Log in

View Full Version : 1 commandment


Sister Faith
November 7th, 2007, 09:21 PM
If they had to trim the 10 commandments down to 1, which one should be kept?

GeoffBoulton
November 7th, 2007, 11:10 PM
Thou shalt treat others as they would want to be treated themselves?


but if if HAS to be one of the originals then I guess it would have to be

thou shalt not kill

All of the others are either irrelevant or don't really do any long-term damage even if they can potentially be very stressful at the time.

Lord_Jereth
November 8th, 2007, 03:02 AM
How about 2?

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

:icon_cool: LJ

Sister Faith
November 8th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Thou shalt treat others as they would want to be treated themselves?


but if if HAS to be one of the originals then I guess it would have to be

thou shalt not kill

One of the originals? I thought all ten were the originals. You mean they've already been pared down to ten? Where the hell was I when they did that:icon_question: Anyways, I think Do unto others would cover everything.

All of the others are either irrelevant or don't really do any long-term damage even if they can potentially be very stressful at the time.

Sister Faith
November 8th, 2007, 01:16 PM
How about 2?



:icon_cool: LJ

I absolutely love George Carlin. Can't argue with the man's logic/humor. Wonder what he would think of CoG?

GeoffBoulton
November 8th, 2007, 01:35 PM
but if if HAS to be one of the originals then I guess it would have to be

thou shalt not kill

All of the others [other 9 commandments in the bible] are either irrelevant or don't really do any long-term damage even if they can potentially be very stressful at the time.

I didn't mean there were others and that they had been pared down. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

fosley
November 8th, 2007, 07:40 PM
I'd say keep the kill commandment, but use the NIV translation of "murder". I don't really have a problem with shooting the guy who's trying to kill you, etc., but otherwise it's not good to kill people. Well, it's never *good* to kill people, but sometimes it's less bad to kill certain people in certain cases.

But then, I think that one is kind of self-evident, so the lying and stealing and unfaithfulness commandments are probably more useful. Of course, those are fairly self-evident as well, so we could just do as Comedy Jesus says, and "Don't be a dick!"

Wallsy
November 10th, 2007, 12:49 PM
"Don't steal" is the obvious one to me. It covers everything, whether it be stealing someone's property, their spouse, thier dignity or their life. The others are either arbitrary "don't piss off YHWH" ones or can be reduced to "don't steal".


Wallsy.

MvT Cracker
November 18th, 2007, 04:45 AM
why not google it?

anything anyone could or would want to know ,all the facts needed to form an educated opinion on anything from law to religeon is there

how to guides
diagrams
translators
videos
mail

fosley
November 19th, 2007, 03:53 PM
So the One True Commandment should be "when in doubt (and periodically even when not in doubt), Google it"? I'll go with that.

Steve420
November 21st, 2007, 09:31 AM
Yes, I quite like that.

MvT Cracker
December 29th, 2007, 09:26 PM
So the One True Commandment should be "when in doubt (and periodically even when not in doubt), Google it"? I'll go with that.

:)

sudikics
December 30th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I like "Google it!" :D

I agree with Geoff. I think if there was going to be only one, it should be

"Treat others better than you would like to be treated yourself."

The Golden Rule, 2.0.

That way, with "better" in there, we can rule out suicidal people.

MvT Cracker
December 31st, 2007, 05:23 AM
I like "Google it!" :D

I agree with Geoff. I think if there was going to be only one, it should be

"Treat others better than you would like to be treated yourself."

The Golden Rule, 2.0.

That way, with "better" in there, we can rule out suicidal people.


in life your rule works

in google (possibly work and school)

"when in doubt (and periodically even when not in doubt), Google it"? I'll go with that.

liquid_fire
January 17th, 2008, 03:48 PM
in life your rule works

in google (possibly work and school)

"when in doubt (and periodically even when not in doubt), Google it"? I'll go with that.

With all due respect, I'd be pretty careful with this one chief: when you put something in charge of making a logical decision for you, you're suddenly no better off than any of the god-fearing sheeple out there. Maybe revise the statement to "educate yourself with google" instead of turning google into your magic 8-ball.

lancemiller777
January 22nd, 2008, 02:59 AM
I'm going with Liquid Fire and would state it:

USE GOOGLE + NO MAGIC 8 BALL + THINK FOR YOURSELF.

but thats project creep away from the OP wanting a single commandment.

In the trad way of old religion edicts I'd put "don't lie" up there.

I've found honesty have a power over people, by having a reputation for honesty I get a lot more support from people, people will listen to me more than others due to knowing I don't throw nice sounding garbage out as ideas.

In human/machine terms it could be summed up as
THOU SHALT NOT SPAM, OR THOU WILL BE CAST OUT.

hmm, I like that.

