Home > Bible Talk > Archives > 2008 > April > 13 > Entry
Are the 7 Aphorisms same as the 10 Commandments?
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear another Ten Commandments-related case. A federal appeals court ruled that Pleasant Grove, Utah, which displays a privately donated Ten Commandments monument at a city park (on a patch of land ceded to a private party), must also make room for the Seven Aphorisms of Summum, the principles of a faith that was founded by a former Mormon and is headquartered in Utah. Thanks in part to the late Charlton Heston, the Ten Commandments are familiar to most Americans; not so the Seven Aphorisms:
- SUMMUM is MIND, thought; the universe is a mental creation.
- As above, so below; as below, so above.
- Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.
- Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.
- Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.
- Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.
- Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels. {L.A. Times}
As you might assume, I like the 10 commandments-they seem to make more sense to me. I thought some of you deep debater’s might like to debate this on a Monday Morning? So, are there any theologians out that would be willing to tell me if this lines up with bible scripture? Anyone out there who ran across the Seven Aphorisms while searching for truth on your spiritual journey who checked these out and are willing to enlighten Pastor J on this?
Comments
By Obadiah Sheeply, Jr.
April 13, 2008 9:13 PM | Link to this
The Seven Aphorisms are way too woo-woo for me, so general and imprecise as to have little meaning. Unfortunately in the Decalogue 40 % of the commandments do not even have any moral relevance at all and only require “obedience and respect” to the giver. That’s awfully megalomaniacal. The Seven Aphorisms at least do not have this flaw.
By KDF
April 13, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this
Unless someone points it out to me, I believe God pretty much created a “tic-for-tac” world.
Where there is light, there is dark. Where there is right, there is wrong. Where there is love, there is hate.
I do not believe you can have love in this world without having hate. If you did not have one of those, the other would be unrecognizable. What is dark when there is no light? What is right if there is no wrong? How can you love if you don’t know hate? We could go on and on.
Obadiah is correct, I believe. They do look “Woo-woo” as they are read, but do make some sense. May our good Lord help us when they start wanting to post these!! LOL. <><
By KDF
April 14, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
God commands respect for He created respect, as with the Commandments. Anyone else, go create all, give love and ask (but don’t expect) for thankfulness. So often we are more comfortable with a religion based on a god we have invented and can contol.
1 Corinthians 13:13 “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greater of this is love. This, my fine folks, is what Christianity is all about. <><
By cantw82leave
April 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
I had to read this about 3 times before it sunk in, then I realized it was started by a former Mormon. (I know a few folks of Mormon faith and this resembled nothing we had ever discussed.)
I checked out www.summum.us to see if I could get a better understanding on the principles. Apparently it has nothing to do with the Mormon faith and looks as though it is drawing the seeker into teachings of the Egyptian Sun God Ra. Interesting to note that the second aphorism is considered to be inherent to the Wiccan tradition (“as above so below”). It seemed a bit “sci-fi” for me, I keep waiting for the site to explain how all humanity is descended from aliens and the Hittites were actually a race of reptilians.
I guess the fundamental question was should this faith system be allowed to display their 7 Aphorisms next to the 10 Commandments. I have a hard time understanding how that can be forced considering Pastor Carbajal indicated the 10 Commandment display was privately donated and on a piece of land privately owned that (I assume) is adjacent to the park. I would think the courts will shoot that down. Don’t we have some legal eagles on the board…what would you guys say based on what you see here?
By Jeff
April 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
I think I may be too “woo-woo” from trying to read them. “A good lie always has enough truth to it to lead you from the entire truth.” -Miles McPherson.
I have been trying to study all “end days” references in the New Testament. Noone can give a date, but things like advanced travel and communication, earth worship, idol worship, and “ear tickling” are definitely going on.
There probably won’t even be a debate from the non-religious left as to the placement of the 7 aphorisms.
Here’s a thought, the next time the non-Christian bloggers think that we are trying to force, coerce, or manipulate you, stop and look at the facts. Why would Roman Caesars, Babylonian kings, and European monarchs give up their status as gods to worship and submit to the God of their enemy, Israel? Survival of the fittest would dictate that this is impossible.
