General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2191213

    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.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3073799

      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!

      • #3073747

        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.

        • #3073666

          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 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.

        • #3073643

          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.

        • #3073641

          Not exactly

          by amcol ·

          In reply to If Julian’s messages are tantamount to . . . . .

          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.

        • #3073638

          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!

        • #3073615


          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?

        • #3073538

          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.

        • #3073637

          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.

    • #3073793


      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

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

      • #3073784

        Number 5

        by puppybreath ·

        In reply to Interesting

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

        • #3073732

          Sorry, but

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Number 5

          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.

        • #3073720

          apologise to the grass ?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Sorry, but

          How funny!

      • #3073750

        The whole idea of this thread

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Interesting

        “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.

        • #3073749

          I understand – And I will comply

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The whole idea of this thread

          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.

        • #3073746

          I knew you would welcome the opportunity

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to The whole idea of this thread

          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.

        • #3073636

          2 are enough

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The whole idea of this thread

          (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.

        • #3072834

          The original 10 are fine with me

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to The whole idea of this thread

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

        • #3072668

          Good for you

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to The original 10 are fine with me

          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]


          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

        • #3072650

          Music, Maestro!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Good for you

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


        • #3072640

          I write all my own tunes

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Music, Maestro!

          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.

        • #3071364

          Thanks, Julian

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to I write all my own tunes

          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.


        • #3071324

          Musical arrangement

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Music, Maestro!

          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.

        • #3057601

          On arranging music

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Musical arrangement

          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!!)


        • #3057589

          Offer gratefully accepted, Gret

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Musical arrangement

          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.

        • #3073129


          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Good for you

          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.

    • #3073745

      The Ten Commandments of Liberty

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

      • #3073736

        Thank you Max

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to The Ten Commandments of Liberty

        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.

        • #3073730

          I take a lot of heat. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thank you Max

          ….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?

        • #3073662

          1960’s idealism

          by amcol ·

          In reply to I take a lot of heat. . . . .

          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.

        • #3073657

          Therefore what?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to 1960’s idealism

          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.

        • #3073648

          There is no conclusion

          by amcol ·

          In reply to Therefore what?

          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.

        • #3073633

          Just luck?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There is no conclusion

          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.

        • #3073624

          If you offer no conclusion. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There is no conclusion

          ….then what’s the point?

        • #3073622

          Who says there has to be a point?

          by amcol ·

          In reply to There is no conclusion

          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.

        • #3073562

          Making a point is not a formal requirement.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There is no conclusion

          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.

        • #3073634

          ideals are never “dated”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to 1960’s idealism

          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.

        • #3073623

          Very well said, Absolutely

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to ideals are never “dated”

          And I absolutely agree.

        • #3073621

          Not well said at all

          by amcol ·

          In reply to ideals are never “dated”

          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.

        • #3073591

          And then to watch a country like Zimbabwe head to its destruction because

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not well said at all

          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 ]:)

        • #3073588

          Yes or no, amcol:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not well said at all

          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.

        • #3073577

          HAL, the governments of the world decided

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not well said at all

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

        • #3073560

          so many other causal components

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not well said at all

          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.

        • #3072844

          Yes Ab’s I know the Political BS excuses

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not well said at all

          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 ]:)

        • #3073723

          On my Eigth Commandment

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thank you Max

          …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.

        • #3073717

          Aged parents

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to On my Eigth Commandment

          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.

        • #3073682

          Actually Max I’m glad that you brought this up

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to On my Eigth Commandment

          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?


        • #3073558

          “losing her marbles”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Actually Max I’m glad that you brought this up

          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.

        • #3073664

          Very noble, however…

          by amcol ·

          In reply to On my Eigth Commandment

          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.

        • #3073656

          By the way – There’s nothing “religious” about my messges

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          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.

        • #3073654

          Unless one’s own parents violates any of these commandments?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          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.

        • #3073651

          Nope, the playing field isn’t level. So what?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          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.

        • #3073650

          You said. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          “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?

        • #3073644

          OK, let’s take a deep breath here

          by amcol ·

          In reply to You said. . . .

          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.

        • #3073640

          I don’t presume to tell the French. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to OK, let’s take a deep breath here

          ….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.

        • #3073625

          “every major conflict throughout…history is rooted…in religiosity”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          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.

        • #3073354

          every major conflict is rooted in religiosity? NO WAY!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Very noble, however…

          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

        • #3072656

          a silly thing to suggest

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to every major conflict is rooted in religiosity? NO WAY!

          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.

        • #3066087

          Agreed, except….

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to every major conflict is rooted in religiosity? NO WAY!

          Regarding the Cold War, the communist nations wanted to export their doctrines of socialism and atheism.

          WWI was due to a powderkeg of entangling alliances going off when Archduke Ferdinand was assasinated in Bosnia. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany declared war on Russia (and so on).

          Of course, the alliances that created the WWI powderkeg could be thought of as a way for the nations that were part of the alliances to control resources. The UK and its navy to protect its Empire, Germany building up its navy to control their empire and counter the UK.

      • #3073693

        Great Max!

        by surflover ·

        In reply to The Ten Commandments of Liberty

        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…

    • #3073699

      A first draft

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

    • #3073690

      The ONE commandment

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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

      • #3073605


        by jaqui ·

        In reply to The ONE commandment

        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.

        • #3073590

          Well what’s wrong with

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to close…

          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 ]:)

        • #3073532


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Well what’s wrong with

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

    • #3073566


      by zlitocook ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

      • #3073549


        by jardinier ·

        In reply to ALEISTER CROWLEY

        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.

    • #3073556

      Where are all the atheists?

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

      • #3073531

        we did.

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Where are all the atheists?

        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.

        • #3073507

          Well all we need is

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to we did.

          a Dalek police force.

          “Exterminate ! Exterminate ! Exterminate !”

        • #3057716

          Daleks were so annoying

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Well all we need is

          Still enjoyed Dr Who anyway. 🙂

      • #3073463

        being productive

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Where are all the atheists?

        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.

      • #3072908

        Okay, here you go.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Where are all the atheists?

        “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.

        • #3072675

          Good one

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Okay, here you go.

          “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.

      • #3072750

        Well I don’t believe in god

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Where are all the atheists?

        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.

    • #3073536

      Code of ethics

      by levannah44 ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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’!


      • #3073510

        Thanks Gret

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Code of ethics

        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?

        • #3073454

          “are they paranoid or something?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Thanks Gret

          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.

        • #3072666

          For a person who never willingly enters a church

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “are they paranoid or something?”

          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.”

        • #3069460


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to For a person who never willingly enters a church

          Clairvoyance is not necessary when beliefs about eternity are involved. Any belief in eternal reward or punishment would make momentary convenience irrelevant. The fact that nominally religious people do act on range of the moment expediency in conflict with their dogmas and commandments proves conclusively that their myths about heaven and hell are not beliefs but smokescreens.

        • #3066199

          You must have been scarred as a child

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Rubbish!

          I’m “absolutely” amazed at how irrational you come across when you disagree with people about religion, while you’re seemingly very rational otherwise. (And no, I don’t subscribe to the normal “religious” anything. I’m probably more agnostic than anything else.) My guess is that you had some very unpleasant “religious” childhood experiences, and you’ve simply lost the ability to be reasonable with such matters.

          You suggest that it “proves conclusively that their myths about heaven and hell are not beliefs but smokescreens” because people act in a way that conflicts with their beliefs? Are you serious?

          Why do people “believe” (or KNOW) that eating fatty foods is bad for them, they try to avoid fatty foods, they certainly don’t have to eat fatty foods, but they eat them anyway?

          Why do people “believe” (or KNOW) that getting regular exercise is good for them, but they never do it?

          Why do people …..

          It doesn’t matter. People always act in a way that they KNOW is bad for them, and it doesn’t matter if it’s eating food that gives them a fat heart, or doing things that gives them a fat soul.

          In my opinion, Absolutely, you look just as foolish in these kinds of discussions as the avid bible thumper — both blinded by extremism. But at least the bible-thumper believes that it’s his duty to convert people, whereas you couldn’t possibly have such a feeling of “duty” to convert people to anything. You should do yourself a favor and simply take a pass on commenting in such discussions. After all, what point are you trying to make, or what change are you trying to bring about? In the political discussions, at least we’re debating issues that either directly or indirectly effect us. When it comes to these issues, however, while “discussing” things to become a little more enlightened as to how others think and believe is one thing; but debating on who’s right or wrong in a belief that effects absolutely no one else in the world is a total waste of time and an effort in futility.

        • #3065923

          Then why did you do it?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          “…but debating on who’s right or wrong in a belief that effects absolutely no one else in the world is a total waste of time and an effort in futility.”

          Right and wrong are defined by reality, not by imagination. That is the important aspect of legitimate morality, and it is a point worth arguing.

          “In my opinion, Absolutely, you look just as foolish in these kinds of discussions as the avid bible thumper — both blinded by extremism.”

          When one is correct, compromise is immoral, not extremism.

          “But at least the bible-thumper believes that it’s his duty to convert people, whereas you couldn’t possibly have such a feeling of “duty” to convert people to anything.”

          An interesting assumption. Will you tell me how you deduced it? If so, I will tell you which of your premises is incorrect.

