Christopher Hitchens On the Ten Commandments With Better Ones
I have previously written about the Ten Commandments here. Christopher Hitchens talked about them recently in an eight minute video. Why can't believers see them for what they are? And why didn't an omniscient creator come up with better ones? See what you think:
HT Atheist Media Blog
HT Atheist Media Blog
34 comments:
Saw this floating around the web today. My thoughts:
"These days it seems like a 10 Commandments spiel just isn’t complete without mention of the associated punishments as well. Makes them a far less attractive list for schools when people are made aware it’s more of hit list for mutaween wannabes to kill sinners and infidels."
Their context is what makes them repugnant more than anything, imo. It's part of a demand for brutally enforced theocratic law that rivals much of the backwards Islamic theocracies that Americans normally find revolting. With Christianity they want to introduce that to toddlers and put it outside courthouses? Craziness.
What I always love to do when a fundytard gets in my face about the ten commandments and being all American: The first ammendment to the Constitution is directly against the ten commandments. I gurss the US is an anti-biblical nation. :)
As a matter of fact, there are many parts of the Constitution and the US form of government that are expressly forbidden by the bible.
Amens to Christopher Hitchens! I really enjoyed the video. So true to!
Hitchens says a man's wife is equivalent to his ox or ass according to the commandments? Laughable. Sorry to break it to you, but you can be asked not to be jealous of several things at once without all of those things being on the same plane of importance. Get over your flimsy interpretations. Get over yourselves.
I'm a Christian who believes in God and the commandments and I am also fine with Hitchen's decalogue. It works. Well. Great. Good for him. Bravo. Take away the condescension and arrogance and we'll totally have something here!
Double A... as the Bible's treatment of women is pretty absurd by modern standards and the "prophets" lacked the divine insight to know better, his comparison in that context might be exaggerated, but hardly off entirely.
Somehow I doubt you live by the commandments entirely either unless you actually advocate the death penalty for breaking the ones so enforced as the Bible states. Even modern literalists cherry pick to avoid being ostracized by modern society. Your book and its god demand the deaths of pretty much everyone I know, even the children. It's repugnant.
Christians who want this hit list of rules put up in court houses and schools for children because they ignore the gruesome consequences demanded just don't make a lick of sense to me. The whole mess is just an excuse for barbarism, killing infidels and the wicked, as the slaughter of thousands soon after their creation illustrated.
You may be quite alright with putting a Biblical hit list in our schools, but if so, I think you should have your head examined.
I take objection to Hitchen's endorsement of the commandment on perjury. That particular commandment would have been agreeable to me as well but for the last three words. "Do not bear false witness" would have sufficed. That would have been succinct without any unnecessary words. However the lat three words "against thy neighbor" takes away every thing from the commandment. This is the classic in-group morality. Those three words were placed there for a good reason. The reason being the in-group morality. One may say that I am over-analyzing the injunction. However, further scrutiny of the old testament clearly shows that there are several injunctions which clearly show that the author(s) in-group bigotry, from selling meat of a dead animal to strangers as opposed to the neighbors, so on and so forth.
Appajji... they're all pretty lousy in context. Even the prohibition on murder is all fine and good if one cherry picks it out of the context that it's okay to kill infidels, people who disobey other rules and moral demands. Bringing the 10 commandments back immediately resulted in the wholesale slaughter of "neighbors" as their violation of the rules (that I'm not even sure they even fully understood yet) negated their right to life.
I'm not sure if there's anything redeemable about the 10 commandments if one doesn't cherry pick it to make it politically correct and palatable to modern society. Doing so just makes it a lie of omission. Leaving it in context demands that people slaughter to satisfy the "loving" god's absurd bloodlust.
You couldn't be more wrong Glock. Your feeble attempt, along with other athiests feeble attempts, to interpret the word of God is kinda funny, but not really.
Double A... it's not my "atheist interpretation." It's the same book and the same verses I learned in Sunday school. If you're trying to deny that when he brought the commandments down there wasn't a slaughter of their neighbors, you're the one with an interpretation problem. The rules were enforced brutally and the 10 commandments were no exception... their barbaric enforcement was specifically highlighted and in turn caused a bloody stain on history spanning centuries.
The funny thing about worshipers of Abrahamic gods is they typically have few qualms about noting the blatant barbarism in the other guy's sequel or remakes of the holy word, but go to absurd lengths to rationalize it for their own. Anyone pointing out the barbarism is accused of being blind, not getting it, etc... even if they grew up Christian and learning this stuff with "Jesus in their hearts."