Wallsy
January 22nd, 2008, 06:46 AM
In the trad way of old religion edicts I'd put "don't lie" up there.

In human/machine terms it could be summed up as
THOU SHALT NOT SPAM, OR THOU WILL BE CAST OUT.

Spamming and lying are not the same thing at all…


Wallsy.

lancemiller777
January 22nd, 2008, 01:45 PM
Spamming and lying are not the same thing at all…


Wallsy.

Au contraire, Wallsy. My associating spam with lying is a very common way of thinking. Luckily for you, you have Google to help heal or mature your semantic lexicon.

While I was a temp contract search engine engineer at Microsoft, most of my job dealt with a lying form of spam. A website would have a domain name that feigned association with farm trucks, e.g. farm-trucks.org , and a title tag that said "Best Farm Equipment", then would turn out to have porn material as the main content on the site.


A webpage discussing spamming on Wikipedia:

Pages can be subject to, "spam." This refers to spamming of content, as opposed to email spam. Sometimes the spam is blatant, and may replace the entire page with an advertisement for a website. More often, it is in the form of a link related to the article, but to a commercial site for the purpose of its promotion. Wikipedia does employ some spam blocking technology by monitoring IP addresses that perform large numbers of updates across multiple articles.

http://www.spambutcher.com/new/wikipedia/

Wallsy
January 24th, 2008, 10:58 AM
While I was a temp contract search engine engineer at Microsoft, most of my job dealt with a lying form of spam. A website would have a domain name that feigned association with farm trucks, e.g. farm-trucks.org , and a title tag that said "Best Farm Equipment", then would turn out to have porn material as the main content on the site.

You can lie and spam at the same time, but you can also do each without doing the other.


Wallsy.

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 03:26 PM
Hey I finally get to say this....
Wallsy is right.
Finally agreed with him on something.

SlapstickDwarf
January 24th, 2008, 03:37 PM
"When in doubt, Google it"?

How about... "Google it."
Just Google whatever comes to mind and you're set. =)

-Slappy

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 03:40 PM
"Google it" is a common phrase, not much of a commandment.

SlapstickDwarf
January 24th, 2008, 03:42 PM
"Google it" is a common phrase, not much of a commandment.

I'll just have to settle with disagreeing with you, then.
"Google it" covers it nicely I'd say. How commonly used it is has little to no
relevance with how successful of a Commandment it will be. If you question
its simplicity, I'd have to counter by saying that its simplicity is its strength!

-Slappy

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 03:45 PM
Yeah you're right on that,
However commandments are more of things to live by.

Maybe Thou Shall Google It is better?

Eh, I fuck it. Google It.


(also scikidus, I got the "you're" right on the first try!)

SlapstickDwarf
January 24th, 2008, 03:52 PM
Yay, I'm already moving and shaking!

Perhaps I'll use this newfound success to branch off from the CoG and claim
to have read secret html coding with the TRUE story of the creators of
Google... and start my own church! LDS, eat my dust!

-Slappy

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Well have fun with that man if you do it.

SlapstickDwarf
January 24th, 2008, 04:03 PM
I've got to become a failed mainstream CoG Minister before I can create my
own offshoots. So it'll be a while!

-Slappy

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 04:06 PM
ha ha ha.
Well you can be a pre-failed mainstream CoG minister.

sudikics
January 24th, 2008, 06:35 PM
LOL! Good job, rzm61!

Although in the Heya! thread, you said "me" when you should have said "I." LOL

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 07:30 PM
:)

Well sorry I am not a grammar nut.
But I caught myself. thats what matters

sudikics
January 24th, 2008, 08:48 PM
:)

Well sorry I am not a grammar nut.
But I caught myself. thats what matters

:)

Well, sorry. I am a grammar "nut."
However, I caught myself, and that's what matters.


If I had written your post. :icon_lol:

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 08:59 PM
:(

You sadden me when you act like an nazi english teacher.
But you still have a place in my heart.
ha ha ha.

sudikics
January 24th, 2008, 09:07 PM
You know, that's why we're called "grammar nazis."

Fine. I'll make a double post, and in the second, I'll attempt to violate every rule I know.

sudikics
January 24th, 2008, 09:08 PM
ok he're me goes:

rzm61' how is him! That posts me are wrote now are hurting myselfs' brain's.

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 09:09 PM
That hurt my brain to read it.

I guess I now know where you're coming frome.

Ha! got it again :D

sudikics
January 24th, 2008, 09:12 PM
Forget post count, we should just go on about grammar.

Wait, that's already happening.

*bunkers down for onslaught once Wallsy logs on*

rzm61
January 24th, 2008, 09:13 PM
Yeah man.
I can't wait to hear the end of it.

lancemiller777
January 29th, 2008, 12:42 AM
Wallsy, you say two things:


Spamming and lying are not the same thing at all…
You can lie and spam at the same time, but you can also do each without doing the other.