        • #3070162

          Absolutely – I’ll pass

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          I’ll take a pass on discussing this any further. Quite frankly, I don?t give a damn. I just thought you might be open to hearing an unbiased and outside observation. I guess I was mistaken.

          Carry on…..

        • #3070101

          I’ll pass too

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          I’ll find something with more flexibility to bang my head against — like a brick wall.

        • #3070092

          Julian, you showed again that. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          …..Brevity is the soul of wit.

          I loved the one-liner.

        • #3070090

          However, Absolutely and I will undoubtedly. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          … to fight another day, but most likely on the same side of the battlefield, and for the same noble cause. He and I are both unwavering in our passion to defend individual liberty, which is the cornerstone of freedom, and which is absolutely necessary to maintain the greatness of America. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..

          (However, I say “endowed by our Creator”, he says “endowed by a stroke of luck.)

          ….That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        • #3070061

          True, Maxwell

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          “However, Absolutely and I will undoubtedly. . . . ……live to fight another day, but most likely on the same side of the battlefield, and for the same noble cause. He and I are both unwavering in our passion to defend individual liberty, which is the cornerstone of freedom, and which is absolutely necessary to maintain the greatness of America.”

          I’m sure you concluded that rationally, not by divine revelation!

          And I’m glad you mentioned the “endowed by our Creator” clause of the Declaration.

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..

          (However, I say “endowed by our Creator”, he says “endowed by a stroke of luck.)”

          Actually, if you had asked, you would know that I say my rights are self-endowed. I’m not waiting for god or King Saud to agree. And unless god itself wrote those words, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are statements of the rights that its authors endowed to themselves, or intended to secure and defend for themselves and their posterity. God obviously did not endow anybody with those rights, or else those rights would have been enjoyed from the first day of the first human through all eternity.

          But let’s talk about money and property and the right to ownership of the real things we earn. I’ve already wasted too much time begging adults to quit believing in fairy tales.

        • #3070001


          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to You must have been scarred as a child

          You could just as easily say that the Creators mentioned in that document where that parents of the child/person whatever because without them they individual wouldn’t exist would they?

          Depending on how you wish to read that document it can be very religious or nothing more than a lot of words congratulating the parents of the next generation. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3069442

          to be absolutely clear

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to For a person who never willingly enters a church

          It is absolutely impossible for any rational person to choose a moment’s convenience or pleasure over eternal bliss, or at the cost of eternal torture. The fact that people do choose to break the rules of their religions means, absolutely, that they do not really believe in the promised reward or in
          the promised punishment when they choose to break even the oddest, most obsolete dietary requirement of the Old Testament.

        • #3069396

          You should read the Bible before you quote from it

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to to be absolutely clear

          There are many instances, some of which I list below, in which Jesus replaced the old law with a new one.

          Matthew 5:38-39 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
          But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

          Matthew 5:31-32 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
          But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

          Mark 2:23-27 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
          And the Pharisees said unto him, “Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?”
          And he said unto them, “Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
          How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
          And he said unto them, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”

          Matthew 5:43-44 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
          But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

        • #3069384

          I have read the whole lousy thing.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You should read the Bible before you quote from it

          Your assumption that I have rejected it because of ignorance is incorrect.

        • #3069252

          He did more than simply replace these laws

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to You should read the Bible before you quote from it

          Good quotes, Julian.

          What Jesus did was give the true meaning behind the Law, to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” as has been mentioned previously in this thread. Jesus was fulfilling the Law and giving its true meaning. The old ritualistic law which was followed by rote was enhanced and updated in a way so that believers would follow the true spirit of the Law.

        • #3070132

          You need to know the background as well!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to You should read the Bible before you quote from it

          I may have said this before, but I guess it bears repeating if only to allow it to sink in a bit more.

          Jesus was at some time during his life, a Pharisee, who were the upholders of the law. My guess is that at the time of his bar mitzvah, when he was twelve and caught exchanging views with the priests in the Temple, the seed was probably sewn then.

          That aside, Jesus himself was a fully law-abiding Jew, keeping the laws in a way he saw fit.

          Now, unless a law (code, tradition, custom, habit, etc.) is explained down to the very last letter, there’s always room for interpretation. And this has always been the way with (a great many of) the Jewish laws. They need to be interpreted.

          Most of the Pharisees of Jesus’s time had slipped into the (bad, tired) habit of ‘rote’, simply quoting what they read about the laws without bothering to interpret them any more, a kind of ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ approach, laws without meaning.

          Everyone does it, even today, especially regular church-goers. How many people, for instance, rattling off a prayer (or similar) with the rest of the congregation really think about the meaning of that prayer anymore? Knowing something by rote saps the meaning out in short order.

          And so it was with the Pharisees. They rattled off the answers to any questions concerning the law by rote and this is what made Jesus furious with them. He frequently quarrelled with the Pharisees about interpretation because they saw his ‘new’ answers as the thin edge of the wedge, so to speak — an eroding away of the law to the point of amalgamation with the Romans, which is what the Sadduccees wanted.

          It’s easy to see the point the Pharisees were trying to make; they were afraid Jesus’s comments would indeed eventually lead to at least a more co-operative manner with the Romans, if not complete amalgamation with them. That’s because they didn’t really understand where Jesus was coming from.

          Just taking one of Julian’s examples at random, let’s see what it really says.

          ‘Matthew 5:43-44 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
          But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”‘

          The (old) law had always prevailed upon the devout Jew to ‘love your neighbour (as yourself’). Fine. Basically, that meant your family, your tribe, your fellow Jew.

          At the time when the laws first came into operation, i.e. after the Exodus from Egypt, and later still when a series of Judges ruled the land, there were twelve tribes.

          Following the Exile (sixth century BCE), this fell to two and by the time of Jesus, it was basically only two ‘official’ tribes left with a smattering of the remnants of some of the others.

          Right from the beginning there was minor conflict between tribes, even internecine spats on occasion because certain of the laws forbade some dealings between some of the tribes, for instance, priestly marriage.

          However, the particular law under discussion at the moment soon became ‘. . .and welcome the stranger in your midst, treating him (her) as one of yourselves’.

          Not just a left-over from four hundred years spent in Egypt as slaves, but also a warning that even friendly rivalry between tribes would not be tolerated.

          Then, especially after the ten tribes went missing, ‘stranger’ expanded in meaning to embrace those of other cultures and societies as well, not just Jews.

          Because of the current situation in Palestine (Canaan) at the time of Jesus, namely, the Roman occupation, this particular law had been in disrepute. How did anyone know who a ‘stranger’ might turn out to be? A Roman spy, perhaps, given the bloody conditions of the time with so many uprisings, assassinations, the zealots and all manner of negative vibes.

          So ‘stranger’ had become ‘enemy’ (with fairly good reason) and Jesus simply sought to reverse this thinking, much to the horror of the Pharisees.

          ‘Enemy’ in this case then, was basically any Roman. Anyone (other than the Sadduccees) seen to be on good terms with ‘the enemy’ was immediately suspect, but this is exactly what Jesus was saying the people should be!

          ‘Be nice to them, no matter what they might do to you,’ he was saying. ‘Invite them in, carry on as if nothing untoward was happening just to show them you mean no harm.’

          I’m not going through the rest of Julian’s quotes or I’ll end up writing a book! Anyone can do that themselves. Just remember to think of the background against which all this was happening, how things had been in the beginning after Egypt, and how everything had slowly changed over time.

          None of the Gospels were written in a vacuum. Everything they say, especially on the subject of the laws, finds a base and meaning somewhere in the OT. The (then) present situation bore heavily on what was said, and all these things need to be taken into account when either reading or quoting from them.

          OK, I’ve said my say! Back to you now, Julian and Tom!


        • #3069410

          You know something Absolutely?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “are they paranoid or something?”

          Your version of logic is so bizarre that I am sure Aristotle would die laughing at your absurd “reasoning” — that is if he didn’t clip you on the ear for being such a smart-ass.

          There is no point in attempting to reply to your posts rationally because they take irrationality to new and as yet undiscovered realms of stupidity.

          As you have had minimal contact with Christians let me enlighten you. I know personally of any number of Christians who welcome death because they are actually looking forward to spending eternity with Jesus.

          They do not necessarily stick to the teachings, but they sure as “hell” believe in the afterlife.

          Fortunately certain rabid fundamentalist Christians who used to clutter up these religious discussions with their rigid dogma haven’t as yet discovered these current two.

          But they were forever saying, completely in earnest, that they were merely concerned about saving we heretics from eternity in hell. Yes, Absolutely, many Christians do absolutely believe in the teachings, but do NOT necessarily practise the ethics.

          But don’t take my word for it — ask any of the brainwashed American evangelicals who voted your idiot president in for a second term. They believe the teachings fervently.

          There is not necessarily any correlation between believing and doing. Some of the nastiest people I have met have been Christians, but yet they believed in the doctrines.

          Anyhow I am glad for you that you are enjoying playing in the sandpits that I have created.

          Hopefully one day you will become an adult and actually look back and see how irrational are most of your assumptions.

        • #3070173

          One thing I know is that I don’t believe in fairy tales.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You know something Absolutely?

          “Hopefully one day you will become an adult and actually look back and see how irrational are most of your assumptions.”


        • #3072649

          Creeping paranoia

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Thanks Gret

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


    • #3073440

      This is an IT forum

      by 69552901-69552901 ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

      • #3073345

        If you choose to be offended. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to This is an IT forum

        ….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.

