NationStates Jolt Archive

>_>

Well, it's true. Jesus wanted to put people to death for saying bad stuff about their parents. Or was that Moses?

>_>

Well, it's true. Jesus wanted to put people to death for saying bad stuff about their parents. Or was that Moses?

It was my dad.

Aw darn... your subject title looked so promising :(

"Bad" is debateable. But they are definately *incomplete*.

Aw darn... your subject title looked so promising :(

"Bad" is debateable. But they are definately *incomplete*.

I think that's simply because they haven't been revised in such a long time...

Aw darn... your subject title looked so promising :(

"Bad" is debateable. But they are definately *incomplete*.

There are some pretty bad things in there.

There are some pretty bad things in there.

You do realise that "bad" is not an absolute but a subjective or moral term?
Religious people define their holy books as good, therefore everything the book says is good. What moral system would you use to judge the books?

I think that's simply because they haven't been revised in such a long time...

In the koran's case, never. Because muslims believe it was written by their god. Which is stupid, because if it was really written by a god, the book would be Chuck Norris, and would roundhouse kick anyone who disobeyed him.

You do realise that "bad" is not an absolute but a subjective or moral term?
Religious people define their holy books as good, therefore everything the book says is good. What moral system would you use to judge the books?

Common sense.

Common sense.
Common sense isn't

Common sense.

Ah. And where did you get that from? What do you base it on?

Ah. And where did you get that from? What do you base it on?

Human nature. People don't like to be killed. People also get over having their religious idols insulted *cough*muslims*cough*.

Human nature. People don't like to be killed. People also get over having their religious idols insulted *cough*muslims*cough*.
Actually, for human nature, it's far easier and thus more often than not that we will destroy than anything else. Religion (or most of em anyway) goes against that.

we will even rationalize wasteful (as in not for food) killing with the idea that we will be improving something.

Human nature. People don't like to be killed. People also get over having their religious idols insulted *cough*muslims*cough*.

And people like to lie to gain an advantage or to make themselves look better. Is lying good, then?

The evil that is me wants this answered.

Are these passages on Child discipline good? Don't try telling me these verses support spanking or that the rod is figurative.

Proverbs

10:13. In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

13:24. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

22:15. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

23:13. Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

26:3. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

29:15. The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

20:30. The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.

Ok I think we can gain this sacred insight from the Bible. In order to properly raise a child we she beat him many times with a rod and leave wounds and stripes. Hitting people with a rod makes them smarter.

I'm not going to defend the bible, but doesn't the fact that the passage is entitled "proverbs" give you a hint on how literal these are to be taken?

Actually, for human nature, it's far easier and thus more often than not that we will destroy than anything else. Religion (or most of em anyway) goes against that.
This isn't so. Those who follow religion and pseudo-religious ideologies such as Communism are responsible for far more destruction, death and oppression than those who's ethical base is more natural and rational. When you put god(s) above humanity, and ancient texts above common sense and natural empathy, you get trouble. Who ever heard of Humanist genocides or suicide bombers?

"Do Christians, Jews and muslims all realise that their books make bad ethical bases?"

What book would you suggest instead? The Satanic Bible, perhaps? lol Is there an Atheistism handbook that you would recommend? Well, what would it be than?

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

The evil that is me wants this answered.

Are these passages on Child discipline good? Don't try telling me these verses support spanking or that the rod is figurative.

Proverbs

10:13. In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

13:24. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

22:15. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

23:13. Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

26:3. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

29:15. The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

20:30. The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.

Ok I think we can gain this sacred insight from the Bible. In order to properly raise a child we she beat him many times with a rod and leave wounds and stripes. Hitting people with a rod makes them smarter.I'll take you up on that. researching now.

oh and fyi. if you don't accept any figurative type explinantion. then you are adminting that you take the bible literally.

and if you do, sorry but no one can help you.

"Do Christians, Jews and muslims all realise that their books make bad ethical bases?"

What book would you suggest instead? The Satanic Bible, perhaps? lol Is there an Atheistism handbook that you would recommend? Well, what would it be than?

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

NO BLOODY BOOK. If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong, you have serious issues.

NO BLOODY BOOK. If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong, you have serious issues.