It's right there for all to see. Your refusal to acknowledge it and inability to coherently explain why I'm wrong here is revealing. You haven't a leg to stand on, and you know it.
Hitchens' suggestion that wives are put on the same level as an ox or ass demonstrates his lack of logic. The idea that none of them ought to be coveted hardly does that.
His scruple with that commandment that it considered thought and not action is as profoundly short sighted as the command is profoundly insightful to note that the beginning of ethics is in the heart, something that Jesus took further.
I have just had a thought about the general idea that women are property in the old testament, an idea that poorly fits what we actually see (an excellent counterexample is the capital punishment of adultry for all parties including the man. Property that is stolen (and I think ruining a property would also fit this) is to be replaced, not treated as a capital offense).
I would suggest that a a more consistent view of women in the old testament that might lead someone to think that they are property is that women in the old testament (like property) were within the domain of care and stewardship. This is not a status that confers less human significance and worth.
"This is not a status that confers less human significance and worth."
Uh... sure, buddy. Good luck with that.
Rob R.
I know there are old testament scriptures that state, that if a bride is not a virgin on her wedding night, she is to be stoned to death....!
Is there any such rule regarding men in the old testament?
Rob R.
Also, the tenth commandment says-"do not covet your neighbors ox, goods wife...etc..but nowhere does it say husband!...or wives dont covet your neighbors husband.
This is further proof that women were considered less equal then men. Obviously women were more important then ox's and what not, but unequal to men none the less!
I know there are old testament scriptures that state, that if a bride is not a virgin on her wedding night, she is to be stoned to death....!
What I had taken issue with is the claim that women are treated as property and that women are not worth less then men on the basis of these specific scriptures. If you want to argue otherwise on other scriptural grounds, I'd have to see that.
But in what you bring up, you are right that there is an asymetrical expectation of the sexual integrity of women than for men. I don't know why that should be and yet I accept that men and women aren't simply opposites sexually speaking. One could also argue that this actually demonstrates that something about women, their sexual fidelity, is more important, has more value than it does in men.
But this is of course a on the way of not what was intended to be merely a frozen set of absolutes, but moral code that in it's allowances and prohibitions which aimed a moral trajectory which did indeed develope to where monogamy (and thus hightening expectations for men) did indeed develope. The stage was indeed set and routes by which a man could lose his virginity where frowned upon up to the point where Paul noted that even sex with a prostitute was wrong for God's people.
This is further proof that women were considered less equal then men. Obviously women were more important then ox's and what not, but unequal to men none the less!
Do you see the inconsistent logic here? A higher expectation of women in another area (or what is explicitely true) is deemed to make them worth less than men, and yet, here you suggest that a higher expectation of men (at least what is made explicit) makes them worth more.
Still, what is not made explicit sets a moral trajectory. Why should a woman indulge in the covetous poison that is not good for her own husband?
"What I had taken issue with is the claim that women are treated as property and that women are not worth less then men on the basis of these specific scriptures."
You took issue, but you only seemed to help demonstrate the problem as we see it. Muslims try to rationalize their religious constraints and unequal treatment along the exact same lines and it fails on along those same lines. In the end you're defending a shockingly outdated rule set that treated women as prized possessions as opposed to true equals.
The stark contrast in modesty rules seem more analogous to keeping your classic Mustang garaged instead of flaunted as to not encourage thieves. Valuing women doesn't justify the oppressive policies.
Rob R.
Im not saying a women should indulge in coveting as opposed to men, im simply saying that the scriptures refer to men and men only as far as coveting.
The fact that the scripture says "do not covet thy neighbors wife" or "goods"...etc...but does not say "husband" anywhere....or "women to not covet your neighbors husband",..... seems to show that women were counted along with property!
Especially since women are capable of coveting aswell as men....there is nothing in this commandment to show equality of men and women!
Also, you mentioned about scriptures of unequality, here is just one i came across-Leviticus 12:2-12:5
"If a women gives birth to a son, she will be unclean for 7 days, just as she is unclean during her menstrual period"
and
"If a women gives birth to a daughter, she will be unclean for 2 weeks, just as she is with her menstrual period".
Apparantly a women is twice as unclean after having a daughter then she is a son according to scripture!
I think it ridiculous for christians to even suggest that the ten commandments be put up in schools or any institution.
No believers observe the Sabbath, instead they celebrate the resurrection on sunday.
So they are either deliberatly breaking Gods command in order to worship Jesus instead, or they believe that observing the Sabbath is obsolete!
For christians to demand a standard in which they omitt one of the commands, but assert that the rest must be obeyed is hypocrisy, especially when things like murder and theft are obviously wrong to all people.