      • #3073338

        Where have you been for the past three years?

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to This is an IT forum

        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.

      • #3073263

        “Force Your Beliefs”?

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to This is an IT forum

        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.

      • #3072747

        Jesus H Christ !

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to This is an IT forum

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

        • #3072736

          Hey Tony – If he thinks THIS is offensive. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Jesus H Christ !

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

        • #3073256


          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Hey Tony – If he thinks THIS is offensive. . . .

          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.

    • #3073043


      by jaqui ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

    • #3072927

      Just a question

      by raven2 ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      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.

      • #3071516

        He did not replace the Law

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Just a question

        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.

        • #3071346

          Thank-you, Tom

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to He did not replace the Law

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


        • #3057739

          Most welcome.

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Thank-you, Tom

          And thank you for your kind words.

        • #3069456

          “I come not to strike down a word of the Law, but to fulfill it.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to He did not replace the Law

          Or something like that, isn’t really consistent with “Much of the old ritualistic system, such as the dietary laws, were specifically done away with…”

          But then, it’s only a religion, so facts and logic really aren’t applicable.

        • #3069386

          Whoops !

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “I come not to strike down a word of the Law, but to fulfill it.”

          Wrongly positioned post.

        • #3069308

          It is consistent

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to “I come not to strike down a word of the Law, but to fulfill it.”

          See Mark 7:14-23

          “14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, ?Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!? 17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, ?Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?? 20 And He said, ?What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” (NKJV)

          Since you have rejected the truth of the existence of the Living God, then you apparently are unable to see the logic. Julian and Levannah may not believe exactly the way I do, but they are still open and seeking the truth as they see fit, and I appreciate their scholarship, even if we are not in complete agreement. However, you have rejected any possibility that there is a God, and that is not logical.

        • #3065922

          What I have rejected is the lie of the existence

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is consistent

          of any god, be it Yhwh, Wakan-Tonka, Krishna or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All are fabrications, all interesting as parts of a culture, and all by-products of ignorance, except the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is the product of creative genius.

        • #3070004

          The big problem here Abs

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What I have rejected is the lie of the existence

          Is that quite a lot of Religions not founded in what is now knows as the Middle East do not have God/s as such. They being older parts of the world have outgrown them and replaced them with things that are more believable to the people of these areas.

          In the Buddhist faith particularly the Tibetan Buddhist faith the current Dali Lama is the 14 incantation of the same person who swore to keep returning until he freed ed his people from oppression and brought them all to enlightenment.

          As you have quite rightly said in many previous posts that matter & energy are interchangeable but what makes that 98 cents worth of chemicals in a Human Body Live? We could all mix up the right chemicals in a mixing bowl add the correct amount of water but no one would call it life! Would they now? Where do thoughts come from? What makes a Human being different from that mess that you have just created in your kitchen with those 98 cents worth of chemicals and the water?

          There must be far more to life than just a mix of a few chemicals and a lot of water and what the Hell Does 42 Actually Mean?

          OH incidental after a brief sabbatical involving a messed up File Server and a copy of 2003 ES I’m Back. 😉

          Col ]:)

        • #3070445

          98 cents worth of chemicals

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The big problem here Abs

          + 3 billion years. When you’ve watched 98 cents worth of chemicals that long under identical conditions to those on Earth when life emerged by chance from spontaneously formed proteins, you will have a worthy experiment. In a human lifetime, it is possible to witness ~ 10^2/3*10^9, 0.0000033% of the time it actually took, and the conditions are not the same. To begin to make any spontaneous generation experiment valid, you would have to conduct it in a clean room so that microorganisms don’t consume the proteins befor they come to life. Before the first life evolved, of course there were no predators, so the experiment cannot allow the introduction of any predators or consumers of the materials. Then of course, you would have to re-create the vulcanism, comet and asteroid impacts…

          Or, you can take on faith that life exists, and if once upon a time it did not, then at some point something happened. Personally, I think neilb has the right attitude: the question is pointless, except for the implications and applications to morality. My problem is with the conclusion that a god exists, and the subsequent claims of certain people that it has told them to limit my freedom to pursue my happiness in ways that do not affect them.

          Congrats on the File Server.

        • #3070113

          On ‘breaking the law’ and common sense

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to It is consistent

          Again, this is a matter of interpretation, as are most of the laws in the Torah.

          Many of the dietary laws had a health aspect behind them, as well as a religious one. In the case of, say for instance, pork meat — probably the best known of all the Jewish ‘kosher’ (meaning ‘purity’) laws anyway — I’ll take it as an example, because in all likelihood it’s what Tom’s quote refers to in any case.

          Religious and health reasons: Other societies sacrificed pig/boar to their gods then ate it and frequently became sick and even died. ‘We Jews aren’t going to do either!’ became the response.

          Pork, of all types, sacrificed to idols, was seen by the Jews as ‘wrong’, so it was something they decided never to ‘contaminate’ the worship of their God with!

          Making people sick, even killing them, was not only seen as those gods striking back, but the Jews wanted nothing to do with food that could possibly kill them, or idolatrous religious practices either.

          These days, of course, we have means of preserving food, of freezing it, killing the bug (in pork) that was killing the people, so in fact, it can readily be eaten just like anything else.

          Some people, however, CHOOSE not to eat pork products (and other non-kosher foods) simply for self-discipline, occasionally for religious reasons, sometimes other reasons. I don’t have a problem with people like that. The thing to remember at all times is that whichever reason is chosen, never allow it to become so rigid that it overrides common sense.

          Here’s something I actually witnessed. Many years ago when I was with the scouts and guides, we went away on a huge district camp over a long weekend just for Jewish groups.

          The scouts and guides camped under canvas — no, not together in those days! — while the cubs and brownies were in dormitories in log cabins — again, separated from one another!

          Came Saturday, the sabbath. Following the combined service, each branch of the movement went off to do their own thing under the eye of their leaders.

          During the afternoon, it rained; well actually, it came down in buckets. Most of the kids had been involved in outdoor activities of some kind or other — hikes, wide games, etc. — but were soon back indoors once the rain came.

          The scouts, guides and cubs were fairly close to the hall when the rain started; not so the brownies, who were off on quite a long hike. When they finally got back, they were soaked to the bone and freezing cold, despite raincoats and all the rest.

          The brownie leader, unfortunately, was extremely orthodox. While the other kids had had hot soup or a hot cocoa when they came in, then showered and changed into dry gear, not so for the poor brownies.

          Once the sabbath had been seen out (sunset), then the brownies could have soup or cocoa. Nothing must be heated on the sabbath; that was work!

          How about getting them out of their drenched clothes, allowing them to shower and change? No, showering was work, or turning on the taps was, so no showers, and no dry gear without showers!

          The log fire? Chuck on a few more logs for some extra warmth? No, that was work as well! In the end, I put some more logs on the fire anyway, the result being a shouting match between the brownie leader and myself for ‘breaking the law on the sabbath’!

          Well, up the law, as far as I was concerned. Yes, I received a reprimand from my own leader (I was only an assistant then) who, while orthodox, was not quite so hidebound as the brownie leader.

          And this is exactly what Tom’s quote, above, is saying. Even something classed as non-kosher or breaking the law can’t defile anyone if it’s eaten or done (we presume) as a last resort.

          If someone’s hungry and there’s nothing else to eat, you then eat what’s available, even if it’s not kosher (or breaking the law, as in my case). That’s simply common sense!

          Don’t think that Jewish law lacks common sense, either. It’s the practitioners who lack common sense, or lack the brains to interpret what should be common sense because, like the Pharisees of Jesus’s time, they’d become too hidebound in their thinking, too ‘blinkered’.

          On the other hand, what comes OUT of someone can be really horrible, enough to ‘defile’ him. One has only to read v.20 – 23 of Tom’s quote to see that!

          In the case I quoted from my own experience, I can definitely say that what came out of the brownie leader’s mouth during our little altercation most certainly defiled her! She did most of the yelling, by the way; I just stood and listened!

          Jewish law favours common sense. Progressive Jews, that modern branch of which I’m a member, is well into the 21st century by constantly re-interpreting the laws, not changing them.

          Unfortunately for the extremely orthodox, like the brownie leader mentioned, I’ve always thought of as having got stuck in the middle ages, even earlier, because that’s how the law was ‘interpreted’ — rigidly.

          This usually meant as per Moses ben Maimon, or Maimonides and his ‘Guide for the Perplexed’, an attempt to codify the Talmud to a size that could be understood again by most people.

          Maimonides was so revered in his time (and since) that it was ‘hands off’ after that, and, for the orthodox, the laws have stayed as they were in the twelfth century.

          I may not agree with everything the Progressive movement says, but I’m far more comfortable belonging to a branch of Judaism that continually looks to the future for guidance, rather than to the past.

          Tom, I never intended to be such a windbag, but I can get quite angry when I see quotes such as yours that are so glaringly simple to understand and yet, for some reason, they’re not.

          Maybe it’s time I buried my head in the sand and did something else for a while, or went and hibernated or something! This thread’s meant to be educational as well as fun. Botheratiion!


