The Ten Commandments

[Kether]

The three against stealing, killing and lying. I disagree with the five that are to do with God, and the other two to do with man - the one commanding filial piety, and the one forbidding adultery - are not universally applicable.

[sonrisa]

well I'm glad you agree with the 3 that happen to concern criminal activities. :)

filial piety- that's original. I thought it was honor thy father & mother. To my mind piety carries a holy worshipful connotation, whereas honor is more about respect. I think the world could use a little more honor & respect, not just towards parents, but towards people in general.

as to adultry, I don't think it should be a crime, but wait til you get older & dogged on, then you might appreciate that commandment a little bit. Again it's all about respect, or lack thereof.....

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: I thought it was honor thy father & mother.

Yes, it is. Most people change their view on the 5th commandment as soon as they become a parent. :lol:

To be honest, I don't like the language of the ten commandments; I don't even like the word "commandment". How about "best practice guidelines"? -- Or consider this:

God: I am thy LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery...

What the dickens is he talking about? I've never even visited Egypt. Why doesn't he say: "With your gracious approval I may be considered your LORD," instead of "I am thy LORD". And it goes on:

God: Thou shall have no other gods besides Me.

Now what? Wouldn't it be nicer to say: "For our relationship to work best it would be beneficial to commit to an exclusivity provision."?

No Sir, at this point I am already disposed against signing up, although commandments 5-10 do actually make perfect sense to me.

sonrisa: well I'm glad you agree with the 3 that happen to concern criminal activities

I think you may have forgotten about perjury (commandment no. 9).

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

The Ten Commandments only mean something now to those of Judaism. Christianity abolished them with the advent of Jesus.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: The Ten Commandments only mean something now to those of Judaism. Christianity abolished them with the advent of Jesus.

Hmm... that's not what I learned in "Konfirmationsunterricht" (Sunday school); on the contrary, they insisted that the ten commandments would be mandatory for all Christians. That was an evangelic (protestant) Sunday school, btw.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Church, yes. But the actual Bible abolishes the Ten Commandments during the advent of Jesus.

[Kether]

filial piety- that's original. I thought it was honor thy father & mother. To my mind piety carries a holy worshipful connotation, whereas honor is more about respect. I think the world could use a little more honor & respect, not just towards parents, but towards people in general.
I was using the phrase 'filial piety' to save space, since it's shorter to write than 'honour of thy father and thy mother'. I didn't mean anything deeper than that by my choice of words. In Confucian philosophy, where filial piety is considered a cardinal virtue, 'filial piety' basically means the honouring of parents and ancestors.
I do think that there needs to be more respect in the world, but I think it odd to place disrespect of spouses and parents along with murder. Though, when one considers who wrote the commandments and what their social background was, it's not so surprising: they were written by patriarchs, who wanted their children to respect them and their wives to stay faithful to them, so that they could add to the ranks of the respectful offspring.
I agree with the five commandments that refer to man in most cases, but 'honour thy father and thy mother' and 'do not commit adultery' are not always applicable - in addition, I see nothing very wrong with coveting.
I think you may have forgotten about perjury (commandment no. 9).
No: I said 'the three against stealing, killing and lying'.

[sonrisa]

well, the actual commandment is thou shalt not bear false witness, which is perjury, but yes, it is taken to mean lying in general.

as for coveting, again Kether, it's the connotation- coveting involves more than merely wanting things. It involves greed & occasionally envy if what you want already belongs to somebody else. In other words, it's ok to want that nice 10-speed sitting in the bike shop window. It's not ok to want the 10-speed belonging to the kid down the street, especially to the point where your mind is devising ways to um, relieve him/her of it. That is coveting.

Kether-- I think it odd to place disrespect of spouses and parents along with murder.

-- I never looked it that way. But, as you point out, the commandments were written by patriarchs who uh, coveted maybe :D, honor & respect. The order of the last 5 commandents tells us something about their society: Honor & respect were the most important things- do you know in that part of the world they still do honor killings, even in the 21st century?- so that would be the 1st (& foremost!) commandment having to do with man. Next comes taking human life, which is (understandably) reprehensible. Now, as to babies- we generally know who the mother is, it's the father (until dna testing) that has always been in question. In a matriarchial society, paternity wouldn't matter so much, but in a patriarchial society, obviously paternity is a tad more important- and so we have the adultery commandment, (& you're correct, it is not universially applicable- thruout history women have suffered far more from the stigma of adultery than men have) So this is probably why murder is juxtaposed between 2 commandments having to do with familial respect. Then the crimes of stealing, cheating, & lying round out the 10 Commandments.

