General discussion

Locked

The New Ten Commandments

By jardinier ·
As I am so far the only nominee for the position of God in a new, universal religion, in another thread, I thought I would post these alternative 10 commandments which I drew up many, many years ago.

It occurred to me that this should start a new thread, giving anyone interested an opportunity to list what they think should be the ten most important rules to create an ordered, peaceful, unified society on earth.

1. You will daily give thanks to your heavenly Mother and Father, and to your earthly mother and father, for the precious gift of life.

2. You will show your respect and appreciation for this gift by striving always to make life a rich experience for yourself and others.

3. You will have reverence for the plant kingdom, which provides oxygen to breathe, food to eat, and beauty to uplift your soul.

4. You will love the members of the animal kingdom as brothers and sister.

5. You will not wantonly injure or destroy any vegetation.

6. You will not injure or kill any animal, except in self defence or for food.

7. You will not injure or kill any human, except in defence of your life, or your kin.

8. You will not wage war.

9. You will regard with equal dignity men, women and children of all races and creeds.

10. You will joyfully give succour and assistance to those less fortunate than yourself.

If I started from scratch now, quite likely my list would be different from that above, but as this was already on hand, it should do to get the discussion rolling.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

204 total posts (Page 1 of 21)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

The eleventh commandment

by amcol In reply to The New Ten Commandments

Consider adding this to your list.

"I (not everyone else, just I myself) will seek the humility that has obviously completely eluded me and not propose to set myself up as the incarnation of the second coming, not take seriously the suggestions of others that I am some sort of earth bound deity (PLEASE GOD, I hope you weren't really doing that), and not propose a rewrite of a set of rules for living that has served humanity and most of the world's religions well for thousands of years."

Yikes. Get a grip, man. Get over yourself.

I had to stop reading the other thread because I couldn't take your sanctimonious, holier than thou, know-it-all, pseudo-intellectual arguments. Not another thread along the same lines, I'm begging you. Keep this stuff on Yahoo where it belongs, not here.

When are you going to admit to yourself, and the rest of the audience who you've somehow fooled, that you're nothing more than an effete nattering provocateur, someone with a fair amount of knowledge on the subject but hardly the expert you set yourself up to be?

Sorry this sounds like such a flame. You're entitled to your opinions, you're entitled to express them, anyone and everyone is entitled to respond to them. Here or anywhere else. Find another topic...that's my message. We've beaten this one completely to death already, and you're just taking up valuable space here.

Stop the madness!

Collapse -

This is an open forum

by jardinier In reply to The eleventh commandment

No-one is expected to like or agree with either myself or my opinions.

You are not in any way obliged to read any discussion that is of no interest to you. If you didn't like the other thread, then you should have posted the above comments there. Who knows? Everyone might have agreed with you and brought the thread to a grinding halt.

If you can't see the obvious humour in the "I am the new God" thing, then perhaps you got out of bed on the wrong side.

As to your remark: "the rest of the audience who you've somehow fooled," well that sounds very much like you are accusing those people of a lack of intelligence and insight.

So that begs the question: Do you consider yourself "holier than them?"

However as you have bothered to address this new thread, you may like to share your views on how the original ten commandments -- laid down perhaps 4,000 years ago in a totally different mindset and environment -- still adequately cover all ethical considerations in today's world.

Collapse -

Nice try

by amcol In reply to This is an open forum

I'm not going to argue the legitimacy, intent, meaning, or currency of The Ten Commandments (and I would think, for someone like yourself who represents himself to be such an expert, you'd know that it's a generally accepted sign of respect to capitalize the first letters as I have). That's for folks far more knowledgeble and spiritual than I.

And no, I saw no humor in your nomination for deification. I've read enough of your postings to know it's hard to figure out how you and your ego manage to fit in the same room at the same time. Don't make out now like it's some kind of big joke...we already know you're conceited, don't add cowardice to the list.

Besides, that's not the topic of this particular thread. You asked for feedback on your proposal for a new codification. So let's do that. Here's my opinion, in case you are in fact really interested.

1. Very repetitious. I see little to no difference between numbers 1 and 2, or between numbers 3 and 5, or between numbers 4 and 6.

2. Apparently, on this new planet you propose to create, it's not OK for me to kill anyone but it's perfectly fine for me to steal, covet my neighbor's wife, commit adultery, and/or take your name in vain (which is a good thing, I suppose, since I've already done so...I certainly don't want to go to **** in TWO universes). I assume all that's all right since you have no injunction against it.

