Offer the graduate course: Exploring the Ten Commandments and Their Application to 21st Century Man in Both Religious and Secular Applications.

.

You shall not commit adultery.

Finally, something I have some first-hand knowledge of.

...appreciative laughter and nervous nattering…

It’s thought that this Commandment is probably one of the few that is quite close to it’s original form, it’s wording having been added to or changed little over the ages.

What makes this one somewhat confusing, however, is that the meaning of the word adulteryhas changed thru time.

First, let’s consider the good ole days when this Commandment was originally written and why it was written.

The original aim of this Commandment was to control women’s reproduction and reproductive lineage.

You’ll recall that the ancient Hebrews (and others of the time) treated women more as chattels than as people. In a very real sense married women belonged to their husbands.

No, they weren’t slaves or literal property, but neither did they have the level or status of men in their society.

Adultery originally referred to married or engaged WOMEN having sex outside of their marriage or betrothal.

It did NOT apply to men.

There were two problems with these women having sex outside their relationships.

One was that in some sense the man was messing with someone else’s property…“his” woman.

And more importantly, the stricture aimed directly at controlling the blood line of a family or at least not having it questioned.

Men could not commit adultery. It was strictly a woman-aimed Commandment.

The modern view of this Commandment is vastly different.

It is generally defined as any extramarital sexual contact, of course by either men or women.

Some explanations of this Commandment include “impure” thoughts as well, hauling in a statement by Jesus to that effect, quoted somewhere by Matthew.

It’s relevance to modern society and culture is certainly open to debate.

There are a myriad of reasons to explain why people seek sex outside their relationships.

It is not a simple discussion.

And while one could say that it’s adherence would tend to stabilize the family unit, one could also say that the family unit might be mightily disturbed by the sexual and emotional dissatisfaction of one or both of the partners.

And what about open marriages where having sex with other people is looked on as fine recreation?

Further, one can make a good and cogent argument that in today’s society, staying home sexually is not big thing. That, in fact, if you look at the statistics dealing with “adultery” about half of the married folks admit to it at one time or another.

And then…what about phone sex or cyber sex?

Are these adulterous acts? They sure are popular.

No, it’s not a simple discussion.

And an excellent argument could be made…I might make just such an argument...that the current use for Thou shall not commit adultery, no matter how it is currently defined, is to force religious, restrictive, and narrow views on intercourse, sex, and marital relationships, not only on those christians who voluntarily sign up for such strictures, but also on a society and culture who, arguably, have just the opposite interest.

Discussion?

A marvelous exercise…

And one that can honestly never really be completed…

But well worth the class time!

.

Sit and let us commune.

Today’s lecture on either the 5th or 6th Commandment, again harkening back to the differences in Commandment numbering, the Don’t kill one, won’t take us all that long.

Besides, I’m having some difficulty standing on these fucking crutches and that will keep my brevity well tuned.

(...quiet laughter…)

Thou shall not kill.

Variously…

Thou shall not murder.

As you might imagine, there isn’t much controversy about this Commandment, or none that will concern us overly much here.

For years this Commandment was translated as Thou shall not kill. It was when I was a boy, and I went to grammar school with Jesus.

(...laughing…)

It was a secular school, Jeeze was trying to pass back in those days.

(louder, somewhat uncomfortable laughing…)

Later and supposedly more precise translations have this Commandment as Thou shall not murder.

The discussion religious academics have, or had, over this difference in translation seems not to be of much real significance, EXCEPT to academics, since succeeding scriptural entries in the New Testament fairly define what is meant by the Commandment, so that arguing over “kill” or “murder” doesn’t seem especially important…well, except to religious academics.

We’re only going to touch on this briefly.

Under the Old Testament, “not killing” was not a blanket stricture.

Clearly, animals were allowed to be killed for sustenance, clothing, tools and the like. Not mistreated, but killed.

And under the old Testament killing in wars and for self defense and for certain sins, such as murdering someone else and adultery was clearly allowed.

With the New Covenant, that is, the coming of Jesus, this changed and was expanded upon and more clearly defined.

“Murder” was and is a technical legal term, and can be defined pretty simply as the “unlawful taking of a human life.”

So, at least in our society, abortion is not murder, accidentally killing someone is not murder, capital punishment is not murder, using animals in painful and disgusting experiments that leads to their death is not murder…

MURDER is the unlawful taking of a human life.

I mentioned the New Covenant and I want to touch on this very briefly.

In the New Testament, Jesus fine-tunes what is meant, for the religious, by Thou shall not murder. In James, John, and Mathew for example, the meaning of this Commandment is expanded or explained to encompass a hateful and unforgiving attitude toward others, and cautions the faithful to love their enemies and sinners.

There is debate in the Christian community about how far these admonitions extend; whether to wars, are some wars just and others not…and to various even “legal” killings…should Christians support and participate in them.

None of this is of concern to us here.

This Commandment, Thou shall not murder is one of the lynch pins of a civilized and ordered society. It allows people a framework and support for living in concert with their fellows, and offers protection from the beasts and hooligans who would, with their murderous actions, remove the stays of society and, hence, culture.

This is, arguably, THE most important of the Commandments, when juxtaposed to our modern life.

