Jun 22, 2012
By Dana Simpson…
* * * * *
Category: Bizarre, Religion, z - Arts & Culture
Alternate title: Abraham stirs the crap out of the pot. Angry comments in 3, 2, 1 ….
Breaking the 3rd Commandment in the process…but if you follow it through it makes sense. I know that our school systems only teach kids to memorize facts and not how to think, but you really need to follow this through. Where do other crimes stem from…? I think coveting gets to the heart of the issue, personally…
Are you serious? Coveting is the heart of our economy. You want what that guy has, so you go out and you buy one too!
coveting would be wanting it so bad that you would take it from that guy…not buying one just like it…
No, that’s stealing. Coveting is an attitude – it’s wrong even if it never leads to anything else.
That’s how I understood coveting, Kristy. It wasn’t about the actions resulting from it (because those are covered in don’t kill, steal, commit adultery), it was the attitude. I understood that coveting went against the whole “be thankful for what you have” kind of thing.
Yep, still a sin, even if it’s in the mind. Same as lusting (adulatory), hating (murding), and using God’s name in vain in your head (blasphemy). Imagine, God’s standord of holiness is so high that He judges even what goes on in our hearts and minds. It’s even more amazing the He would look on wretched, vile, sinners like us and imput Jesus’ righteousness on us through what He did on the cross. Brings to mind the words to an old hymn: “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound. That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind, but now I see.”
God hates misspelling, too.
Interesting thought that is implied in the cartoon. I get the satire, but if the assumption is that our legal system is not heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values that is not honest. Like it or not CRIMINAL law is based on morals. The question then comes to be, whose morals?
Based on morals, yes, but Jews didnt create the concept of morals. Just because they are current, people always seem to think they are original.
I think what Ed is getting at is: “All laws are moral statements. Is morality objective? If so, where does it come from?”
Anyone who thinks there is “right” and “wrong”, or a way things “should be” (i.e. everyone who has ever existed), has knowledge of the God of Christianity, even if they suppress that knowledge at a subconscious level.
Do you realize how offensive that is? You’re actually saying that anyone who doesn’t follow your particular interpretation of religion is amoral and doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? What a horrible thing to say.
Technically,and I mean technically, law doesn’t exist in the United States. Since we’re a common law nation, each case is viewed differently. So there could be totally different outcomes from two seemingly identical cases. Why is this? Because law is not self-sufficient, noble, and certain, as jurisprudence tries to mask it so. Law, particularly law in the United States, is ever changing. It remains in a technical state of non-existence until the moment of application (by the executive).
If the speed limit is 70, then the law must state that you if go over 70, you have broken the law. However, if you go 73 right by a cop (the executive in this case), and the cop doesn’t pull you over, then what is the speed limit? The assumption then would be that the sign doesn’t really mean “70″ but in fact means “73.”
So, yes. Laws are based off of morals. However, the morals of the executive and judicial branch, and by that I mean the individuals, are what’s determining the interpretation of the applied law as well as the outcome.
I’d recognize that art anywhere… It came from http://www.idrewthis.org, by Dana Simpson. The domain itself is gone, but the official website for his other, more well known strip, is http://www.ozyandmillie.org.
Thanks! I’m off to add credit to the post…
Um, our legal system is based off of the Ten Commandments to and extent. I mean, all laws are based off of a moral code, and like it or not, our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and principles. I mean, Do not steal, Do not kill, Do not bear false witness. Pretty sure our laws are fleshed out versions of these principles. If people didn’t covet (impossible I know), then people wouldn’t be stealing, killing, sleeping with someone else’s wife etc.
Right, because those are EXCLUSIVELY christian principles…
I think I missed the part where anyone actually claimed that they were exclusively Christian principles.
I think the title of the cartoon might have had something to do with the previous comment…”The 10 commandments…”
erm, the 10 Commandments came about BEFORE Christianity – it’s part of something called Judaism, you might want to look up some information about it, it’s where the Old Testament came from!
PhilA, You leave your dirty facts out of this, heathen!
Based ON. BASED ON. Not “based off of.” Gah.
Yeah, that bugs me more than the popcorn-generating comment war about law.
The arguments of anyone who says “based off of” are thereby rendered off-base. Fail.
Well, of the ten commandments, only two are illegal: stealing and murdering. You could make a case for bearing false witness in a courtroom, i.e., perjury, but the rest are fine and dandy, legally.
Seems like a ploy to discredit the Bible and belief in God.
The Bible does a pretty good job of discrediting itself.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! People get REALLY offended by anything having to do with the Bible, and I think it’s hilarious.
Well, the Bible is certainly one of the most offensive books I’ve ever read, so I guess it’s to be expected.
I clicked through my reader as soon as I saw this, just to read the comments. *runs to grab popcorn*
Haha, I did the same thing, Archer.
seriously the entertainment really begins with the offended, the know-it-alls and those who are all in between. i do this a lot these days with the world wide web of internet socializing.
Did anyone find it funny, like me?
I found it funny, also. Too many people these days tend to over-think everything in an effort to seem more intelligent than they are.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Not really. I see what you’re saying, but I think it’s just pointing out that just because two separate sets of governing rules have some in common doesn’t mean one was based on the other.
(We'll never share your info)