The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 09, 2009, 04:35:37 PM
-
A few random thoughts on the "Ten Commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)", which were mentioned ~42 minutes into the Nov 7th show [MP3] (http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2009-11-07.mp3):
- There actually are 613 commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot) (aka the Law of Moses) that supersede the 7 Laws of Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah), but most people focus on the first 10 (which some sects count as 11), as does this thread.
- Those "commandments" started out in oral tradition, and were written down thousands of years ago in the language and culture of those ancient tribes that wrote them. Most of us translate those commandments from Biblical Hebrew (which was written without vowels, spaces, or punctuation) into a modern language that we understand, accounting for some cultural differences but not for others. This leads to the substance of those commandments seeming far less rational than it actually was at the time.
- The first couple of commandments (which are enumerated differently by different sects) read something like: "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me; you shall not make for yourself an idol; you shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God". That translation modernizes the language, but not the basic idea, which is that this is a universal "social contract" that no one is immune from. Several thousand years ago, the best (and probably only) way to get "the great unwashed" to behave was to tell them that a big angry dude in the sky will kick their asses if they don't. The modern Anarcho-Capitalist equivalent of that is to base your proposed rulesets on "natural law", the logical necessity of which can be empirically tested and verified (or revised if/when necessary), and which can be enforced in a decentralized manner through the individual right to self-defense. This would apply to non-universal "contract law" as well - in order for any contract to be enforceable, it must contain an arbitration clause, and be insured, with the enforcement insurance fee going to someone with who can muster the earthly force necessary to enforce it, thus you no longer need to make up a "God". The ideal modern translation of that commandment: "what follows is the objective formulation of Natural Law, everyone must follow it, no making up new laws just on whim".
- Next comes a commandment that's probably most difficult for modern minds to make sense of - "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy". Why should "objective law" enforce an arbitrary calendar system and dictate when you're supposed to give your workers a day off? Well, it turns out those special 1-in-7 days serve a more important purpose than just a day of rest and special religious rituals, which are just a side-effect - they are based on the prehistoric concept of "court days" when all pending judicial trials were to take place. This tradition dates back countless millennia before Judaism as we know it today, to times before even the crudest forms of writing were invented, and many shepherds ventured miles away from their settlements, so it was very important to plan in advance when the whole community were to come together, so that everyone could witness the legal process in person, and participate if/when appropriate. All male citizens were expected to take time off on those days to go to the courthouse (on the ancient equivalent thereof) and oversee the functions of the community's legal process, like present or answer to any grievances, provide witness / character testimony if so asked, help stone the condemned, etc. This is the equivalent to the modern concepts like court subpoenas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena) and "jury duty". It might also give children an opportunity to speak out in public against their parents (i.e. the right to emancipation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors)). Of course there's no objective reason why it should be every 7 days and not 6 or 8, but it was very important that everyone comes to court on the same day, so they had to just pick a set interval and stick to it. (The number 7 had a religious significance, initially just because it was the number of local suns + moons + planets visible from Earth with the naked eye, but that's beside the point.) Having court too frequently would mean an unnecessary decline in agricultural productivity, and having it not frequently enough would mean crucial disputes could go unresolved, or an accused person can starve to death if he's not being fed well in prison. Of course modern innovations (starting with the basic sundial so that you could schedule meetings at specific times and not just specific days) make all of this unnecessary, but the substance of the "commandment" remains: the positive right to a fair and speedy trial.
- "Honor your father and mother" - this is one that the Bible gets right and most modern libertarians get fatally wrong! (See the "Parents Tax (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=30621)" thread and other threads (ex) (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31202.15;topicseen) where I explain the importance of parents' rights.)
