Comparing Religion to an Abusive Husband

I'll probably regret opening this can of worms, but here goes. Obviously this topic will provoke some and be seen as an attack. I apologize to those who may be enraged by my comparison, but I want to express this because it is very real to me.

Religion is Like an Abusive Husband
Imagine an abusive husband as portrayed in many a headline and made-for-TV movie. He imposes his will on his wife, demanding of her sacrifice and devotion. He punishes infractions perhaps with a beating. But she stays with him anyway because he has told her that he loves her. Worse, he's threatened further harm if she ever tries to leave him. He occasionally treats her nice, brings her flowers, takes her out to dinner... leaving her with just a glimmer of hope.

"Take the kids and run!" is the advice of all her friends. The response, a typical "but I love him!" She has completely convinced herself of her love because it is the only way she can really justify to herself that it is ok to stay. She is blind to the possibility of having a life outside of this one. Much as someone tied to religion is blind to the possibility of life outside of the grasp of religion. She convinces herself to believe her husband loves her even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every single piece of evidence is tossed aside with a justification.

"But he hits you!"
"He doesn't really mean it. And he apologized."

"He won't let you pursue your dreams."
"But he's right... I should stay at home and take care of our children."

"He comes home drunk and angry every night."
"He works hard... he needs a way to unwind."

It doesn't matter what you throw at someone who is this afraid. She will always come up with a counter-argument that in her mind settles the matter.

This is religion in a nutshell. Keep them aboard with the fear of the wrath of God. Get them to believe no matter what the evidence. The result is a following that is so afraid of Hell that they will shut off all opposing evidence that might come their way. Hell was designed to be so scary that even the slightest possibility one might end up there frightens them into staying aboard. This is nothing more than a bully tactic, and is shameful in my eyes.

Atheism is like a problem child

Imagine a Mother and a young child walking down the street together. She imposes her will on her child, demanding of his obedience and time. She punishes her child with a spanking, but the child stays with his mother simply because she is his mother. She takes the child home and feeds him and her family with a nice hot meal, she showers her child, she puts on his clothes, she reads him a bed time story and she tucks him in, leaving the child filled with love and safety.

Now at night, the child knows he is not supposed to drink coke or eat anything with lots of sugar in it, just because his mom told him so. She said it would make him too hyper and not be able to fall asleep. The child ignores his mothers advise and drinks a coke anyways, I mean, his mom told him lots of things, and some of them weren't true. Like the time she told him that if he didn't do his homework right away, he would begin to get lazy. but he wasn't lazy, it was only one homework assignment that he didn't do. He begins to believe that his mother is wrong about everything, and that he knows best. he goes to his mother and tells her,

"I don't need you anymore"
"But you need me to know whats best for you, atleast for now while you are still young."

"You spank me!"
"Only to let you know that you shouldn't do something, its for your own good"

"You won't let me do what I want!"
"I didn't let you have coke at night because it would keep you up for some time, and you needed to be up early the next morning, and I didn't want you to be TIRED all day."

It didn't seem to matter what his mother said to him, the child just wouldn't listen. He couldn't fall asleep that night, but he linked it to being just too upset with his mom, it wasn't the coke. Soon he didn't listen to anything she told him to do, he could figure it out by himself.

Need i continue with what would happen to a child who does not listen to his mother or father who's intentions are only the best.

It doesn't seem to matter what you throw at an atheist. They will always come up with an excuse as to why God doesn't exist and how they are doing fine all by themselves.

Heaven was designed to be a reward, a glorious reward for those who love God, and God wants you to go there. he knows how to get you there, but if you don't listen, you'll end up being a child who doesn't listen to his mother.

If you knew about a HUUUUUGE delicious chocolate cake was hidden and you found it, wouldn't you want to share it with your best friend? if you smoked weed or did a certain drug and found out how amazing and mind altering it is, don't you want others to know the life changing experience as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dewitback

Atheism is like a problem child

Imagine a Mother and a young child walking down the street together. She imposes her will on her child, demanding of his obedience and time. She punishes her child with a spanking, but the child stays with his mother simply because she is his mother. She takes the child home and feeds him and her family with a nice hot meal, she showers her child, she puts on his clothes, she reads him a bed time story and she tucks him in, leaving the child filled with love and safety.

Now at night, the child knows he is not supposed to drink coke or eat anything with lots of sugar in it, just because his mom told him so. She said it would make him too hyper and not be able to fall asleep. The child ignores his mothers advise and drinks a coke anyways, I mean, his mom told him lots of things, and some of them weren't true. Like the time she told him that if he didn't do his homework right away, he would begin to get lazy. but he wasn't lazy, it was only one homework assignment that he didn't do. He begins to believe that his mother is wrong about everything, and that he knows best. he goes to his mother and tells her,

"I don't need you anymore"
"But you need me to know whats best for you, atleast for now while you are still young."

