respect them, not because some 2000 year old text told me to but because they do a lot for me.

When im older i probably never return to the church, their beliefs mirror my own on homosexuality. Not to mention the extreme sexism in the church. I may return when there are more openly gay priests/bishops and they begin to allow women to become priests/bishops etc.

For the reference i am a straight male, i just believe in equality.

An interesting post.

I can't speak for non-Catholic Christianity, but I can say with certainty that the 10 commandments continue to apply throughout Catholicism.

Each commandment is ordained by God to humanity.

No Pope in speaking about the personal moral behaviour can change what is Church teaching on moral behaviour.
The Catholic Church has compiled for centuries papal encyclicals, tradition, and none of which contradicts the 10 commandments.

One test for the veracity of the moral law is that something which is morally right can only be morally right if it remains true for all time and in all circumstances.

So let's consider the commandment "thou shall not steal".

Has the Church ever countenanced theft/stealing? Has the Church ever issued a document saying that theft/stealing is morally good behaviour?
No. The Church has never issued such a document nor has the Church ever taught that theft/stealing is morally right.
You cite the accumulation of Church wealth. is the possession of wealth = stealing/theft? It can be, but is it in this case? No. Was that wealth procured by stealing/theft? No. Is the taking back of possessions stolen from you, theft? No.
Theft/stealing is taking into possession property, or title, which does not belong to you in the first place.

It's great that you're thinking about the concepts that you believe in.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

To pin my colours to the mast I am an evangelical Christian.

OP - this is a really good post. For the record - there are lots of things that are initially quite strange about Christianity when one doesn't have a holistic understanding of the Bible. I've been where you are. I also experienced quite a bit of disillusionment with church and I didn't quite get it until I decided to look into the Bible for myself.

The Ten Commandments are understood in a different way this side of Jesus. The context that we live in is different for a start. They are all true and they are all good. However mere observance doesn't save any one. We are sinners who are saved by grace. Not by following rules. We live for Jesus because He loves us.

This is why Jesus came to rescue us from our sin by His death on the cross and it's why He rose again. Jesus is the person we want to listen to. It is understanding the whole Bible that helps us put things into their right place in the Bible story. For a brief overview without reading the whole Bible I recommend this short reading list.

Not liking what the Catholic Church says isn't a reason to ignore Jesus and what He has said. If He is who He said He is then what He has said is crucially important. We can't and shouldn't ignore Him.

If you reject Christianity on the basis of what men said without reading the Bible then you have done so without true knowledge of who Jesus is.

Feel free to chuck more questions at me. I'm thankful for your honesty. I thought pointing out the need for a fuller understanding of the Bible was key. Christianity isn't a blind faith. It is a rationally considered one on the basis of the Scriptures.

Also, do remember the Roman Catholic Church isn't the only Christian church either.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

mdebets

hinault wrote: »

One test for the veracity of the moral law is that something which is morally right can only be morally right if it remains true for all time and in all circumstances.

That's not true, you always have to read it in the context of the society for which it was originally written and how it applies to later societies.
Let's look at 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'.
For us today, it means 'don't have sex with anyone who is not your wife (and you are not allowed to have more than one who is still alive at the same time)'.

This interpretation of today can't have been true at the time the OT was written down, as it is clear that at that time , a man was allowed to have more than one wife and even to have sex with his servants (see Abraham or Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 17:17 or Deuteronomy 21:15-17).

hinault wrote: »

So let's consider the commandment "thou shall not steal".

Has the Church ever countenanced theft/stealing? Has the Church ever issued a document saying that theft/stealing is morally good behaviour?
No. The Church has never issued such a document nor has the Church ever taught that theft/stealing is morally right.
You cite the accumulation of Church wealth. is the possession of wealth = stealing/theft? It can be, but is it in this case? No. Was that wealth procured by stealing/theft? No. Is the taking back of possessions stolen from you, theft? No.
Theft/stealing is taking into possession property, or title, which does not belong to you in the first place.

'Thou shall not steal' is another Commandment that need to be read in context. Ancient Jewish writing interprets it as a law against stealing people (a.k.a kidnapping), not against stealing property (like it is interpreted today).

solodeogloria

Good afternoon mdebets,

It's worth pointing out that the Sermon of the Mount tackles the motivations of our hearts rather than mere actions.

On adultery:

Matthew 5:27-28 ESVUK wrote:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Jesus is more radical. That's why a holistic understanding of the Bible is crucial to get the big picture.

There's two ways we can deal with these:
1. Recognise our sin and repent and long to live for Jesus now
2. Grumble at God and continue to live in rebellion.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

hinault

mdebets wrote: »

That's not true, you always have to read it in the context of the society for which it was originally written and how it applies to later societies.
Let's look at 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'.
For us today, it means 'don't have sex with anyone who is not your wife (and you are not allowed to have more than one who is still alive at the same time)'.

