The New Ten Commandments

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.

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 hell 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.

"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.

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

by puppybreath Oct 1, 2005

I'd go along with number 5 if it meant I didn't have to mow the lawn any more.

for practical reasons you may still have to mow the lawn. However before starting, you will be required to apologise to the grass for the pain that you are about to inflict upon it.

"is to give 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."

As you have proven over and over again that you have strong, well thought out ideas -- especially in relation to government and society -- I would assume that you would be able to come up with your own preferred ten most important rules.

No one is expected to agree with all or any of the ten rules I have posted. This was just something I wrote about 20 - 30 years ago and I posted it just to get, hopefully, an interesting discussion going.

I am sure every peer would have rules that they would like to add in place of one or more of the original 10 commandments -- four of which relate to the particular God of the Old Testament, and as such could perhaps be seen to be redundant to some degree.

This discussion is also aimed at atheists who might like to give their idea of 10 rules for a harmonious society living in harmony with nature, but without the need for a god.

.
I'll post a similar message, but one that's consistent with my political and desired societal structure.

It would be most interesting, however, to see how you might "edit" your commandments 30 years after the fact. Thirty years equals a lot of wisdom, after all.

to list your own top ten rules for society.

And you are of course quite correct -- my thinking has altered considerably over this 30 year period.

I will do some soul searching and see what I can come up with.

The strongest issue I was addressing at the time was the wanton destruction of forests upon which we are dependent for a fresh and adequate supply of oxygen.

My view was this -- and I certainly still stand by it -- humans need vegetation for oxygen and food -- both directly from the vegetation and also from the animals that feed on it.

The vegetable kingdom on the other hand does not in any way depend on humans. Therefore I consider that humans should acknowledge that dependence by showing more respect for the vegetable kingdom.

(Thou shalt) never initiate the use of force, or the threat of force, against another person.

No law shall ever prohibit any action except the initiation of the use of force, or the threat of force, against another person.

by montgomery gator Oct 3, 2005

They have worked well in the 3500 or so years since Moses got them from YHWH, even if most people tend to ignore them.

.
Thou shalt not take that which is not yours, whether it be directly from the rightful owner, or under the guise of some collective social program which is implemented under the further guise of fairness or maintaining an equitable social structure.

Thou shalt not confuse greed with ambition; as greed can be defined and seen within one's self if coveting that which is not yours, while ambition may be seen in others (and also in one's self) aspiring to rightfully strive for and acquire a better life for one's self and one's family.

Thou shalt not shirk responsibility for thine own self and pass such responsibility onto others, as one is born with the one and only inherent responsibility to care for one's own self, and acknowledging that such is the cornerstone of liberty.

Thou shalt not bear children if you cannot care for those children and raise them to assume and accept that one and only inherent responsibility to care for one's own self.

Thou shalt not intentionally inflict harm upon others, whether that be physical harm, emotional harm, or otherwise, or whether one's actions might harm the dreams and ambitions of others who might be aspiring to rightfully strive for and acquire a better life for themselves or their families.

Thou shalt respect and obey your parents until such a time when one is capable of assuming and accepting that one and only inherent esponsibility to care for one's own self, or unless one's own parents violates any of these commandments.

Thou shalt strive to achieve independence, as only then can an inter-dependent society successfully function, and as dependency places an undue strain on others and on the whole of society and threatens the liberty of others.

Thou shalt care for one's own parents if such a time comes when one's own parents are incapable of caring for themselves, as this is how the circle of life is defined.

Thou shalt use the resources made available to mankind wisely and equitably, replenishing those resources when possible, and replacing those resources with alternatives when appropriate.

Thou shalt devote 10 percent of your time, your efforts, and/or the fruits of your labor, but no more and no less, so as to care for the small fraction of those who simply cannot care for themselves or otherwise become dependent on others through reasons that were no fault of their own, and to support the system necessary to administer the following.

The willful or negligent violation or mismanagement of any of these commandments, by either one's self or the designated administrators, will result in the loss of one's own liberties, and will result in imprisonment for half of the violators estimated remaining lifetime, and the imprisonment time will be spent serving the ones whose liberties were violated or otherwise infringed upon by such willful or negligent violation or mismanagement, or until such a time when one is ready and willing to reassume one's own inherent responsibility to care for one's own self as described in the preceding ten commandments.

What can I say? 100 per cent.

And you have addressed, in a very reasonable and caring form, that grey area of people who, for one reason or another, are not able to care for themselves.

Do you know -- it occurred to me long ago that if we observed in a literal sense the second of the Two Great commanments stated by Jesus:

Mark 12:31 "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And actually applied this to our actual next-door neighbour, there would be no need for a social security program at all.

.
....for having a lack of compassion since I absolutely abhor any form of a socialist society. However, contrary to that train of thought, I believe that I'm dripping with compassion, while those who criticize me are the ones who lack it.

I see it all the time in the teenagers I work with in the Boy Scouts. Many of them are literally programmed to fail, to believe that they're incapable, and to expect failure in their own lives. And then it carries through into their adult life. To instill such thoughts is the most cruel thing that can be done to a person, at least in my opinion.

I try to help them overcome. And I expect as much from them as I expect from myself. I try to set them up for success, not for failure. And in a way, I suppose that's loving one's neighbor as one loves himself. And do you know what, Julian? I will never buy into the alternative. I will never be so cruel as to look a person in the eyes (or even suggest behind his back or in a round-about way), and suggest to him that he's incapable of accepting self-responsibility and striving to reach his dreams, regardless of how lofty they may seem. To deny hope is to deny life. I just can't fathom such thought.

I think that's why I'm so passionate on this one issue -- individual liberty, and everything it encompasses. And anything less is to expect less than a person's true potential -- the epitome of cruelty, and the basis for failure. And why in the world would we want to setup people to fail?

...to care for one's own parents -- completing the circle of life.