It will not do to say that the Sabbath was replaced by sunday worship by God Himself, because the Sabbath and the resurrection are based on two different things altogether!
Ironically Glock, my argument does amount to saying that some of these things are outdated, and yet why that isn't a problem even for those who find these scriptures useful today.
shane,
Im not saying a women should indulge in coveting as opposed to men, im simply saying that the scriptures refer to men and men only as far as coveting.
i didn't say you thought that. But you seem to think that's alright from the hebrew perspective on the basis of this law.
seems to show that women were counted along with property!
And I gave a counterexample that demonstrated that the property interpretation wasn't a good one.
there is nothing in this commandment to show equality of men and women!
I wouldn't suggest that there was anything to show that men and women were of equal worth in this command. I just contest it's use to demonstrate that they weren't.
Apparantly a women is twice as unclean after having a daughter then she is a son according to scripture!
apparently having a daughter is worth twice as much effort in this ritual matter.
"apparently having a daughter is worth twice as much effort in this ritual matter."
wtf?
NOBODY IS THIS DENSE!
My gawd!
Really!
Is there NO amount of stupid you will not stoop to in order to defend this nonsense?
Read what you just wrote.
Grab the back of your head like you're a bad dog and rub your nose in it until that bullshit is so far up your nostrils that you will NEVER do that again.
[/rant]
Rob R.
All i can say is that wives are listed among the covetous objects in this command and husbands are not!
The covetous objects listed along with the wives were properties.
This confers to me that wives were considered a type of property or goods!
Take it as you will!
Also, you said, "Apparantly the daughters were worth twice as much effort then the sons?
Are you being serious?
I think it is quite obvious here, that the scripture had to do with the duration of uncleanliness between male and female.
And the ritual had nothing to do with daughters being worth more....it was a ritual of ceremonial cleanliness, and it states that it took longer for a women to be clean agian after having a daughter then a son before being allowed to worship in the tabernacle again!
Take this as you will too.
Rob R.
I have to admit, out of all the people i've argued with on here, you come up with some of the most left field concepts i've ever read!
Glock, I see no reason to engage you further.
Shane,
All i can say is that wives are listed among the covetous objects
Thus my response to that remains unanswered.
I think it is quite obvious here, that the scripture had to do with the duration of uncleanliness between male and female.
I don't think the nature of ritual purity and impurity is obvious at all especially to our western minds. I don't claim to fully understand it.
And the ritual had nothing to do with daughters being worth more
No, not explicitly. Nevertheless the trouble invested in something is indeed an aspect (certainly far from an absolute measure) of it's worth.
The idea that the greater impurity of something indicates that it has less worth is speculative. It certainly is no better than the interpretation that I've offered. It is also consistent with a further idea that women have a greater purity to maintain than men. That has the potential benefit of explaining why in the old testament that there is a greater emphasis on women's virginity.
2nd post
We can take a further example from requirements of literal cleanliness.
A garage may need only a weekly, monthly or even yearly attention to cleanliness. Compare that to a dining room which needs to be cleaned daily. The standards of cleanliness are also different. Does this mean that the dining room is worth more than the garage? Hardly.
It could be that women are less pure than men, or it could be that they have a greater purity and standards of that purity to uphold. The concept of ritual purity are not so clearly spelled out that I know of to decide it one way or another.
"Glock, I see no reason to engage you further."
Not going to hurt my feelings. As you apparently also have no reason to give up your cognitive dissonance, I'll just take heart as you continue to point out just how backwards and indefensible your faith is without stooping to self-inflicted lobotomies of reason.
Pass the popcorn. Time for more of "dirty, dirty, dirty, prized possessions / sex slaves, that are equal in the eyes of the lord." Same dingbat time, same dingbat channel.
Rob R.
I believe i did answer your response by disagreeing with it.
You said it could be that women are less pure then men?......
Exactly!!!! The scriptures make women out to be lesser beings then men, and need more purification ( not that i think that is true, i think it is nonsense, but the old testament people did not.)
The garage and living room analogy you gave i think is inaccurate.....
The scripture was not about how often or who was more important in the purification process....it was about the degree of time it took to purify according to the degree of uncleanliness!
For example-i'll use your analogy.....Lets say you clean your garage once a year and your basement once a year.
And lets say it takes you 7 hours to get your garage clean every year, but it takes you 14 hours to get your basement clean every year.....
A person could conclude that your basement must get dirtier and more cluttered over the year then your garage does, and therefore takes twice as long to clean!
This is my interpretation of the scriptures toward women...but like you, i dont claim to know for a fact.