So you already know what is right and wrong? Enlighten me, glasshopper.

So you already know what is right and wrong? Enlighten me, glasshopper.

Are you people fricken retarded? Do you always need someone telling you what to do? Will your society collapse if you don't have someone or something telling you right from wrong?

Are you people fricken retarded? Do you always need someone telling you what to do? Will your society collapse if you don't have someone or something telling you right from wrong?

Yep. *nod*

Are you people fricken retarded? Do you always need someone telling you what to do? Will your society collapse if you don't have someone or something telling you right from wrong?

No, but you appear to be claiming that you have managed something which ethicists and philosophers have been struggling with for thousands and thousands of years, and so it only seems fair that you should spill the beans here. So what is the criterion by which you can judge what is right and what is wrong?

This is why Aspergians like me should lead the world. Because we come with a bloody built-in ethics module!

NO BLOODY BOOK. If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong, you have serious issues.
Precisely. When someone says "we'd all do whatever we like - killing, stealing etc - without a book to tell us how to behave", they're implicitly saying that they have no in-built, instinctive, morality. That would be extremely worrying if it was true - they're saying, in effect, that they're psychopaths.

And the stupid thing is that they will say it to people who don't follow the teachings of a book and yet obviously don't kill, steal etc. The evidence that divinely-dictated ethics are not necessary is right there before their eyes, but they won't accept it.

No, but you appear to be claiming that you have managed something which ethicists and philosophers have been struggling with for thousands and thousands of years, and so it only seems fair that you should spill the beans here. So what is the criterion by which you can judge what is right and what is wrong?

Don't kill people. Don't steal from people. Respect their privacy. People have their own space and belongings, and they have the right to kick you out.

If someone says something bad about you or something you value (ala muslims), get over it. A lot of the time, it's true, too, so you should work on that.

And the stupid thing is that they will say it to people who don't follow the teachings of a book and yet obviously don't kill, steal etc. The evidence that divinely-dictated ethics are not necessary is right there before their eyes, but they won't accept it.

Exactly. Like when Europeans came to Asia and America. The people they met there, for the most part, weren't doing wrong, or at least, weren't doing much worse than the Europeans themselves.

Don't kill people.

Even if they are about to kill you? Even if they are running death camps?

Don't steal from people.

Even if your children will starve if you don't?

No, but you appear to be claiming that you have managed something which ethicists and philosophers have been struggling with for thousands and thousands of years, and so it only seems fair that you should spill the beans here. So what is the criterion by which you can judge what is right and what is wrong?
Natural empathy, natural social survival instinct, and social teaching.

The reason that philosophers are still struggling with the question is that they're the wrong people to be trying to answer it. The answer lies in anthropology, biology and evolutionary psychology.

Even if they are about to kill you? Even if they are running death camps?

There are obviously exceptions.

Even if your children will starve if you don't?

See above.

Natural empathy, natural social survival instinct, and social teaching.

The reason that philosophers are still struggling with the question is that they're the wrong people to be trying to answer it. The answer lies in anthropology, biology and evolutionary psychology.

Nope. These fields can only tell us what happens in societies which adopt (for whatever reason) certain moral values rules or mores. They cannot tell us anything about value judgements or whether we should actually be moral.

There are obviously exceptions.



See above.

So, when you say "Don't kill people" you actually mean "Don't kill people, except for when it is right to kill people" and when you say "Don't steal from people, except for when it is right to steal from people", yes? So it isn't absolutely wrong to kill and steal?

So, when you say "Don't kill people" you actually mean "Don't kill people, except for when it is right to kill people" and when you say "Don't steal from people, except for when it is right to steal from people", yes? So it isn't absolutely wrong to kill and steal?

WELL DUH.

WELL DUH.

Hey, you're the one saying one thing, and meaning the opposite here, not me.

In essence all you are saying is 'do the moral thing', without defining or explaining what the moral thing is. Now this is of value, because it at least shows that we are somehow called to live an ethical life, but other than that it tells us nothing about how we should go about living that life.

So what are the criteria that make it right to kill, for example?

WELL DUH.so each person then can decide the exceptions to your rules.

meaning that as long as you can justify it, it's ok morally.

