The New Ten Commandments

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wrongly positioned post.

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

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.

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.

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.

"...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.

.
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.....

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!

G

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

.
.....Brevity is the soul of wit.

I loved the one-liner.

.
.....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. 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.

"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.

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 ]:)

+ 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.

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!

G

. . .

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.

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!

G

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!

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!

G

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.

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.

G

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?

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 ]:)

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.

G

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.?

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. :D

Col ]:)

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.

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.

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.

G

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?

BE NICE TO EVERYONE!

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 :)

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.

.
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.

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?

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?

G

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

You had better practise dodging lightning bolts.

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??

G

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.

G

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.

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 ]:)

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!

G

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.

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!

G

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

Col ]:)

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.

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

Col ]:)

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.

G

And musically, too

http://tinyurl.com/cyox4

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!

G

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

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.

IT

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

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.

thank-you also :)

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.

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).

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.

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."