But here is another example of degradation toward women....in Deuteronomy it states, that if a man see's a pretty women and wants her for a wife, he can take her home and "go in unto her". Later if he decides he doesn't like her, he can simply tell her to go!
I believe i did answer your response by disagreeing with it.
right. Just the bare disagreement is not a substitute for advancing the discusison. You don't have to advance the discussion, but as it stands, the evidence brought up weighs against the idea that women are property.
You said it could be that women are less pure then men?......
that was my articulation of your opionion. It could be that OR... what I said is true.
The scripture was not about how often or who was more important in the purification process....it was about the degree of time it took to purify according to the degree of uncleanliness!
then you are taking the wrong thing from the parallel. You are focusing on an irrelevant detail. The point is that the difference in degree of maintenance of purity doesn't really indicate that one entity is less pure than another. In a sense, a dining room is much more pure than a garage but it requires a greater degree of maintenance.
This is my interpretation of the scriptures toward women...but like you, i dont claim to know for a fact.
I don't think the scripture is crystal clear here... at least as far as my understanding is concerned. If you don't think it is either that's fine with me. the criticisms against the view of women in scripture flop since they don't clearly indicate that they have less value.
But it is without a doubt not accurate that women cannot be considered property as I have already evidenced without challenge (only mere disagreement) from yourself. It doesn't fit the emphasis on sexual ethics and there is no reason to see capital punishment for murder as gender neutral.
in Deuteronomy it states, that if a man see's a pretty women and wants her for a wife, he can take her home and "go in unto her".
In the full context of this, this woman who is captive from a conquered peoples is given all the rights of a Jewish wife. Furthermore, her grief for her her former life and her family lost is to be respected and observed for a month in the house hold. Such humanization of a captive and enemies surely was rare if not unheard of in that time. This is not where we are at now with our idea that our enemies should be rebuilt after defeating them and become prosperous allies. But it's not hard to see why one with this background could take it even further and say that enemies are to be loved.
"the criticisms against the view of women in scripture flop since they don't clearly indicate that they have less value."
If you squint one eye, close the other, jump up and down, sustain major head injuries... I can almost see it.
"In the full context of this, this woman who is captive from a conquered peoples is given all the rights of a Jewish wife. Furthermore, her grief for her her former life and her family lost is to be respected and observed for a month in the house hold. Such humanization..."
This should come with a choking hazard warning. If I had been mid-drink I could have died!
Rob.
Im not exactly sure what response of yours im neglecting?
As far as i know i have been disagreeing and giving reasons why?
If there is a specific point you made that im side stepping please explian.
Maybe i made a bad anology last time, but to put it as clear as i can the scripture i quoted from in Leviticus goes on to say in verse 6- " the women must bring a one-year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a pigeon after having a child and present them to the priest, and the priest must offer them to the Lord to purify the women! (this is because a women was seen as unclean for having a child)
So what we have here to sum it all up, is the concept that a women is unclean for having a child, and this is due to original sin (Adam and Eve causing all to be born with sin)
Then we have the belief that a women is unclean for 7 days for having a male, but unclean for 14 days for having a female......this is still due to original sin because it was Eve who ate the forbidden fruit first, then tempted Adam causing him to sin aswell!
Therefore women are seen as being twice as impure as men!!!!!!!!whew thats the clearest way i can explain.
You also said that it is inaccurate that women cannot be considered property based on the scriptures mentioned...yet we have Paul saying in the NT that "women was created FOR man, and not man FOR women"!
He said all are one in Christ, but he still made this distinction between man and women.
And, you said that there were rules for fair treatment of female captives?
Really?....you mean after the female captives had their families and loved one's brutally murdered by the Israelites in their quest for Canaan?
and then forced into marriage by one of her captives because he wanted her?
Ya, im glad they were given time to grieve....thats such humane respect after the horror they endured!....give me a break.
Having to be married to one of her capture's who was responsible for the death of her entire family was probably worse then death!!!!!!!
The same conservative people who would love to have the ten commandments on the courthouse lawn and the courthouse wall with its central commandment of 'shall not kill' is the same group that most vocally and fiercely demands that we kill the worst of our criminals. How does one reconcile capital punishment with 'shall not kill'?
gopriarie.
I agree with you here, but one observation i have madeis that, if you read the old testament the Israelites committed mass genocides, and they practiced capiatl punishment by stoning to death people who broke certian laws!
So when the commandment says "thou shalt not kill" it must be that the scriptures contradict this commandment, or it meant unlawful murder of eachother (in which wars and stonings were considered justified)?
Eitherway it makes no sense to me either!
Post a Comment