        • #3070017

          Excellent commentary

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to On ‘breaking the law’ and common sense

          Reminds me of another incident in the Gospels. Some of the Pharisees were upset that Jesus healed on the Sabbath:

          “10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up. 12 But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, ?Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity.? 13 And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
          14 But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, ?There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.?
          15 The Lord then answered him and said, ?Hypocrite! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or donkey from the stall, and lead it away to water it? 16 So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound?think of it?for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?? 17 And when He said these things, all His adversaries were put to shame; and all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him.” – Luke 13:10-17 (NKJV)

          And another similar incident:

          1 Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely. 2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, ?Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath??
          4 But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. 5 Then He answered them, saying, ?Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?? 6 And they could not answer Him regarding these things. – Luke 14:1-6 (NKJV)

          Also, I appreciate your earlier comment that Jesus may have been a Pharisee. He knew the Law, and taught in parables, like the Pharisees, but He gave the true spirit of the Law, instead of rote interpretation in the way most of the Pharisees did at the time.

          Also, like the Pharisees, He believed in the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, who wrote much of the New Testament, was also a Pharisee:

          “6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ?Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!?
          7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection?and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. 9 Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees? party arose and protested, saying, ?We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.?” – Acts 23:6-9

        • #3070403

          Thank-you, Tom

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Excellent commentary

          As you can see by your own contributions, the argument is, of course, exactly the same in all cases — rigidity and rote versus liberalism and tolerance.

          I find the problem most Christians have when reading the NT — well, the Gospels in particular — is that they tend to read them in a vacuum, which, to me, is the biggest no-no in history.

          They must be read in context as well as the background against which they were written, which at that time, was bloody, riot-filled, brother against brother as well as the Jews against the Romans in general; it was not a good time.

          And another thing many people don’t remember either, this time about the writers, is that they were all Jews, familiar with Jewish law, as were (for the most part) the audience they were writing for.

          So they often took short cuts about what they were saying since it was assumed (rightly at the time) that their readers knew the background, knew the basic laws themselves, so they didn’t need everything spelled out to them.

          It was only when it came to Jesus’s ‘version’ of explaining so many of the laws to them, the very beginnings of the ‘Jesus movement, later to become Christianity in Paul’s hands, that a little extra was required.

          I once thought I might write a book about looking at the Gospels with Jewish eyes, because there’s so much that Christian readers fail to see (from my own observations) that are crystal clear to a Jew, but that project’s on the back shelf at the moment, awaiting more time!

          I really welcome your feedback, Tom, because it shows that I’m getting my message through — if you can call it that!

          Thanks a heap!


        • #3070395

          Write the book, Gret !!!

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Excellent commentary

          I have learnt SO much from you in these various religious discussions because of your knowledge of OT Hebrew and Judaism in general.

          And the beauty of it all is that Christians can’t reject your views because they are derived from the same Bible.

        • #3070265


          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Excellent commentary

          Julian, I have every intention of writing a book on a Jewish look at the Christian scriptures, and I’ve already collected a great deal of material for it (as you can imagine), but there’s this dirty, four letter word called TIME.

          When I have some more of it, it’s all systems go. Promise!


          PS: A friend of mine in our congregation, one Bern Boas, now in his nineties, has already written a book called ‘It’s time to rewrite the Bible’, which puts paid to a helluva lot of rubbish in the OT. It’s a fantastic read.

          I can’t hope to emulate Bern, his scholarship being far greater than mine, but I’ll have a jolly good go!

        • #3059991

          “rejected any possibility that there is a God”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is consistent

          I’m rarely accused of being illogical, but I have now recovered from the shock. In fact, I fully recognize that there are things that I do not know. Among them is one item of uncertainty I share with absolutely every other person on Earth, including all who have come before us, and possibly all who follow us, which is what preceded the Big Bang. I am certain that there was no void, however, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy. Thus, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are all incorrect and invalid. I also know that every other creation myth I have ever been told is mere allegory (however poetic), and not at all factual. I conclude that none of the gods of any known religions actually exist, but I do not deny the possibility that some being did arrange things to its liking so that the Big Bang would yield life, but vicious enough life that it never stopped fighting amongst itself long enough to figure out what was really happening behind the curtain.

          Before you accuse me of dismissing a belief illogically, be sure that the belief I dismiss is plausible. Religions are not.

        • #3059961

          “some being did arrange things to its liking”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to “rejected any possibility that there is a God”

          Well if that’s not the definition of a god, could you please enlighten me (us) as to what it is?

          You may recall that in the previous discussion I said: “I believe (but DON’T KNOW) that there is an intelligence innate within the universe which caused, probably by some evolutionary process, all the manifested universe to come into being.”

          NOWHERE have I referred to this intelligence as a “being,” so I guess this makes you more of a theist than myself.

        • #3068723

          Or similarly it could

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to “rejected any possibility that there is a God”

          Just have been an unforeseen side effect that the Creator isn’t aware of anyway.

          When we let off an above ground fission weapon there are reports of lights dancing around inside the resulting cloud which could very well be galaxies appearing living and dieing in what to us is the blink of a eye but to those within the cloud an eternity where they do actually find out what 42 means. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3068635

          It still comes down to what you define ‘God’ as!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          What’s so terrible about the physical properties of the universe itself, or the physics, if you like, (homogeneous in all directions) organising themselves to form what’s become the universe?

          I hesitate to call this thing ‘being’ so as not to fall into the theist trap, but astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists all know that the universe is far weirder than anyone on this planet can imagine even in their wildest dreams, so why not a self-organising universe?

          A few years ago (a couple of decades or so, maybe), an hypothesis which became known as the ‘Gaia’ theory of the earth became very popular among scientists.

          It was the idea that our planet was in some way ‘alive’. Many went so far as to even call the earth ‘sentient’.

          The universe is a helluva lot larger than us, of course, but who’s to say the same thing couldn’t apply to it as well? And it’s not my idea; this has been around for some time in cosmological circles.

          And Col, just for your info, at about the same time, as I recall, all the math was coming up with the answer of 40, or close to it, which somehow ‘locked in’ as the ‘secret’ number of the universe! Not 42, but not so far off it — for real!


        • #3068621

          “self-organising universe?”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          So now we have a self-organising universe which is devoid of intelligence because if it were intelligent it might have to be called “God.”

          I really totally fail to understand what all the fuss is about.

          I don’t know and I don’t care whether or not there is a God or whether or not the universe is intelligent.

          The big drama in this discussion seems to be that some persons do not feel that their ethical and moral standards need to be ordained by a god.

          Yet none of these people has come up with a moral code that covers the total human condition.

          Could some atheist PLEASE use the grey matter which just “happened” to grow in their head to give a comprehensive list of ethics and morals which can be worked out by logic?

          Sorry, but the “Golden Rule” is too simplistic, and we have agreed that it means different things to different people.

        • #3071069


          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          If we can’t use the so-called Golden Rule because it means different things to different people, Julian, wouldn’t that also follow for any other moral and/or ethical standards anyone offered?

          It’s all in the interpretation, so what may be morally correct for one person could be just as morally incorrect for the next, especially when you’re asking both atheists and believers to contribute ideas that are acceptable to everyone.


        • #3071054

          Just because the “Golden Rule” is open ended …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          it does not necessarily follow that there are no universal absolute ethics.

          A few possibilities:

          1. Murder
          2. Grievous bodily harm
          3. Rape
          4. Incest — (leading to inbreeding)
          5. Child abuse
          6. Theft
          7. Kidnapping
          8. Treason
          9. Cyber crime
          10. Arson
          11. Wilful destruction of property
          12. Cruelty to animals

          etc. etc. These are of course already covered by existing laws, most of which were NOT dictated by any religion.

          And just to humour yourself and others: how about a mandatory death sentence for anyone stupid enough to believe in a god?

        • #3071171

          A couple of things here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          1 Gret they have it wrong with the number 40 they have made a basic error in the maths everyone knows that the answer is 42 so they should go back and redo the maths so that they can find out where they have gone wrong and correct the mistake. :p

          2 Jules How about making it a Mandatory Death Sentence for anyone that likes Windows and kill off their families as well people like that shouldn’t be allowed to breed as it contaminates the Gene Pool. :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3071170

          Again, it all revolves around interpretation

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Julian, I can see exactly where you’re coming from, but even the list you’ve given isn’t airtight enough.

          For instance, let’s take cruelty to animals. For some people, the killing of animals for our food is exactly that — cruelty. We’d all need to become vegetarians, or vegans or whatever to avoid ‘breaking’ such a law.

          For others, testing animals in laboratories is cruelty enough, but then, where would we test our drugs in the future, or what would happen to the cosmetic industry?

          Even murder, of a sort, becomes necessary when someone suffers from a painful and terminal illness. It’s called euthanasia, and some people accept it without comment while others will rant and rave about taking over from God.

          Grievous bodily harm or child abuse? Where do you draw the line? A smack on the backside for naughty behaviour, a thrashing with Dad’s belt until you’re bruised all over or worse, parents having sexual contact with their children?

          Many accept a smart smack on the backside as ‘normal’ practice in teaching right behaviour to children, even the belt thrashing. And there have even been those who’ve thought nothing of abusing children sexually, generally small, far-out religious groups of doubtful authenticity where this kind of behaviour is mostly described as ‘part of the religion’!

          Rape and incest are both written about in the Bible, if not exactly condoned by God, at least not condemned by him either. Yet it’s all there in black and white for anyone to read at any time.

