The ten commandements revisited:

[timsmith]

With the recent death of acclaimed Professor and Atheist Christopher Hitchens, I feel it fitting to revisit a concept he once proposed.
That is, that the ten commandements appear hasitly written and improvised, as if by someone under pressure of time. The first three of them, for example, are merely (and i cannot put it better than Hitchens on this) "the raspy, throat clearings of an admittedly touchy and self-conscious dictator", while many of the others are now redundant with new understanding and man-made, more morally acceptable laws.
Since the original tablets have long since disappeared, is it not fitting to write a new set of laws, more thouroughly thought through? perhaps including the forbidding of infanticide, child abuse, rape and genocide, while omitting the laws of "worship none but me" and "don't take my name in vain", which seem to serve no purpose in the development of morality what-so-ever.

[Jack]

I've read examples of efforts to update the 10 commandments and make them more relevant to both the religious and secular communities. The humanists have taken a stab at it, atheists, computer techs, advice columnists, practically every field of interest has at one time or another tried to adapt the 10 commandments to their own benefit. Google "the ten commandments of..." and here's what you get...
Screen Shot 2012-04-06 at 9.05.38 PM.jpg

It's almost as if the commandments are a challenge to be replicated. I disagree. There's nothing magical or mystical about ten commandments. It's just a nice round number that evidently appealed to the writer of Exodus. According to Mel Brooks it was supposed to be 15, but Moses was a bit of a butter-fingers.


There's no reason to think atheists, freethinkers or secularists need their own version of the 10 commandments. I'm not convinced we even need commandments at all. Maybe the 5 suggestions, the 3 propositions or the 1 really good recommendation. What the Christians call the Golden Rule (it's called by other names in other cultures and disciplines) would be a good general axiom for everyone to follow, religious and non-religious alike. Maybe all we need to encourage is empathy.

[Angry Citizen]

Amusingly, the Golden Rule is not part of the Ten Commandments. If God and Jesus are one critter, he's schizo.

[timsmith]

Well you're not wrong there. However, Jesus' commandement - 'love thy neighbour' was part of the new covenant, A clever ammendement, apparently the infalible deity forgot to write this one in. It's also a convenience for Moses that the golden rule was excluded, as it allowed his people to massacre the Midianites, steal their livestock and rape their women.

[timsmith]

There's no reason to think atheists, freethinkers or secularists need their own version of the 10 commandments. I'm not convinced we even need commandments at all.

You could be right here. Accounts from Socrates as he awaited trial for his life describes a voice in his head which told him when he was about to make a mistake, or do something immoral. Early descriptions of conscience?
The golden rule was first written in ancient Babylon, found in the 'Code of Hammurabi' dating C 1700BCE. Confucious also taught the golden rule in C500BCE. So clearly humans are capable of forming their own ideas of morality without these ten commandements (despite many Christians everywhere INSISTING that without the ten commandements, we would be in anarchy). So are they really necessary? Would the world be any different than it is now without them?

[Castaway]

With the recent death of acclaimed Professor and Atheist Christopher Hitchens, I feel it fitting to revisit a concept he once proposed.
That is, that the ten commandements appear hasitly written and improvised, as if by someone under pressure of time.

I do not know this fellow you are referring to but I am wondering HOW he knew this?

[Castaway]

Amusingly, the Golden Rule is not part of the Ten Commandments. If God and Jesus are one critter, he's schizo.

What do you mean by "amusingly?"

[timsmith]

Simply by the omittance of laws which, for a just society, are of significant importance. For example: by all means show respect for your mother and father, but why is there nothing to prevent child abuse? Children could be punished by death if they disobeyed their parents (Deuteronomy 21:18, also Leviticus 20:9). And although a cruel and disobedient child is irritable, a cruel parent can do infinitely more damage.

[Castaway]

Simply by the omittance of laws which, for a just society, are of significant importance. For example: by all means show respect for your mother and father, but why is there nothing to prevent child abuse? Children could be punished by death if they disobeyed their parents (Deuteronomy 21:18, also Leviticus 20:9). And although a cruel and disobedient child is irritable, a cruel parent can do infinitely more damage.

You are certainly correct in what you just said re a cruel parent. My thinking is that just because something is not specifically mentioned, it does not follow that it is not somehow implicated, and it does not follow that when something is mentioned, that it must be done today. for eg Deut 21:8, Lev 20:9

In the "whole-picture view" of the ten commandments; I think God is expecting people to use some good ol common sense...some people do, some don't.

[finder]

is it not fitting to write a new set of laws, more thouroughly thought through? perhaps including the forbidding of infanticide, child abuse, rape and genocide, while omitting the laws of "worship none but me" and "don't take my name in vain", which seem to serve no purpose in the development of morality what-so-ever.

Ironically, if laws like "worship none but me" & "don't take my name in vain", were obeyed from the beginning then laws forbidding infanticide, child abuse, rape and genocide, wouldn't have been necessary. When we're humble enough to realize that, then we realize the purpose former.

[arX]

"don't take my name in vain"

This one is particularly amusing, especially when the mindlessly pious take it seriously like, let's say, in an argument that it would prevent infanticide, child abuse, rape and genocide.

Heh, god. What a cunt. Now where the babies at?

[Castaway]

"Thou shalt not kill" might prevent infanticide. One does not have to be "pious" to do that one.