Scam is correct- Jesus does say something about forgeting the 10 Commandments & abiding by his new commandment, which, if I remember correctly, is love thy neighbor. But Thomas has a point as well- the 10 Commandments are much more ingrained in us- I can recite them, but I can't remember Jesus' commandment exactly & I can't remember where to find it in the bible. Perhaps Scam could find it & clear this up?

Thomas- love the way you broke down those 1st 5 commandments :thumbsup:

[TruthSeeker]

"Let all that you do be done in Love."
1 Corinthians 16:14

"For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another"
1 John 3:11

[scameter]

Essentially yes truthseeker. Love your neighbor, and love God. And to abolish the old commandments, he didn't actually say it outright, or not initially; he gave us new versions, ones that were even more impossible to follow than the old ones, such as adultery is actually looking at another with lust, not necessarily having sex with them. And murder is looking at another with contempt for them. Then he said that yes we cannot follow them, but we don't have to. We don't even have to follow his new ones, because he cleared sin from our souls. Our bodies still have sin, but our spirits do not. Paul did say that when we accept Jesus into our hearts love will follow, but the acceptance of Jesus entirely into our hearts is about as difficult as Jesus's version of the commandments.

[sonrisa]

ok Scam, we screwed up. The stuff we've been mangling up is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Chapter 5. He didn't abolish the 10 Commandments- he specifically sez he is not abolishing them- & as you point out, he adds on to the interpretation of them, such as the thought-lust crapola for instance. The verse I was thinking of starts out "you have heard that yada yada.... but instead I tell you to yada yada" .... The law Jesus was abolishing was the eye4eye-tooth4tooth law (Matt 5:38).
Sorry for the mix-up y'all :uhoh:

[scameter]

Actually, as I said, he didn't specifically say he was abolishing them. But, by making them even more impossible than they already were, and then saying that the only commandments we have are to love each other and love God, and that even those we cannot do fully, he essentially abolished them as he abolished sin.

[sonrisa]

becuz he specifically said he was not abolishing them Matt 5:17- click here & read it (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&end_verse=20&version=31&context=contexthttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&end_verse=20&version=31&context=context) The Law (Torah) includes the 10 Commandments. Then, as you point out yourself, he expanded on some of them.

[scameter]

And then limited them to only two, love your fellow humans and love God. And then said we cannot do his new two, or the modified old 10, and thus he then abolished sin so we wouldn't have to.

[sonrisa]

ok, now that's the verse I want you to find- not just the one about loving thy neighbor- that's Matt 22:37- but where he first sez specifically to disregard the old commandments & then follow his new ones. I thought there was a verse like that, but have looked thru the Bible for it & can't find it. So now I'm thinking I got it mixed up with the eye4eye commandment, which he does tell folx to disregard in favor of his new commandment of turning the other cheek.

[scameter]

I never said he removed the old ones and inserted his new ones. He simply interpreted the old ones more clearly, and as could be seen with modifications in the chapter after the one you hotlinked I believe.

[sonrisa]

no Scam, you said the bible abolishes them with the advent of Jesus

but the bible does not- & what Jesus did was reaffirm the commandments & sum them up: Love God (the first 5) & love they neighbor (the last 5)

[CSwriter1]

There is nothing uniquely profound about the 10 commandments. The Aztecs had comparable sayings to the 10 commandmants, and I think the Buddhist wording of the 8 fold path is superior. Can a Buddhist help me here by listing the 8 fold path?

So much of Christian faith seems based on false beliefs, such as the superiority of Christian morality, like the Hebrews were only people thinking such things. Only because they are not familar with multiple moral teachings can they believe the bible offers the world something special, that none others had.

A commanding God, who has favorites, and attempts to control people with rewards and punishments and is a fearsome, jealous and revengeful God, is too human for me. He is the model of an abusive husband isn't He? Nice when is pleased and threatening when he is not. Like I want to be married to someone like that, NOT.

[scameter]

no Scam, you said the bible abolishes them with the advent of Jesus

And it did. As I have said many times previously, the ten commandments existed, Jesus came, he modified them to make them even more difficult, compiled them into two-love your fellow human and love God-and then said that we cannot do it, and that he must die to clear our sin, as he soon did.