3. Who exactly are my Heavenly Parents? In your view there's a divine duality? One God isn't enough for you? Or, at the risk of blaspheming you YET AGAIN, are you just postulating a mate for yourself to avoid having the heavenly plane be too boring?

4. Number 2 is ridiculous. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion of feeling some degree of responsibility toward my fellow man, but to require me to do so via divine injunction? No thanks, Jim Jones. Oh, and don't even get me started on number 10. Exactly what manner of "succor" should I provide? Invite people into my home? Give shelter from the storm? Make sure everyone has enough prom tickets? Not to mention, apparently it isn't sufficient to provide said succor, I have to do so "joyfully". Sure, I can see it now..."Honey, guess what...I'm bringing home 4.5 billion people for dinner...isn't that great?".

5. Are these in priority order? If not, shouldn't they be? If so, HOW INTERESTING that you'd elevate the relative importance of the plant and animal kingdoms above that of human beings. A little skewed in our views, there, aren't we?

You know, on second thought...I take it back. This was really a quite useful posting, providing as it did a really great opportunity for the best belly laugh I've had in a good long time. Thanks...really, I mean that.

So, uh.....where do I send the donations (now that the Branch Davidian compound has been destroyed, I mean)?

Sheeesh. Well, at least you have a hobby, even if it does involve nothing more than chronic mental masturbation.

Collapse -

If Julian's messages are tantamount to . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Nice try

.
.....mental masturbation, as you suggested, then you've not only fully joined, but you've put yourself right in the middle of the circle-jerk.

Collapse -

Not exactly

by amcol In reply to If Julian's messages are ...

In Julian's case I'm merely amusing myself. I have a lifelong aversion to egotistical know-it-all sanctimonious holier-than-thou people who take themselves far more seriously than they deserve, and I take great glee in bursting their balloons.

In your case you'll get serious responses from me, because you at least offer substantial well thought out rational arguments. I don't agree with most of them, which is where the fun of real learning comes in. But you I take seriously.

Collapse -

Oh, the irony!

by Absolutely In reply to Not exactly

"...you at least offer substantial well thought out rational arguments. I don't agree with most of them..."
Did you notice that your disagreement with Maxwell's arguments that you call rational and well thought out implies that you are irrational? Ha-ha!

Collapse -

H'mm

by amcol In reply to Oh, the irony!

So does your pointing out that disagreement with a rational argument is irrational make you yourself irrational or rational?

Please provide a rationale for any rationalization.

Where'd I put my Xanax?

Collapse -

Puff !!!

by jardinier In reply to Not exactly

Whoops, you've burst my bubble. I no longer have an ego.

But wait a minute -- that means I am in Nirvana.

Well thank you ever so much amcal -- you have just saved me from several hundred incarnations.

I will take this opportunity to point out that you have completely contradicted yourself in two different posts.

First you say: "and not propose a rewrite of a set of rules for living that has served humanity and most of the world's religions well for thousands of years."

But further on you say: "Philosophies, religious persuasions, codes of ethics, whatever they are and whatever you want to call them, must be historically organic. By that I mean you can't take something written down at some specific point in human history and continue to apply it throughout time without constant review and revision. What makes sense for one group of people in one particular historical setting under a specific set of political, geographic, climatic, religious, demographic, and philosophical conditions doesn't necessarily apply anywhere or anytime else."

Would you please enlighten me as to which of these contradictory statements is your personal belief?

And while I have your attention I will say, yes, I think that the vegetable kingdom is more worthy of reverence than humans because we depend on it, but it doesn't depend on us.

The mind boggles at what must have been the beauty of nature before man ravished the planet and recklessly polluted it.

I speculate that if all pollution and destruction of nature were to cease immediately, it might take the planet 200 years to regenerate. But even then there would be spent nuclear fuel rods and by-products which, if allowed to escape into the atmosphere, would make the planet largely uninhabitable.

Anyhow flame away. It doesn't bother me in the least. Perhaps you feel better after releasing your frustrations at my alleged egotism.

But come to think of it, I have not been able to perceive a skerrick of humility in your own posts.

Collapse -

3, by my count

by Absolutely In reply to This is an open forum

"No-one is expected to like or agree with either myself or my opinions."

We don't agree on the value of religion apparently, but it's nice to be in agreement again. I also don't expect agreement or affection from anybody here, but I do appreciate the opportunity to argue. I mean, debate.

Collapse -

Interesting

by maxwell edison In reply to The New Ten Commandments

.
I'm not quite sure I could go along with all those.

Back to Community Forum
204 total posts (Page 1 of 21)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums