nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Micheal Nugent V WC

nozzferrahhtoo

So on Tuesday 21st March (19:30) UCC are hosting a "Does God Exist" debate between Nugent and Lane.

The likes of Richard Dawkins have refused to engage with Lane saying nothing can come of it other than to bolster Lane's CV. I guess the reverse is true when you (like Nugent) are relatively unknown on the international Atheist V Theist debate circuit and any CV benefits are likely to go Nugent's way on this one.

What do we think we can expect from the debate?

Firstly what I think Nugent can expect is to know all Lanes points before the day. Mainly because, unlike some actually deep thinking interlocutors, Lane's approach is to open and close (and much in the middle too) recite his arguments by rote. They are pretty much word for word identical from debate to debate and there is no excuse not to be ready for them.

Secondly, as Sam Harris noted DURING his debate with Lane..... it really does not matter what you say in the debate.... Lane's MO is consistently to summarize your point(s) in such a way as to entirely modify them from what they actually were. A move so familiar to me that I have on occasion found myself suspecting Lane posts on THIS forum under a fairly well known username.

Third, regardless of the title of the debate Lane's MO is to open and close with a monologue declare what "the atheist" has to do in order to "win" the debate. Lane uses a LOT of words during this monologue but it essentially boils down to "The atheist has the burden of proof, and must prove the negative, and has to actively prove there is no god". And he will make this monologue regardless of the title or subject of the debate. Be is "Is there any reason to think there is a god" "The house believes there is no god" or "What makes people think there is a god".

And finally Lane trots out the same number of points every time that all make the same erroneous assumptions. Those being that

"Nothing" is the default and therefore "something from nothing" has to be explained. He simply assumes that "something" requires explanation rather than his assertion that "nothing" is the natural state and therefore the existence of anything requires explanation.

Timeless systems require causal explanation even though causality without a temporal element has never been shown to exist or modeled. That is: The First cause argument and the "everything that happens has a cause, the universe happened, therefore it had a cause" monologue. Challenge this as causality based arguments applied to non-causal systems is a core failed assumption in his entire rhetoric.

He asserts objective morality exists and this needs a god to explain it. Two failed assumptions here. Even if it did exist, why does that automatically need a god to explain it? And on what does he base his assertion that it exists? The latter in previous debates he appears SOLELY to support by "Argument from implication" fallacies. That is he paints a picture where you EMOTIVELY do not like the implication of objective morality not existing..... therefore you (to his mind) are forced to concede it does. For example he will say things like "Without an objective morality you can not OBJECTIVELY say that anything Hitler or the Nazis did was wrong".

TLDR? What do you think we can expect, or Nugent should be ready for, in this debate?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

A Freudian slip, possibly, but I think you mean WL Craig, not WC Lane.

Despite the fact that I know his name better than you do, you clearly have a better mastery of his position and his arguments than I do, so I can't suggest how Nugent might prepare for this debate, beyond saying that he should read your post.

I'm not convinced that taking on Lane's arguments directly is the way to go. From what you say, Lane starts by trying to lay down what the atheist must do to "win". My instinct opposing someone who takes such a stance is to refuse to let them dictate the terms of the discussion in that way. But rather than take on Lane's decree about the terms of the debate and argue with that, I'd simply ignore it, and lay out my own account of my position, and how I arrived at it, and why I hold it.

Atheism is basically a negative position, and it's always hard to prove a negative, so I wouldn't be drawn in to attempt to "disprove" God. Obviously I can't speak for Michael, but for an awful lot of atheists, the basis of their atheism is simply that they have never been presented with a conception of god that they find coherent and appealing. If Lane insists that the phenomenon of existence requires explanation, rather than assert that it does not require explanation a better counter might be, whether or not it requires explanation, you don't find the conception of god an appealing or satisfactory explanation. This then opens up the possibility of an interrogation of conventional Christian conceptions of God.

From what you say, Lane's arguments veer from the abstract and metaphysical ("existence requires explanation") to the emotional ("Hitler!"). I think Michael could safely sidestep the metaphysical argument - it's one for the philosophers, but in a student debate environment I don't think it's going to be a clincher - and offer emotional arguments of his own (e.g. the problem of suffering).