So much of Christian faith seems based on false beliefs, such as the superiority of Christian morality, like the Hebrews were only people thinking such things.

The church is that way indeed. But not the Bible. From the Bible's point of view, we are all engulfed in sin, and only through Jesus were we able to traverse past sin; not through our own efforts.

A commanding God, who has favorites, and attempts to control people with rewards and punishments and is a fearsome, jealous and revengeful God, is too human for me.

We were made in his image. Of course he is going to have characteristics like ours, as does Jesus.

[TruthSeeker]

A commanding God, who has favorites, and attempts to control people with rewards and punishments and is a fearsome, jealous and revengeful God, is too human for me. He is the model of an abusive husband isn't He? Nice when is pleased and threatening when he is not. Like I want to be married to someone like that, NOT.
:rofl:

You are funny, CS... :D

[TruthSeeker]

We were made in his image.
That is speaking of His sentience.

And it did. As I have said many times previously, the ten commandments existed, Jesus came, he modified them to make them even more difficult, compiled them into two-love your fellow human and love God-and then said that we cannot do it, and that he must die to clear our sin, as he soon did.
That's wrong. I'm doing it right now. And I'm sure many parents do. B)

[scameter]

That is speaking of His sentience.

Umm I'd have to disagree, mainly because God doesn't die. I think that by "we're made in his image", it means that we are/were made with qualities similar to those of God, such as our emotions, ability to realize, think, intuit and feel, and to create/subcreate.

That's wrong. I'm doing it right now. And I'm sure many parents do.

Unless you love every single person with the utmost possible love and selfless compassion, and every other human does too, you're not doing it. It's not a partial thing; it can't be done to a certain degree and consider satisfactory. That would be like giving a car half an engine and saying it'll run.

[TruthSeeker]

Umm I'd have to disagree, mainly because God doesn't die.
How does that even follow?

I think that by "we're made in his image", it means that we are/were made with qualities similar to those of God, such as our emotions, ability to realize, think, intuit and feel, and to create/subcreate.
Why would an all-powerful God feel afraid!? :o

"We are made in His image"- the "real" us is a spirit that just happens to live within a body.

Unless you love every single person with the utmost possible love and selfless compassion, and every other human does too, you're not doing it. It's not a partial thing; it can't be done to a certain degree and consider satisfactory. That would be like giving a car half an engine and saying it'll run.
I'm still doing it.

[scameter]

How does that even follow?

Ah. Nevermind, I thought sentience is the knowledge of death, but indeed it is our ability to realize, or think about thinking.

Why would an all-powerful God feel afraid!?

The same reason we can see an ant and feel afraid.

"We are made in His image"- the "real" us is a spirit that just happens to live within a body.

Indeed, and that spirit has qualities, as does our body.

I'm still doing it.

Somehow.

[TruthSeeker]

Ah. Nevermind, I thought sentience is the knowledge of death, but indeed it is our ability to realize, or think about thinking.
Did you look up in a dictionary? :D

The same reason we can see an ant and feel afraid.
What!?!?!? Do you sincerely believe that!?!?

No, sorry, you don't understand. God is not a giant human living in the sky. He is allpowerful, He never dies and He knows everything. There is absolutely no space for fear given those characteristics!!!

Indeed, and that spirit has qualities, as does our body.
Yes! But those qualities are very different from the body's qualities! A body needs things to survive and it will force us to get those things! A spirit needs nothing and therefore does not need to be afraid!

Somehow.
Yes, I'm doing it. ;)

[scameter]

No, sorry, you don't understand. God is not a giant human living in the sky. He is allpowerful, He never dies and He knows everything. There is absolutely no space for fear given those characteristics!!!

For one, that is mainly a church conception of him, and a very limited one at that. And for two, he could still feel fear, just as he can feel jealousy, just as we can feel fear from an ant; logically, we are many, many times larger, stronger and faster than an ant, and could kill it with one impliment of force from our hand or foot. Yet, we can still feel fear, even with our seeming omnipotence within the situation of human vs. ant.

Yes! But those qualities are very different from the body's qualities! A body needs things to survive and it will force us to get those things! A spirit needs nothing and therefore does not need to be afraid!

How can we know that? What if the spirit is what gives us the desire to be alive? Logically, what exactly makes us want to live? Nothing. Our body simply runs, and we desire to keep it that way. Why, how? Our spirit. Thus, obviously, our spirit has some human characteristics, as well as a consciousness. Why must this, and all other thought on theology, be seen as impossible? Poe said that he also thought people were wrong to think religion and our spiritual views must be set in stone, never changing or moving.