- "You shall not murder / steal / covet anything that belongs to your neighbor" - very basic fundamental recognition of self-ownership and property rights. By "covet" it simply means "contemplate stealing", so making actionable plans to initiate aggression (ex. voting for taxes) is also a crime. By "your neighbor" it means another person who shares your religion, that is your social contract - which, in the case of the Non-Aggression Principle, means any person who isn't himself a thief, murderer, rapist, and so on. This legitimizes the use of force against criminals who haven't paid for their crimes, and the people who promote an ideology that contradicts your social contract. That's right, folks, killin' commies is a-OK! ;)
- "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" - punishes fraud, which most libertarians would agree constitutes aggression. It should also be noted that "witness" implies a specific context where the gravity of the matter is understood - you can joke about your neighbor sucking his camel's cock at a party, but you can't testify that under oath (an enforceable obligation) in court if it isn't true. And notice that it uses the word "neighbor" again - lying to deceive a communist is a-OK! ;)
- "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" - marriage is a contractual obligation, and most spouses would usually request some form of sexual exclusivity from their partners so as to assure family security, limit exposure to sexually-transmitted diseases, and so on.
-
Bump (because they were mentioned on the X-Mas Eve show).
-
George Carlin explains them much more succinctly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8
"About 5000 years ago a bunch of religious and political power brokers came up with an idea to control people...which boils down to
Thou shalt Always be honest and faithful and try really hard not to kill anyone"
-
George Carlin explains them much more succinctly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8
"About 5000 years ago a bunch of religious and political power brokers came up with an idea to control people...which boils down to
Thou shalt Always be honest and faithful and try really hard not to kill anyone"
He makes several factual errors, a couple of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, and shows his general ignorance. Nothing to see here.
-
George Carlin explains them much more succinctly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8
"About 5000 years ago a bunch of religious and political power brokers came up with an idea to control people...which boils down to
Thou shalt Always be honest and faithful and try really hard not to kill anyone"
He makes several factual errors, a couple of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, and shows his general ignorance. Nothing to see here.
I agree. He's got a few good points, but many of them are fallacious and show a lack of study. But we do know that Libman was educated by Communism (literally) and has a programmed hatred of his religion due to government education in atheist Communist Russia.
-
Hmm, I thought Diogenes was talking about Carlin, not me.
Do you have any specific points you would like to discuss?
-
I was talking about Carlin, not Libman.
-
That was strange, I don't know why I thought you were talking about Libman now that I look back at this thread.
With regards to Carlin, I like the guy's humor for the most part and while he's clearly no angel I think he's also got a lot of great ideas.
-
Dead commiedians aside... :roll:
Does anyone find my functionalist reinterpretations of those commandments insightful?
-
Dead commiedians aside... :roll:
Does anyone find my functionalist reinterpretations of those commandments insightful?
Yes. Your existence is finally justified. :P
-
You're wrong about that last one, Libman, because back in the day women were considered a man's property, and coveting one's neighbor's wife is actually coveting his property.
Also, if anyone cares, it seems that, at the very least, the first, second, third and fourth Commandments would represent clear violations of both article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, the fifth, seventh and tenth Commandments are also of doubtful legality.
-
You're wrong about that last one, Libman, because back in the day women were considered a man's property, and coveting one's neighbor's wife is actually coveting his property.
Also, if anyone cares, it seems that, at the very least, the first, second, third and fourth Commandments would represent clear violations of both article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, the fifth, seventh and tenth Commandments are also of doubtful legality.
What do you mean by "back in the day..."?
-
You're wrong about that last one, Libman, because back in the day women were considered a man's property, and coveting one's neighbor's wife is actually coveting his property.
Also, if anyone cares, it seems that, at the very least, the first, second, third and fourth Commandments would represent clear violations of both article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, the fifth, seventh and tenth Commandments are also of doubtful legality.
What do you mean by "back in the day..."?
4,000 years ago or whenever Moses was around.
-
The ancient world went through brief phases of gender equality now and again (in pre-monotheistic Semite religions El(ohim) even had himself a wifey!), but patriarchy did dominate most of the time. There were times and tribes were a woman would get a veto over who she married, in other situations she wouldn't...
The purpose of this thread isn't to focus on the most negative realities of the ancient world, but to help reconcile the differences between the atheist perspective and those often-misunderstood commandments. The people who invented those traditions didn't have the benefit of knowing the things we know today, just as we don't know what the future generations will. They simply tried their best, to hold up that fragile thing that we now call civilization.
By any means necessary.