Number one states that X and Y are NEVER in the same set.

Number two states that X and Y are sometimes in the same set.

I feel secure that statement number one (Spamming and lying are not the same thing at all) is incorrect.

sudikics
January 29th, 2008, 12:57 AM
Uh, I didn't read it like that. I saw number 1 more as spamming != lying. So you really end up with a venn diagram, two circles of spamming and lying, wiht an overlap.

Wallsy
January 29th, 2008, 02:51 AM
Uh, I didn't read it like that. I saw number 1 more as spamming != lying. So you really end up with a venn diagram, two circles of spamming and lying, wiht an overlap.

Exactly.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a130/tiggum/liespam.png


Wallsy.

rzm61
January 29th, 2008, 02:59 AM
Photoshoppped!
ha ha.

sorry, anyway thank you for the visual Wallsy. :D

sudikics
January 30th, 2008, 09:20 PM
Is there a way to directly add images to your posts from your hard drive?

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5CAdministrator%5CMy%20Documents%5CMy%20Pictures %5Cgoogle_king.GIF

Nope, didn't work.

Now let me try drop...

http://assets.drop.io/download/47a0e9bf/50d7a2f66101c0f912adbcf709392e1aae13d918/b6fa0a40-b1a6-012a-aa8a-00127994f632/dc6f2e60-b1a6-012a-8985-fc3c183d16d0/google_king_thumb.jpg

Nope.

I recommend http://drop.io (http://drop.io/). Upload, then copy and paste.

EDIT: Wait, no, never mind. It's not really secure. Hold on, let's try box.net...

...no, too complex. Won't let me link directly.

Uploading.com?

...argh! 30-second holding time!

Fine, Flickr. But everything will be completely private.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf.jpg?v=0

There.

sudikics
January 30th, 2008, 09:36 PM
Arrgh! It's a link! I've fixed it 3 times! Stay as a picture, damn you!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/2230827533_55a849febf_s.jpg

Loki
January 30th, 2008, 09:55 PM
Is there a way to directly add images to your posts from your hard drive?


I think so...

sudikics
January 30th, 2008, 10:53 PM
How did you do that? Does it involve those # <> and php buttons?

Loki
January 30th, 2008, 10:55 PM
How did you do that? Does it involve those # <> and php buttons?

No - look under "Additional Options" when you hit reply to a post...

Miscellaneous Options Show your signature
Automatically parse links in text
Disable smilies in text

Attach Files Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt zip




Thread Subscription Notification Type:
Do not subscribe No email notification Instant email notification Daily email notification Weekly email notification Rate Thread If you like, you can add a score for this thread.
Choose a rating 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

Thread Management Close this thread after you submit your message
Stick this thread after you submit your message

sudikics
January 30th, 2008, 11:02 PM
No - look under "Additional Options" when you hit reply to a post...

Miscellaneous Options Show your signature
Automatically parse links in text
Disable smilies in text

Attach Files Valid file extensions: bmp doc gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt zip




Thread Subscription Notification Type:
Do not subscribe No email notification Instant email notification Daily email notification Weekly email notification Rate Thread If you like, you can add a score for this thread.
Choose a rating 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

Thread Management Close this thread after you submit your message
Stick this thread after you submit your message




Mine doesn't have that. I guess it's an admin privledge.

Mine skips right from Misc. Options to Thread Subscription.

valdes
January 31st, 2008, 12:55 AM
Does any one here actually believe google is a god?
Or are u all atheists like arman?
cuz if its the later then I will stay as a member if not then i'd probably leave u alone

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 12:59 AM
We believe Google is the closest thing to a god. It's mainly to make a point about religion.

Loki
January 31st, 2008, 04:20 PM
Does any one here actually believe google is a god?
Or are u all atheists like arman?
cuz if its the later then I will stay as a member if not then i'd probably leave u alone

We've got all sorts here but I'd say the majority are atheists, agnostics and polytheists (wiccans and pagans) - a few monotheists too.
Whatever floats your boat...

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 05:46 PM
We've got all sorts here but I'd say the majority are atheists, agnostics and polytheists (wiccans and pagans) - a few monotheists too.
Whatever floats your boat...

Don't forget about the Pastafarians!

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 06:15 PM
And all of the other crazy stuff out there!

Hey, just got an idea: We tend to categorize people by how many gods they belive in, such as atheist, monotheist, and polytheist.

That covers 0, 1, and 2+. What about people that believe in a negative number of gods? And imaginary number of gods?