[TruthSeeker]

For one, that is mainly a church conception of him, and a very limited one at that. And for two, he could still feel fear, just as he can feel jealousy, just as we can feel fear from an ant; logically, we are many, many times larger, stronger and faster than an ant, and could kill it with one impliment of force from our hand or foot. Yet, we can still feel fear, even with our seeming omnipotence within the situation of human vs. ant.
Your fear is still associated with some kind of lacking or imperfection. If you were perfect, by definition, you wouldn't be able to feel fear.

How can we know that? What if the spirit is what gives us the desire to be alive? Logically, what exactly makes us want to live? Nothing. Our body simply runs, and we desire to keep it that way.
Ever heard of "adrenaline"?

Thus, obviously, our spirit has some human characteristics, as well as a consciousness.
Consciousness is the only chracteristic of a spirit. Maybe a spirit is able to feel love and peace, but those are a bit different then the "love" and "peace" we experience. We usually experience only a part of "love" and "peace", not its entirity.

Poe said that he also thought people were wrong to think religion and our spiritual views must be set in stone, never changing or moving.
I wholeheartly agree.

[sonrisa]

awwwww c'mon.....
who the hell around here's afraid of a little ole ant? :shakehead:
grow up

[scameter]

Your fear is still associated with some kind of lacking or imperfection. If you were perfect, by definition, you wouldn't be able to feel fear.

That is human misconception. We naturally associate fear with imperfection. Why? If everything we think of and are is imperfect, then perfection is imperfect, which is a logical fallacy.

Ever heard of "adrenaline"?

That still doesn't explain it. Why is that chemical accessed? Why mentally and emotionally do we wish to live? And, if adrenaline is taken into consideration, why is there an entire kind of chemical meant specifically to keep us alive?

Maybe a spirit is able to feel love and peace, but those are a bit different then the "love" and "peace" we experience. We usually experience only a part of "love" and "peace", not its entirity.

That is mainly speculative. What is the love and peace we feel entire, we simply do not always have it entirely, but when we do see it, it is entire? What if what we feel is activated by our spirit, it is simply within our body but is reasonfully, or perhaps intuitively unreasonably, activated by our spirit/soul/consciousness?

who the hell around here's afraid of a little ole ant?
grow up

Thank you. That shows alot about people and society, as well as why truthseeker naturally identified fear with imperfection. To us, to feel fear is to be imperfect and whimpy and kiddish. But, to think in such a way, actually, is to be whimpy and kiddish, as well as ignorant. Fear is apart of us. There are many ways to handle it, but it cannot be avoided, and if it comes, it is not our fault, nor by our will, unless we create a situation for it to come, and even then it comes on it's own, we simply give it easier ability to come, a more rite of passage. One can be scared of anything, and at any age, gender, or of any profession or degree of intelligence.

[TruthSeeker]

That is human misconception. We naturally associate fear with imperfection. Why? If everything we think of and are is imperfect, then perfection is imperfect, which is a logical fallacy.
What? Are you claiming you know everything?

That still doesn't explain it. Why is that chemical accessed? Why mentally and emotionally do we wish to live? And, if adrenaline is taken into consideration, why is there an entire kind of chemical meant specifically to keep us alive?
Well, who cares? It's part of our instinct to keep ourselves alive! I don't see any room for dicsussion here.

That is mainly speculative. What is the love and peace we feel entire, we simply do not always have it entirely, but when we do see it, it is entire? What if what we feel is activated by our spirit, it is simply within our body but is reasonfully, or perhaps intuitively unreasonably, activated by our spirit/soul/consciousness?
Do you claim to feel the Love of God?

Thank you. That shows alot about people and society, as well as why truthseeker naturally identified fear with imperfection. To us, to feel fear is to be imperfect and whimpy and kiddish.
No no no no... :nono:
That's completely not what I said. Fear exposes an underlying imperfection. If you are perfect, there's no reason to fear. It has nothing to do with avoiding fear.

[scameter]

What? Are you claiming you know everything?

Where did that come from? I am not claiming to be inhuman, I'm simply saying what you said is human misconception.

Well, who cares? It's part of our instinct to keep ourselves alive! I don't see any room for dicsussion here.