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure that a long post written quickly while getting the kids out the door for school displays that you know any name better than I do

but I certainly take the correction and perhaps the MOD would be kind enough to edit it accordingly?

But yes his position does generally appear to be to assert not only that "existence requires explanation" but that explanation must be intentional, intelligent, eternal and "personal".

A lot of his move, particularly the ones like summarizing a persons position blatantly incorrectly.... are designed to rile and troll the opponent. To bait an emotional reaction out of them and cloud their rationality. I have seen Nugent in debate though and one thing that tends not to happen is he lets himself get baited emotionally. So that is, at least, one concern we do not need to have in this event.

recedite

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

bnt

W L Craig is a practitioner of the Gish Gallop, which basically substitutes quantity for quality in debates. Is he coming to Ireland specifically for this, I wonder? Perhaps he thinks he's on safe ground in a "Catholic" country? The only good I could see coming out of this is if it raises money for some worthwhile charity.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

I see Prof Dawkins, like many atheists, knows more of the Bible than many Christians.

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

The following verses of scripture are germaine and explicative of the Mosaic laws:-

Mark 10:1-5 New International Version (NIV)

10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It is clear that the Mosaic Laws were drawn up by Moses (and not by God).
It is also clear that they were drawn up by Moses as pragmatic Laws for a hard-hearted people in hard-hearted 'dog eat dog' times under merciless law and not merciful grace.

The reciting of law in scripture doesn't make it inerrant ... it is like all law ... of its time and place ... and drawn up by fallible men.

... and getting back to the upcoming debate ... I look forward to seeing it.
Two excellent protagonists for their respective sides.

May the best arguments win !!!:)

magicbastarder

J C wrote: »

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

they should drop it from the bible so, if it's inaccurate. because too many people seem to think the bible is the word of god, which gives deuteronomy a little bit too much moral clout for them.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

they should drop it from the bible so, if it's inaccurate. because too many people seem to think the bible is the word of god, which gives deuteronomy a little bit too much moral clout for them.

It's an accurate account of the Mosaic Laws.
I don't think it should be dropped ... it is a part of the historical record of western jurisprudence.

We shouldn't deny our history ... just accept it and ensure that we learn from it ... those who don't learn from history are destined to re-live it !!!:eek:

magicbastarder

ah, so the bible is a record of history, and not the actual word of god. i wonder why that is not made more clear.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, so the bible is a record of history, and not the actual word of god. i wonder why that is not made more clear.

It contains both historical accounts, and the Word of God i.e. Jesus Christ.:)

magicbastarder

the notion that the bits dating from 2800 years ago are dated and no longer relevant as they're history, but the bits which are *only* 2000 years old are current and relevant, is a curious one.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

the notion that the bits dating from 2800 years ago are dated and no longer relevant as they're history, but the bits which are *only* 2000 years old are current and relevant, is a curious one.

... one is 2800 year old law ... and the other is the Word of Jesus Christ and His followers.

Anyway, now that we have established that God loves us all ... what is the actual format of the debate in UCC?

recedite

J C wrote: »

Anyway, now that we have established that God loves us all ... what is the actual format of the debate in UCC?

Not sure, I presume both will be given an uninterrupted period of time initially to speak their piece, followed by a debate. A lot will depend on having a good moderator sitting between them, one who understands what they are talking about.

Maybe we should have a whiparound to buy one of our mods a train ticket to Cork?

J C

recedite wrote: »

Not sure, I presume both will be given an uninterrupted period of time initially to speak their piece, followed by a debate. A lot will depend on having a good moderator sitting between them, one who understands what they are talking about.

Maybe we should have a whiparound to buy one of our mods a train ticket to Cork?

I nominate Robin for the trip to Cork ... if I get there myself, we might even have a pint !!!

recedite

Well the problem is, it'll have to be Beamish.
I hope this W.L. Craig chap doesn't get too upset when he finds out after the event that Cork people don't believe in Guinness.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Well the problem is, it'll have to be Beamish.
I hope this W.L. Craig chap doesn't get too upset when he finds out after the event that Cork people don't believe in Guinness.

