Commandment #10

I think in this case covet can be interpreted as wanting something to the point of obsession. If you so covet your neighbors possesions then you will likely break another one or two commandments to get those items. Kill , steal. Its a case of prevention. Don’t become obsessed and you don’t have to worry. Wanting the things your neighbor has is not the sin. Acting on the thoughts will be the sin. Look at its placement in the commandments. Its last. So its like an " oh yea, before i forget" thing.

ris-can we then scratch #10

I wouldn’t, as humans we tend to forget things, reminders are rather important. And that is a pretty darn good reminder since we all tend to get that kind of greed from time to time.

how about getting rid of the old testament…

LOL, Turtle my friend if you were to get rid of any it would have to be the newest not the oldest. The newest are just translations, Even the old testament is a translation of an original document. The Jewish religion has probably the oldest version/ text that the Christians copied from. So no, I would not get rid of the old. It is closer to original than the new.

Coveting is the basis to snobbery imho.

If #1 buys a house then #2 must buy one bigger, cost of housing goes up, #3 who is not a snob, must pay more when he buys his house.

No so bad except when you’re the guy on minimum wage because all the coveters have manipulated the world according to their needs. Or if you’re the mother who cant feed her children because the cost of derivatives have gone up.

I am not sure how much individuals can be blamed, but if you buy into all that and to the purpose of being jealous or snobbish, then I guess that’s unethical.

That we ~ humanity, don’t group together to change all that is a further moral lapse.

That’s envy.
Coveting specifically refers to wanting the specific item, the woman.

The crime is the punishment. Gods work is the body, and his intent is the will and a breached link between will and body can lead to envy, which is one of the symptoms of the separation of the work of man and the work of God. A healthy man, one that is unbroken, ‘with God’, will not envy upon seeing something desirable, but be stimulated to attain glory of its own. Envy, like all other ill-affects, leads to deterioration of the energy body. Such affects cause ‘traffic jams’ of the will, where much energy gets accumulated in areas where no intention leads to, and lack of energy occurs in places where it is needed, where it wants to be, where it is ‘meant to be’ (by The Boss, in this context), where it can do work.

And also, envy and coveting are presumptuous desires that ask for more than what is rational and thus blind the mind and heart to the better balance of truer need, much like an activist group storming Congress so as to get what only they can see is desirable regardless of the concerns of others (including the wisdoms of the Senate). Every strong desire that has not sought balance first (which is pretty much all of them), is blinding the mind and heart from something more rational to be seeking and thus more “good” for you.

If you are merely seeking something within grasp that does not lead away from your truer hope and health, then it isn’t called “envy” or “coveting”, but rather “being rational”. Distinguishing the two is very difficult because life for the homosapian, is extremely complex.

I think that what you call ratio here is what I would call divine reason. There is also being rational in the sense of calculating the givens, and leaving out that which cannot be empirically verified other than established factually by effort. Divine reason pays back directly, in life, as it is a continuation of it (life itself is in that sense rational), ‘normal’ ratio excludes life, uses only mental replicas, abstractions, and can build only machines machines, so pays back indirectly, not in life but in something else.

can you make that a little clearer…what if you continue coveting your neighbors stuff and dont repent…

You don’t need to repent for coveting it - just for taking it. :laughing:
Best be careful of what we covet - once we have it, we may wonder why we ever coveted it.
Although continuing to covet it may give you an ulcer.
Or perhaps a bloody nose.

we covet a lot arc…dont you…this whole #10 needs to be dropped…only bad when you do…

I think there is a difference between coveting and desiring, don’t you, little reptile?
We usually covet what belongs to someone else. You covet your neighbor’s own rock. :slight_smile:
But you may desire a rock and go out and find one of your own.
I think we only really ‘covet’ when we do not remain open to other possibilities…and they are endless.
Coveting is a form of poor vision - tunnel vision perhaps - and laziness.
One may appreciate and even love without coveting.

oh no arc…the main fallacy in #10 is telling someone that thinking and doing are the same thing…that causes problems…

This is true and it’s why I said: You don’t need to repent for coveting it - just for taking it.
You don’t actually need to repent for coveting it unless you are catholic in the confessional. :unamused:
But even a priest - well most of them anyway - will say that coveting is not sinful.
It is only being human - a human emotion - but it may lead to temptation. :-"
it is only how you respond to the emotion - the action taken that makes it sinful. (I don’t recognize the word ‘sin’).
Perhaps the writers of the bible understood human emotion and desire more than we think. That commandment would be a deterrent to waylay what could happen…being stoned to death(?) for not having the awareness of what ‘coveting’ thy neighbor’s property (including humans at that time - ah, and even much longer into the future than that) might result in.
That was a bit of rambling perhaps. #-o
So it might be considered as a logical law albeit not seeing ‘coveting’ as a sin per se.

what do you mean when you say you dont recognize sin…what do you call bad behavior…

You responded before i had the chance to go back and edit it.

I don’t like the word ‘sin’.
I prefer the expression ‘doing harm’ or ‘doing no harm’.
Sin is a subjective perspective, don’t you think?
I suppose doing harm is too…but ‘sin’ is a religious attitude.
Doing or not doing harm is a human one and it is much more to the point than ‘sin’.
There’s a difference to me. :laughing:

actually id like to do away with the whole old testament except as past history…the word sin is not my choice for bad behavior…

“Sin” merely means “missing the intended mark”. It was an old archery term for missing the bulls eye.

To “sin against God” meant to miss the highest purpose of the whole, the “Wholly”, “Holy”.