          In other words, much in the same way as I tried to describe the ‘You shall not work on the Sabbath’ of the TC, it’s all a matter of interpretation. And boy, that’s probably as individual to everyone as there are people on the planet!

          And no, we do NOT need the mandatory death sentence for those silly enough to still believe in a God. That kind of thinking will die out one day soon (like, during the next millennium), so I’m not unduly fussed over that. Others may be, but I’m not.

          So any list that anyone, atheist or believer, suggests, while they may be mostly acceptable to the majority of people as sets of universal ethics, you’ll always find someone, somewhere, who will disagree with one or more of these ‘laws’, no matter what.

          And I’ve no intention of going into the original TCs themselves and pulling them apart to separate out which laws were either rejected or accepted by which religions and why, because everyone knows the answers to that already.

          Any subsequent set would invite just the same fiddling today, no matter what was done.


        • #3071024

          Universal ethics impossible

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Yes Gret, I know where you’re coming from too.

          “Grievous bodily harm” should be clear enough. Obviously it refers to serious injury that requires medical attention.

          Murder could be defined as: “Do not kill a person who has actually been born.”

          Please note that my list suggested “possibilities.”

          And there are several laws which you have not commented upon and so perhaps you accept these as more universal.

          It doesn’t really matter a hoot because each society evolves its own laws to deal with recurrent antisocial behaviour.

          Your postulation that belief in a god will die out within the next millennium is perhaps wishful thinking. For all YOU know, the scientific proof which you are looking for may actually be found — and at any time.

          I find that certain die-hard atheists who try and impose their beliefs on others more tiresome than some JWs that I have met, with whom I could at least have a decent conversation without either party getting huffy or defensive.

          And to Colin ? thanks for bringing up the subject of Windows, which proves that there is a god. How often have you and other IT people made reference to ?God Gates.?

        • #3071021

          Gret I must draw your attention to the comedian

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Bill Cosby and the story about “The Belt” which they had never seen but they knew all about it, it was something like 10 feet long 6 feet wide and had hooks on it that tore the meat off your bones.

          Yes Julian there is a new religion out there they are known as Microsofties and prey to Redmond 5 times a day. They have these silly little prayer rung with the Windows Logo on them which they lay out toward Redmond and prey for 15 minutes at a time. Unfortunately the rugs are such cheap junk that when they get up their foreheads are stained blue from the prayer rug. :p

          I’m not quite sure what it is that they are praying for but I’d like to believe that it is just one MS product that actually works properly anymore would be asking way too much. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3071002

          “die-hard atheists who try and impose their beliefs”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          So far, no atheists have knocked on my door and tried to scare me into accepting their beliefs. Jehovas Witnesses and the like certainly have tried…

          Thinking back, I can’t think of many TR threads concerning religion that have been started by any of us evil atheists. Most – if not all – have been started by you, Black Panther and ProtiusX. Not a “rational abandonment of the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” in sight, there. Believers one and all!

          Me? I don’t do any of the stuff on your list and more even though I guess I’m allowed to as I have no morals.

        • #3060725

          Don’t knock on doors, don’t start threads

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          but sure as hell get vocal when any religious thread becomes available.

          Participation in religious threads is NOT mandatory.

          So why are you here? Are you or are you not trying to “enlighten” the believers?

          Or do you perhaps just enjoy debating?

          All input of course is welcome, but don’t point the finger at the people who start religious threads as you obviously enjoy participating in them.

        • #3060704

          Where to from here?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          I’m not quite sure if I figure as an atheist or an agnostic, Julian. To be perfectly honest, I really don’t know what I am. Maybe I’m an apostate!

          I am Jewish by birth, but then that’s putting Judaism in the race basket in the same way Hitler did, and it’s not a race, or rather, it’s not just a race.

          Being Jewish does not mean I believe everything that Judaism teaches. If I was Orthodox, I’d be excommunicated for not believing (like Spinoza), but I don’t follow Orthodoxy. I’m proudly Progressive and very 21st century.

          So what that all makes me I still haven’t the faintest. I try to live a moral and ethical life, based on the morals and ethics I was taught as a kid, i.e. the TC, the Golden Rule and all the rest.

          I suppose now I follow those laws which to me are either self-disciplinary or seem self-evident in this weird world we inhabit.

          Common sense? Even that’s died a death, but following what I grew up with, as much as I’m able, simply makes sense to me. That’s not to say it will to the next person; in all probability, it won’t.

          And I never, but NEVER, try to thrust my beliefs on others unless they appear receptive. Even then, I’ve always held back a bit, but that’s just the way I am.

          So you see, folks, I’m just one confused gal trying to find the way amid all the chaos and disarray we call Earth.


        • #3060675

          Gret, you are ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          a seeker. You seek answers to questions which on the surface appear to be contradictions.

          If you don’t mind me quoting Jesus — who was a really cool dude with lots of wise sayings — then note the following:

          Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

          Presumably, as I have done, you will keep on seeking until you find answers that are satisfactory to you, or until you decide that there are no scientific answers to these questions.

          Actually I sit back and smile at the people who are so intent on either proving that there is no god, or that their particular god is the only true one.

          While I have my beliefs, and would describe myself as a religious person by nature, I actually don’t give a fig whether or not there is a god.

          In regard to the religious aspect of your Jewish heritage, then you are an apostate — just as I am in regard to my nominal Christian upbringing.

          If at some time in the future you feel that you are not going to get the answers you are seeking, then I recommend that you divert your time and energy to a more constructive and enjoyable pastime, such as bonking.

          It is a long time since I did all my esoteric study, but I recall a maxim: “You will find the truth when you stop looking for it.” I think this means in part that as the entire universe is a single entity, and no part can be separate from it, then while you position yourself as an observer of the game of life you cannot also be a player in the ultimate sense.

          Another verse which comes to mind: ?You will enter the light, but never touch the flame.?

          And if Neil is reading this, I will remind him of a statement he made in another discussion:

          “I like arguing religion as an academic exercise! Nice to see you back, Jules. You start some nice religious threads. How can I not respond!”

          Are there any other topics which you like to argue about as an academic exercise? If not, could you explain your particular fascination with religion?

        • #3044545

          Fascination with religion

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          I don’t particularly have one. I just like debating, arguing and – if I’m honest – delivering gratuitous insults. I generally find that it’s the religious types tend who to be less able debaters about their main subject than, say, Maxwell on “freedom” – and therefore more suited to the kind of easy debate that suits when I’m working. I have to think and research to properly disagree with Max, Absolutely or Apotheon, for example, and I rarely have time for that.

          I’ve only ever got seriously uptight on TR with the proponents of ID and Creationism and that was mainly because they are attempting to devalue something that I happen to believe in [b]without using any logical arguments to do it[/b].

          If you’ll check back, I think you’ll find that in the latest threads I’ve only seriously chipped in in response to your anti-atheist stance as it was a bit prejudiced and totally wrong and miffed me a bit.

          I [b]did[/b] welcome you back but you really are starting more posts than you used to. Do you have too much time on your hands? I don’t so I probably will resist the desire to respond in future.

          Neil 🙂

        • #3046653

          “More threads than I used to?”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          No. If anything less. I took a complete break from the discussions for about nine months, and only re-entered the arena with the “Does religion do more harm than good?”

          In the two years from November 2002 to November 2004, which is about the time that I exited for a while, I think I started about 85 threads, of which only a handful were about religion. There was such a variety of topics that I cannot remember most, but they included Iraq, politics in general, IT matters, and who knows what else.

          Religion is perhaps THE only topic which does not lend itself to proof by argument or reason. It can only be experienced subjectively.

          Let me compliment you on your ability to criticize/disagree in such a courteous manner.

          Do I have too much spare time on my hands? Not as much as some other members apparently:

          Absolutely: 1,560 posts since January, 2005.
          Julian: 1,806 posts since November, 2002
          Maxwell: 4,571 posts since August, 2001.
          HAL 9000: 6,009 posts since November, 2002.
          OzMedia: 11,214 posts since February, 2000.

        • #3046648

          Maxwell: 4,571 posts since August, 2001 – WOW

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Let’s see, 4,571 times a conservative average of 10 minutes per post, equals 45,710 minutes, divided by 60, equals 762 hours, times my potential hourly rate, equals WAY more time than I should have spent.

        • #3046645

          It is interesting to note, Max

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          that some of the people who spend a lot of time in general discussions, are also the people who make a huge contribution to the Technical Q & A.

          Perhaps they suffer a common ailment — insomnia?

        • #3046618

          Always ‘searching’, never finding

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Thanks for your reply, Julian. I daresay that, in a way, it’s put some things more in focus for me, and yet, I don’t think I’m really actively searching for anything.

          If that sounds odd, it’s as if I’m on the outside looking in; I’m not doing any searching myself, but I’m watching others search for what they want.

          Trouble is, I’m the happiest person alive, I’m very content with the way things are and I enjoy my life as it is. I feel no guilt by being an apostate, if that’s what I am, and have no feelings of separation from my community either.

          I don’t think I have my head in the sand over current issues, I’m fascinated with just about everything, and I enjoy listening to others and contributing where possible.

          If I was wealthy, I’d be called eccentric, but I don’t know the word for one who’s not.

          Is it just my curiosity (as ever) catching up with me at long last?