Then you're not a very philosophical person. If you were, you could never say "who cares". The question I asked means just as much as any other question posed: nothing, except what it matters to me, and from my point of view what it matters to philosophy and/or science. That is why I hate common sense/pragmatic philosophy versus skepticism. I love skepticism because to me, it embodies philosophy; it doubts everything, and says nothing is certain. Common sense/pragmatism says that what we naturally assume to be real is real, and to quesiton otherwise is ignorant; I think such a view is fine in normal life, but in the philosophical search for truth it is entirely misplaced.

Do you claim to feel the Love of God?

Well, I suppose that depends on what that is exactly.

Fear exposes an underlying imperfection. If you are perfect, there's no reason to fear. It has nothing to do with avoiding fear.

I didn't say the avoidance of fear. I said to humans, the mere existence of fear shows imperfection. That is, along with what I titled before as such, a human misconception. To us, any vulnerability is imperfection, but if something comes so naturally and without any amount of choice as does fear, why/how is it/must it be imperfection-declaring?

[TruthSeeker]

I think you simply wish life to be that simple, scam... :lol:

God is not an almighty being protecting you, man. He has a lot of work to do. He doesn't have time for little humans who are just as important as the rest of the universe. :lol:

We have a destiny, nevertheless. But whether we get there or not depends a lot on us... <_<

[scameter]

I think you simply wish life to be that simple, scam...

I never said it was simple, or complex. But I do believe there are some things that even though much thought is put into them, they are quite simple.

God is not an almighty being protecting you, man. He has a lot of work to do. He doesn't have time for little humans who are just as important as the rest of the universe.

Maybe. Maybe not.

We have a destiny, nevertheless. But whether we get there or not depends a lot on us...

"That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse." -Whitman

[venom mama]

i don't think it matters if you agree with them or not. of course there are going to be commandments concerning god, they're god's commandments. the whole point is to obey, not question. if everyone in the world obeyed every commandment would the world be a better place? yes. praise be to god, yet we choose not to.

[sonrisa]

rules are made to be broken....

[scameter]

I agree venom, but fortunately we are no longer required to follow the commandments, which we could never do perfectly when they were originally given, because of the love of Jesus.

[Winfried]

Originally posted by sonrisa
rules are made to be broken....
Nay! Rules are there, to make living with eachother a lot easier. Humans tend to become violent when there are no rules. Also when there are rules, as seen in the great number of prisons. But most are scared off to do something "bad" when they know it'll be punished.

[sonrisa]

speak for yourself darlin

[TruthSeeker]

Humans tend to become violent when there are no rules.
That is sooooo an assumption!

For what purpose would a human be violent?

[TruthSeeker]

But most are scared off to do something "bad" when they know it'll be punished.
Positive Reinforcement is incredibly more efficient then Positive or Negative Punishment.

[scameter]

And enforcement is even more potent. It is the absolute application of power; it is how ancient civilizations retained order and organization, with a few rulers over millions of people over large expanses of population.

[CSwriter1]

Scameter, in the past rulers had very little power over the masses, because they did not have the organization and technology we have today.

Goverment control of the individual has greatly increased in the past 50 years. To begin with we adopted the German model of bureaucracy, which is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. It has taken awhile of evolve this into the power over us that it can be, but a next important step was to number everyone. When I was young no one had a Social Security until she applied for a job and began paying into the system. Today we number the babies shortly after birth.

When I first opened a bank account, I didn't have to varify my address, and the federal government didn't care about such things. Today banks fear what the federal government will do to them if they do not verify people's addresses, so you can not open an account unless you can verify your address. The federal government had nothing at all to do with our medical records, and today every time we seek any kind of medical help, we must assure the person they have our right phone number and address. Today, there is no way someone can function in our society and avoid the draft, because through banking or medical care, the federal government can find the person. No ruler in the past had such ability.

Because we are using the Prussian model of bureaucracy, our law makers have time for such things as determining our much water our toilets use, and move on to the next law over our laws. They can do this, because once something is made law, and huge bureaucratic meachine goes into operation, and the people who make the laws, could all be dead and the bureaucratic machine will continue unchanged. No ruler had such power.

The policy makers not only create bureaucracies, but name and define every job that needs to be done. Everyone is replaceable, because everyone who takes the job will do it by the book exactly as the person before. All the real decisions about the job are made the policy makers, not the people doing the jobs. This is not how things were done a 100 ago.