... being an American ... he may be a believer in Bud, himself !!!:)

learn_more

recedite wrote: »

Dawkins on his refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

I would expect Nugent to win the UCC debate in terms of the arguments he makes, but I would expect Craig to act as if he has won it.

That's a strange article by Dawkins. He starts off by belittling Craig as some nobody but at the same time he feels the need to write a piece in The Guardian about him. If he's such a nobody then why bother? The reason he gives for not debating Craig is frankly unbelievable. Because Craig believes in genocide. Dawkins looks like he's running scared of Craig. I'm sure he's watched Craig vs Hitchens and Craig vs Krauss online and I bet he doesn't think he'd fare any better against him either, likely worse.

silverharp

Michael, try get this made into a T shirt

C4fgxJrVUAAGBKu.jpg:small

magicbastarder

but then someone would turn up in a similar shirt with 'punctuated change we can believe in', and there'd be fisticuffs.

Bristolscale7

How much is Craig charging UCC?

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Anyway, he seems to forget that Deuteronomy is describing a time when the world was strictly under law ... and not mercy or grace, like we are now.

The following verses of scripture are germaine and explicative of the Mosaic laws:-

Mark 10:1-5 New International Version (NIV)

10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

It is clear that the Mosaic Laws were drawn up by Moses (and not by God).
It is also clear that they were drawn up by Moses as pragmatic Laws for a hard-hearted people in hard-hearted 'dog eat dog' times under merciless law and not merciful grace.

Well, you see JC, here's the problem with the multi self-refulting nature of the Bible. Your claim is that commandments like Deuteronomy 24:1-5 were authored by Moses and not God. As usual, you're wrong.

And here's why.

Within the context of the bible itself, the commandments in Deuteronomy were authored by God but announced to the people by Moses. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, Moses himself states that the law comes from God in Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged."

Secondly, Jews of the time understood that the commandments given the them by Moses actually came from God. This is made clear in Proverbs 30. Earlier in Deuteronomy 4 and 12, Moses makes it clear that no-one should add or subtract from the law:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 4:2

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."
Deuteronomy 12:32

This is later repeated by Agur, son of Jakeh in Proverbs who makes it clear where the law comes from:

"Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Proverbs 30:5-6

Finally, the quote from Mark 10 makes it look like the law comes from Moses because when Jesus describes divorce he uses phrases like "What did Moses command you?" and "Moses permitted". However, Jesus uses the same language when he talks about the commandment to honour your father and mother in Mark 7:

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;"

Now clearly, Moses didn't author the commandment about honouring your father and mother given that Exodus 20 makes it plain that it is God speaking the commandments.

Back in the real world, it's clear that the author of Mark's gospel follows a Pauline anti-Jewish "ministry of death" approach and does what he can to weasel out of the more unpalatable Jewish commandments. But then a book written by someone 40 years after Jesus' death who is deeply unfamiliar with both the geography of the region and the customs and practices of the people there is perhaps not the best arbiter of what Jesus may or may not have said. Particularly when he makes Jesus reference a legendary figure as if they were a historical person when we know that's not the case.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, you see JC, here's the problem with the multi self-refulting nature of the Bible. Your claim is that commandments like Deuteronomy 24:1-5 were authored by Moses and not God. As usual, you're wrong.

And here's why.

Within the context of the bible itself, the commandments in Deuteronomy were authored by God but announced to the people by Moses. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, Moses himself states that the law comes from God in Deuteronomy 6:1-2

"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged."

Deut 6:1-2 is clearly referring to the 10 commandments in Deut 5.

Deut 5:22 confirms that "These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, Jews of the time understood that the commandments given the them by Moses actually came from God. This is made clear in Proverbs 30. Earlier in Deuteronomy 4 and 12, Moses makes it clear that no-one should add or subtract from the law:

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

The 10 Commandments came directly from God and are eternal ... all the rest was Moses by-laws for the Jews to live by.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, the quote from Mark 10 makes it look like the law comes from Moses because when Jesus describes divorce he uses phrases like "What did Moses command you?" and "Moses permitted". However, Jesus uses the same language when he talks about the commandment to honour your father and mother in Mark 7:

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;"

Now clearly, Moses didn't author the commandment about honouring your father and mother given that Exodus 20 makes it plain that it is God speaking the commandments.