This interpretation of today can't have been true at the time the OT was written down, as it is clear that at that time , a man was allowed to have more than one wife and even to have sex with his servants (see Abraham or Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 17:17 or Deuteronomy 21:15-17).

Incorrect.

Jesus Christ himself refuted the Mosaic Law that allowed divorce.

Jesus Christ never commanded that a person can get married more than once.
Only where a spouse dies is the other spouse permitted to get married again.

Truth is not mutable.

mdebets

hinault wrote: »

Incorrect.

Jesus Christ himself refuted the Mosaic Law that allowed divorce.

Jesus Christ never commanded that a person can get married more than once.
Only where a spouse dies is a person permitted to get married again.

Truth is not mutable.

What you say (bare your last sentence) is true, and it shows that truth is mutable.

While Jesus said marriage is only one man, one woman, no divorce, nothing else, the OT clearly states that marriage can be one man, several woman and divorce is allowed.

Deuteronomy 17:17 (NIV) wrote:

17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (NIV) wrote:

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, ...

Deuteronomy 24 (NIV) wrote:

24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So, how do you think God's truth didn't change between the OT and the NT?

hinault

mdebets wrote: »

So, how do you think God's truth didn't change between the OT and the NT?

God incarnate - Jesus Christ - articulated the application of the Law.

mdebets

hinault wrote: »

God incarnate - Jesus Christ - articulated the application of the Law.

You don't seem to understand. Just answer the following questions and we might get somewhere.

Were Jewish men at 500 BC (long before 'Jesus Christ - articulated the application of the Law') allowed to marry more than one woman at the same time and to divorce them?

beach_walker

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ himself refuted the Mosaic Law that allowed divorce.

I always find it amusing when people bring up the ol' "but you must believe in these laws from the OT!" as though it's something new. Jesus was dealing with this from day 1

I mean most people have heard the notable passage dealing with the Pharisees bringing the adulteress woman to Jesus in an attempt to trap him by the laws of Moses versus those of Rome, but they haven't quite squared the circle on it.

hinault

mdebets wrote: »

You don't seem to understand.

With respect it's you who fails to understand.

In the meantime, we'll agree to disagree.

mdebets

hinault wrote: »

With respect it's you who fails to understand.

In the meantime, we'll agree to disagree.

You are trying to avoid my question. I don't want to discuss (at least not now, maybe later, when we have talked about historical basics) what the moral teaching of Jesus is today, but what the moral teaching of God were before Jesus got incarnated as man.

Could you not just answer my question.

Were Jewish men at 500 BC allowed to marry more than one woman at the same time and to divorce them?

ceekay74

sirboby wrote: »

But what confuses me is the ten commandments, and how the church doesn't seem to follow some of them and change them to suit themselves...

So how can The church just bend these "rules from god" to suit their needs and modern day thinking?

Interesting thread.

I think the above sentances really sum up your question. My answer would be that the church above all else sees itself as the saviours of humanity and that they have a responsibility to 'save our souls' so, they have to move with the times so stay relevant. (It has taken them quite a while to realise this).

Personally, the whole concept of god is absurd. Full stop. Religion/religions got going as a way to control people (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not) and enforce rules/laws when there were none.

How it still exists in this day and age is testament to the level of fear people have about death. Now I don't care if people want to have faith, whatever helps you get through the day, but I just see it as fooling yourself. Like still believing in santa claus because it makes you feel good.

hinault

mdebets wrote: »

I don't want to discuss what the moral teaching of Jesus is today

That's entirely your call.

Maybe when you do decide to discuss this we can do so.

solodeogloria

ceekay74 wrote: »

Interesting thread.

I think the above sentances really sum up your question. My answer would be that the church above all else sees itself as the saviours of humanity and that they have a responsibility to 'save our souls' so, they have to move with the times so stay relevant. (It has taken them quite a while to realise this).

Personally, the whole concept of god is absurd. Full stop. Religion/religions got going as a way to control people (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not) and enforce rules/laws when there were none.

How it still exists in this day and age is testament to the level of fear people have about death. Now I don't care if people want to have faith, whatever helps you get through the day, but I just see it as fooling yourself. Like still believing in santa claus because it makes you feel good.

Good afternoon!

The bolded section is the problem.

The church isn't the Saviour of the world. Jesus is. That's why I keep saying listen to Him. Read what He says.

The church being messed up isn't a reason to ignore Jesus! Most people aren't aware of what Jesus said any why He came. That is the key.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

ceekay74 wrote: »

Personally, the whole concept of god is absurd. Full stop. Religion/religions got going as a way to control people (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not) and enforce rules/laws when there were none.

