Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In terms of how people should live their lives?
Less? More?
Why/why not?
Are they both just the same idea differently worded?

The Truths:


The Commandments (short version):

I think the "self-evident truths" are better and more valid on the whole. I mean particularly the first 4 of the Ten commandments are all just silly. The others have some good parts, but maybe need some more differentiation. Either of course falls short for a decent moral system, but I guess they are not awful at least.

Valid in what sense? "Self-evident" in the given context means that it can't be proven.

The ten commandments would be more important to Christians since they're supposedly God's laws.

Originally posted by Astner
Valid in what sense? "Self-evident" in the given context means that it can't be proven...
Really? Thats a non sarcastic really, as by definition self evident is said to be:

Click on "axiomatic" and read up on what an axiom is. You don't claim something to be an axiom if it can be proven.

So going by one synonym?
As is your right, sir.

Riv is right, self-evident doesn't mean it can't be proven, but that is obvious (by its own nature) that it is proven.

Originally posted by riv6672
So going by one synonym?
No, but I know how it works. You only call something self-evident when you can't prove it, because proofs are more validating than assertions.

You can call anything self-evident, and unless there's a disproof you can only claim that said assertion isn't self-evident to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Riv is right, self-evident doesn't mean it can't be proven, but that is obvious (by its own nature) that it is proven.
I said "in the given context," I was not talking about the term in general. In other words, these claims cannot be proven.

Eh, if you say so, but i disagree.
I can get with the second part if your statement though. The whole God and Country deal.

Thanks for the response.
One thing i have to comment on is right at the start though, where you say the truths are evident in name only.
Just because something is difficult to conceive for some/someone, doesnt make it less true.

Originally posted by riv6672
Thanks for the response.
One thing i have to comment on is right at the start though, where you say the truths are evident in name only.
Just because something is difficult to conceive for some/someone, doesnt make it less true.

Agreed.

The nature of anything that's evident is such that you shouldn't/can't look for it. Evident things are in the open, they need no effort to be found. But many things can be absolutely real while being "hidden".

Weirdly enough, this leads into a situation where an "evident truth" can be read as a "truth not worth seeking".

Not all the commandments are valid. "Don't have any other Gods" and "don't make any idols" kind of sound like the same thing, but that is also more about ego then anything else.

Then the whole coveting thing..I never saw why this was bad. Covet means to want something, right? Why is it wrong to want something someone else has? Like if they have a nice car. It doesn't mean you are considering stealing it or anything like that. Just seems silly. Now I agree it is shady if you want to hook up with someone who you know is married, but merely coveting a persons stuff, I don't see the harm. These kinds of things can drive people to success, they want the nice things they see others with.

But just consider the craziness of some of the commandments. Most of them are just better ways to live: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Doing these things or not doing then can have a big impact on your life. But taking the Lords name in vain..or not taking it, doesn't help anyone. I mean his name isn't even actually "God".

So, for you, the Truths are overall more valid?

Yes and here is where we also run into a problem. Now murder is bad, correct? Most people agree. If some random stranger came up and said "murder is wrong, very wrong" you'd say "well yes it is" and probably think nothing more.

Now if that random stranger was Charles Manson, a guy who used to apparently leave babies out in the wilderness to toughen them up(most died), and he was telling you murder is bad..I'm guessing part of you would be thinking "you got a lot of balls to be talking about how bad murder is considering the shit you did or had others do in your name".

So in other words, God telling me it is bad to kill is sort of like that. It's like if Hitler went on a rant about how genocide was awful.

Ha, interesting!
Having said that, Hitler had a lot of good ideas which werent insanity based.

For me it can be simplified by saying "practice what you preach".

Though Hitler tended to channel his insanity more towards making increasingly bad decisions concerning the war. He was also on a wide variety of drugs, like amphetamines. He then sent those out to the front line troops as well. But that is another topic entirely.

And an interesting topic at that.

But see why do I get the feeling that if God is real he is like a shitty parent? When I have brought up the "practice what you preach" to parents their response was "do as I say not as I do" which is lovely and totally a legit response if the child in question is 16 years old or younger.

So you're saying mankind, in YO, is a mature adult as opposed to a child?
I...have to disagree.

Oh, and that disagreement applies whether or not you believe in God.

They might behave like children, but the "do as I say not as I do" doesn't fly if you're trying to pull that on anyone..well, basically anyone who has more then a few pubes.

So, not really an answer to what i was commenting on/asking.
Thanks for getting back to me though.