If one cannot live in relative freedom from murder, how can one live and contribute to society and help it grow?

If the society is robbed of safety of life it won’t flourish and develop, but remain stagnant and punitive and “tribal.”

If a society cannot offer protection from murder to it’s citizens, how is one able to define that society as civil and progressive?

Thou shall not murder.

The best and most societally cogent Commandment yet.

Discussion?

We’ve discussed the First Commandment and, some might argue, the Second as well.

Depending upon what brand of christianity you subscribe to, there are differing ways of making the count.

We aren’t going to get caught up in silly arguments among the religious about such things. We’re here to discuss ideas, not who has the ear of god or gets post cards from him about his intentions.

And though one could argue that the first three or four (depending on your segregation of them) Commandments have some relevance to modern man and his non-religious life as, I believe, Mr. Knight might assert, my contention is that, except for religious zealots, these admonitions are strictly for the religious.

Trust me when I tell you that “keeping holy the sabbath” doesn’t mean shit to me or most anyone. Ever been to a mall on Sunday?

(...understanding chuckles…)

Let me list them on the board.

By the way, I was raised Roman Catholic until I liberated myself, so I’m using their numbering of the Commandments. If you don’t like the numbers I’m using, use your own.

No one cares.

I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.

Keep holy the Sabbath day.

And our focus for today…

Honor your father and your mother.

Again, up to honoring your father and mother, all these have virtually nothing to add to modern culture if you’re not religious.

With Honor your father and mother the Decalogue slides right on over to the very foundation of our society and, indeed, most societies and cultures, the family.

Initially this command, in a tribal and fairly primitive society, helps set the moral relationships between parents and progeny that keep the society functioning and growing. The parent-child relationship is the primary one, all others following it or growing out of it. Hence, the glue of a society and culture.

But it’s influence and structure extends beyond just the basic familial build, doesn’t it?

The logic of the Fourth Commandment argues for the respect, understanding, allegiance, and structure of the basic building blocks of virtually any group of people that wish to live in reasonable harmony and peace and positive development.

The relationships between family members is prime, but build out to those between teacher and student, government and governed, employer and employee, doctor and patient, militia and the protected, laws and obedience to them…I could go on.

The Fourth sets up not only the primary familial relationships and its duties and expectations, but, by extension, the duties and responsibilities of an ordered, non-chaotic, reasonable society.

The individuals in that society have a responsibility to respect the individuals, constructs and institutions which help to take care of and order those individuals, their families and their societies.

And likewise those individuals, constructs and institutions whom we should respect have the concurrent responsibility to respect, nurture, and offer succor to those individuals who make up the “lower” aspects of the society.

One cannot exist without the other.

That is, the basic building blocks of a woven society is the family and it’s individual members who respect…take care of in some culturally decent fashion…those who brought them into the world and took care of them.

Individuals cannot decently exist without care from their parents, nor can parents parent without the allegiance and respect of their children.

Students cannot learn without respecting the knowledge of their teachers, teachers can not impart knowledge without respecting and nurturing their students, employees will not be employed without reasonably respecting the domain of their employers and employers will not be in business without respecting and taking care of their employees.

And so it goes.

The Fourth Commandment sets up the primary structure of a cogent society, a structure out of which all thriving, decent, prosperous societies grow and flourish.

And to the extent that this structure breaks down, to the extent that the extended and implied structures that follow the familial breaks down, to that extent modern societies and cultures dissemble, decay, spin apart and fail.

Discussion?

Just because you slackers had the day off last week portends nothing for today.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

long one that.

And a slew of issues.

graven image I would argue these days is honored more in the breach than in honor by almost every religion on earth…

Every time a photo, or a crucifix, or a drawing or any dipiction of anything in or of the earth is created or displayed. Even a map would be suspect in strictist view.

bowing down to them… changes this strict interpretation somewhat as it implies that graven images would be objects of worship in of themselves… (fall not into the easy logical hole to assume that a crucifix or monstrace is a graven image in that sense… for the object of worship remains G_d in those instances)... also this opens up discussion back to the whole notion of false gods touched on earlier…

but here is another troubling thought in a modern 21st century view…

...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. This is blaming the innocent decendents for the crimes of their fathers. A total disassociation from those who have arguably commited sin and those who may or may not be so adjudged as guilty.

An Old Testament G_d to be sure.

So how might this apply to a modern time?

By alluding to the First Commandment and reinforcing the notion of not worshiping false gods or even images of same?

By reinforcing the admonition ad absurbam by making the crime so heineous that punishing the guilty was insufficient, and stating the modern equivelent of you and your crew are going down?

This commandment makes the case for interpretation within context (as opposed to literal) for as noted earlier, a literal interpretation would ban quite a bit of what the world as well as her churches almost irrespective of denomination or creed do daily.

At the end? I think an admonition to favor faith over idolatry.

Believe in what is true.

One could do far worse, even from a 21st century perspective uncoloured by specific religeosity.

thoughts?

I don’t owe you people an explanation…but here it is anyway.

I was just about finished with my lecture notes and something seems to have gone awry with my computer…um… ahem...

^{...or perhaps I closed the wrong tab and deleted the entire thing accidentally and am too fucking lazy to redo it right now…}

Enjoy your day off.

.