Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 24

Thread: The 5 Commandments?

  1. #9
    Banned beast may be famous one day beast may be famous one day beast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Michigan United States
    Posts
    1,499
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 132 Times in 126 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Of all the commandments put down by various people in the bible even by Christ himself, it is strange everyone seems to only recall the decalog.

  2. #10
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Especially when you consider that a lot of them don't follow the Mosaic Law that the 10 are a part of but forget all the ones given by Christ himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Dhabi View Post
    • Be Fruitful; fill the earht
      Animals will fear you, but they belong to you
      Everything that lives and moves is food
      Do not eat anything with life blood
      Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed
    Close, number 2 and 3 are actually the same point so you're still missing one. Mind you it helps if you can check other sources to clarify what some of the verses mean.

    Here is the list I promised. (I have also edited my first post and added it there.)


    1. "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."
    They were to not only have children but to grow and cover the entire earth.

    2."Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
    The animals are given to man to eat just like the plants are, they are not to eat just just plants (vegetarian).

    3. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
    No eating the life/blood of animals (dietary restriction).

    4. "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. "
    We will be held accountable though for all blood spilled by us whether man or beast. Don't abuse or waste what we have been given (be a good steward).

    Which leads to the last one:

    5. "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. "
    Or in other words those who murder another are to be executed, period.

    So how do these commandments compare with modern social morals and attitudes? Do you agree with them?

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  3. #11
    I'm all ears. Hassun has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pretiacruento
    Posts
    7,700
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 124 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    1. "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."
    They were to not only have children but to grow and cover the entire earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    2."Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
    The animals are given to man to eat just like the plants are, they are not to eat just just plants (vegetarian).
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    3. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
    No eating the life/blood of animals (dietary restriction).
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    4. "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. "
    We will be held accountable though for all blood spilled by us whether man or beast. Don't abuse or waste what we have been given (be a good steward).
    The first 4 are all related. Of course in modern times, these rules are in danger of coming in conflict with each other. Overpopulation, pollution, driving species (e.g. certain whales) to extinction.
    Not eating blood of animals is just silly. It's pretty much impossible to eat an animal without taking in at least some blood. And it certainly was back in those days. Maybe they should have stuck to "don't play with your food".


    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    5. "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. "
    Or in other words those who murder another are to be executed, period.
    Let's just be glad that very few countries follow that kind of pathetic 'eye for an eye' rule these days.

  4. #12
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun View Post
    The first 4 are all related. Of course in modern times, these rules are in danger of coming in conflict with each other. Overpopulation, pollution, driving species (e.g. certain whales) to extinction.
    Not as related or as conflicted as you seem to think.

    The first, multiplying and replenishing the earth, is not so hard as you think. If you live in a large city it is easy to see how people can believe we are overpopulated but that is a matter of concentration not quantity. I live in a place where i have to drive 2 hours one way and 4 another to come to the next metropolis. There is space to spare on this planet if we spread out as commanded. It's political units that use food to control their populous (or simply do not allow them to leave) and the creation of large metro's that cause issues with "overpopulation".

    The second has to do with "vegetarianism" and by extension radical "environmentalism". There are occasional points in Biblical and Christian history where it is reiterated that animals are there to be eaten. It shouldn't be that hard to understand when science looks at our teeth and quite plainly states we are omnivores. Yet there are those who separate us from our natural needs and seek to remove us from any part of the natural process of supply and demand on a natural level. The earth is there to be used for all it's inhabitants, including us. That is not a very popular point of view with the radical environmentalists though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun View Post
    Not eating blood of animals is just silly. It's pretty much impossible to eat an animal without taking in at least some blood. And it certainly was back in those days. Maybe they should have stuck to "don't play with your food".
    I take it you are not familiar with how meat is processed for food then? In order to be edible it has to be "bled". As much of the blood as possible is removed from the body and that which remains undergoes a chemical change during the "aging" process that activates certain enzymes inside the meat itself. Whether you take it as eating an animal that is still alive or just the blood itself (which includes both the first and eating the blood after the bleeding has taken place) it is not the same as eating meat that has been properly prepared. However both are things that are done these days. Need I mention blood sausage or how about those restaurants that have you eat a crab while it is still alive or the still beating heart of a freshly killed animal? Either way though this is the first record of a dietary restriction. Fresh blood is very bad for us and can carry all types of disease. Now days we can't eat undercooked pork or chicken for fear of being killed by bacteria or other things and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the scares recently concerning mad cow disease. We may need both vegetables and meat to be healthy but there are things we just shouldn't eat.


    The fourth item may seem to be just another part of the same on first glance but when you look at it closely it is a chastisement/warning for the opposite side from the radical environmentalists. In the opposite view from those who remove us from nature and fulfilling our needs there are those that claim that since the earth is here to be used that we, as the highest life form on earth, have the right to do anything we want with it. This says instead just the opposite. It is given for our use but we will be held accountable for everything we do with it. In later scriptures it is spoken of as being a stewardship and those who care for their stewardship wisely will have their stewardship multiplied and those who waste it will lose it. Now think of that in terms of the resources on this earth. If we don't use them wisely what will happen to them?


