Godcucks believe that god literally dictated certain laws to humanity, like the ten commandments.
Can you imagine how good and complete and profound and perfect ten universal moral laws written by god himself would be? So why is it that a literal child could improve on the ten commandments without effort?
Let's take one of the commandments: "thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain." Imagine if we got rid of that commandment and replaced it with "thou shalt not rape" or "thou shalt not keep slaves" or "thou shalt give his or her children the finest education possible." Is that an improvement?
The answer to any sane human being is 'yes'.
Let's take another commandment: "thou shalt not steal." Couldn't we improve this by changing it to "thou shalt not steal unless your child is about to starve to death or something and there is a loaf of bread you could take that would keep them alive".
Godcucks will literally argue that these changes make the commandments worse.
>>1273637
I agree with most of what you said, but
>thou shalt not steal unless your child is about to starve to death or something and there is a loaf of bread you could take that would keep them alive
That's not an improvement because stealing is stealing. Being in a bad situation does not entitle you to a piece of someone else's property that you did not earn. A more ethical course of action would be merely to beg or earn some quick money. Stealing is never okay.
>>1273637
>Imagine if we got rid of that commandment a
Why get rid of it? Can't you keep both?
Also all of those commandments are already included in the 10 by logical implication
Common sense is an unwritten commandment.
>>1273637
The 10 commandments aren't a complete ethical system unto themselves, and were never intended to be. That's why we have the Law, the prophets, the psalms, etc., combined with the religious community.
Besides, as first principles of social organisation they aren't bad. It is one thing for certain conclusions to be prized, and another to state the first principles and basic goods from which the conclusions are derived. That you think a set of first principles should willy-nilly be replaced with conclusions derived from those principles is not a fault of the authors.
The first three establish the transcendent basis of the social order: God himself, who is uniquely to be worshipped, transcends physical portrayal, and whose name (i.e., nature) is sacred. It is necessary to articulate the way in which the minds of the community ought to be directed, in worship, object and thought, to the transcendent good.
It is dignity as a member of the community before God which ultimately grounds the rights and obligations one has in that society, including, ultimately, any respect for human autonomy and opposition to slavery one might wish, so clearly these commandments are indispensable to the whole scheme.
The commandment of the Sabbath establishes the importance of a pattern of life which is ordered toward a transcendent end. It establishes the worthy life as something that is not reducible to their ordinary economic activity, hallowing both work and leisure. this carves out a space for gratuitous pursuit of the higher goods, a space which is in turn essential for any sort of higher development in society.
Do not commit adultery, combined with the dignity implied by the first three commandments, entails a prohibition of rape. Honouring one's parents, don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness and do not covet again establish the basic goods of family, life, property, justice, and social harmony. The limited words encourage study and contemplation.
>>1274153
As a Jew, I would say stealing is okay only when absolutely necessary to save or preserve a life, like if you were poor and stole an extremely expensive antidote for your poisoned child.
Stealing bread would not be okay ever, since it is nowadays easy to come across enough money to buy bread in a few hours.
>>1275897
>There's literally nothing wrong with adultery.
Sort of depends. If you have some kind of open arrangement, I don't see anything wrong with it. But if it involves sneaking around, then it's a big violation of trust, and you're hurting the other person. Not to mention that you're breaking a legal and social contract you made with the other person.
>>1275952
If the Nazis stole the ark of the convenant and was going to use it as a weapon against the allies, would it be okay to steal it from them?
>>1275965
Adultery and cheating aren't the same thing
>>1273637
actually, i think commandments about stealing and adultery are better for society than "muh fine education", since they tie into social trust, private property and inheritance laws.
>>1276217
No. Stealing is wrong.
>>1275952
What if the antidote was the only available sample a group of top notch scientists had to replicate for the rest of us?
Shit's case by case. Absolutist moral arguments are made to be broken.
Theres no point in the commandments if you can just ignore them if you feel like it. If you admit that its ok to steal if youre about to starve then youre admitting god is wrong.
>>1275897
> nothing wrong with adultery
Cmon dude this isn't tumblr don't act like a cuckold. You see a relationship is formed by trust with that person and when it's given to another person the trust is broken
This is some if the weakest b8 I've ever seen
Rape is covered under theft and coveting.
God is God, and if he is real and his commandments matter then of course defying him is one of the greatest sins possible
This shit is as easy as video game lore. You just get buttmad about it because you feel threatened by it
>>1277022
>Rape is covered under theft and coveting.
Marital rape or rape of slaves wouldn't be and that also implies people are property.
>>1276306
This guy knows what's up.
That's why he murders anyone he sees gardening on the sabbath, otherwise he would be admitting God is wrong.
>>1277068
You're making biased assumptions. It can be read as a theft or violation of other person's bodily integrity. Regardless of the fact that the other person is your spouse, doing something without their permission is a violation. This applies to both their personal belongings, and their body.
Also another obvious commandment against rape would be "thou shalt not kill", since it entails not only murder, but other kinds of harm. And rape is obviously harmful.
>>1277129
>It can be read as a theft or violation of other person's bodily integrity.
I'm genuinely interested by this claim. I'm not even saying it is wrong, it's just the first time I've heard it. Could you provide the citations showing the Hebrew should be translated that way?
>Also another obvious commandment against rape would be "thou shalt not kill", since it entails not only murder, but other kinds of harm.
Same for that please.
>>1273637
Probably because when a civilization is beginning, schools and education mean nothing in the face of surviving the elements and the emotional specturm where the FIRST direct threat is fear...
Fear of not having enough- So I must steal
Fear of death- So I must kill him before it gets worse
The commandments are fundamental. You master that first, THEN you can move on to education....but FIRST you have to be able to not become a panic baby in the face of adversity, which causes people to kill and steal to begin with. Master your immediate surroundings first, you're immediate poisons, the obvious courses of destruction that man is susceptible too, AFTER that, AFTER mastering love for your brother, the wisdom from love follows and limitless progression can begin.
This stuff isn't hard to figure out, that's of course only if you aren't blinded by self righteousness and pride. Which can mislead a person into thinking they know what they're talking about.