What book would you suggest instead? The Satanic Bible, perhaps? lol Is there an Atheistism handbook that you would recommend? Well, what would it be than?

Something by Kant, Bentham or Sartre perhaps ? Of course personal preference played a role in picking those three ;)

Hey, you're the one saying one thing, and meaning the opposite here, not me.

In essence all you are saying is 'do the moral thing', without defining or explaining what the moral thing is. Now this is of value, because it at least shows that we are somehow called to live an ethical life, but other than that it tells us nothing about how we should go about living that life.

So what are the criteria that make it right to kill, for example?

So... would you say that you're a sociopath, or a psychopath?

If you're a normal person, YOU TELL ME.

so each person then can decide the exceptions to your rules.

meaning that as long as you can justify it, it's ok morally.

No! I don't make the rules. The rules came with the universe! The rules came with the Big Bang or whatever! YOU SHOULD BLOODY KNOW!

Don't kill people. Don't steal from people.

I assume that the irony of giving the sixth and eighth commandments as moral rules in a thread where you reject ths books of the Faiths of Abraham hasn't escaped you entirely.

No! I don't make the rules. The rules came with the universe! The rules came with the Big Bang or whatever! YOU SHOULD BLOODY KNOW!

I like you. You're silly. :)

I assume that the irony of giving the sixth and eighth commandments as moral rules in a thread where you reject ths books of the Faiths of Abraham hasn't escaped you entirely.

But the faiths of Abraham do not back them up with reasoning ;)

So... would you say that you're a sociopath, or a psychopath?

If you're a normal person, YOU TELL ME.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking these questions. I'm not the one here claiming that he knows the difference between right, and wrong. That was you, I seem to remember -

If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong, you have serious issues.

I assume that the irony of giving the sixth and eighth commandments as moral rules in a thread where you reject ths books of the Faiths of Abraham hasn't escaped you entirely.

I assume that you're problemed enough to know that those commandments came long, long, long, long, long after the rules were made.

But the faiths of Abraham do not back them up with reasoning ;)

Perhaps they do however provide sufficient information to understand the rationale behind their judgements (other than the fairly obvious evolutionary* example that they give us historically - these cultures tried to live according to these values, and have not yet fucked up and died out).



* not in the biological sense

You know, everyone in this topic (except maybe Candelar), if society collapses one day, stay the hell away from me. Because y'all will be the murderers, thieves and rapists.

I assume that you're problemed enough to know that those commandments came long, long, long, long, long after the rules were made.

In what sense do you mean 'rules' here - accepted social norms or deeper metaphysical entities?

You know, everyone in this topic (except maybe Candelar), if society collapses one day, stay the hell away from me. Because y'all will be the murderers, thieves and rapists.

Asking questions != murder, theft and rape.

EDIT: did you actually just call me a rapist?

You know, everyone in this topic (except maybe Candelar), if society collapses one day, stay the hell away from me. Because y'all will be the murderers, thieves and rapists.

I already thought of a name for my roving band of maniacs. :)

In what sense do you mean 'rules' here - accepted social norms or deeper metaphysical entities?

Both. It's in the fabric of the universe. It's also written in Western law. Maybe, because, and I'll let you in on a little secret here... because the Western governments seem slightly more stable... up there... than y'all.

You know, everyone in this topic (except maybe Candelar), if society collapses one day, stay the hell away from me. Because y'all will be the murderers, thieves and rapists.

Why ? Do you believe religion has a monopoly on morals that forbid such things ?

Perhaps they do however provide sufficient information to understand the rationale behind their judgements (other than the fairly obvious evolutionary* example that they give us historically - these cultures tried to live according to these values, and have not yet fucked up and died out).

I agree that they do seem to work for societies. But it would be nice if God would tell us why, and what to do in situations not covered by commandments and examples :(

Why ? Do you believe religion has a monopoly on morals that forbid such things ?

No, because you're all QUESTIONING these morals.

Both. It's in the fabric of the universe.

Funny that none of our sciences seem to be able to detect even the merest shadow of its existence then...

...but, to return to the matter at hand, if the ethical dimension is inherent in the cosmos, then why shouldn't people use texts in order to understand it. We use texts to understand physics or mechanics, so why not ethics?