I think my parents' generation was the last one, as a rule, to assume responsibility for their aging parents. Both my grandparents on my father's side died before I was even born, but my mother's parents were a big part of my life, especially my grandmother. She lived with us for about ten years, from the time my grandfather died to the time she died. I was in the 6 to 16 range when she lived with us.

We had a small house, at least as it related to the number of kids living there. We doubled up, and even tripled up in the bedrooms; and when grandma came to live with us, we converted our dining room into a room just for her. We didn't really have the room, but we found the room. We didn't really have the resources, but we found a way.

One of the most vivid memories I have is of a time when I was about twelve and I had to do a school report on a famous American. I selected Charles Lindbergh. My grandma bought me a book about Charles Lindbergh, and told me about the time she actually met him and poked her head inside his plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, when he traveled around the country making appearances after his Trans-Atlantic flight. He was quite the hero of my grandmother's day, and she went to great lengths to tell me all about it, and all about him. I still have that book. And I still have those memories.

Compare that to today's society where grandparents are sentenced to live their remaining years in nursing homes, or hospices, or in lonely solitude, and other people are expected to pay for it. I think in the 1960s, at least for us, it was a win-win situation. But today, it almost seems like a lose-lose, and we also lose-out on reaping the true rewards. How sad.

My mother is still alive and active at 86. She'll never go into a nursing home. And after all, I owe her big-time.

by surflover Oct 2, 2005

This, and your comment on the elderly is spot on... I have a strong self image formed through a great deal of time spent with my grandparents and great aunts and uncles and my great grandmother, whom I was lucky enough to know when she was in her late 90's (and still lucid)... the patient, kind wisdom they made every effort to pass on are the things that have formed whatever good strength is part of my being. One of my grandfather's sayings that is with me always was one he used whenever anyone was upset about something... "will the sun come up tomorrow?"... in other words, don't be upset, tomorrow will be another day and you'll press on...

How funny!

I was living with my mother when she developed dementia to a degree that severely diminished her ability to look after herself.

On the understanding that elderly people prefer to stay in their own homes for as long as possible, I was prepared to look after her for as long as was feasible. However as I obviously couldn't be there 24/7, she got to the stage where she was an accident waiting to happen.

She had forgotten how to telephone friends, and nobody telephoned her, so she slid into a zombie-like existence.

By this time she had fallen over a few times -- including when I was not there. She had to go into a nursing home for her own safety.

What was amazing, however, was that she thrived in this environment and watched the people coming and going. On the occasions that I visited her she would point out everything that was going on around her. It really brought her back to "life."

Even when her ability to form the words had been lost, she would still point to things or people, indicating that she was still fully aware of what was going on.

For a time she was well enough for my sister (who lives in the same suburb as the nursing home) to take her home for the afternoon from time to time.

But there was no stopping the progress of the dementia and it has been about five years since she has been able to recognise even her immediate family. She is aged 95.

Regarding your comment: "in lonely solitude," at one time I counted about 10 widows or widowers who were living alone JUST in one small section of our street.

What a waste of human resources. If these lonely folk lived with one or another of their married children, they would have felt needed and appreciated, and of course would have the joy of helping to raise their grandchildren.

Yes indeed Max. The "me" generation has a lot to answer for.

Anyone who has followed my posts in various discussions about religion will know that I have strong beliefs in this area which are to a large extent outside traditional religious dogmas.

The concepts expressed in the following are ideas which I developed almost 40 years ago. They are drawn largely from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Theosophy.

1. I am the infinite one. I have created the universe out of myself. My consciousness is in every atom and molecule. Know that each of you is but a small part of the infinite whole. Thus you will respect all of creation because you are inextricably linked to it.

2. You may make any images that you like to represent me. You may pay homage to these images knowing that they are merely symbols of the infinite which is beyond your ability to comprehend.

3. You will revere the planet on which you live and everything upon it.

4. You are my hands and feet on the planet. You have the power to create anything that you can imagine. Use this power wisely.

5. Know that positive and negative, good and evil are but two sides of the same coin. These will always coexist on earth as they do throughout the universe. Do not fear evil but know that it is always present. Strive always to do that which is good, so that evil will not create an imbalance.

6. All people on earth are my children. Treat them with equal respect regardless of race, colour, culture or age.

7. Because of your higher intellect, you have the ability to control the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Use this ability wisely as your own survival depends of the lower kingdoms.

8. Your time on earth is for learning. Learn to live and work in harmony with your fellow humans and with all of nature. Through this, and only this, you will prepare yourself for other lives as yet unknown to you.

9. You are all microcosms of myself. When you learn to understand your individual selves, you will begin to understand me.

10. I am totally impersonal. Know that any benefits or suffering that you may experience are merely the result of natural laws that govern your every thought and deed. Your wise ancestors have already told you that you are bound by the law of karma, or action and reaction. Learn from your mistakes and grow.

by tony hopkinson Oct 2, 2005

If you want the respect you feel you deserve, show others the respect they feel they deserve.
New Testament

And it's corrolary
If someone one refuses to accord you the respect you feel you deserve, **** 'em , kill 'em and eat them.
Old Testament

by jaqui Oct 2, 2005

if someone even looks at you the wrong way.. kill them.

if she is good looking.
screw her first, then kill her.

just remember, kindness is for the weak.
sympathy lies between sh|t and syphillis in the dictionary.
forgiveness is a myth, perpetuated by the weakminded.

by hal 9000 Oct 2, 2005

Killing her as you screw her? ;)

If she's going to go out she may as well go out in a big way. :p

Col ]:)

by hal 9000 Oct 2, 2005

Why do you think this is so? I know exactly what you mean my mothers mother lived with us until she died of Parkinson's disease for many years when I was younger and even then we took in my cousin when her mother died from a heart attack her father had died in the second WW so there wasn't a question of it she just came to live with us and we where all one big happy family.