By connie McCracken
April 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
HEY out there…we need your help at Parkdale Elementary….we are in the “why I love my school contest posted on the waco trib…click on this and vote for PARKDALE Elementary School…we have the best commercial — just watch them to see what you think? Currently our rival school is beating us by 450 votes…we desperately need all the votes possible —we want to win…Please take a moment and vote for us — every hour if you can through next Monday - April 21….THANKS BUNCHES!!
By GJ
April 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this
I’m confused. It’s a city park, but ceded to a private party? If it’s on private property there’s no problem displaying the 10 Commandments, the 7 Aphorisms or the 8 I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts. If they are on public property none of them belong.
By cantw82leave
April 14, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this
Have to agree with GJ. I can do whatever I want on my private property (and yes, this does include dancing naked under the full moon around a bonfire -smile-) but if it private property I really don’t see where they have a case.
Jeff: To answer your question about kings, one word: integration. Sorry, but historically it had nothing to do with “seeing the light”. And by the way, which European monarch relinquished his/her godhood to worship the god of their enemies (Israel)?
By GJ
April 14, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this
Jeff - I’m sure some kings that converted were true believers and some did it for political reasons. Maybe there is a historian that can answer your question.
By KDF
April 14, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this
cantw82leave: Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon did just that. He reigned in Babylon from 605-562. He wiped Israel off the map. The he praised Israel’s God twice. First after Daniel and the boys survived the fire; and after God punished him for sin by turning him temporarily insane. *Daniel 4:33 said he “ate grass like a cow”. He wrote a poem prasing “the King of Heaven”. <><
By KDF
April 14, 2008 8:11 PM | Link to this
Also, the Ceasar Constantine gave up the gods of Rome in the 400’s a.d., because he had become Christian. His way of doing business as a Roman Ceasar was to declare the Roman Empire as a Christian empire. This is two leaders thus far. I can go on if anyone wishes. <><
By Pastor Joe A. Carbajal
April 14, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this
Hey fellow bloggers,
Thanks to each of you for your insightful entries today- this was good, solid, discussion about a topic we all needed to understand more. You folks make this blog fun to do!
By GJ
April 14, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this
How would the conversion of a king prove that Christianity was true? If so, weren’t the Christians of that age Roman Catholics? Does that make Catholicism true?
Honestly, I fail to see the connection.
By KDF
April 14, 2008 8:41 PM | Link to this
GJ, I answered his questions, that is all. It has nothing to do with denominations. He asked, then I answered. <><
By GJ
April 14, 2008 9:11 PM | Link to this
Sorry KDF, my response was more for Jeff. I should have been more clear (though I’m not sure quoting the Bible makes it more convincing. But that’s just me). :-)
KDF, you have inspired me to seek out a freethinkers emoticon to go along with your fish. How’s this?: *o|-<( “Above us, only sky”. Nice, huh?
By KDF
April 14, 2008 9:24 PM | Link to this
GJ, a little John Lennon, eh? Odd man, great music.
By Jeff
April 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
GJ, the conversion of a king would be interesting if Christianity was false. Some Caesars, like Dioclitean (bad spelling) were so feared and revered that when he died, noone knew for days, because they couldn’t look him in the face. Nebuchadnezzar had a 90 ft. gold likeness built, to say, “Hey, look at me!” I will ask this with as much compassion and not sarcasm as possible. Would this type of authority be given up as a “good joke.” You can say you don’t believe, but these rulers who had absolute earthly power did.
By GJ
April 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this
Again Jeff, just because something is believed doesn’t make it true.
There may even be politicians in this current day using religion as a political tool. Imagine that!
By Jeff
April 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
GJ you are absolutely right about politicians using it as a tool to get more power. In the instances I mentioned, however, the politicians gave up their own power. They did not gain, both because their constituency was largely non-Christian, or Jewish, and they were no longer the ruling authority. God was. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to say it was to their benefit.