Don't kill people. Don't steal from people. Respect their privacy. People have their own space and belongings, and they have the right to kick you out.

If someone says something bad about you or something you value (ala muslims), get over it. A lot of the time, it's true, too, so you should work on that.You know, everyone in this topic (except maybe Candelar), if society collapses one day, stay the hell away from me. Because y'all will be the murderers, thieves and rapists.hmmm... someone doesn't seem to be following his own rules. here we are, asking questions and testing his Morals... and he doesn't seem to be 'Getting over it' infact, he seems to be getting worked up about it.

he does say A lot of the time it's true....

No, because you're all QUESTIONING these morals.

You say that as if it is a bad thing....

I hope you do realise that questioning morals can lead to reaffirming and strengthening them ? I for one prefer "do not do this because [reason]" above "do not do this, period".

hmmm... someone doesn't seem to be following his own rules. here we are, asking questions and testing his Morals... and he doesn't seem to be 'Getting over it' infact, he seems to be getting worked up about it.

he does say A lot of the time it's true....

They're not my morals, they're existence's morals! Who the hell questions opposing cold-blooded murder?

You say that as if it is a bad thing....

It is. We are corrupting the youth of Athens. Pass the hemlock, guv'nor.

NO BLOODY BOOK. If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong, you have serious issues.Are you people fricken retarded? Do you always need someone telling you what to do? Will your society collapse if you don't have someone or something telling you right from wrong?[Both. It's in the fabric of the universe. It's also written in Western law. Maybe, because, and I'll let you in on a little secret here... because the Western governments seem slightly more stable... up there... than y'all.

now he seems to be contradicting himself since most western governments have books to tell them right from wrong.

Consitution, Bill of rights, Law Books...

They're not my morals, they're existence's morals!

I suppose asking for a single iota of evidence for this assertion would be asking for too much?

Who the hell questions opposing cold-blooded murder?

By definition murder is wrong. The question is what distinguishes the justified killing that you advocated a few posts back from 'cold-blooded murder'?

now he seems to be contradicting himself since most western governments have books to tell them right from wrong.

Consitution, Bill of rights, Law Books...

Those books were based on the morals, not the other way round.

I suppose asking for a single iota of evidence for this assertion would be asking for too much?

You can't feel it? In your blood? In your bones? In your spirit?

...

Are you Yuuzhan Vong?

now he seems to be contradicting himself since most western governments have books to tell them right from wrong.

Consitution, Bill of rights, Law Books...

Nah: they don't speak of right and wrong (for the most part), put rather lay out mechanisms by which to achieve goals or avoid penalties. The law may define murder as a crime, and one which must be punished, but I don't think it tells us that is is Wrong.

You can't feel it? In your blood? In your bones? In your spirit?

That ethics are inherent in the cosmos? Nope.

Call me cautious here, but I don't trust those kind of instincts anyhow - they are a bit too close to hearing the voice of God commanding me to do things.

They're not my morals, they're existence's morals! Who the hell questions opposing cold-blooded murder?

Pat Robertson. :D

You can't feel it? In your blood? In your bones? In your spirit?


I thought it was just gas. :p

You can't feel it? In your blood? In your bones? In your spirit?

Sure, I have gutfeelings about right and wrong. So does my neighbour. His differ from mine on some issues, and correspond with others. Same is true for that lady down the street. And that lil boy playing with his car. And... I think you get the idea.

So.. since you dislike questioning and using reason to determine what one should and should not do - what makes your feelings superior to those of others ?

Nah: they don't speak of right and wrong (for the most part), put rather lay out mechanisms by which to achieve goals or avoid penalties. The law may define murder as a crime, and one which must be punished, but I don't think it tells us that is is Wrong.
it does, the Laws in the books (state, city and federal) define when you are wrong in the eyes of the law.

just as the constitution and bill of rights out line when the Government can act and when such actions are Wrong.

Just like Kievan-Prussia, I'm using the same broad definitions [s]he is.

I thought it was just gas. :p
Ahhhh....SbD baby! :D

Are you Yuuzhan Vong?

I'm giving you boiled down Derrida here, and you're giving me Star Wars novels?