Granted I keep telling my 78 year old mother that I'm moving her to a nursing home because she's loosing her marbles but since she is still quite sprightly and only a few months ago got her Diploma at Trinity College she knows that I'm only joking and would never consider doing something like that.

Actually if the time ever comes where she can no longer look after herself I can see major problems between my sister and myself as to who will get her neither of us would ever consider for a nanosecond allowing her into a nursing home.

I'm also sure that my kids wouldn't allow either of their parents into a nursing home either but for a slightly different reason they want some of our play toys which they constantly tell everyone are theirs. :^O

I know that I was brought up to respect my elders but that in itself seems to be missing today with the young kids. Honestly I don't see it as a good sign for society in general and families in particular.

Where have we as a Society lost the plot?

Col

This reminds me of a somewhat humorous incident with my mother.

When her dementia had developed to a point where it was essential for me to gain Power of Attorney, we visited the solicitor and he asked her if she understood what we were doing.

"Yes, it is in case I lose my marbles," replied my mother.

Well of course she had already lost quite a few of her marbles by that time, but I thought it was very quaint of her to use that expression because already she had some difficulty in vocalising her thoughts.

As in all things, there are shades of gray.

The problem with religious dogma, or dogma of any kind for that matter, is that it's so...dogmatic. There's never any room for dissent, or alternative opinion, or practical reality. All of that goes to explain why every major conflict throughout the course of history is rooted, in one form or another and at one level or another, in religiosity.

I have no quarrel with the overall concept of any of your ten whatever-you-call-them, although it must be pointed out that they can't work...because you propose a perfect order of things in a reality in which things are anything but perfect. The playing field isn't level, never was and never will be, so your scheme would only work with like-minded individuals and not for humanity as a whole.

As an example, let's take in particular your eighth "commandment". Conceptually I agree...we should all feel responsible for the care of our aging parents. However, to what degree must we do so?

How about those situations where your eighth commandment is in conflict with your numbers 3, 4, and 5? Suppose one had parents who in fact never took responsibility for themselves, were completely incapable of handling the responsibilities of parenthood responsibly, and inflicted all sorts of harm both physical and psychological on their own children? Do the offspring of such an unhappy family continue to have a familial responsibility as time passes, even to the extent that it's personally hurtful? Is that not in conflict with commandment 3, when applied to one's own self?

You say "unless one's own parents violates any of these commandments". What does that mean, exactly? Who's to judge? On what basis? And, having found a competent judge, and having found that one's own parents were unfit, what then? You pose more questions than answers, and while most religious writings purport to be definitive yet in fact engender all sorts of interpretations, your propositions are particularly vague and therefore subject to abuse.

Like you, I was lucky to be blessed with good parents and grandparents. Like you, I was lucky to have had parents who set a good example by taking in their aged parents and caring for them until their eventual demise. Like you, I intend to do the same.

Great. On the other hand...have you ever seen what happens to people in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's Disease, especially when that ravaging condition is complicated by other pathology? In such a situation, it's an act of kindness, compassion, and responsibility to NOT take your parents into your home but instead have them cared for professionally. It seems to me your commandments may in fact allow for this possibility, since you say "thou shalt care for one's own parents" but you don't say how. On the other hand, what about end of life dignity? Suppose I leave behind express written instructions that in the event I become completely incapacitated and unable to exist without artificial mechanical means I wish to have the plug pulled. In your view, can I expect my children to honor that request?

When scientific reality overtakes religious injunction, responsible people should debate the continuing validity of those injunctions. I woud think, as a person involved in a technical profession, that you would agree with that. Perhaps not.

.
Why do you presume to suggest there is? Because I molded them in a Ten commandment form? I did that only to follow Julian's lead and request. Call them rules, if you'd like. Or call them articles of another document, if you'd like. But there's absolutely no religious connection.

.
Who's to judge, you ask? Well, the children themselves, of course. And there wouldn't necessarily have to be anyone to oversee or otherwise judge such a decision either. If you, as an offspring, for example, don't feel that you owe your parents the care they require in their old age, then just let them be.

But remember the alternatives. If you don't feel that you should care for them, and they can't care for themselves, of course, then the only alternatives are to force others to do it and force others to carry the burden of doing it, or to let them die. Which alternative would you choose, and why? Under your "exception" scenario, which is the most fair to everyone involved, and why? And for the sake of argument, you define "fair" however you'd like.

.
And no, it never was and never will be. However, my "scheme", as you call it, would indeed work, with like-minded individuals or otherwise. My outline doesn't call for equality of beginning or equality of outcome, nor is it necessary.

It presumes that one starts one's life from Point-A, and it stands to reason that we might all have different Point-As, and it's up to that person to assume responsibility to reach Point-B in his life in whichever way he would like, and however he might define Point-B. You strive for your Point-B, I'll strive for mine; and if yours takes you to a better place than mine (as you might define a better place), then I won't expect you to share with me, nor will I force you to share with others. But if you choose to share, no one will stop you in that regard either.

And for the record, I'm not suggesting a "solution" for humanity as a whole, but rather in my narrowly focused United States of America, where the stage is set for such a society. If you want to go out and save the world, knock yourself out. And you criticized my "plan" as idealistic? Trying to save the world is idealistic. Taking self-responsibility in the United States of America is realistic. Why in the heck do you see it the opposite?

Geesh, GO MAN! GO SAVE THE WORLD, already! How dare you waste time doing this when there's a WHOLE WORLD out there to save! If you want to save all those people in Africa as you described, GO SAVE THEM. And take all your like-minded buddies with you. Why don't all you people just go over there in droves and save them? Who's stopping you? Why don't all you people just give half, or three-quarters, of ALL of you income to save them? Who's stopping you? Do whatever the hell you want with your life, dude. And don't be so pompous and presumptuous to tell other people what to do with their lives.