How it still exists in this day and age is testament to the level of fear people have about death. Now I don't care if people want to have faith, whatever helps you get through the day, but I just see it as fooling yourself. Like still believing in santa claus because it makes you feel good.

MOD NOTE

The topic of conversation is the 10 commandments.

If you wish to discuss the absurdity of religion, the atheist and agnosticism forum would probably be a better forum for that topic.

Thanks for your attention.

mdebets

hinault wrote: »

That's entirely your call.

Maybe when you do decide to discuss this we can do so.

Good to see you are back to your old tricks of avoiding unconfortable questions and quoting seletively.

mdebets wrote:

You are trying to avoid my question. I don't want to discuss (at least not now, maybe later, when we have talked about historical basics) what the moral teaching of Jesus is today

To discuss Jesus teaching, you need to understand the OT and it's teaching about the issue as well.

Could you not just answer my question.

Were Jewish men at 500 BC allowed to marry more than one woman at the same time and to divorce them?

If you answere this, we can discuss about Jesus' teaching based on this.

hinault

mdebets wrote: »

Good to see you are back to your old tricks of avoiding uncomfortable questions and quoting selectively.

Quid pro quo, I'd call it.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

An interesting post.

I can't speak for non-Catholic Christianity, but I can say with certainty that the 10 commandments continue to apply throughout Catholicism.

Each commandment is ordained by God to humanity.

No Pope in speaking about the personal moral behaviour can change what is Church teaching on moral behaviour.
The Catholic Church has compiled for centuries papal encyclicals, tradition, and none of which contradicts the 10 commandments.

How do you account for the fourth commandment which says to have no idols or as is actually referred to "graven images" and yet go into any RC building /school or grotto and there are graven images everywhere which have candles and other votives and whichare prayed to.

If each commandment is "ordained by God" who is Roman Catholicism to change it?

There is also the appointing of Mary as Co-Redemptrix when Scripture quiet clearly says there is only One involved in the process of Redemption.

hinault

Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »

How do you account for the fourth commandment which says to have no idols or as is actually referred to "graven images" and yet go into any RC building /school or grotto and there are graven images everywhere which have candles and other votives and whichare prayed to.

Never been to an Orthodox Church? Have you asked the Orthodox? What answer did you get?

Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »

If each commandment is "ordained by God" who is Roman Catholicism to change it?

Catechism still lists all 10 Commandments, as does the OT.

Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »

There is also the appointing of Mary as Co-Redemptrix when Scripture quiet clearly says there is only One involved in the process of Redemption.

We're discussing the 10 Commandments in this thread?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Never been to an Orthodox Church? Have you asked the Orthodox? What answer did you get?




Catechism still lists all 10 Commandments, as does the OT.

Catholicism removed this one to facilitate statues.
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Exodus 20)

And no, Ive never been to an Othodox Church but have been to RC ones for a portion of my life




We're discussing the 10 Commandments in this thread?

As for the of a co-redempterix. The commandments are clear to have no other Gods. Catholicism made Mary on a par with God by declaring her a means of redemption. So the 3rd commandment comes in play here.

hinault

Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »

As for the of a co-redempterix. The commandments are clear to have no other Gods. Catholicism made Mary on a par with God by declaring her a means of redemption. So the 3rd commandment comes in play here.

protestants and protestantism's difficulty with Mary in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is for them to come to terms with.

By the way your ability to use the quote function needs to be worked on.

Did you raise the issue of statutes and icons with the Orthodox?
If not why not?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

protestants and protestantism's difficulty with Mary in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is for them to come to terms with.

By the way your ability to use the quote function needs to be worked on.

Did you raise the issue of statutes and icons with the Orthodox?
If not why not?

As I've said before, I'm not protestant so Ive no problems understanding the role of Mary and having been RC (almost joined the Christian Brothers) I have a good perspective on things.

Also, as per usual you've deflected the questions Ive raised and refused to answer them.
Seems 3 months holiday hasn't changed much:D

Delirium

mdebets wrote: »

Good to see you are back to your old tricks of avoiding unconfortable questions and quoting seletively.

hinault wrote: »

Quid pro quo, I'd call it.

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic rather than sniping at each other.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

Renee Howling Quadrangle wrote: »

Also, as per usual you've deflected the questions Ive raised and refused to answer them.
Seems 3 months holiday hasn't changed much:D

No, I'm replying to you for the moment - so much that has changed for now.

Why haven't you raised the issues of icons and statues with the Orthodox?
Is a case that you only find statues and icons in catholic churches offensive?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

No, I'm replying to you for the moment - so much that has changed for now.

Why haven't you raised the issues of icons and statues with the Orthodox?
Is a case that you only find statues and icons in catholic churches offensive?

Yo may not have noticed that I quoted something you said and therefore directed the question to you.