They’re 18 for Gods sake

Yes indeed it is a story but our morals come from being pack animals not from silly stories.

You shall not kill within the pack.................upset the peace of the pack by going after someone else mate and so on...............

The other day my fingertips paused when the phrase "risk-free racketeering" came to mind as a description of the educational system. I thought it might shock a few but I went ahead with it nevertheless.

The next day our flagship political comment programme, Newsnight, had a 20 minute long item on the downgrading of students in the GCE exams compared to last year which was the spike of "wonderful grades for all education" after 30 years of the kids getting 4% more intelligent annually in line with economic growth.

The Minister of Education and a few experts took part in what was a fairly acrimonious debate. One of those experts used the phrase "cosy cartel" as his description of our educational system. Which is risk-free racketeering really. I mean no risk of jail. They write their own propaganda you see and it's a big goose to a very little boo.

Our brave government is taking it on.

The problem is that if you hand out diplomas and whatnot, even gold stars in junior schools, too easily you get millions of citizens all thinking they know everything worth knowing and not afraid in the least of saying so. Once an expert always an expert.

Obviously blue-collar work becomes "untouchable" in the Indian caste system sense. Jeans at weekend are mandatory to boldly express denial.

I can't imagine anybody with intelligence staying in education one moment longer than the law says. Think of the money you could make while your rivals are all getting into $60 grand debt.

In that case why did Moses need to strenuously give such orders if none of his pack were stealing and committing adultery as you assert they were not.

One doesn't insist people stop doing something they are not doing to the extent of having the injunction carved into stone. Least of all a leader. Right?

So they were stealing and promiscuously fornicating. I've just proved it. So, by your own words, they were upsetting the peace of the pack.

Now answer the previous question eh?

I noticed many years ago that on Fri. and Sat. nights in the pub the guys with white collar jobs wore jeans and open neck shirts and the working guys were smartly turned out in suits and wearing ties. It was quite striking.

Odd isn't it.

One of the millionaire private spin doctors appeared on Newsnight for a serious interview about the third-in-line to the Throne's dick wearing shorts and sandals minus socks. It was disgusting. Worse than anything sweet little Brittni ever did imo.

Sky News had three ladies, in the approved age group, discussing Prince Harry's dick and when I turned over to Fox News there were three more ladies, in the same age group, mulling over the subject.

All six seemed to be in agreement that it was a disgusting episode.

Rupe owns both channels btw. (That's the Dirty Digger).

Brittni's Chief Inquisitor was staggered as well as disgusted.

I am confuse as in one posting you had seems to stated that the Moses story is a fantasy something I happen to agree with and now you are trying to say it had some basic in facts.

His ordering the killing of thousands on returning from the mountain top with the commandments does not matter as it just a story was your statement and now you are seeming to go in the other direction.

Still clinging to the Inquisition over there, eh?

In what way is a news programme like the Inquisition?

I often disagree with what you say, but that's ridiculous.

Your confused Bill. I never said the story was a fantasy.

The question you were asked was whether Moses' barbaric nature has led you to conclude that stealing and adultery are respectable which they obviously are in evolutionary terms.

Your evasion of the question on the grounds that there was no stealing or adultery in Moses's pack was ridiculous for the reason I gave. He would not order them to stop doing something that they were not doing and by doing so disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the tribe and thus its progress.

The Texas court has ordered the women in Texas to not take a quartet of adult footballers home to indulge themselves with to satisfy the urgings given them by its very own God. (see Sexual Life in Ancient Rome by Otto Keifer).

Will you state your objections to the 10 commandments on the grounds that Moses was a barbaric bastard? Which of them are set aside because of his alleged slaughter of innocents?

If you can't, or won't, will you stop using your specious argument? If you want to undermine the commandments you should use the proper arguments against them. Mainly that they are contrary to evolutionary principles.

As Texas is opposed to teaching evolution in schools it is at least consistent.

By the bible story Mosses was the chosen spoken person of god to his chosen people so his actions surely reflected on the silly Christian god big time.

If god was unhappy with Moses actions of breaking the commandment not to kill almost at once and of his very own people, he could had ended that relationship after the killings instead of giving him replacements tablets and allowing him to go on in the position of god spoken person for the rest of his life.

As Robert Heinlein stated

Man rarely, if ever, manages to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. — Robert A. Heinlein



When did I state such silliness my statements was that the very concepts of moral behaviors come from humans being pack animals not that those build in concepts in all cases override other drives/desires in humans.

Just state which of the 10 commandments you disagree with Bill. Never mind the flim-flam.

This is a man who quotes Heinlein. If you're talking credibility and understanding you'd be better off quoting Enid Blyton.

Why? what does that have to do with the silliness that moral concepts come from religion any religion instead of being build into us by evolution as a pack animal?

The concepts of not killing your fellow pack mates or causing problems in the pack by going after some other pack member belonging including his mate was existing many hundreds of thousands of years hell millions of years before the silly Moses story.

When you are hunting animals such as the mammoths you wish for your pack mates to have your back not holding onto grudges and you surely do not wish useful and all too few pack members being kill in fights inside the pack.

Silly man how do you feel toward Kipling another author I also love to quote?

How do you feel about Blyton?

Flim-flam Bill. You are scared of answering the question because you know you agree with them all but have no method of teaching people to obey them other than with judicial punishments.

How can adultery be grounds for divorce when the objective of divorce is to commit adultery?

And never mind the "mate" sophistries. We are talking about adultery. In 2012. Adultery is derived from monogamy. Not from jungle clearings. Mates can change by the hour.

Can homosexuals commit adultery? They are fond of reversing the meaning of words so I presume they will promote adultery as a good thing and if their influence grows the rest of the population will see it that way too after a certain interval of time.

Wiki has this about Mr Heinlein--



Whatever you think about that Bill I can derive everything he will have to say about Christianity from it. I should be able to do as I've heard it all so many times. And all for the same reason. Dick philosophy. You want Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue; Juliette; The 120 Days of Sodom; and Philosophy in the Bedroom to get into the fast lane with dick philosophy.

Let's hear Alternatives to Christianity. Pissing on the other side is raspberry work. It proves nothing and is no use.

So the threat of a non-existing god punishments should be used to keep control in society?

How about the ever increasing numbers of non-believers in this silliness?

In the UK the open non-believers will outnumber the believers by 2030. see below.

In any case morals does not come from believing in a god who will enforce the moral code in the afterlife.

As far as teaching a moral code without religion or even referring to the law that is not hard to do as most morals make sense for the individual and for the group to obey as a whole.

Those codes that do not promote the wellbeing of the society as a whole or the individuals in the society should be drop from the law and society teachings.

For example not working on the day of the lord or not having idols if you care to have them and so on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109488/2030-The-year-Britain-cease-Chrsitian-nation-march-secularism.html

The march of secularism means Britain may no longer be a Christian country in just 20 years, a report said yesterday.

If trends continue, the number of non-believers is set to overtake the number of Christians by 2030.

Christianity is losing more than half a million believers every year, while the count of atheists and agnostics is going up by almost 750,000 annually.

where in the world do you get ideas like this?

So the countries in the EU that now have many non-believers are more lawless and "sinful" places then more religion nations because the threat of a big bad god in heaven who will punish you do not hold the majority of the people in fear?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism