You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.

i popped my sift cherry on this handsome gem
http://videosift.com/video/Do-you-even-know-what-the-ten-commandments-are

later, i made a playlist of this guys awesome stuff.
and even later, i got some of his art tattoo'd on my chest.
we're in love.

>> ^kceaton1:I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea what "Mormon bible" really means. Since I don't believe in that one or the one with extra action with angels or the one with unicorns or the one with "x^n"... There are A LOT of bibles. Which church is the TRUE church; please enlighten me so I may rip that ONE to shreds. I'm sorry that my "Christianity"™ is not good enough for you.
As to the rest... Go ahead and link every direct observation about the Devil and Hell. It's different in each bible as well. Keep going I can't dig a grave any faster than you are already. BTW, the "Ten Commandments" are old school. So do you follow the New Testament or do you pick and choose what to like when it suites you.
I looked at my religion and others discretely and with observation and found the contradictory fallacies, logical arguments that fail, and the diversity of books, translations, and the number of religions to be enough to stop "divinity" in it's tracks for me.
You've yet to show me any logical reason to follow, somewhere I messed up, or otherwise. You are purely on the defensive. If I may say so, you need to take a hard look at religion is giving you. What would happen if you shut it down, for argument's sake? Would your life, your actions dramatically shift? All I have seen, for now, is by rote memorization quotes or otherwise I learned in seminary or Sunday school. Some of it is different of course, but I guarantee that the majority is the same.
Do you think all people that have chosen to forgo there faith and live a moral life without the fear of an afterlife reprisal all did so because they're Mormon? The only commonality we share is that we chose to question those in authority and piece things together ourselves; as we've been all lied to, which was the best reason to question in the first place.
This will be the last of my responses as I think it is on your shoulders now to logically come to your own conclusion; if you think faith/belief are the only key factors then why preach, as you will never be able to open any eyes with platitudes. If you try to defend again you will only repeat what you've already said.



Whoa there little fella. First of all, you've been asking elementry questions about the nature of God, which presupposes in our discussion that He does in fact exist. All I did was try to answer them. You gave the impression that perhaps you believed in *something*. Which Church is the true church? That would be the Body of Christ my friend. There is no institution which has exclusive rights on Christianity. This is the first fallacy of the Mormon church who has the believe they are the only true church, otherwise their "updates" would be exposed for the fraud they are.

Second, what is this that I don't understand what the Mormon bible means? Isn't that the book of Mormon? What am I not understanding? Jump to conclusions much? The true bible is the one the disciples of Christ wrote, which is the New Testament. There have been many different translations, but essentially they all say pretty much the same thing with the same quotes. The major ones which differ are funnily enough, the Mormon version and the Jehovah Witness version. These cults both started up within the last 200 years and pervert the teachings of Christ to their core. They both deny Christs divinity, with the JWs claiming Jesus was an angel, and the mormons claiming Jesus was the first creature, but not divine. As we know from the bible, anything which denies the divinity of Christ is in the spirit of the antichrist. Meaning, Mormonism by definition is a satanic religion. Worshipping the God of Mormonism is the same as worshipping Satan.

Third, you should really do some real research and gain some understanding before you just go off the cuff. The Old Testament is the original bible, in which is the wisdom of the Lord, and the prophecies which predict the coming of Christ. Christ was a jew. The Old Tesament was His bible, and also the bible of the early disciples. It isn't a matter of picking and choosing. A true Christian believes in both. Christ told us that the ten commandments are still valid, and that he was not there to overthrow the law, but to fulfill it.

Look, I'm sorry you had to grow up Mormon, but I can tell you that your upbringing didn't prepare you for this conversation. You don't seem to know even elementry conceptions about who God is, and what the bible says. For you to just turn your vitriol on me, someone who tried to answer your questions, shows your profound lack of maturity. You're going way out of your way to be as callous and insulting about it as possible. And regards to your purile question, I know what it's like to live without faith. Unlike you, I wasn't indoctrinated; for most of my life I was agnostic. I came to God independently, without religion. From there I followed God to Christianity. If you want to talk about shredding something, I think it should be your bad attitude problem. Good luck and God Bless.