Sure, I have gutfeelings about right and wrong. So does my neighbour. His differ from mine on some issues, and correspond with others. Same is true for that lady down the street. And that lil boy playing with his car. And... I think you get the idea.

So.. since you dislike questioning and using reason to determine what one should and should not do - what makes your feelings superior to those of others ?

Honestly? Because I use common sense. I don't get swayed by crap, be it religious, PC or whatever.

Sure, I have gutfeelings about right and wrong. So does my neighbour. His differ from mine on some issues, and correspond with others. Same is true for that lady down the street. And that lil boy playing with his car. And... I think you get the idea.

So.. since you dislike questioning and using reason to determine what one should and should not do - what makes your feelings superior to those of others ?
Didn't you read back? we're all Rapists, murders and theives because we didn't agree with him... :rolleyes:

it does, the Laws in the books (state, city and federal) define when you are wrong in the eyes of the law.

-emphasis added-

Indeed, but the law operates so as to maintain, or attempt to maintain, and ordered society: not to address the question of cosmis morality.

Let us posit that Kant's example of the categorical imperative is true - that is is wrong to lie - the law does not attempt to legislate against lying, except in a particular range of circumstances where it is obstructive to the ordered existence of society.

Honestly? Because I use common sense. I don't get swayed by crap, be it religious, PC or whatever.

What is the relation between this supposed metaphysical set of ethical rules, which are somehow inherent in the very fabric of existence, and common sense? Why do you assume that they are congruent?

What is the relation between this supposed metaphysical set of ethical rules, which are somehow inherent in the very fabric of existence, and common sense? Why do you assume that they are congruent?

It's in the Universal Fabric fineprint. *nod*

It's in the Universal Fabric fineprint. *nod*

Pass the me that ACME sub-atomic microscope, I want to check it for spelling errors.

Pass the me that ACME sub-atomic microscope, I want to check it for spelling errors.

Check it's grammar and diction while you're at it. *hands over the scope*

-emphasis added-

Indeed, but the law operates so as to maintain, or attempt to maintain, and ordered society: not to address the question of cosmis morality.

Let us posit that Kant's example of the categorical imperative is true - that is is wrong to lie - the law does not attempt to legislate against lying, except in a particular range of circumstances where it is obstructive to the ordered existence of society.that's true, and the same with the Morals that Kievan-Prussia is saying. only there are no results to breaking his Cosmic Morality. Religion has their equivalent of Punnishment, Laws have their penalties, but for humans, who balance logic with emotions, there is nothing to keep them on the moral path. thus there is no path since, as Kievan-Prussia said, there are exceptions. The Logic in man will expound on those exceptions and keep justifying it until there is no rule. while emotions can be used to keep one in the Cosmic Line, we have people here that discount Emotions as a viable reason for doing what is right over what is legal/good physical sensations.

that's true, and the same with the Morals that Kievan-Prussia is saying. only there are no results to breaking his Cosmic Morality.

Indeed, unless he is going to come out with some kind of karmic statement.

Nevertheless, it seems that we as human beings are for the most part in some way compelled* to be act in accordance with some idea of morality. Blaming this on the forces of evolution is one option, but then we must presupposed that it is in someway hardwired into us, and this has serious implications - frex, if we were to find someone of abnormal psychology or neurology who was wired differently, what kind of actions should we take with respect to such an amoral/immoral/differently moral individual?


* or 'called to' act in accordance with some idea of morality, to go back to Derrida - a pleasing phrasing in that it allows for the possibility of hearing the call, but not responding to it.

Indeed, unless he is going to come out with some kind of karmic statement.

Nevertheless, it seems that we as human beings are for the most part in some way compelled to be act in accordance with some idea of morality. Blaming this on the forces of evolution is one option, but then we must presupposed that it is in someway hardwired into us, and this has serious implications - frex, if we were to find someone of abnormal psychology or neurology who was wired differently, what kind of actions should we take with respect to such an amoral/immoral/differently moral individual?

Karma it could be. I don't pretend to know what's beyond life.

Humans have to find the right way to punish wrong actions.

No, because you're all QUESTIONING these morals.