In the past kings died. Bureaucracies never die, and can operate whithout those who made the laws and policies. Our nation was not always like this. Our liberty is far more threatened today, than ever in the history of mankind. Unfortunately, it is unlikely you will ever have a teacher who understands this, because it is a boring subject and no one talks about it.

[CSwriter1]

If humans are violent or not, depends on culture. The US has one of the most violent cultures in the world. The only places more violent are torn nations, were groups of people are pitted against each other such as some African countries and Iraq which is torn by religious factions. The US is violent because of something like a civil war. It is violent because it has a history of condoning violence.

[scameter]

I disagree. I believe every single human has it in them to be violent, and at some time in their life they will be violent, and if they're not allowed to, they will try to be. It is simply that people who are violent in adulthood enjoy it so much that they wish to do it as a lifestyle. And yes, America is the most violent, but every country has wars and conflicts and crime. The US simply has a less severe punishment system than other countries, thus many do not feel as afraid of being criminal.

Scameter, in the past rulers had very little power over the masses, because they did not have the organization and technology we have today.

They had less countrol yes, but they still had countrol. They used force, which is the most effective tool to enforce control; even now, control is enforced by fear of being caught. Old nations, such as China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome all had considerable control of their people, mainly because of their use of both force and strict social structure, usually resembling the Indian caste system.

When I was young no one had a Social Security until she applied for a job and began paying into the system.

The reason society is so much more capable of controling the individual modernly is because of money; in the past, people were forced to work, and were not compensated very well for it, and had fear of being killed if they made slight mistakes in their labour. But, now, through capitalism, as well as the democratic republic of most nations which allows people to have their own elected rulers, people are able to work and gain their own money and profit at considerable amounts, and with little restriction.

No ruler in the past had such ability.

There weren't as many people in the past, especially not in one nation, nor as much land. Now, with hundreds of millions of people over thousands of acres of land under one government, as well as individual state governments, it is necessary for us to have the technology we have now, but with that technological security comes technological crime, such as hacking and mass thievery. Nothing is entirely good; it seems that everything can be used for bad.

Our liberty is far more threatened today, than ever in the history of mankind.

I agree.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely you will ever have a teacher who understands this, because it is a boring subject and no one talks about it.

Which subject do you mean my friend? Politics, or history perhaps?

[Winfried]

The US simply has a less severe punishment system than other countries, thus many do not feel as afraid of being criminal.
What exactly do you mean by that? Is it that the US law-enforcement is not all that good, or is it that in the US the criminal life(style) has been romanticised all too often?

Anyhoo, it's the good ol' nature-nurture debate again :rolleyes:

because once something is made law, and huge bureaucratic meachine goes into operation, and the people who make the laws, could all be dead and the bureaucratic machine will continue unchanged. No ruler had such power.
mostly, laws are meant to induce some sort of stability. After some ruling figure dies, the stability should remain. It is not a good idea to create new laws, once some person happens to die. That's the handy part of your "bureaucratic machine". Hell, we don't need a bureaucratic machine to keep the laws. But it does create a lot of otherwise unnecessary jobs. So somewhere it must be a good thing.

[scameter]

What exactly do you mean by that? Is it that the US law-enforcement is not all that good, or is it that in the US the criminal life(style) has been romanticised all too often?

Neither. I mean that prison life isn't that bad, especially compared to the prison life of other countries. They get free food, free exercise, free work if they are good enough, free friends, free bed and bath, free clothes, and even the occasional free sex buddy. :P

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Is it that the US law-enforcement is not all that good, or is it that in the US the criminal life(style) has been romanticised all too often?
This is very true. "Gangstas" are widely considered fashionable and being a "P I M P" is just as widely celebrated. This younger generation is ignorant of what gangsters do or are associated with. They are also just as ignorant on what a pimp does to the women they "employ".

[scameter]

The sad thing is how often that is untrue. In fact, in many movies, books and other portrayals of criminals, they are performed quite accurately, and yet are received just as highly. For instance, the movie Goodfellas is based on a true story and is not glamorized hardly at all, and yet was hugely popular; as well as the movie Pulp Fiction, which was a bit more glamorous but not extremely.

[______]

But look at the movie Scarface. Huge hit. Completely glamourized being a mob boss.

Then the question arises: Why does this new generation desire the life of crime when it is shown to them that crime doesn't pay?