.
"When scientific reality overtakes religious injunction, responsible people should debate the continuing validity of those injunctions. I would think, as a person involved in a technical profession, that you would agree with that. Perhaps not."

What in the heck are you talking about?

Religious injunction? What in the heck is that? And when did I suggest any religious injunction?

How can I either agree or disagree with something if I don't agree with, or even understand, your premise?

You're not being religious. Fine. Let's call it being dogmatic. Different words, same result.

I'm neither presumptuous nor pompous, nor do I attempt in any way to tell anyone what to do or how to do it. I offer advice when solicited, opinions when warranted. Take my writings as you will...I write them for me, no one else.

To your points about going out and saving the world...not my intention. I'm employed by an organization (which shall remain nameless) whose mission it is to work with the poorest of the poor countries, many of which are in Africa. We try to make a positive difference in as many lives as we can, nothing more.

To suggest that your postings have been specific to the U.S. is, in my opinion, disingenuous and destroys their credibility. How do you justify offering a codified set of behaviors and restrictions that appear to be equally applicable to humanity as a whole but then state you only mean for them to apply to the citizens of your own country? Is the rest of the world unworthy?

At the risk of taking this thread off in a political direction and getting us off topic, I take exception to your isolationist leanings. The time is long past for the U.S., as well as any other country with an abundance of resources (however you define that), to pretend that what goes on outside its own borders has no internal effect. You can argue until you're blue in the face that we shouldn't be in Iraq, we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam, on and on and on. Maybe you're right...that's not the issue, nor will I engage you on that battlefield. There are those throughout the world who can manufacture any number or reasons to hate us, whether or not we provide the fuel for that fire. We owe it to ourselves and the generations to come to protect our interests and therefore their legacy.

Replace the word religiosity with dogmatism, or whatever word clearly includes the premises of the Axis Powers of World War 2, and communism's dialectical materialism, and I will agree fully. More peasants died in the USSR and communist China due to accidental famine, which the proles were asked to bear until the means of production could be made to work for them instead of their "capitalist oppressors".

The problem with your rebuttal of the principle of personal freedom is that since the Bubonic Plague, most mass deaths have been political in nature, and have occurred as the result of lack of freedom, not because of disregard for the unfortunate. Those people in Africa that you admirably help are as unfortunate as they are because their right to exist was not respected, for centuries, by various people who had the power to violate their rights. Maxwell's commandments were written for the present, but they would not have permitted slavery or theft of one nation's resources for use by another nation without just compensation. If Maxwell's commandments had been obeyed throughout history, there would be no global trends in starvation and malnutrition because food would be distributed according to talent and individual effort, which we all know are equally distributed across Earth, without any pattern.

by maxwell edison Oct 3, 2005

.
That's a silly thing to suggest.

Every major conflict throughout the course of the last 100 years is rooted, in one form or another, and at one level or another, in resources, not religion.

Hundreds of years ago wars might have been waged with a basis in religious beliefs, but the modern wars are all about resources. The exception, of course, is the religious war currently being waged by extremist Muslims. But the religious aspect of the war on terrorism is one way, while the opposition is purely defensive in nature.

W.W.I - Resources

W.W.II - Resources

Cold War (including Vietnam and numerous "surrogate" wars) - Resources, inasmuch as the communist quest to conquer land and people was to control them and their resources, but not to "convert" them to any religion and/or defeat them because of it.

Gulf War - Resources

by absolutely Oct 3, 2005

That's why I suggested that "religiosity" be replaced by some word that would include any stupid idea, believed even despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as dialectical materialism and national socialism. Stupid ideas don't [b]have[/b] to be based on deities, it's just the most convenient way to support a stupid idea is with a deity. Karl Marx was able to accomplish even more evil with a perverted summary of history.

Ever done any traveling abroad, Max? I'm not talking about Rio or Cannes. I'm talking about places in Africa that require 48 grueling hours to reach, by a variety of means both modern and ancient.

I've been there. Recently. Places most Americans, most residents of the so-called civilized world, can't even imagine.

You go look into the eyes of a ten month old baby, stomach bloated from malnutrition, flies swarming all over, in the arms of a mother who weighs under 80 pounds, whose father was hacked to death as a result of tribal warfare, someone who you know is so beyond help that even if you could get him to a modern medical facility his condition is so far gone that it's just a matter of time until a painful death, and you tell that baby he's not "incapable of accepting self-responsibility and striving to reach his dreams, regardless of how lofty they may seem".

Tell that to his mother while you're at it. I can't do it.

I admire your idealism, but I would think at your age you'd have come to realize the world is not as nice as we'd like it to be. "To deny hope is to deny life." There are countless millions of people in the world who are, in fact, beyond hope. That's just the way it is.

.
I understand the observation you made, and no, I haven't traveled to such places as you describe. But go beyond your description and give me a "therefore what" conclusion. And please be very precise as to what could be done, what should be done, by whom, to what extent, for how long, and so on. And be precise and exact in your offered "solution". After you give yours, I'll give mine.

I don't have a "therefore what" since I was just offering an observation on the sorry realistic state of our world.

I'm not saying you shouldn't feel the way you do, nor am I saying you shouldn't keep offering hope and guidance to those less fortunate. I have the same attitude as you...I'm a fervent believer in personal responsibility. Perhaps where we differ is that I can only apply that concept to myself, and have no illusions that others can somehow be made to see the light.

I've run across too many people, especially in this generation we're raising (and shame on us, not them, since we're the ones at fault here) whose attitude of entitlement completely pushes out any thoughts of personal responsibility. I spend a lot of time trying to get people to understand that they are in control of their own destinies if they'll only take personal responsibility for making that happen. It falls on deaf ears. However, like you, I'm still enough of a 60's hippie filled with enough of my original youthful idealism that I'll keep trying. My idealism, unfortunately, has become tempered with realistic cynicism.