@shinyblurry

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea what "Mormon bible" really means. Since I don't believe in that one or the one with extra action with angels or the one with unicorns or the one with "x^n"... There are A LOT of bibles. Which church is the TRUE church; please enlighten me so I may rip that ONE to shreds. I'm sorry that my "Christianity"™ is not good enough for you.

As to the rest... Go ahead and link every direct observation about the Devil and Hell. It's different in each bible as well. Keep going I can't dig a grave any faster than you are already. BTW, the "Ten Commandments" are old school. So do you follow the New Testament or do you pick and choose what to like when it suites you.

I looked at my religion and others discretely and with observation and found the contradictory fallacies, logical arguments that fail, and the diversity of books, translations, and the number of religions to be enough to stop "divinity" in it's tracks for me.

You've yet to show me any logical reason to follow, somewhere I messed up, or otherwise. You are purely on the defensive. If I may say so, you need to take a hard look at religion is giving you. What would happen if you shut it down, for argument's sake? Would your life, your actions dramatically shift? All I have seen, for now, is by rote memorization quotes or otherwise I learned in seminary or Sunday school. Some of it is different of course, but I guarantee that the majority is the same.

Do you think all people that have chosen to forgo there faith and live a moral life without the fear of an afterlife reprisal all did so because they're Mormon? The only commonality we share is that we chose to question those in authority and piece things together ourselves; as we've been all lied to, which was the best reason to question in the first place.

This will be the last of my responses as I think it is on your shoulders now to logically come to your own conclusion; if you think faith/belief are the only key factors then why preach, as you will never be able to open any eyes with platitudes. If you try to defend again you will only repeat what you've already said.

Thank you. That would be my point. Plus, it'd be nice to know what rules he's making; the rules or laws being: good and evil. Both are very contrived definitions and even in the course of the bible the definition changes (which was once a strong point in my understanding of God and being Mormon; you would need a prophet or relay to update "the rules" as time changes, otherwise "the works" would be forever outdated).
But, more to the point on a very simple design layer. What rules in Gods world (this was one I couldn't counter in my Mormon days) are below or above God. Good and Evil seem to be at a priority level above God, as they are "obvious". But, if God made them and controls them that negates ANY reason to have them in the first place, because as I said before they would be contrived values. Which would force me "morally" to not follow God as he seems to blame people on some sort of whimsical basis (Isiah is full of it, for the religious; the old testament is a living breathing example of this in action--constantly). As you said it seems he's schizoid or sociopathic, or both (could have multiple personality disorder, which explains A LOT). On the believing side and from a "Devil's Advocates" view; God seems to have possibly "made up" the Devil. There is very little information on the Devil and Hell. The one reference we have to punishment in Hell talks of burning lakes. The devil himself is almost never described, or attributed; the same as Hell. There's half as much information about the "bad guy" as their is about Jesus. We never even get a quote for or from him, post angelic contributions.
Anyway if evil is a "given" value, even as simple as: doing the opposite of what God wants. That means evil and good are laws on a level above God's control, although he can manipulate it. That shows that even on a fundamental "physics" or "architecture" setup, there are things that are already more powerful than him (such as any law that runs heaven, hell, Earth, God's "nature" (if you can describe it or he can, then it already shows that language is at a higher level as it cannot be communicated otherwise).
Anyway, none of this is factual proof, but a lot of these type of things should be sufficient enough to put the whole idea or question of God of to the side for this life. It should also make you realize that even if you run into a God later on, you should still question ALWAYS; or least you may follow the Devil...


Okay, well, in our ealier discourse I was wondering what bible you were reading since you didn't seem to understand the fundementals. Now, I know..you were reading the mormon bible. Try reading the New Testament sometime, because everything you're talking about is covered there.