... God said in Deut 5:16 to “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
Moses added the rider that ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;" ... which was part of the Mosaic law (and not the ten commandments) ... and was more observed in the breach than the observance.

Peregrinus

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

How much is Craig charging UCC?

The same amount as Michael is, I imagine!

oldrnwisr

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this JC.

J C wrote: »

Deut 6:1-2 is clearly referring to the 10 commandments in Deut 5.

Well, no. Deuteronomy 6:1 opens with the phrase "now this is the command". Even in English it is clear that the author is prefacing comments he is about to make, i.e. he is referring to something he is going to talk about not something he already has.

Secondly, when we look at the phrase in Hebrew we see this even more clearly. The hebrew word rendered as "now this is" in Deuteronomy 6:1 is:

וְ֠זֹאת

which is translated as regarding, in, is a etc. but in most passages rendered as likewise showing that the correct reading of the passage is to link the commands in Deuteronomy 5 with those in Chapter 6 i.e. just as those commands came from god, likewise these are too. The clear intent of the passage is that the commands in Deuteronomy 6 come from God, not Moses.

J C wrote: »

Deut 5:22 confirms that "These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

The 10 Commandments came directly from God and are eternal ... all the rest was Moses by-laws for the Jews to live by.

Well, you see this is what I alluded to the real world in my last post. Ultimately the Christian interpretation of the OT runs smack into the reality that is the composite nature of the Pentateuch.

You see, the Ten Commandments list in Deuteronomy 5 is merely a restatement of those in Exodus 20 as I've shown below:

Commandment | Exodus 20 | Deuteronomy 5
1 | 2-6 | 6-10
2 | 7 | 11
3 | 8-11 | 12-15
4 | 12 | 16
5 | 13 | 17
6 | 14 | 18
7 | 15 | 19
8 | 16 | 20
9 | 17 | 21
10| 17 | 21

In Exodus 20, God does add more than just the 10 commandments as demonstrated below:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven. You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves. You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you. If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.’"
Exodus 20:22-26.

Further, God continues to personally issue commands in Exodus 21, 22 and 23 as demonstrated by the opening of Chapter 21:

"Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:"

Here we see God speaking to Moses directly. This is further reinforced by the opening line of Exodus 24:

"Then He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a distance."

Note the capitalisation on He, indicating that it is God who is and has been speaking.

The reality is that the Pentateuch is a pastiche, a composite work with at least 5 major contributors (Deuteronomist, Elohist, Priestly, Yahwhist authors and a later redactor). This is evidenced by the many internal and external contradictions in the Pentateuch as well as the inclusion of a number of duplicate stories.

For example, in Exodus 20:8-10, God issues the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Then in verse 11, he explains the reason for the commandment as a commemoration of the creation of the Earth (referencing the Priestly creation story in Genesis 2:3):

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

However, in Deuteronomy 5 we see a duplicate rendition of the ten commandments, however now the reason for the sabbath commandment has changed to a remembrance of the slavery in Egypt:

"You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day."

It's not just the ten commandments which gets duplicated but also the creation myth (Genesis 1, 2), the flood (Genesis 6-8), the genealogy of Adam (Genesis 4:17-26, 5:1-28). There are also some stories which are told three times such as Abraham's wife/sister (Genesis 12, 20, 26) the story of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 16:1-14, 16:3,15-16 and 21:8-19) and of course the 10 commandments (Exodus 20, 34 and Deuteronomy 5). All told there are over 30 stories in the Pentateuch which appear twice or more across the five books. Each story is either subtly or massively different replete with contradictions and non-sequiturs.
One prominent example of this is the 10 commandments themselves. The Ten Commandments are first outlined in Exodus 20 and duplicated in Deuteronomy 5. However, as much as Christians would like to pretend they don't exist there is a third set of 10 commandments outlined in Exodus 34:

Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim —for you shall not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God— otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods.
You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
“You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
“The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep. You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed.
“You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.
You shall celebrate the Feast of Weeks, that is, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the Lord your God.
“You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be left over until morning.
“You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the Lord your God.
“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

This is then followed by the passage below:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

While there are some points of commonality (belief in god, sabbath, graven images) the two lists are radically different. However, the list above is exclusively and repeatedly described as the Ten Commandments being referred to as the Ten Commandments here as well as in Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4.