I'm in a position where I've seen firsthand the most pathetic examples of the human condition, things that are quite literally indescribable. I don't share your view that "anyone" can raise themselves up and achieve their dreams, principally because there are millions and millions of people who lack two of the most basic ingredients to make that happen...the dreams themselves, and the resources to make them happen. It's all well and good to hope for a better life, but the plain fact of the matter is that for these people there really and truly is no hope.

I had a relative who survived Dachau. I asked her once what made her keep going, being in that hellhole. She told me it was just a matter of putting one foot in front of the other, every single day, day after day...that as long as she was alive there was hope for a future. You would have liked her, because she was a living example of exactly what you're talking about. Here's where the argument breaks down, however...she was one of the lucky ones who did make it out, but the other 6 million could have had all the hopes and dreams in the world for all the good it did them.

Idealism unmixed with realism leads to the kinds of conclusions you've drawn, that there's enough fairie dust to sprinkle around such that everyone can move forward. Some can...some can't. It's not your thesis that's erroneous, it's the way you maintain it can be broadly applied without exception.

They are wrong or right, valid forever if they were ever valid. The conditions of the most impoverished places on Earth are due to decades or centuries of systematic violations of the liberties Maxwell supports. Dying babies and 80 pound mothers are the ones who need capitalism and political freedom the most. Fat party chairmen, Hollywood celebrities and hippie burn-outs can afford communism. The poor cannot.

And I absolutely agree.

Again, a simplistic treatment of a hugely complex set of issues.

You're right as far as you've gone but you're missing so many other causal components, which is typical when trying to promote or denounce a particular point of view.

This is hardly a comprehensive list but in addition to the violations of liberty you identify let's not forget the following, all contributing to the impoverished nature of far too many native Africans:

1. Many African nations are subject to brutal famine. You can't eat dirt.

2. There are entrenched cultural practices that Western society cannot understand which result in what we would consider to be poor resource management and distribution.

3. Those same cultural differences have prevented the application of what we would consider to be basic hygiene and prophylactic practices, not to mention the avoidance of modern medical treatment. The spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa is epidemic, due in part to people not seeking or even rejecting treatment.

4. Education is not a high priority for most people since most of their energy is taken up by issues of simple survival.

I could go on for hours, but hopefully you begin to get the picture. There are no easy answers.

BTW...this isn't confined to Africa. Many parts of Latin and South America and Asia are in worse shape.

.
.....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.

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.

"...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!

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.

.
....or the Germans, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Nigerians, or the South Africans, or whatever other nation on earth how to live, as long as they don't presume to tell me how to live and/or threaten our desired way of life. And that's not to say that as a nation we can't influence and/or help with other nations' problems in some way.

But I live in the USA, so my desires apply to the USA. If that makes me an isolationist in your eyes, then so be it. But I don't presume to tell some Frenchman how to live.

And personally, I believe we're hundreds of years away from having any workable form of world government and/or world society. In fact, I believe we're even hundreds of years away from even being close to setting the stage for such a thing. Call me short-sighted, but I'll let the folks in 2200 worry about it. For now, I have to figure out a few other things that apply to the here and now.

Dependence on luck, and the belief that random chance is the prime determinant of one's life, leads to a dismal outlook where liberty is meaningless because personal choice matters less than the luck of the draw. Maybe your relative did survive Dachau because of luck. But maybe it was because of the willingness to continue "putting one foot in front of the other, every single day" just in case her effort did matter.

.
....then what's the point?

Sometimes debate just for the sake of debate is enough of a point. What we're talking about here is too broadly based for us to reach any points.

However, since we're waxing philosophic...

I don't necessarily subscribe to determinism, although I'm comfortable with it conceptually, because I don't hold with any one particular philosophical construct. My own belief system is mostly a combination of determinism, pragmatism, and rationalism, which does sometimes present some conundrums since there are disconnects between those schools of thought. I don't like being pigeonholed, so I've come up with a synthesis of a variety of philosophies that I'm comfortable with.

At any rate, if you're looking for a point here it is...or more correctly, here they are:

1. Any philosophy or code of conduct posed by anyone at any time in history cannot be considered anything other than broad guidance. They can't be applied at an individual level.

2. 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.

3. No one's right, and everyone's right. No one's wrong, and everyone's wrong. Not getting metaphysical here, just saying that unless a particular approach has been developed as a result of drug induced schizophrenic paranoid delusional psychosis, there's at least a shred of truth to every approach and none are perfect. We all have to decide for ourselves what it is we're comfortable with.

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?

by hal 9000 Oct 2, 2005

Some power crazed Megalomaniac wants to get rid of the "White Farmers" and then not allow the land to be used to feed his countries people"

When the worst of Rwanda was happening I was support the "Doctors Without Borders" Organization way before the UN got involved and I had to organize the transport of supplies to the place which was almost impossible at the best of time and this certainly was not the best of times. I couldn't even keep up a supply of Surgical gloves to the Doctors working there they where washing them out as they finished using them and then reusing them until they fell to bits and could no longer be used.
What I found the worst thing about that whole situation is that it was the same race and the same religion they turned on each other for no reason that made any sense at all they took that country they was at least self sufficient and turned it into a disaster area that it is yet to recover from.

I only made one trip over there with supplies just after the UN had got involved and when I got the the main hospital compound I was appalled to see multiple injuries inflicted upon people who had obviously been previously treated and the moment that they where discharged from the hospital because of lack of everything including space meant at the very least another horrendous attack that involved multiple injuries being suffered and left for a slow agonizing death as it wasn't worth the effort to finish off the job.

While I'll never regret that work that I did there I'll also never pretend to understand the mentality that justified it either and what is even worse the Governments of the world ignoring it totally.

Col ]:)

Would the average person in all those countries you've described fare much better with the same rights that the Constitution guarantees to all US citizens?

