You Cannot Argue
Like That
On Your Web Site

Jason

From: "Jason"
To: "Positive Atheism"
Subject: Ten Commandments
Date: Thursday, 30 December 2004

I find your web-site criticizing the validity of the Ten Commandments to be completely dumbfounded. You cannot make an argument on your website that the Commandments are a tale because you think there are two completely different sets.

Originally, the Mosaic covenant was to consist only of the Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5:22; Jeremiah 7:22) and a single sacrificial ceremony where Israelites would renounce idolatry once and for all by slaughtering the very animals they had begun to worship in Egypt (Exodus 24:3-8; Ezekiel 20: 7-8).

However, the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 proved that the Israelites were still attached to their idols and needed a permanent means to eradicate idolatry from the nation. Detailed legislation for priesthood and sacrifice was thus added to Mosaic covenant as Yahweh's (temporary) solution to this predicament (Exodus 25-31, 35-40; Leviticus 1-27).

Sincerely,
Concern Catholic

  

To: "Jason"
From: "Positive Atheism"
Subject: Ten Commandments
Date: Friday, 31 December 2004

I find your web-site criticizing the validity of the 10 commandments to be completely dumbfounded.

It makes sense to me that you would misunderstand what I wrote, considering that Web sites cannot experience the uniquely human emotional state of dumbfoundedness: only people can become dumbfounded!

You cannot make an argument on your website that the commandments are a tale because you think there are two completely different sets.

Sure I can!!

In fact, I did just that, and for that very reason!

But that's not the point of our piece at all. The only purpose of showing that the two sets of tables were (according to the story) entirely different is to discourage people from posting them in public places (that is, at public expense with an implied public endorsement). That is *all* we are trying to say with that. I will respond to your objections, however.

But I am not the one who thinks that there are two completely different sets: it is the Bible that tells us that there are two completely different sets, not I. (To set the record straight, I think the Bible is lying about the entire thing, that there were no sets of Commandments given by any gods.)

I cannot help it if your religious leaders have told you to believe that the Bible is true and correct and all that, and I cannot help it if you have gone ahead and taken those religious leaders at their word. This is what the Bible teaches -- like it or not. All I do is point this out to Americans. I do this because the vast majority of Americans who claim to follow and believe the Christian religion have no idea what has been typeset onto the pages in their family Bibles.

Detailed legislation for priesthood and sacrifice was thus added to Mosaic covenant as Yahweh's (temporary) solution to this predicament (Exodus 25-31, 35-40; Leviticus 1-27).

This is cute, clever, and very, very crafty. However, it is not what the Bible says.

As I have shown, the Bible says that this set of "ten commandments" in Exodus 34 is what "God" allegedly instructed Moses to write on the tablets (see verse 28) even though "God" had previously said that he would write them himself (see verse 1).

This is clear evidence of textual tampering throughout the years -- like it or not.

Your sacred and beloved idol of "the Ten Commandments" has "feet of clay," as they say. In any event, they do not belong on public property: they wouldn't belong there even if the story made sense. Ah, but I have demonstrated that the story makes no sense. I did this in order to inspire people to question the validity of this practice, hoping to rouse up many who would otherwise simply sit back and believe whatever these crooked religious leaders have instructed them to believe.

   

I'm sorry that the religious group that you joined turned out to be one of falsehood and exploitation. However, I am obligated to tell whatever truth has been given to me to tell.

I wholly commend you for the intricate creativity that you have used in your attempt to protect the reputations of your dishonest religious leaders; nevertheless, I must question the validity of what you do: a sincere motive for telling a falsehood does not stop what anybody says from being what it is: a lie. This is the case even if you sincerely think that what you tell us is the truth.

Take care.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Entering our 10th year of service
    to people with no reason to believe