    In essence both radical POV's have just been condemned. Rather then being in conflict with our needs these days it seems to me to be the solution to most of our problems. Funny how laws that are 4 thousand years old are so pertinent isn't it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hassun View Post
    Let's just be glad that very few countries follow that kind of pathetic 'eye for an eye' rule these days.
    Actually only 88 countries have abolished the death penalty. There are 98 countries that still retain the death penalty as a punishment on their law books with an additional 11 who have it but restrict it to "exceptional crimes". In order to claim that rules/laws on capitol punishment is in the minority the numbers are changed to reflect the number actually executed rather then the laws themselves. I am sure you remember the quote on the 4 types of lies and what statistics are after all.

    Reparation for harm done is hardly pathetic and if it was so very simple a question why has there been so many voluminous debates on this forum concerning capital punishment? Try to remember that one of the largest crimes that the earth was purged from with the flood was human sacrifice. If you condemn capitol punishment do you also wink at that? After all it is a religious belief. The subject is not that simple is it? Believe what you will every scripture in the Bible is definite on the subject, the government punishment for murder should be death.





    But to summarize the original subject and bring in into current debate.
    1. Have children and populate the earth. Our focus should be on the next generation and not our own personal desires.
    2. The things on the earth are here for our use and our needs from eating meat to using the other resources from wood to oil.
    3. Don't take things into your body that are bad for you even if you like them or they are "fun".
    4. Don't misuse the resources we have but use them wisely so that we, our children, and their children will still have them.
    5. Murder of another human is not to be tolerated in any way shape of form (or any reason including religion).

    Now, now do those apply to us now?

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Arrianna For This Useful Post:

    Scourge (Nov 12, 2009)

  6. #13
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna View Post
    5. "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. "
    Or in other words those who murder another are to be executed, period.
    So does this mean that if you murder a murderer, it's no longer murder? Or is there a special exemption for executioners?? And what does this mean for those who participated in the many wars that are described in Bible???
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

  7. #14
    I'm all ears. Hassun has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pretiacruento
    Posts
    7,700
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 124 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna View Post
    Not as related or as conflicted as you seem to think.

    The first, multiplying and replenishing the earth, is not so hard as you think. If you live in a large city it is easy to see how people can believe we are overpopulated but that is a matter of concentration not quantity. I live in a place where i have to drive 2 hours one way and 4 another to come to the next metropolis. There is space to spare on this planet if we spread out as commanded. It's political units that use food to control their populous (or simply do not allow them to leave) and the creation of large metro's that cause issues with "overpopulation".
    Even if we all spread out nice and even, there will still come a point where the planet can not support the amount of people. Let's hope we've developed interstellar travel by then.

    The second has to do with "vegetarianism" and by extension radical "environmentalism". There are occasional points in Biblical and Christian history where it is reiterated that animals are there to be eaten. It shouldn't be that hard to understand when science looks at our teeth and quite plainly states we are omnivores. Yet there are those who separate us from our natural needs and seek to remove us from any part of the natural process of supply and demand on a natural level. The earth is there to be used for all it's inhabitants, including us. That is not a very popular point of view with the radical environmentalists though.
    Nobody can deny we're omnivores. Whether they want to eat animal products or not. Religion hasn't got anything to do with that. There hasn't been a single completely vegetarian civilization in history. We are omnivores, it's our natural evolution to be them. Especially when you consider the increased chance of survival.

    I take it you are not familiar with how meat is processed for food then? In order to be edible it has to be "bled". As much of the blood as possible is removed from the body and that which remains undergoes a chemical change during the "aging" process that activates certain enzymes inside the meat itself. Whether you take it as eating an animal that is still alive or just the blood itself (which includes both the first and eating the blood after the bleeding has taken place) it is not the same as eating meat that has been properly prepared. However both are things that are done these days. Need I mention blood sausage or how about those restaurants that have you eat a crab while it is still alive or the still beating heart of a freshly killed animal? Either way though this is the first record of a dietary restriction. Fresh blood is very bad for us and can carry all types of disease. Now days we can't eat undercooked pork or chicken for fear of being killed by bacteria or other things and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the scares recently concerning mad cow disease. We may need both vegetables and meat to be healthy but there are things we just shouldn't eat.
    You said it yourself, "as much of the blood as possible". But that's still not all. You can cut an animal's throat, let it bleed out (not a very fun way to die by the way) and process it afterward. There will still be some blood in it. So I doubt we should take that line too literally. A rule like that becomes more obvious when you look at the context. When was it written, by whom, and where.
    I'm not saying that eating raw or undercooked food is healthy, indeed our mastery of fire's most important consequence is that we could prepare our food, making it easier to digest. Increasing our chances of survival against anyone who didn't master fire. But that was then and this is now, today it depends on the food and our treatment/analysis of its properties. We've become more than able to analyse these properties so if we wanted to we could drink blood and eat raw food without risk. Hell, even before we could do this there have been cultures (take Japan for example) where eating raw food dates back hundreds of years if not more.
    We have also found ways for vegetarians to get most of the needed nutrition to lead a comfortable life. We evolved to become omnivores but eating meat isn't completely necessary.