However, as much fun as it's been showing the OT and the Ten Commandments to be a self-contradictory, stitched together mess, I think we're getting away from the point. You may interpret the OT laws as authored by Moses but that is not what either the original authors intended nor is it what Jews of the time (or of Jesus' time) believed.
Firstly, as I posted last time Proverbs 30 shows that Jews believed all the law was handed down from God.
Secondly, Jesus makes it clear that this is the prevailing view of his time too. In Matthew 5 Jesus makes clear the entry requirements for heaven:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus points out that not only do you have to keep the commandments but you have to be better at keeping them than the scribes and pharisees. He even goes to the trouble of explaining what he means with examples:

"“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 lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus doesn't use the term the Ten Commandments nor does he add any other qualifier to indicate that he is talking about a restricted set of commandments, thus indicating that he is talking about all 613 of them.

J C wrote: »

... God said in Deut 5:16 to “your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
Moses added the rider that ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;" ... which was part of the Mosaic law (and not the ten commandments) ... and was more observed in the breach than the observance.

Nice try except that, as I've pointed out above, Deuteronomy 5 is simply a restatement of the commandments in Exodus 20. Consequently we can see that God himself institutes the death penalty for breaking the 4th commandment (or 5th commandment if you're a Reformed Christian) in Exodus 21:15 and 21:17.

What kind of god would issue a set of rules to somebody without also communicating the punishments for breaking those rules. That seems like a remarkable oversight for a being which is described as perfect throughout the bible.

You know I did think that maybe your biblical arguments would better stand up to scrutiny than your creationist ones. Pity.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this JC.
Well, no. Deuteronomy 6:1 opens with the phrase "now this is the command". Even in English it is clear that the author is prefacing comments he is about to make, i.e. he is referring to something he is going to talk about not something he already has.

No issue there ... Moses is going to restate the 10 Commandments as well as promulgating other laws.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What kind of god would issue a set of rules to somebody without also communicating the punishments for breaking those rules. That seems like a remarkable oversight for a being which is described as perfect throughout the bible.

These are eternal laws and respect for God should be sufficient for people to obey these laws.

robindch

^^^ Not a convincing reply, JC.

J C

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Not a convincing reply, JC.

What would convince you, Robin?

The 10 commandments are eternal moral laws ... that are self-evident.
The 'punishment' for not obeying them is a great deal of unhappiness.

The actual punishment meted out by society for breaking various laws (including the 10 commandments) has varied enormously ... sometimes something that has been illegal becomes legal ... and vice versa.

looksee

The first four of the 10 relate directly to honouring the author of the laws. Not really a great deal to do with morality - we currently have a 'leader of the free world' whose primary concern is ensuring he is honoured, It doesn't prove that he is worthy of honour.

robindch

J C wrote: »

What would convince you, Robin?

A reply which combined facts with reason to produce a conclusion.

J C

robindch wrote: »

A reply which combined facts with reason to produce a conclusion.

I have found that it all depends on how facts are combined with reason ... and whether the conclusion produced fits in with the person's worldview, whether they are convinced or not.

J C

looksee wrote: »

The first four of the 10 relate directly to honouring the author of the laws. Not really a great deal to do with morality - we currently have a 'leader of the free world' whose primary concern is ensuring he is honoured, It doesn't prove that he is worthy of honour.

It doesn't prove that he isn't worthy of honour either ... and about half of all Americans who care seem to think that he should be honoured with the US Presidency.

Honouring God and your fellow man is a good way to go IMO.:)