First, good and evil are not rules which God is constrained by. They are not some sort of higher (higher than God) principle that dictates Gods behavior. There isn't anything above God. He is the uncaused cause, the eternal cause. There is no one that is a God to Him. He created everything, and not a thing exists that was not made by His will. Good comes from God. The bible says that every good gift is from above, from the Father of Lights. There is no other model or conception of what good is except what God is. The bible says there is no one good, not one. Meaning that all fall short of Gods grace, that all are sinners. Being perfect, nothing could be added to God to make Him more perfect. So, He is the ultimate good of all things. If God did not exist, there would be no such thing as good.

You say you're not sure about what rules we're supposed to live by. Well, we don't need an update for that one. God already told us what rules we should by when He gave us the Ten Commandments. Now, there is a question about the Sabbath, how Christians should observe it, but it still applies. The rules are His law. Being a moral and just God, He created rules which would lead to living a moral life. God Himself is not under His own law, and only sinners would need a law in the first place. There was no law before the fall. Evil is committing a sin. Sinning is defying Gods will.

Now you say there is nothing direct about Devil in the bible. Untrue. The Devil speaks for himself several times in both the Old and the New Testaments. That is why I suggested you read at least the NT. I don't know what is in the Mormon bible but I can assure you that as far as this matter is concerned, it is wholly inaccurate. Now, I also see you accusing God of being evil, or crazy or both. I think, if you have any respect left for God, that you should choose your words with more care. It says in the bible we will account for every idle word that we speak. Do you want to have to explain why you said these things about God to His face? I know I wouldn't..

Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.

Homosexuality is mentioned approximately three times in the bible. The prohibition against eating leavened bread (in fact one of the ten commandments is not to eat leavened bread for a week in the month of Abib) is mentioned seventeen times. Do any of these people take that law to heart? How many of these people have participated in ritual stoning for those who work on the sabbath?

If you're going to take the word of god as literal you can't pick and choose people. Especially when it comes to the ten commandments.

I think the most commonly obeyed of the actual ten commandments is: "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:"

@BicycleRepairMan

Uh, I agree with you... I think?

I never claimed that the Ten Commandments were the source of our morality. It's easy to debunk such a claim--if it were true, any country in which Christians are not the majority should be mired in immoral chaos and clearly this isn't the case.

I simply disagreed with Hitchens interpretation that "You shalt never think about or question these commandments" was part and parcel of either the Commandments themselves or being a Christian. You asked if I'd read them and I posted them for both of us to read. I think we both agree that there is nothing explicitly written in them that says that.

Now, if I understand your argument correctly, you believe the Bible implicitly requires unthinking obedience to not only the Ten Commandments but everything else that is written in it. And I'm sure you could make a strong argument for it. My point was only that others could make a strong argument against it as well, because by arguing about the implicit message we've wandered into the realm of interpretation. I'm not here to argue for or against either position, by the way, just to point out that interpretation is more vital to your argument then you appear to think.

One last point: just because the Commandments are really old doesn't mean they're entirely useless or inapplicable to today's world. The reason we are talking about this is because a lot of those "commandments" are still decent moral guidelines in spite of how old they or whatever the original writers' environment was at the time of writing. Not stealing, killing, lying, scamming people, sleeping around with people's partners behind their backs etc. are still good ideas even in today's world. You're right, they're not good moral guidelines "because god says so." But I also see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because some (completely confused) individuals are making that claim.

@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.

Amusing.

If the godless liberals made this man wear a helmet, and the unions, which steal corporation's earnings so that they have to skimp on manufacturing more durable products, this guy wouldn't have been able to do gymnastics at all! Did you see how small that truck was? Government must have bought GM.
Gay people were probably watching Platoon when this happened!
Let's hope he has insurance, because Obama may let this guy get past the US' borders, which have no mine fields, barbed wire or moats filled with snakes and alligators, and make babies! These babies would surely grow up to blow up Oklahoma and bankrupt hospitals.
This is the kind of thing that wouldn't happen if the TEN COMMANDMENTS were etched into every public school's drinking fountains!