[scameter]

Crime does pay, and usually big time. Even if the criminals are caught at the end of the movie, they have almost unlimited power, especially in more true mog movies like Goodfellas, because of their extreme amounts of money and thus ability. Cops overlooked them and were payed off; they stole anything they wanted; they protected their members religiously... It's like royalty. Even with the side-effects, often, this life is idolized by the common person, especially the male, namely because of power. And, the power is why crime is approached in real life.

[______]

Yes, while this is true, it doesn't explain why this generation wants that life when it means being selfish, murdering those who "get in your way", and being dishonest among other things. Just what is so appealing about these things?

[MidnightSun]

If you murder those who get in your way, your way is free, thats a simple answer.

[scameter]

Actually it was already explained my friend in my post. Power. We are naturally selfish and power-loving, and crime simply allows us to express it in order to gain it. :)

[______]

Originally posted by @--
We are naturally selfish and power-loving...
I don't think this is entirly accurate, Scam. While, yes, all humans have the potential to be selfish and power-loving, these things are learned.

<_< I suppose American society does focus on the individual and getting to the top at all costs.

I think America lost it's own meaning somewhere along the way... :( ...it used to be so inocent(ish)...

[MidnightSun]

don't think this is entirly accurate, Scam

I think its entirely accurate, all people want power. Ask anyone and they will tell you what kind of power do they want.

[scameter]

Thank you midnightsun. Furthermore, if it is not natural for humans, where do we get it from?

I suppose American society does focus on the individual and getting to the top at all costs.

Oh no, not specific societies. All people desire that, whether they attempt to enforce it or not. It's just that American society has realized the desires of the people and have given clear ability to the people to actualize their desires.

it used to be so inocent(ish)...

America has never been innocent. Since the time it was formed, the founding fathers knew very well what the people of the nation wanted, and they established, quite wisely in my opinion, rights to the people to give them the ability to ascertain their desires, especially money. To people, power and luxury is everything, and money is the best way, in all nations, to get it; thus, the founding fathers made this truth a national policy in making us capitalist.

[______]

I think its entirely accurate, all people want power. Ask anyone and they will tell you what kind of power do they want.

Well, then your theory is flawed. For I have never desired power. All I have ever truly desired is for all things to have compassion for one another. Not even as a child did I ever wish it to be "my way or the highway".

Like I said earlier, such things are learned.

It's just that American society has realized the desires of the people and have given clear ability to the people to actualize their desires.

Yes, the American society has done so. :( Why must it be this way? :(

it used to be so inocent(ish)...

America has never been innocent. Since the time it was formed, the founding fathers knew very well what the people of the nation wanted, and they established, quite wisely in my opinion, rights to the people to give them the ability to ascertain their desires, especially money. To people, power and luxury is everything, and money is the best way, in all nations, to get it; thus, the founding fathers made this truth a national policy in making us capitalist.

<_< Well... perhaps I was wrong on that point. Thank you for clearing that up. :D

[MidnightSun]

All I have ever truly desired is for all things to have compassion for one another.

Wouldnt u want power to acomplish that?

[CSwriter1]

Why Thomas, I didn't realize God said I am Lord who brought you out of Egypt. This is clearly a tribal God, not a universal God, and while that fact looks us in the face, we may not see it. Like I saw other lines that made it clear the Hebrew God is a tribal one, but missed the one you used.

It would be worthwhile to compile all the lines that clarify the Hebrew God is a tribal God. I think we need to disspell this religion that are the cause of past and present warring, and has hindered the advancement of humanity in every way.

[CSwriter1]

Whoo, I don't think you should mix politics into this discussion. I don't believe the US has done a better job of empowering the people than other countries. Well it has and it hasn't, but this doesn't belong in a Ten commandment discussion.

The Aztecs have the equivelence to Ten Commandments. I will go with the Deist, morality is both natural and necsessary. "All religions rest on common, identical moral sense, and that the differences among creeds are merely superstitious and irrelevant accretions-the inventions of crafty priest to secure themselves power and riches by deceiving the people and keeping them ignorant."

Personally, I think the 8 fold path is as good as it gets.

[______]

Wouldnt u want power to acomplish that?

Not power to do so, just the ability. :D

[MidnightSun]

Power is made of abilitties :P

You want to make people more loving towards each other, what about a huge power of charisma to make them realise and act that way? It would be power too.

[scameter]

What a unique view CS. :)

[______]

You want to make people more loving towards each other, what about a huge power of charisma to make them realise and act that way? It would be power too.

By charisma, you mean "powerful speaking"? <_<

I think I would much rather live by example than tell others how they should act toward one another. :D