I agree that there is widespread and avoidable poverty and suffering. Do you agree that the systematic violation of people's rights, as described by Maxwell, is the primary cause of that suffering? I believe that there is no correlation of talent or effort to race, and thus that every inequality that is correlated to race must have historical, political and/or social causes.

I am not so blind that I believe that recognizing each Earthling's inalienable rights would fix all that in a single generation. It may take as long as half a generation. It is certainly the only solution, and regardless of how long it takes to bring the poorest regions to the level of comfort enjoyed in most of North America and Western Europe that is what civilization means.

that it was "a hugely complex set of issues" and beyond their capacity or duty to help.

by zlitocook Oct 2, 2005

ok so you think your like your a person who is in contact with a bigger person? Do you hear voices or see what you talk about? There is places that can help you get your message out! Let me know if you would like me to help you? I can help you if you want, by letting you talk to a more captive group. All you have to do is ask and we can move you to a more secure area with lots of people.

I have clearly stated that my ideas "are drawn largely from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Theosophy."

All of these religions/philosophies predate Christianity.

Nowhere have I suggested any kind of personal "revelation."

But as you apparently know of Aleister Crowley, I will reassure you that my life story will not be called a hagiography.

But like Maxwell, I expect one. I know I don't post just to see words with my name associated with them. I have one or more ideas I'm trying to communicate. It looks to me like the point that you're trying to make is that this issue is hopelessly complicated, but I can't be sure because you have said that you have no point.

I want to be absolutely clear of the particular point of view I promote: individual rights. I don't disagree with treating the other causal components, only with treating them as excuses to treat individual rights as anything less than the first priority. The violation of individual rights has been the common cause of all these various messes, and is the primary requirement of any sustained solution. The rest will not take care of itself, but will be cared for by the people who will have the right to do so. Take for example poaching in Kenya, and the unprecedented improvement in herd numbers when locals were given the right to manage the herds in their own ancestral lands. A complex analysis of herd management expertise and motivated interest in the herd's long-term sustainability led to implementing the program, but recognition of individual rights is generally more elegant, and has the added allure of being moral as well.

Oh you're here all right -- carping and criticising and nit-picking.

But I was hoping that one or two of you could apply your much advertised superior reasoning powers to make at least a passably comprehensive list of ethics that you think would be fundamental to creating a harmonious and productive society.

by jaqui Oct 3, 2005

Tony Hal and I all gave you the one commandment with interpretations, needed to have this happen.

if people are scared they will be killed, they ain't gonna be causing to many problems.

a Dalek police force.

"Exterminate ! Exterminate ! Exterminate !"

by absolutely Oct 3, 2005

Your topic didn't ask for criticism so I haven't, I've provided my own version above.

When I talk about superior reasoning powers, I mean the human species. We're all too smart to be governed by lists. A harmonious and productive society requires principles that can be adapted to new situations, not a list of rules whose application to unforeseen situations is not described by any statement of principles.

by charliespencer Oct 3, 2005

"Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose."

You have the right to advance your happiness by any method you choose as long as it does not interfere with others advancing theirs. You are not obligated to assist anyone else with the advancement of their happiness, nor is anyone else obligated to assist you. Because our lives are currently of a limited length, and there is nothing after this life, it is inappropriate to hinder anyone from enjoying this short stay in a non-destructive fashion.

You know, that old "Live and let live" stuff.

"You have the right to advance your happiness by any method you choose as long as it does not interfere with others advancing theirs."

No argument with me on that one. In fact it has been one of my core values for many, many years.

by tony hopkinson Oct 3, 2005

but I'm not an atheist because I don't believe in no god either.
One thing I should point out, the rules of living together in a community were worked out long before organised religion came on the scene. They just 'approprited' them like a lot of their other stuff.

by levannah44 Oct 3, 2005

Bravo, Julian -- or should I just say God??

For just a moment, I'm going to be deadly serious, then I'll join in the fun.

If your look at the original TC -- in Hebrew, it translates out as the 'Ten Words' -- the first five were commandments between God and humanity.

The latter five commandments are those which pertain between human and human.

Seven of the commandments are negative, the other three are positive. Bit of an imbalance there, I think.

The earlier Noahide Laws (Genesis 9) were among the first attempts of humanity to bring together a set of ethical/moral standards under which everyone would strive to live.

Both these and the Ten Commandments are believed to be in part, even in full, based on the far earlier Code of Hammurabi, a huge black stele containing hundreds of laws devised by the king of Babylon (Hammurabi) almost four thousand years ago. The most famous of these laws is probably the Lex Talionis, better known as the law of talion, or 'an eye for an eye'.

Right, having said that, I'll have a go at formulating some laws now myself! (Not sure we need a God these days!)

1. Respect your father and mother.

2. Respect your elders and teachers.

3. Respect the natural world, and don't do anything to damage it.

4. Respect all animals and living things and do nothing to hurt them.

5. Do not murder.

6. Do not steal.

7. Do not bear false witness against anyone.

8. Do not covet.

9. Welcome the visitor (stranger) as one of your own.

10. Do not do anything to anyone you wouldn't want them doing to you.

Hmm. That WAS fun! Vote 1, 'Julian for God'!

for your usual enlightenment on the real meaning of the Hebrew. And yes, my own studies strongly suggest that the Code of Hammurabi was the first detailed system of ethics on the planet.

But lay off the "Julian for God" thing -- certain people actually think I am serious. Which makes you wonder -- are they paranoid or something?

by absolutely Oct 3, 2005

I daresay not one of them believes in any god, even the ones that attend services weekly or even daily. If a person believed that eternity was at stake, they would never once deviate from the teachings of their religion. Consequently, I surmise that nobody believes such a thing.

by levannah44 Oct 3, 2005

Point taken, Julian. I guess some people are just too thick to see the joke! -- or paranoid!

by jaqui Oct 3, 2005

personally, I'm not into necrophilia, but whatever floats yer boat.

by 69552901-69552901 Oct 3, 2005

As you posted above, yes, this is an open forum. HOWEVER, it is an IT forum, not a religious one. This post has no place here, and I find it mildy offensive that you are trying to force your beliefs on others.

by maxwell edison Oct 3, 2005

.
....why be only mildly offended?