There are no prefixes for negative numbers, so I'll invent some, using negative prefixes (im-):

-1 gods: immonotheism
-(2+) gods: impolytheism

Wow. That concept hurts the head. A negative amount of gods? As in a void where god(s) should be?

And now, an imaginary/complex number of gods.

There's nothing even close for this. Any proposals?

"ij-" prefix, perhaps? Or "j-"?

In that case...

I think all imaginary numbers shoul dbe represented as complex here. Order:

(real part)(ij-)(imaginary part)(-theism)

So:

-(2+)-(2+)i: impolijimpolytheism
-(2+)-1i: impolijimmonotheism
-(2+)+0i: impolytheism
-(2+)+1i: impolijmonotheism
-(2+)+(2+)i: impolijpolytheism
-1-(2+)i: immonojimpolytheism
-1-1i: immonojimmonotheism
-1+0i: immonotheism
-1+1i: immonojmonotheism
-1+(2+)i: immonojpolytheism
0-(2+)i: ajimpolytheism
0-1i: ajimmonotheism
0+0i: atheism
0+1i: ajmonotheism
0+(2+)i: ajpolytheism
1-(2+)i: monojimpolytheism
1-1i: monojimmonotheism
1+0i: monotheism
1+1i: monojmonotheism
1+(2+)i: monojpolytheism
(2+)-(2+)i: polijimpolytheism
(2+)-1i: polijimmonotheism
(2+)+0i: polytheism
(2+)+1i: polijmonotheism
(2+)+(2+)i: polijpolytheism

I think I've just violated reality. :icon_lol:

"Guess what? I'm a immonojimmonotheist!"

Loki
January 31st, 2008, 06:28 PM
Got as far as...
"Hey, just got an idea: We tend to categorize people by how many gods they belive in, such as atheist, monotheist, and polytheist."
Then you went all numerical on me!

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 06:48 PM
"Guess what? I'm a immonojimmonotheist!"

You're more then just a immonojimmonotheist.
You're a looney. :D But we love you.

Loki
January 31st, 2008, 06:59 PM
You're a looney. :D But we love you.

What's this *we* thing? I'll speak for myself thanks:icon_cool:
I'm a big fan of scikidus - just not a fan of *we* :biggrin:

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 07:10 PM
What's this *we* thing? I'll speak for myself thanks:icon_cool:
I'm a big fan of scikidus - just not a fan of *we* :biggrin:

:( sorry mate.
I know what you mean. I don't like being clumped into a group automatically like that either.

So from now on. I will watch the "we" talk and just let it be "me" talk.
Also Loki, I am right there with you being a fan of scikidus.

Loki
January 31st, 2008, 07:22 PM
:( sorry mate.
I know what you mean. I don't like being clumped into a group automatically like that either.

So from now on. I will watch the "we" talk and just let it be "me" talk.
Also Loki, I am right there with you being a fan of scikidus.

I'm neutral :D

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 07:44 PM
Oh yeah?
So was the US in the beginning of World War II and look at where it got us.
ha ha.

Anyway gotta love working with electronics on multisimm, huh?

(Don't mind me. I am just bored doing school work.)

Loki
January 31st, 2008, 07:58 PM
Oh yeah?
So was the US in the beginning of World War II and look at where it got us.
ha ha.



Yah - it got you ahead of the game because all of the major powers had destroyed themselves.

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 08:07 PM
Not true.
However yeah the war was already being fought before we got involved.
So were at 100% health. Everyone else 65 or lower....ha ha.

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 08:11 PM
Hey, I like to stay neutral too. Never know when I'm going to say something that pisses me off. :icon_lol:

rzm, that leaves you saying, "But me love you." :icon_lol: [/sarc]

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 08:22 PM
Which I do sciky.
You of all people should know this by now.

as for other news, I am hungry as shit. Sitting in school for close to 12 hours with no food sucks.

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 08:27 PM
Um, I was mainly commenting on the grammar. Which seems to be turning into a sore subject. Never mind.

Tell me about it.

Bad breakfast.
Bad lunch.
Feel. Like. Shit.

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 08:29 PM
Yeah, I had a piss poor breakfast too.
No lunch.

I am about to go smoke then munch on some overpriced chips that we have here at school. However I don't think its too worth it.

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 08:34 PM
I have decided that I'm going to at some point build a RepRap robot.

But instead of plastic, it will extrude solidifying chocolate.

Once I have a chocolate RepRap, I will have it build another RepRap. Meanwhile, I will eat the first RepRap. :D

Chocolate!

rzm61
January 31st, 2008, 08:53 PM
Now what is the purpose of this said RepRap Robot?
Besides to be chocolaty and delicious...

sudikics
January 31st, 2008, 08:58 PM
The RepRap Robot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project) is a robot that can make all of its own parts.

It's completely unmarketable, because once you sell one...