If the godless liberals made this man wear a helmet, and the unions, which steal corporation's earnings so that they have to skimp on manufacturing more durable products, this guy wouldn't have been able to do gymnastics at all! Did you see how small that truck was? Government must have bought GM.
Gay people were probably watching Platoon when this happened!
Let's hope he has insurance, because Obama may let this guy get past the US' borders, which have no mine fields, barbed wire or moats filled with snakes and alligators, and make babies! These babies would surely grow up to blow up Oklahoma and bankrupt hospitals.
This is the kind of thing that wouldn't happen if the TEN COMMANDMENTS were etched into every public school's drinking fountains!

Hi @BicycleRepairMan! Since we’re discussing the 10 commandments, I thought I’d do us a favor and actually post them here for us to look at so it’s easier to discuss. Note that there are two versions, the ones from Exodus and the ones from Deuteronomy, so I’ve posted both versions (as printed on Wikipedia):

Exodus

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Deuteronomy

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.
8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
17 You shall not murder.
18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
19 Neither shall you steal.
20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I do not see anywhere in either version of the Ten Commandments any “command” about not thinking about or interpreting these commandments. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so. My original point stands—that’s not what they actually say. There is no need to excuse or explain away the original text, because there’s nothing explicitly written there that supports your interpretation.

That being said, to some extent Hitchens’ interpretation of the Ten Commandments as including thought crimes matches that of the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Ten Commandments. However, you yourself pointed out that most Christians—including Catholics—don’t interpret it that way personally. And that’s the weakness with Hitchens’ argument. He’s not arguing against religion here, he’s arguing against one particular interpretation of a particular religious ruleset (the Ten Commandments) of a particular religious sect (orthodox Catholicism). His interpretation, it turns out, is not even held by the majority of the worshipers of that particular religion (Christianity as a whole). Which begs the question of why he’s even going off about it (the thought crime thing) in the first place? His claim is that the Ten Commandments are a terrible place to get your morality from, yet his argument is actually not against the Commandments themselves but against the unthinking interpretation of some religious adherents. I don't find that to be a very rational or convincing argument against the Commandments themselves.

>> ^SDGundamX:
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say


Uh.. thats EXACTLY what they say, have you even read them? The first THREE commandments deal with this, by forbidding effectively any other viewpoints. There's a reason they are not called The Ten Suggestions.

I know that most religious people don't interpret them this way today, but this doesnt excuse or explain away the actual texts.

The point is that clearly, the morality of those with the modern, liberal interpretation of the ten commandments, do not come from the ten commandments. If they had based their morality on the commandments, then they would not think of the commandments as vague guidelines that can mostly be ignored. Most modern Christians, for instance, support religious freedom, while the very first commandment strictly forbids it.

Even the three commandments that actually deals with anything of concern to a 21st century human, the ones about lying,stealing and killing are first of all to general, vague and imprecise to actually be of any use in forming a proper morality, besides, its pretty obvious that humans have had a basic understanding of these concepts and why they are wrong, or the human race would never have, as Hitchens has pointed out, gotten as far as mount Sinai, or anywhere else for that matter.

I'd love to hear about an example of, or perhaps the direction to look towards, 'an absolute right or wrong answer to a moral question.'

Furthermore, is the ten commandment example a liar's paradox?

And an aside, if it is not supposed to address every single instance, should not the same attitude be applied to the other commandments? I interpret that this sense of relativity or subjectivity is one of the cornerstones of Hitchen's issues with religiously founded morality, especially when there are zealots who do take them absolutely.

>> ^SDGundamX:
It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.
My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.
If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.

It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.

My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.

However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.

If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.