Go for it! Go for the gusto!

If you choose to be offended, why not be EXTREMELY offended? After all, anything worth doing is worth doing well, all deserving of a 100 percent effort.

by absolutely Oct 4, 2005

:^O

Well that is how long I have been participating in discussions at TechRepublic.

In the "Miscellaneous" category, there are frequently "off topic" discussions, that is to say, not related to IT.

Religion has always been a popular topic, as have politics, ethics, sex, personal relationships, all manner of social issues.

If you would care to check some of the discussions in which I have participated recently, you will find these listed with my personal profile. You will also find that of the 20 most recent discussions in which I have participated, only two are about religion.

And it just happens to be sheer coincidence that I have started the two most recent discussions in which I have participated. At any other time period, you would quite likely find that there were no religious discussions.

Nor am I trying to force my beliefs on anyone. As it happens the discussion: "Does religion do more harm than good" has been a very popular discussion with significantly more input from atheists than from those who profess to follow some religion or other.

This discussion in which you have posted was started deliberately by me because the previous discussion had already attracted some 800 or so posts and was starting to get a bit unweildly.

by charliespencer Oct 3, 2005

I don't have much use for the non-technical topics in the Misc. category in general, or this thread in particular. However, I'd like to know how jul646 forced his beliefs on you or anyone else here. Did he tape your eyeballs open a la "Clockwork Orange"? I've never read any of his postings before today, but I don't think that approach fits his philosophy as published in this discussion.

If you don't like the topic, why not stop reading it? You may even wish to avoid the Miscellaneous forum entirely. There's lots of stuff in it more controversial than this.

by tony hopkinson Oct 3, 2005

Some of us can get much more offensive than this, keep reading, may be you'll get interested enough to contribute instead of carp.
LOL

by maxwell edison Oct 3, 2005

.
...he should put himself in the cross-fire of one the flame wars!

by hal 9000 Oct 3, 2005

But tell me this if they had a Shat load of oil under their feet do you think that it would still have happened?

Zimbabwe is going the same way at a great rate of knots so should we all wait for them to self destruct before becoming involved?

I know they don't have any oil either but you can bet that it would be a different story if they did.

Col ]:)

My intention -- which many people seem to have missed -- was NOT to deride the original ten, but to offer an alternative for people who have rejected mainstream religion but still have a spiritual yearning of some kind.

As clearly stated, they are derived from Eastern religious philosophies and HAVE NOT come to me as some kind of "revelation."

You may enjoy my humble attempt to create a hymn -- sticking as close as possible to the original text. [Of course it sounds much better with the music]

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

I am the Lord your God
You?ll have no gods before me
No image shall you make
Of anything in heaven
Or anything in earth
Or thing beneath the sea
You?ll bow not down before them
Or serve in any way
For I the Lord your God
A jealous God am I
For I the Lord your God
A jealous God am I

You shall not take the name
Of Lord your God in vain
Revere the sabbath day
For holy you shall keep it
You?ll do no work at all
Nor kin, nor guest, nor servant
For in six days I made
The heavens, earth and sea
The seventh day I rested
And blessed the sabbath day
The seventh day I rested
And blessed the seventh day

You shall also honour
Your father and your mother
That long may be your days
In the land your God gives to you
You shall not kill, nor steal
Nor commit adultery
You shall not bear false witness
Against your neighbour
You shall not covet any
Thing at all that?s his
You shall not covet any
Thing at all that?s his

by levannah44 Oct 3, 2005

I'd love to be able to hear the music, Julian. The words are fantastic; what tune is used, please?

The reason I wrote that particular hymn was that I do not know of any hymn previously written that contains all the commandments in the one hymn.

All my compositions have lyrics, melody and chord symbols. Just send me your postal address and I will send you a copy of the words and music.

This particular hymn has a majestic sound because I have written it in the key of A major, and have included some Major Seventh chords.

One day, hopefully, I will find the time to make a full arangement of it.

I would like Handel to arrange it for organ and full choir. However as he died almost 300 years ago (1759) he is probably too busy playing the harp.

Theoretically I could painstakingly arrange it for two manual organ with foot pedals. Theoretically I could also add four voices. It would take a long time, but I could do it.

As it is 20 years since I composed anything for the keyboard -- a few short pieces in the baroque style -- well who knows. But don't hold your breath.

by montgomery gator Oct 4, 2005

I like your poetic version of the "Big 10". If you have music, and with your permission, I might submit it to my priest and see if he might want to use it in a church service.

you show remarkable insight into the minds and souls of those who do. Perhaps you are clairvoyant?

This particular post of yours could perhaps be used in a philosophy course as an excellent example of totally irrational "reasoning."

I think perhaps it is even better than:

"If all cows eat grass, and all horses eat grass, then all cows are horses."

by tony hopkinson Oct 4, 2005

Advantages of being green
Intellectual Property
Is Evolution a Theory
Is that Tony a Commie
Should you report someone with child porn on their PC
Some of us can be orders of magnitude more offensive than our fellow australian member.

by jaqui Oct 4, 2005

1) if you look at me the wrong way, you die, your god(s) will know their own.
2) if you steal from anyone, you die
3) do anything other than what you are told, you die.

by raven2 Oct 4, 2005

What happened to the Christian concept of Jesus replacing the Laws of Moses with just two laws?

Love thy god with your whole heart, and Love thy neighbor as thyself.