Well yeah why not, they are not my morals. I've already got morals, they just happen to be alot more evil then everyone else's morals.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Indeed, unless he is going to come out with some kind of karmic statement.and karma, is in several Religions as well. then again he could say "Karma exsisted before religions." :rolleyes: Nevertheless, it seems that we as human beings are for the most part in some way compelled to be act in accordance with some idea of morality. Blaming this on the forces of evolution is one option, but then we must presupposed that it is in someway hardwired into us, and this has serious implications - frex, if we were to find someone of abnormal psychology or neurology who was wired differently, what kind of actions should we take with respect to such an amoral/immoral/differently moral individual?the action taken nowdays is to seperate that individual and attempt to 'correct' that person. :(

some don't see any wrong in stealing. others do it compusively... and we lable them Kleptomaniacs, and attempt to correct that, maybe they are on a different moral standing where everything is to be shared.

others can blame their actions on Nature. "It's not Unnatural, look at [animal] they also [behavior pattern], so why can't we"

To me, the truth is, there are many levels of Morals. Personal, Community, national, international. and each one has their own sets of 'rules' to follow.

I, for instance, will lie to myself. to either bolster confidence, or to test my convictions.

but I am lothe to lie to someone else, and it irritates me when someone lies to me.

however, I do understand that Lying is needed when dealing with other people as well as international relations. thus the moral quandry. when to lie? Is it alright to tell your GF/BF/Spouse that yes, that it's not the pants that makes their @$$ big?

or is it ok to say to someone... you won't get the job, so don't bother...

or to lie to avoid hurting their feelings or to give them confidence.

to bring in the topic of this thread. Religion (all forms) do offer a set of moral guidence tools that can help cut through that quandry. guidence on how to act and how to interact. each Religion has their own set which is why Martydom is ok for some while just the thought of harming someone is, in itself, a sin.

some choose not to follow religion but follow their own set of morals, and most find that those morals will shift and turn and bend depending on situations and those that follow them tend not to notice.

the set of morals one must follow isn't some cosmically granted one for not everyone has that same set. the set that a person must follow is the one most comfortable to them. and they must be willing to take the consiquences of their decision to follow their morals.

Karma it could be. I don't pretend to know what's beyond life. but you do claim to know what the "Cosmos" wants.

and what happens if the way to punnish breaks those cosmic morals?

You wanna know the funny thing? Between when I made this topic and now, I've changed my morals system.

You wanna know the funny thing? Between when I made this topic and now, I've changed my morals system.

And are you going to share them with us?

And are you going to share them with us?

You probably wouldn't like them.

You probably wouldn't like them.

Either tell us or be quiet and quit trying to play the 'International man of Mystery'.

The best moral system is to abandon the weak and fight for the strong and worthy.

The best moral system is to abandon the weak and fight for the strong and worthy.

You were right, I don't like them.

Go back to hiding under your bridge.

You wanna know the funny thing? Between when I made this topic and now, I've changed my morals system.
ah...so the comos changed it's ...

well it can't have a mind.

ah...so the comos changed it's ...

well it can't have a mind.

I don't think the cosmos changed. But I don't have to listen to them.

The best moral system is to abandon the weak and fight for the strong and worthy.
Might Makes Right and Survival Of the Fittest... a.k.a Majority Rules.

unfortunatly, Humans abandoned most of that Set of Moral codes a loong time ago.

and you should be thankful for that.

I'll take you up on that. researching now.

oh and fyi. if you don't accept any figurative type explinantion. then you are adminting that you take the bible literally.

and if you do, sorry but no one can help you.

Actually I take the the Bible as the best ignorance people to offer at the time. Still as a poster has said. The book is Proverbs which suggests you take the passages literaly.

Actually I take the the Bible as the best ignorance people to offer at the time. Still as a poster has said. The book is Proverbs which suggests you take the passages literaly.and the one problem is that alot of things are lost in translation... so looking for as close to the original I can find. Pardon the delay. :D

>_>

Well, it's true. Jesus wanted to put people to death for saying bad stuff about their parents. Or was that Moses?

yes, that's right..

the Golden Rule is a terrible idea -- treating others like you'd like to be treated is just plain wrong. We should all be sociopaths who only care about ourselves.

(that's just one example of many of how Biblical axioms lead to thoughtful, kind, compassionate, honest traits/actions... but i'm not going to rehash everything that's certainly already been said.)