More handpicked essays just for you.
The connection between Religion and Morality
Religion and morality
Relationship between religion and morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Exodus 20:7 (KJV) Dennis Prager's video series on the Ten Commandments revealed to me that this translation of the third commandment is both inaccurate and misleading. Although I believe that Mr. Prager was incorrect in his claim that God will not forgive anyone who breaks the third commandment and that he fails to show the importance of honoring God's name, he explained what the third commandment was really about. Before watching Dennis Prager's reflection on the Ten Commandments, I believed, like many of my peers, that the third commandment forbids using God's name for no good reason; after watching, Prager showed me that the common translation "take" was incorrect and that the Hebrew original text used the word "carry". I realized, with Mr. Prager's help, that saying God's name for no good reason was not what the commandment forbids. Instead, it was committing evil in God's name. Dennis Prager explained that religious evil is not only evil, but it does harm to the name of God. …show more content…
That is where I disagree. I believe that the phrase "the Lord will not hold him guiltless" does not mean that God will not forgive the sinner. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "guiltless" means "innocent". Substituting innocent for guiltless, the passage reads, "The Lord will not hold him innocent". This passage means that God will hold him accountable for his violation of the commandment. I do not believe Dennis Prager when he says that it means that God will not forgive him. The evidence is non-existent at this
In the first chapter of God Behaving Badly, David Lamb argues that God is unfairly given a bad reputation. He claims these negative perceptions are fueled by pop culture and lead many to believe the lie that the God of the Old Testament is angry, sexist, racist, violent, legalistic, rigid, and distant. These negative perceptions, in turn, affect our faith. Ultimately, Lamb seeks to demonstrate that historical context disproves the presumptuous aforementioned. In addition, he defends his position by citing patterns of descriptions that characterize God throughout the Old Testament. “Our image of God will directly affect how we either pursue or avoid God. If we believe that the God of the Old Testament is really harsh, unfair and cruel, we won’t want anything to do with him” (Lamb 22). Clearly, they way Christians choose to see God will shape their relationship with Him.
Humans are sinful by nature, but at what point does the Lord tolerate inconceivable sin? When does He look down and say, “Enough is enough?” Investigating the act of lynching, makes one truly wonder about the evils of mankind. This monstrosity occurred in America, and in the South alone, ferociously ended the lives of nearly 4,000 individuals (Robertson). Although baffling, this disturbing incident is a major part of our history. Our educated ancestors took part in these crimes that plagued our land for many years for the specific reasons of lack of law enforcement, influence of previous generations, and unimaginable fear.
The first objection, with God anything is permissible, means that with God, people can do anything they want because they will always be forgiven. That is not the case. God will forgive people, but only if they ask for forgiveness and truly regret what they did. He also holds Christians accountable for their actions. Since Christians are supposed to be examples of Jesus, we are held at a much higher standard of behavior, as stated in Ephesians 5:3-4. So with God, everyone is held to a certain
“Thou shalt not kill” – one of the more seemingly obvious commandments found in the Bible. As humans, our moral intuitions tell us without much difficulty that killing is wrong. When the act of taking a life is framed in such a way, it is difficult to imagine anyone who would disagree – but this presentation is deceptively simple. “Thou shalt not kill”, as helpfully prescriptive as it may be, misses a crucial parameter. Thou shalt not kill – what? Or whom? It is evident that navigating one’s way through the moral implications of killing becomes incredibly difficult when examining more specific cases of taking a life. Abortion, which refers to the act of terminating a pregnancy through artificial means, is particularly guilty of muddying the
that no man was so guilty that God would not forgive him, but in order for that
Prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) religious justice was a muddled picture. In the polytheistic religions, gods each had their own interests, which often conflicted with the interests of other gods. “The belief in one god allowed the Abrahamic religions setup a fundamentally different dynamic in ethics; the dichotomous distinction between right and wrong.” (Stark, 2001). Human actions no longer served one god or another’s interests, they were now judged by the embodiment of all that was perfect and sacred; God.
The Ten Commandments are a set of Commandments, that were inscribed on two stone tablets, which were given to Moses, during the New Testament, Exodus 20:1–17. The 10 Commandments are known to be
145:8–9). But the Bible also speaks of God’s justice and His wrath over sin. In fact,
forgive us. But if we don't do those things he will judge us when we die
Moses is the speaker now, and he says that God made a covenant with them at Horeb. Additionally, he says that last time they would not go up the mountain because they were afraid of the fire. Then, Moses repeats the Decalogue to the Israelites, and he explains that they were written on two stone tablets. Here the third commandment differs from Exodus. Instead of Remember the Sabbath, it states “Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy as the Lord your God commanded you.” (Deut 5:12). In comparison, observe has a more commanding connotation. Furthermore, at the end of the first line of the commandment the text adds as “your God commanded you” (Deut. 5:12,). This sets a more domineering tone and implies that the Israelites will not follow unless commanded. Another key distinction occurs when the texts are describing why one must follow the Sabbath commandment. The text reminds the Israelites that they were once slaves in Egypt and that “God brought [them] out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (Deut 5:15). Here God is guilt-tripping the Israelites into following the Sabbath by reminding them of what God did for them in their relationship. Thus, it seems that in Deuteronomy God is attempting to invoke fear in order to convince the Israelites to follow. Nonetheless, Deuteronomy is not only based on the Israelites following God out of fear. It also states that they will change their reasoning to aspire to be similar to God, like Exodus. For instance, when asked what would they tell their children when asked why they follow the Decalogue, they should say that if we follow it “as he has commanded us, we will be in the right.” (Deut 6:25). This indicates that after they followed out of fear that they changed their reasoning to be aspirational. Moses concludes with how they should follow the commandments
Jesus told those trouble makers that sin committed against God the Father could be forgiven. They could sin against God the Son and find forgiveness. But, if they were to sin against God the Holy Spirit, there is no forgiveness.
The sixth commandment is this, “ Do not murder.” (Exodus 20:13 HCSB) This in general is just a great thing not to do. The seventh commandment states,”Do not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14 HCSB) The generation we live they make it is socially acceptable to commit adultery. Committing adultery means you have sexual intercourse with someone you are not married to. The eighth commandment states in Exodus 20:15 HCSB,”Do not steal.” This commandment is also self explanatory simple do not steal something that is not yours. I put these three together because they are all similar in that they are easy to understand, and they are still general rules in today 's society excluding the seventh
“All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, all things are lawful to me, but all things edify not”. 1 Cor 10:23 (KJV).
The rule of Biblical interpretation that was not followed and should have been was when a contradiction like this appears, the emphasis should only be given to the multiple passages that are clear rather than to a passage that is isolated and obscure. The only basis for establishing a doctrine cannot be based off the historical occurrence of an event. As well as the writer’s original intent must be the only valid interpretation of a Scripture passage.
4. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.