If Jesus's coming is the dawn of a new era, and he is replacing the old system with a new one, why are we so focused on parts of the old religion? And why after almost 2000 years we have yet to really embrace and impliment the logical practical tenants of the message that was given to the world through the story of Jesus Christ.

by montgomery gator Oct 4, 2005

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. He did not do away with the 10 Commandments. He did say "Love the LORD your God with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", but He also said all the Law and Prophets hang on these. That is not doing away with them, what He did is explain the true meaning of the 10 Commandments.

Much of the old ritualistic system, such as the dietary laws, were specifically done away with, but we still need to follow the 10 Commandments in order to live up to these two laws. If you are using the Name of the LORD your God in vain, worshipping false gods, profaning the sabbath, and making false idols, you are not loving Him. If you are disrespecting your parents, murdering, stealing, lying, being envious, and committing adultery, you are not loving your neighbor as yourself.

Bravo, Tom! You just saved me having to say it all -- again! And very well said too. Thanks.

Sorry James, but neither of those laws are 'new', nor were they ever meant to replace the TC or other laws.

'Law' number 1: 'Love thy god with your whole heart'. This is simply an adaptation of Deut. 6:5 -- 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.'

It's also the beginning of what some people like to call the 'Jewish Credo' or Creed, 'Hear, O Israel!' (v.4). It's not, but I suppose because of what it says (up to the end of verse nine) it could be seen that way.

Jesus, when uttering these words, was merely teaching the people the words of this very holy and sacred prayer. It was not a new law.

'Law' number 2: 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'. This is a direct quote from Lev. 19:18, the so-called 'golden rule'.

No-one knows why it's called this, but it appears throughout the OT in both positive and negative forms, but all say the same thing: they demand for others the same kind of treatment we would want for ourselves.

Again, Jesus was simply enforcing a very old law for those he was teaching. Nothing new about it at all.

In view of the fact that very few of his listeners could probably read or write, all Jesus was striving to do was to reinforce these two extremely important old laws above all else, the first being one's duty to God, the second one's duty to one's neighbour.

Even if Jesus's listeners were unable to remember the TC, or the rest of the 600+ laws listed throughout the Torah (Pentateuch) -- highly likely, given their number -- then at least if they could remember these two major ones they couldn't go far wrong. That was Jesus's message, pure and simple.

Please read some of my other posts (in other, similar threads) to get an overview of HOW and WHAT Jesus actually taught his followers. It's not quite as esoteric as you make it seem.

Well for a start you have used the word incorrectly.

esoteric / adj.
(of a doctrine, mode of speech, etc.) intended only for, or intelligible only to, the initiated.

Traditional Christianity is exoteric and that is what James is referring to.

But please note: Luke 8:10 And he said, "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

It is quite clear (well to me, anyhow) that Jesus taught his disciples some truly ESOTERIC teachings which perhaps may not be recorded in the New Testament.

And then there is serious esoteric Christianity, which gives a whole new depth of meaning to the nature, role and teachings of Jesus.

Sometime in the far, far distant future -- so that certain persons will not think that I am puffed up with my own self-importance and conceit -- I may just start a thread on Esoteric Christianity.

by montgomery gator Oct 5, 2005

You have expanded on what I wrote, and given more of the background from the Hebrew scriptures. Much of the Christian New Testament quotes the Hebrew scriptures. Much of the New Testament is commentary on the Law and Prophets.

I particularly like what you wrote in the second to last paragraph, about two rules that are easy to remember.

When you say an arrangement, Julian, does that mean for a three or four manual organ or for a small group of instrumentalists? Or even both?

Address: 20A Wattle Ave., Ringwood, 3134 (Victoria). I would feel it a great honour to have a copy of the music so I can sing the words properly.

by amcol Oct 5, 2005

There are those of us on this board who find your puffery, self-importance, and conceit quite amusing. Don't deny us.

by montgomery gator Oct 5, 2005

And thank you for your kind words.

by montgomery gator Oct 5, 2005

Still enjoyed Dr Who anyway. :-)

With your permission, Julian, I know someone -- two someones, as it happens -- who could do just that; arrange your melody in any of your above-mentioned styles.

They are brothers, the elder is the Music Director of our congregation, who plays the organ (all keyboards) and used to sell organs and pianos as well. He's choir-master and does all the arrangements for a SATB choir.

The younger is a Director of Music at a Melbourne school, a composer (he composed a musical called 'Friends', which toured the States [US] some years ago), and also plays the organ and other keyboard instruments. In addition, he's a singer as well, a booming basso profundo!

If you're interested, I'll ask 'em. (The elder brother is also my daughter's sandek, or godfather!!)

Sorry, Julian. I realised afterwards that I'd probably used the wrong word, and yet, while I was only trying to answer James' specific quotes, I couldn't quite understand what he was driving at in his first para. Not to worry.

As for the thread (in the far, far distant future) on Esoteric Christianity, I think that would be both fun and educational.

You do that and I'll do one on the Kabbalah!

Once again, thank-you, Tom. I find (have found, considering all the other similar threads on religious topics in the recent past) that many people who profess Christianity and/or believe deeply in the NT (and who are no doubt very good people too) quite often simply can't accept the fact that Jesus was either quoting the OT and prophets to his followers, or (when it came to the parables) that he was also probably a Pharisee, since the parable was an invention of this group.

Everyone is very willing to quote extracts from the NT, duly sourcing them (as they believe) from their place in the Gospels. They never think to go to the real source of the material, back in the OT.

To use one instance myself, which would be amusing were it not so tragic, Jesus (as he dies on the cross) cries out (in Aramaic): 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?' or 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?'

How many people know he is only quoting Psalm 22?

The words and music will be in the post to you shortly.

Quite seriously, I do think this piece of music would sound great with a full arrangment.

Not quite the "Hallelujah Chorus" by Handel, but in its own way a nice little tune.