        • #3046615

          Gret, I don’t think Yahweh would be too pleased …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          to learn that you can be happy without believing in Him.

          You had better practise dodging lightning bolts.

        • #3046586

          Duck!?? . . . Just in case, then!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Lightning bolts? Wasn’t that Zeus or Jove or Thor or something? Didn’t know Yahweh was into chucking fits with thunderbolts. (If he was, then I bet he stole the idea from one of them!)

          Anyway, I don’t believe in him; how could something I don’t believe in hurt me??


        • #3046580

          Yahweh used to “slay” people

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          The method is not specified. I just thought a lightning bolt sounded more dramatic.

          Well of course if Yahweh did slay you, you would have your proof that He existed — not that it would do you much good after you were slain.

        • #3045269

          Methods of punishment and ‘slaughter’

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          Humour aside for a moment, Julian, your reply sent me scuttling off to my Torah again to look and see what word or words were used in Hebrew for ‘slay’ or ‘slain’, to see if it would throw any light on the method.

          And all I could come up with was — zilch! In the few examples I looked at, God (Yahweh or whoever) was pretty crafty in the way he acted.

          Punishment of the individual seems to have been chiefly psychological (Aaron, when he tried to set himself up as Moses’ equal) or medical (Miriam, at the same time because she sided with Aaron, suffered some skin infection for a few days).

          When it came to those individuals outside the family (Moses’ family, that is), it was stoning to death (the man who blasphemed) and for groups
          of people, it was natural disasters, such as a timely little earthquake (Korah’s rebellion).

          Now I’m the first to admit that’s only what he did to the Hebrews, his so-called ‘chosen’ people, because I only consulted my Torah for that info, not the entire OT.

          To find out how he slew non-Hebrews for the benefit of ‘his’ people will take a little longer, so hang around and I’ll let you know because it intrigues me anyway.

          Off the top of my head, I do remember one instance where a whole bunch of foreign enemies wanted to marry the Hebrew women they saw because of their beauty, so it was agreed they could provided they were all circumcised first.

          They agreed to this and were duly circumcised, and while they were still healing, God directed the Jews to slay the lot of ’em! Being weak and a bit sore, no doubt, they weren’t quite up to a battle, and the Jews killed them all.

          Now, was that Gideon and his 300, or am I getting it mixed up with something else? Be back soon, Julian, with a few more answers!


        • #3045258

          The Lord slew Er and Onan

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          I just went straight to that incident because I knew two people had been slain within a brief time frame.

          As I am currently edifying myself by watching a video of the life of David, here is the relevant excerpt from Scripture regarding David and Goliath:

          1 Samuel 17:49-50 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
          So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him.

          So David slew Goliath with a sling. I imagine Yahweh had quite a repertoire of methods of slaying.

        • #3045975

          How the Lord did it — not!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Or similarly it could

          My original Hebrew doesn’t use the word for ‘slay’ for either Er or Onan, Julian. Without a KJV in front of me, I’m only assuming it does use the word slay, but the Hebrew says that the Lord was displeased with Er and ‘took his life’.

          We’re not told how this was done, nor are we told why the Lord was displeased with Er; it simply was.

          As for Onan, while we’re definitely told why the Lord was displeased with him — he (Onan) refused to carry out the law of levirage with Tamar — again, the Lord only ‘took his life’.

          Neither instance uses the word for ‘slay’, and what is used literally means what it says — took his life — without further elaboration.

          The word ‘smote’, when used, also has no other meaning than to ‘strike’ or ‘hit’, although we imagine with some force.

          May have to take that one to the rabbi, although if that’s what the words say, that’s it. So I’m still as much in the dark as you are over this one, Julian.

          Thunderbolts seem to be diminishing by the minute!


      • #3071355

        Reinforcing an old system, not replacing it

        by levannah44 ·

        In reply to Just a question

        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.


        • #3071319

          Esoteric Christianity

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Reinforcing an old system, not replacing it

          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.

        • #3071276

          Why wait?

          by amcol ·

          In reply to Esoteric Christianity

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

        • #3069463

          Who is amcol?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Why wait?

          Well I thought that a person who has so much to say, and who takes delight in mocking me, must be a person of some substance.

          So I checked his profile — and what did I find?

          He has been a member since November 2004 — yes folks, that is 11 months — almost a full year.

          And his profile is just a gold mine of information.

          Professional Biography: nil.
          Interests: nil.
          Current Technology Implementation: nil.
          Contacts: nil.

          Number of threads started: 1.

          Participation in Technical Q & A: nil.

          So I will ask you amcol: Why did you bother joining this website if you have virtually nothing to contribute apart from your smug sarcasm?

          Well I suppose you could classify this post as a mild flame, but actually of course it is just a list of what I DIDN’T find on your profile.

          As you are apparently unwilling or unable to think up a topic for discussion, here is a suggestion for a thread that you might like to start to upgrade your activity rating:

          “Pompous, puffed-up persons who pollute TR with puerile, pathetic, pointless posts.”

        • #3066149


          by amcol ·

          In reply to Who is amcol?

          You conveniently omitted the fact that I’ve posted over 400 responses, which I admit is nowhere near your own more than 1,700 but I do try to contribute what and where I can.

          You also forgot to mention that 14 people count ME as a contact, which I find quite flattering. Let’s see…only 8 people count YOU as a contact. Maybe you should work on that.

          As to the reason I entitled this post “Thanks” it’s because you continue to prove my point by engaging me. I’m just putting you on, but you take yourself so incredibly seriously that you can’t see that. I actually like some of the stuff you write, I just find people like you who walk around like they’re the star of the movie about their own life rather irritating. Why do you keep responding to my jabs? If you weren’t so full of your own self nothing I say about you would be relevant.

          BTW, thanks also for the suggestion about the post I could start. I love your alliteration. Really rocks righteously.

        • #3057591

          Just couldn’t understand him!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Esoteric Christianity

          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!


        • #3057585

          That’s a done deal, Gret

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Esoteric Christianity

          and to amcol — my purpose is not to amuse you.

          Go find someone else to lampoon. Some people who have something of substance between their ears are actually making serious posts to this discussion.

        • #3057527

          How esoteric can you get?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to That’s a done deal, Gret

          Just let me know when, Julian, and you’re on! Oops; well, you know what I mean.

          I’m looking forward to this!


        • #3069466

          How esoteric?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to That’s a done deal, Gret

          I can get so esoteric that I am not even allowed to tell myself what I am thinking.

        • #3070111

          Coming to a thread near you . . .

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to How esoteric?

          OK, Julian, I get your point (ouch!!) and give up. You’re far better at this game than I’ll ever be!

          Seriously, though, when you’re ready to embark on your esoteric Christian thread, just let me know, so I know how far to go with the Kabbalah and Zohar.

          Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks.


        • #3070100

          I’ll wait a while

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to How esoteric?

          before I start a discussion on Esoteric Christianity.

          With any luck amcol might just laugh himself to death in the meantime, so that we can actually have a serious discussion with serious-minded people.

        • #3070401


          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to I’ll wait a while

          . . .

        • #3057733

          Well done

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Reinforcing an old system, not replacing it

          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.

        • #3057590


          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Well done

          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?


    • #3044616

      I have a more ‘catch all’ commandmant

      by fonken monken uk ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments


      • #3044507

        Or, to rephrase it

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to I have a more ‘catch all’ commandmant

        “Be Excellent to each other, and Party on Dude!!”

        – Bill S. Preston, Esq, and “Ted” Theodore Logan, AKA “Wyld Stallyns”

      • #3046631

        Can’t argue with that

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to I have a more ‘catch all’ commandmant

        Now if Moses, and Krishna, and Buddha, and Jesus, and Muhammad had all thought of that, I guess there would have been a lot less strife in the world.

        • #3046616

          Say ‘Hi!’ and smile

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Can’t argue with that

          On last night’s news, our PM, John Howard, was touting a recently released book entitled ‘Fifty ways to make the world a better place’, or words to that effect.

          I haven’t seen the entire book myself yet, but some of the suggestions were simply things like switching off the standby on your TV to save power and that kind of thing, but others were, or sounded like, many of the things we’ve been discussing in this thread.

          ‘Smile at everyone’, for instance, was one such. If everyone in the world smiled at everyone else, then the planet would indeed be a ‘much better place’. A lot nicer than scowling, anyway, or looking down the barrel of a gun.


        • #3045302


          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Say ‘Hi!’ and smile

          Does it count if I smile at you while pointing a gun at you? That would be little Johny Rottens approach but of course he wouldn’t do it himself as he might get hurt he would get his military people to do it. 🙂

          I can just see it now with his proposed anti terror laws some police officer empties a pistol into someone and they reply I was smiling as I shot him/her so I didn’t look as if I was at all threating. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3045266

          Smiling goes awry?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Gret

          You’re probably right, Col — unfortunately. But I’d tend to call it a grimace, or leer, or sneer, or something other than a smile, I think.

          Smiles are too nice to be corrupted by little JR, or his minions.


        • #3046611


          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Can’t argue with that

          When you’re smiling, when you’re smiling
          The whole world smiles with you
          When you’re laughing, when you’re laughing
          The sun comes shining through
          But when you’re crying, you bring on the rain
          So stop your sighing, be happy again
          Keep on smiling, ’cause when you’re smiling
          The whole world smiles with you.