    The fourth item may seem to be just another part of the same on first glance but when you look at it closely it is a chastisement/warning for the opposite side from the radical environmentalists. In the opposite view from those who remove us from nature and fulfilling our needs there are those that claim that since the earth is here to be used that we, as the highest life form on earth, have the right to do anything we want with it. This says instead just the opposite. It is given for our use but we will be held accountable for everything we do with it. In later scriptures it is spoken of as being a stewardship and those who care for their stewardship wisely will have their stewardship multiplied and those who waste it will lose it. Now think of that in terms of the resources on this earth. If we don't use them wisely what will happen to them?
    I highly doubt there were radical environmentalists back in those days. So it's at most just a way some people choose to interpret it today. That said it's only logical for us to take care of the planet and its contents. We depend on it to survive after all. We're going to have to hold out at least long enough for us to develop space colonization.



    Actually only 88 countries have abolished the death penalty. There are 98 countries that still retain the death penalty as a punishment on their law books with an additional 11 who have it but restrict it to "exceptional crimes". In order to claim that rules/laws on capitol punishment is in the minority the numbers are changed to reflect the number actually executed rather then the laws themselves. I am sure you remember the quote on the 4 types of lies and what statistics are after all.

    Reparation for harm done is hardly pathetic and if it was so very simple a question why has there been so many voluminous debates on this forum concerning capital punishment? Try to remember that one of the largest crimes that the earth was purged from with the flood was human sacrifice. If you condemn capitol punishment do you also wink at that? After all it is a religious belief. The subject is not that simple is it? Believe what you will every scripture in the Bible is definite on the subject, the government punishment for murder should be death.
    You should note that I didn't say anything about the death penalty. What I did talk about is how that rule tries to say that everyone who kills should be killed in return. As you can see, Mr. Miyata also picked up on that.
    I would hope we've evolved way past a childish and downward spiral inducing 'eye for an eye' rule like that.





    But to summarize the original subject and bring in into current debate.
    1. Have children and populate the earth. Our focus should be on the next generation and not our own personal desires.
    2. The things on the earth are here for our use and our needs from eating meat to using the other resources from wood to oil.
    3. Don't take things into your body that are bad for you even if you like them or they are "fun".
    4. Don't misuse the resources we have but use them wisely so that we, our children, and their children will still have them.
    5. Murder of another human is not to be tolerated in any way shape of form (or any reason including religion).

    Now, now do those apply to us now?
    1. are the first and second basic laws of nature, survival and reproduction (which is actually just another way to survive).

    2. of course, though some substances and the way we use them in particular can be harmful to us (in the long run). Take our use of oil, mercury or uranium for example. One could certainly argue that we are not using some of these natural products in a way that is beneficial for us (and especially our future generations). See rule 4.

    3. an admirable, yet somewhat difficult concept. A lot of substances that are good for us can also be bad for us if consumed in larger than required quantities. Many products which have long been considered harmless turned out to be a lot less innocent as science progressed.

    4. see rule 2. I think I noticed you pointing some arrows at environmental groups before. This is where they come in. And in many cases, rightly so.

    5. simply because it goes against rule 1. Which would mean the answer CERTAINLY isn't killing everyone who killed someone else. Judging whether or not certain individuals pose a threat to humanity can be very difficult and places a lot of power in the shoes of the people deciding this. Our views on the subject constantly evolve as new scientific discoveries are made.
    Last edited by Hassun; Nov 12, 2009 at 05:23 PM.

  8. #15
    Lady Barronmore Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna has become well known Arrianna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,259
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 140 Times in 108 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Quote Originally Posted by LenMiyata View Post
    Grumble Grumble Grumble

    So does this mean that if you murder a murderer, it's no longer murder? Or is there a special exemption for executioners?? And what does this mean for those who participated in the many wars that are described in Bible???
    In Biblical terms murder is a legal term with a very specific meaning. A simplified definition is "unlawful killing", modern US law calls it 1st Degree Murder. Defense, execution, and warfare are not included.

    l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

  9. #16
    Poultry Projectile Cannon Scourge is making a name for themselves Scourge is making a name for themselves Scourge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oceanside CA
    Posts
    1,297
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 171 Times in 152 Posts

    Re: The 5 Commandments?

    Quote Originally Posted by LenMiyata View Post
    Grumble Grumble Grumble

    So does this mean that if you murder a murderer, it's no longer murder? Or is there a special exemption for executioners?? And what does this mean for those who participated in the many wars that are described in Bible???
    See, now your twisting things around here Len and making them more complicated then it needs to be. Its really straight forward. The reason why exicusion is aloud and is forgivable to ending the life of a murderer is that the murderer has proven that they can not live in peace with the rest of society, and the fact is we can simply look at police reports of criminals who have been charged with murder who get reliced and end up back to killing people again.
    "MY DEAR... I GIVE YOU THE CAPELLAN CONFEDERATION"
    AND THUS THE WAR WAS STARTED NOT BY GUN SHOT BUT BY WEDDING BELLS

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts