UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 9 to Reflections on Ethics 35
The 10 Commandments

by Devon Bate

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

I could not agree more with JT! As I read through this discussion most of what needed to be said was said. Clearly Mr. DeLucchi hasn't read Mr. Tyrrell's arguments, or anybody else's for that matter. He has not made his own arguments relevant or intelligible to the other side of this argument. Let us go over the gist of what he has said in his last post.

"I do not really understand your point actually."

Considering he is referring to the basis of this entire debate, the morality of the 10 commandments, I feel no need to comment on this.

"...so I missed the graven image one, well what can I say I'm Catholic, shoot me."

Again, no comment needed, as he is referring to forgetting a commandment.

In his first point, his argument is simply saying that "society would benefit if the commandments are kept". He explains "well I was never beaten, I do not beat my kids". Well congratulations, but neither have I. You've completely ignored the argument (which, again, is pretty much the basis of this debate), that we do not need the 10 commandments to follow basic morals!

His second point: "morality depends entirely on an individual’s willingness to want to live that way." You're arguing for the wrong side, my friend. My (our) point exactly. We live by basic morals which the great majority of the population chooses to follow naturally. Not a written, set in stone, set of 10 commandments. You also mentioned "we can fool ourselves for awhile but not for long,", referring to thought policing. "Fooling ourselves," is pretending we can stamp out envious thoughts and denying our human nature.

In your third point, simply, you made no point. If you have, most of the sentences are run-on sentences anyway and are near to impossible to understand anyway. But I don't quite understand one thing you said in your argument. It is that we obviously cannot find our way to God because of our imperfection and natural desires (which makes you wonder why God gave us those desires), yet we have to change ourselves to do so. But it's impossible. But we have to change. But it's... you see? This brings us to what the original Reflection was about. What's the point of following something that isn't physically possible to follow?

And one last thing: "the train has left the station folks hope you all have tickets.......". Three cheers for blind faith and conformity!