          [Mark Fisher, Joe Goodwin and Larry Shay, 1928]

        • #3046582

          Nearly eighty years young!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Smiling

          Blimey, does that ever bring back the memories of childhood! That song’s just shy of eighty, give or take a couple of years!

          Don’t know how many people of the younger generation — my kids’ generation, that is — would know it though. Pity.

          However, I’m not sure if that’s what little Johnny R was thinking about when he was carrying on about that book.

          But wouldn’t it be fun if everyone knew that song, and whenever people met, they stopped to sing it to one another!

          We’d all slow down a bit, get away from the ‘rat race’, and the whole thing would be a real hoot. If everybody did it, the world really would be a much happier place to live.

          Good on you, Julian, for thinking of that song.


        • #3046533


          by fonken monken uk ·

          In reply to Can’t argue with that

          Now if Moses, and Krishna, and Buddha, and Jesus, and Muhammad had all thought of that, I guess there would have been a lot less strife in the world.

          Man, that would have been one hell of a get-together! One might even dare to say…enlightening?!

    • #3046574

      For certain people who are sick of hearing my opinions

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

    • #3045965

      As no one seem interested in the most important one

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      Tho Shall Not Get Caught!!!!!!!!!!! :p

      Col ]:)

      • #3045925

        Well spoken, maestro

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to As no one seem interested in the most important one

        Now it so happens that a friend of my sister who had been around a bit, said that she was convinced that the only sin in adultery was being found out.

        • #3045831

          Well Jules that isn’t exactly what I had in mind

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Well spoken, maestro

          When I wrote that, it was more along the lines of putting in a Nix Server into a MS only Shop.

          They still have not worked out why their Mail Server works so much better than their other Win 2003 boxes. :^O

          But the one thing that they do insist upon is that it isn’t touched as they like it. 😀

          Col ]:)

        • #3043755

          For your Jewish trivia file

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Well spoken, maestro

          There are shades of adultery in the TC. If a married woman and a married man (both married to others) have sex, then that’s definitely adultery.

          A married man and an unmarried woman is not adultery. A married woman and an unmarried man is adultery.

          Both unmarried, it isn’t adultery. Although widow and widower it is if levirage is applicable.

          Just thought you’d like to know, Julian.


        • #3043584

          No great surprise

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to For your Jewish trivia file

          We know that Judaism and Christianity are patriarchal, male chauvinistic religions.

          But perhaps you could give Germaine Greer a much needed orgasm by informing her of these rules.

      • #3045741

        Doing what?

        by levannah44 ·

        In reply to As no one seem interested in the most important one

        Anything? Something in particular?


        • #3043495


          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Doing what?

          That you are not supposed to be doing. :p

          I often insert Nix servers into MS Only Business in mission critical applications as I know that they will just keep working without the necessary reboots that accompany Windows. 😉

          Or it could be Speeding Offences I haven’t had one of those stick for over 20 years now. 🙂

          If they tell me that it can not be done I attempt to do it. Perhaps that’s why I haven’t been invited back to any MS security meetings as I broke their system in under 10 minutes and made it look easy. But unfortunately for the guy running the course he didn’t pick up what I had done until I told him what to look for. 😀

          Being the “Perfect Angel” that I am I never do anything at all wrong though and I learnt a very long time ago never to bring home Flowers for SHMBO as she immediately thinks that I’ve done something wrong. 🙁

          Or like today I went out to a job that was fairly urgent but not mission critical and took all of 5 minutes to fix up the system so it would be able to program the Garman Street Search memory stick and the people who had been attempting to get it up and running had wasted 4 days. Then when the map of Europe was loaded into the unit I had to tell the owner that he couldn’t get a direct route from Brisbane to any place in Europe as there where no roads that could get him there. :^O

          Col ]:)

        • #3045706

          Don’t overlook the possibility

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Doing what?

          that God can read your thoughts:

          Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

          [Well there goes my chance for eternal life out the window]

        • #3045662

          Well thank God I’m not Christian

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Don’t overlook the possibility

          Or the thought Police would have taken me away ages ago for reeducation. :p

          Col ]:)

        • #3116637

          How does G*d tell the difference?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Well thank God I’m not Christian

          If G*d is the god of Christians, Jews and, as Allah, Muslims, how does he tell the difference when someone isn’t one of those three religions (or at least nominally adheres to it)?

          So if someone who is a member of another religion outside the three ‘monotheistic’ religions, how can they be castigated for their misdeeds?

          Does G*d discriminate in this area for those religions which don’t accept him as their G*d?


        • #3116619

          He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          by black panther ·

          In reply to How does G*d tell the difference?

          Doctrine and creed and race mean nothing. No matter what we believe we were all children joined under one God. The only rule is God’s true law: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (May Eulitt)

          God does not care which religion is best. God does not care what religion people practice. They are all a blooming facet of the whole. All religions refer to the same God. (Mellen-Thomas Benedict)

          One man who had a near-death experience realized that the “God” of his religious background wasn’t anything like the reality. He learned that it doesn’t matter if people call him God, Allah, Great Spirit or whatever, he is one and the same. (Dr. Liz Dale)

          Everyone, religious or not, believing in God or not, transitions to the spirit world as part of the natural process of life. Just as one does not need to be religious to live in the physical world, one does not need to profess a particular faith to live in the spirit world. (Nora Spurgin)

          Heaven is about deeds, not creeds. Therefore, persons of many cultures and religions form the societies of heaven. (Emanuel Swedenborg)

          Religious beliefs have little to do with what we experience in the transition from one realm to another, except that we are allowed to see briefly the teacher or guru that we followed. Regardless of cultural or religious beliefs, we have the same basic experience at death. (Betty Bethards)

          God is not dependent on our belief, for our belief or disbelief in God does not affect God – only us. (P.M.H. Atwater)

          God cares little about our religious affiliation or church membership. Love is not limited to any one religion or even religion at all. Religions are cultural institutions but love is universal. (Kevin Williams)

          Kenneth was born and raised a Southern Baptist. As a child, he first made his commitment to Christ and was baptized with water. He was a member of the church all his life. He was saved, on the path toward heaven, a believer, a follower of Jesus, and he knew this assured him a place in heaven. Nevertheless, he had a NDE and it sent him straight to hell. (Rev. Kenneth Hagin)

          God is not a member of any church or religion. It is the churches and the religions that are members within the vastness and the glory that is God. There is no one religion just as there is no chosen people or person, nor any single way of regarding what cannot be fully comprehended. We are all sons of God in the sense that we are all souls of God’s creation, without gender, without form, without nationality, complete and whole and perfect as we explore the never-endingness of God’s wonderment. (P.M.H. Atwater)

        • #3135914

          Well, there’s care — and then there’s care, Panther

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          You know, Panther, I’d love to be able to believe what you say, because it would be so wonderfully easy, but that’s where my difficulty begins, I daresay.

          Actually, I was trying to differentiate between the G*d of the OT and ‘other’ gods when I wrote that post. The G*d of the OT is way different from some of these ‘other’ gods I’ve come across in my reading.

          The trouble is, even you fall into the trap I’m trying desperately to avoid, or at least figure out, the minute you say ‘he’. It immediately anthropomorphises G*d, which is extremely belittling by my standards. By doing that, it makes G*d so terribly parochial.

          I can’t believe in a G*d like that. I can’t believe that in a universe the size of ours, there is some anthropomorphic being who looks after our very insignificant little planet and us, the people on it. It’s just not RIGHT.

          If there is such a thing as G*d — and I’m not about to blindly accept yet, mind you — then whatever G*d is, it must be all things to all people the universe over, not just us. Unless G*d is that, I simply can’t believe in anything else.

          But I was brought up on the Bible — the OT — and the G*d pictured in those pages is vastly different to any G*d I could respect enough, admire enough, to believe in.

          I’m not even sure the ‘perfect’ G*d exists. And if it does, then it isn’t where I’m looking.


        • #3136571

          Just to register my agreement with Gret

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          And musically, too

        • #3136460

          I ALWAYS look on the bright side!

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          Thanks, Neil. I love that song and always join in loudly at the end of the video every time I play Life of Brian.

          It certainly puts us in our place!


        • #3136322

          as Albert said….

          by black panther ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.” – Albert Einstein

        • #3136283

          Thank you Black Panther

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          That is one of the best statements I have ever encountered regarding the universal(ist) nature of God and religion.

          I think you would not find much to disagree with in my own version.


          Sing praises to the Spirit of
          The greater universe
          Who has created all the wondrous
          Forms of life diverse
          ‘Tis it alone knows reasons why
          Things are just as they are
          But through our faith and trust in It
          We share It’s vision far

          We know not how, or why e’en we
          Came into being first
          Yet something deep inside us yearns
          To quench the ceaseless thirst
          The thirst for life, for love, for truth
          To know, to do, to be
          And that which drives us on our search
          Is It, or He, or She

          Beyond our reach, the stars, the sun
          Pay tribute to It’s might
          Infinity of time and space
          Reflect It’s boundless sight
          Mere specks are we, compared to these
          Yet at our core, we know
          That Spirit of the universe
          Within us, also glows

          It is our life, our mind, our strength
          It makes us who we are
          We cannot see, or touch, or feel
          Yet know It’s never far
          For we, in essence, are It’s soul
          We share It’s purpose great
          To manifest, in countless ways
          The fullness of It’s fate

        • #3137292

          Your Welcome ..jardinier

          by black panther ·

          In reply to He doesn’t care…according to NDE researchers

          thank-you also 🙂

    • #3136264


      by 2manycerts ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      I feel sad for you.

