Atheist Frendly Q&A

no. and to say they did is a gross misunderstand of the text. the list of commandments exactly mirrors a type of treaty commonly used in ancient mesopotamia, between a greater power and a lesser state, called a suzerainty. in this case, the greater power is god, and the lesser state is israel.suzertainties follow this pattern:
1. identification of the greater power:

quote:

---

I [am] the LORD thy God

---

2. list of good things the greater has done for the lesser, neccessitating compliance. (ie: i conquered you, and let you live)

quote:

---

which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

---

3. list of terms the lesser power owes in exchange.

quote:

---

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [etc]

---

the terms are of course hinged on the conditions, even if the suzertainty doesn't explicitly state it, because that is the kind of agreement it is. is this things didn't happen, the agreement would never have been made.so the commandments had to have been made, and delivered, and hinged on the fact of the exodus, and expressly directed at ben'israel. no, what you mean is morality. here's the shocker: morality is independent of the law. the tree of knowledge was the birth of morality in the human race. there is good and evil before moses. i would not call the heart more permanent than stone.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-11-2005 03:45 AM

what is circular about my argument? i said the covenant is in the form of a common treaty used in the middle east at the time of it's writing, and that this treaty depends on the first set of conditions.therefore, the treaty could not exist prior to the conditions occuring.also, if you're against debate, this is the wrong site for you.

uh, i addressed an error in one your posts, thoroughly refuting the idea based on a good understanding of the text and regional context, and you claimed i was making a circular argument, and declined to address it. furthermore, i'm pretty sure it was a point no one had discussed previously in the tread, except for mr jack who argued that morality and the law were independent. all i did was support the notion, textually, that the "ten commandments" had to have been given at a particular time under particular circumstances. (i would even argue it as being the entire point of the exodus, actually)and i would hardly call myself a snake in the grass. you may forget, but i am a believer too. in some respects, at least. all i did was correct a standard mistake of theology.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-12-2005 10:16 AM

as i think jar said, believers often ask too few questions.i prefer to do a little of both.

well, follow the reasoning along for a second here instead of just saying "i dunno." mike is absolutely right. if hasatan can oppose yahweh, then yahweh obviously doesn't have everything under control. the more you look at it, the more that makes hasatan and yahweh equal in status. but hasatan is not a god, is he? and yahweh is called "god almighty" and "the most high" isn't he?while most religious believers are ready to accept that god gave up a little omnipotence so man could have free will, polytheism is outright abhorent. and so hasatan must be entirely under the control of yahweh, right?in fact, this is precisely the way most jewish people understand it. hasatan is the agent that makes choice meaningful, by providing alternatives and testing the hearts of men. his name means "adversary" in hebrew, but the implication is not adversary of god, but of men.so why would god need to deal with satan? and more importantly, what would happen if he did? faith would become pointless, and christianity would collapse without its cornerstone.