      You are obviously so proud of this crap that you took the time to post it.

      It is ethical tripe, philosophical kindergarten, sophomoric, juvenile, ill-conceived mind dregs.

      Just the type of mental junk food the populous loves.

      • #3136256

        So, not for you then?

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to BWHAHAHAHAHA


      • #3137268

        Oh dear …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to BWHAHAHAHAHA

        It appears that we have been visited by a discerning intellectual.

        I will make a mental note to cater for such persons in the next thread that I start.

        Excuse my ignorance, but I am unfamiliar with the word/phrase: “BWHAHAHAHAHA.”

        Is that something you would like me to add as the 11th commandment?

        • #3137153

          Perhaps the easiest thing to do…

          by it mgr/packer fan ·

          In reply to Oh dear …

          is to never open a thread that you start. Looking at your profile, it appears that you have IT knowledge, wouldn’t it be great if you could start a thread that would help those of us who are subscribers here, in our field, instead of this, which is useless to many of us?

        • #3117764

          Apparently you haven’t looked at the Misc section before

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Perhaps the easiest thing to do…

          The Miscellaneous section of Techrepublic has all sorts of useful stuff in it that has very little or nothing to do with IT.

          I find the Miscellaneous section to be the most useful and interesting part of Techrepublic.

          Now, I do prefer the original 10 Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai by the One True God, but I do respect Julian’s right to come up with his own. He and I do not agree on everything, but I do admire his intellect and scholarship, although we have drawn some different conclusions.

    • #3137159

      Didn’t look at this thread til today….

      by it mgr/packer fan ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      I completely agree with AMCOL- this may have been posted as humor, but this is not the place for a political thread– go on Yahoo, and fight it out between the Liberals and Conservatives- diss the Christians and bash the leaders of America in a time of war– but keep your political agenda off a board that many IT professionals use for informatin and support. And by the way, it offends me greatly, to see you list yourself as GOD- the CORRECT ten commandments clearly state, “Thou shalt have NO other gods before me”- someone has built their ego to a fever pitch– and then appears to enjoy putting others down, perhaps this is the only fun he has in life. If so, I suggest you go out and TALK to that vegetation you seem so intent on putting before the REAL God, and other people’s feelings.

      • #3137125

        This isn’t untypical

        by beads ·

        In reply to Didn’t look at this thread til today….

        Especially on the miscellaneous portion of the TR board.

        If your truly trying to learn tough technical information I’d refer you to any number of well moderated boards with specialist moderators.

        Heres my short list:

        Routers, Firewalls and Switches – Cisco, Juniper
        Micro Soft – Various lists, boards, etc.
        Security – Wilders for Virii, Worms, et. al.

        If anyone wants web links look me up and I will provide them but I will not post links to other boards here unless its to a specific fix.

        This is a fairly casual board with even more casual answers. I’ve never gotten into a truly tough drag out, throw down, in the guts of a technical problem here on TR. Especially in the miscellaneous section.

        Last one to the ISP VPN routing section at Cisco is a rotten egg!

        – beads

      • #3137062


        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Didn’t look at this thread til today….

        mis?cel?la?ne?ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ms-ln-s)
        Made up of a variety of parts or ingredients.
        Having a variety of characteristics, abilities, or appearances.
        Concerned with diverse subjects or aspects.
        [From Latin miscellneus, from miscellus, mixed, from miscre, to mix. See meik- in Indo-European Roots.]
        Yep. The last definition just about sums it up. The rest of this splendid web site has wonderful vistas of pure tekkie question and answer, discussion, thrust and counter-thrust.

        This bit is where we let our hair down (except for JDClyde who doesn’t have any).

        Here we get mature, measured dialogue (and the occasional demagogue) on diverse subjects and, I would conjecture, no more than 40% of us froth at the mouth whilst typing (except for JDClyde who, as he will admit) isn’t getting enough.

        If you don’t like it, go. “I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

        Feel honoured to be so dismissed.

    • #3118860

      Well Howdy Folks

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      Some latecomers to this discussion may be unaware that it started as a humorous side thread in the discussion: ?Does religion do more harm than good?? This was TOTALLY humorous and could be seen as such in that discussion.

      To stop that side thread from becoming too cumbersome, I started this discussion. I had no idea what to expect although I hoped that some members would take advantage of the opportunity to list their top ten rules for life. The only contributors who offered a set of 10 rules are Maxwell Edison: ?The Ten Commandments of Liberty? and Levannah44: ?Code of Ethics.?

      I can?t be held responsible for the few people who are stupid enough to believe that I actually think that I have some kind of superior insight.

      And for those who object to my deviating from the original Ten Commandments I would point out that TechRepublic is NOT a Christian website and I can express whatever views I wish.

      What has pleased me is that what started out as joke has brought forth an overall high quality of posts. I consider it to have been a very fruitful discussion. I have certainly learnt from it myself.

      No doubt I will be back some day with another religious thread and I thank all those people who have contributed serious posts to this discussion (which it appears is reluctant to die).

    • #3117709

      A more conscious sociey

      by justathought ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      Perhaps a more appropriate way of expressing the discussion topic would be: “Could the Ten Commandments in our time of today with the issues we face in the world, be revised to make a better living environment, a more conscious society, to bring more empathy in a world that has lost the concept of compassion.”

      • #3117566

        That’s a nice thought, “justathought”

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to A more conscious sociey

        Your suggestion quite likely would not have sparked off all the controversy that my version did.

        And if I had thought to phrase my post in that manner, it would have been difficult to accuse me of having an over-inflated ego.

        Would your version have attracted a greater number of serious posts? We will never know, but it is precisely the provocativeness of non-technical discussions — especially in the areas of politics and religion — which members appear to thrive on.

        Let me be the first to welcome you as a new member to the TR discussions and I hope to hear more from you.

    • #3271331

      6th Commandment

      by cas1949 ·

      In reply to The New Ten Commandments

      Your 6th reminded me of the 18th Century clergy, who had time on their hands and were wont to describe an English garden as the perfect example of God’s creation, with all of His creatures living in perfect harmony. Until, that is, someone took the trouble to look, and discovered the truth: that it was a battleground, with practically everything preying on everything else.

      The survival of the fittest?! (Now, where have I heard that before?)

      • #3271249

        Eat or be eaten

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to 6th Commandment

        is the law of nature.

        I actually avoid watching nature documentaries largely for this reason. Too gruesome for me.

        And as a gardener by trade, whatever I try to grow, some little beastie wants to eat it, or some fungus wants to grow on it and sap the life out of it.

        Here is a current real-life story. About 18 months ago I planted a number of rose bushes in a garden which I am paid to maintain. It was so long since I had grown roses that I had forgotten all about possums. They are nocturnal feeders and eat the young shoots, as well as damaging the plants by bending down the new stems so that they can feed.

        Realising that I had been through this scenario in my own garden, I knew that the only effective answer was to feed the possums each night.

        As the poor woman for whom I work has said: “You have given me a lifetime sentence.” They must be fed EVERY evening or the exercise is a waste of time.

        So we started off with two bananas and two slices of fruit bread. All was well.

        And then one morning the roses had been attacked again (an additional possum having been invited to dinner no doubt) and so it was three bananas every evening.

        When it got to four bananas I suggested to my client that it was a losing battle but she was prepared to fight on.

        Now it is five LARGE bananas and five slices of fruit bread and the roses are looking marvellous.

        • #3271243

          Barbecue possum! Mmmmmm!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Eat or be eaten

          You’re just too damn nice…

          I’m going fishing if the rain stops.


        • #3150136

          Possible solutions

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Barbecue possum! Mmmmmm!

          When I was formerly living with my Mum we had a large garden and I had about 80 different varieties of roses, including some miniature ones. It was easy to see the possums’ route to the garden as they climbed down a particular tree and walked a short way along the top of a paling fence before descending to the garden. They were clearly visible under floodlights which I had installed in order to (a) hang out my washing at night and (b) view the garden at night.

          There is no question whatsoever that if I had possessed a firearm I would have shot the blighters (totally against the law as they are a protected species). However not being an American 😉 I did not have an armoury.

          My brother-in-law USED to have a .22 rifle because he often had large amounts of cash in the house. However at this stage he was in the process of dying from brain cancer and I guess it never occurred to me to check for the rifle.

          HOWEVER, once I had spotted a mother possum with a baby on her back, well they looked so cute my animosity gradually waned.

          Just a few nights ago when I was driving down my own driveway at night, I saw a small mother possum with a huge baby on her back. The baby appeared to be almost as large as the mother.

          I am aware of your attitude towards “pets,” but some folk like myself really appreciate most kinds of fauna.

          Early in the episode I described in the previous post, I received an excited phone call one evening from my client: “I saw the possum ! I saw the possum !”

          As she has always wanted a furry pet but it has not been feasible because of her lifestyle, she is more than happy to feed the possums.

          We make lots of jokes about this ritual of feeding the beasties and so it is no longer regarded as an onerous task.

Viewing 18 reply threads