"You spank me!"
"Only to let you know that you shouldn't do something, its for your own good"

"You won't let me do what I want!"
"I didn't let you have coke at night because it would keep you up for some time, and you needed to be up early the next morning, and I didn't want you to be TIRED all day."

It didn't seem to matter what his mother said to him, the child just wouldn't listen. He couldn't fall asleep that night, but he linked it to being just too upset with his mom, it wasn't the coke. Soon he didn't listen to anything she told him to do, he could figure it out by himself.

Need i continue with what would happen to a child who does not listen to his mother or father who's intentions are only the best.

It doesn't seem to matter what you throw at an atheist. They will always come up with an excuse as to why God doesn't exist and how they are doing fine all by themselves.

Heaven was designed to be a reward, a glorious reward for those who love God, and God wants you to go there. he knows how to get you there, but if you don't listen, you'll end up being a child who doesn't listen to his mother.

If you knew about a HUUUUUGE delicious chocolate cake was hidden and you found it, wouldn't you want to share it with your best friend? if you smoked weed or did a certain drug and found out how amazing and mind altering it is, don't you want others to know the life changing experience as well?

---

What a comeback! :boogie:

Dewitback,

I appreciate this reply. Putting forth your view a similar format is an effective way of making the comparison. Unfortunately, your scenario makes many big assumptions about the mother/child relationship as well as Atheism itself in order to retain the parallel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dewitback

"I don't need you anymore"
"But you need me to know whats best for you, atleast for now while you are still young."

---

If mother represents God or religion in this picture, it misses the mark because mother will let the child go when he is no longer young. This is not at all like religion or God, dictating when cola and chocolate cake should be consumed for the rest of his life.

Quote:

---

Need i continue with what would happen to a child who does not listen to his mother or father who's intentions are only the best.

---

Who is to say which parents have the best intentions? Our world is full of criminally negligent mothers and fathers. Not to mention that problem children are very often a sign of problem parenting. If the parents really do have the best of intentions, it's of course good for the child. But again, the idea is to teach them to fend for themselves, then to set them free from the nest. Not to continue to impose arbitrary rules and ritual upon them for the rest of their lives.

Quote:

---

It doesn't seem to matter what you throw at an atheist. They will always come up with an excuse as to why God doesn't exist and how they are doing fine all by themselves.

---

Are you suggesting that an Atheist can't do fine by themselves? Are you aware that US prisons are filled with fewer Athiests per capita than the population at large? Perhaps you should define your usage of the word "fine."

Quote:

---

Heaven was designed to be a reward, a glorious reward for those who love God, and God wants you to go there. he knows how to get you there, but if you don't listen, you'll end up being a child who doesn't listen to his mother.

---

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment here, though perhaps not for the reasons you intended. This is precisely the church's message, and for precisely the reason a mother might promise a reward: to get the "child" to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Telling your child "clean your room and you'll get cake" does little to teach him the importance of being tidy. It only serves to teach that he shouldn't have to clean if no cake is promised. When he's off on his own and no one is baking for him, why would he bother ever cleaning up? The only reward he's ever known is cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Dewitback,

If mother represents God or religion in this picture, it misses the mark because mother will let the child go when he is no longer young. This is not at all like religion or God, dictating when cola and chocolate cake should be consumed for the rest of his life.


Who is to say which parents have the best intentions? Our world is full of criminally negligent mothers and fathers. Not to mention that problem children are very often a sign of problem parenting. If the parents really do have the best of intentions, it's of course good for the child. But again, the idea is to teach them to fend for themselves, then to set them free from the nest. Not to continue to impose arbitrary rules and ritual upon them for the rest of their lives.

---

You state the same thing in the last two paragraphs. That God dictates everything you do your whole life, while a mother only does it for a while and then lets you go. Well, I purposely mentioned, "...while you are still young" (when the mother is talking to the child). When you listen to God while you are "young" in religion, you don't know too much and you are like child. But, as you grow, God's rules and regulations become your own rules and regulations. Like a child who listens to their mother or father, they begin to develop the same morality no? Your parents teach you not to steal when you are young, so in the future, are you not to going steal because your parents said so? or because you found out that, "hey, stealing isn't the way." or going back to the story i made up. In the future, when you know that coke keeps you up, will you think, "i'm not going to drink coke because my parents told me so!" or are you going to make the decision because its best for you, and you actually have to be up early in the morning?

The longer you listen to God, the more his rule make sense, and the more you make his morality your own morality.

No, not all parents are the best, and some are abusive. but i was talking about an ideal mother, like and ideal God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Are you suggesting that an Atheist can't do fine by themselves? Are you aware that US prisons are filled with fewer Athiests per capita than the population at large? Perhaps you should define your usage of the word "fine."

---

Sorry, I'll clarify what i meant by "fine". I meant it in a way that compares Mom-God. If you don't listen to your mother when you are kid, you are going to go down a path of hardships and trouble, which your mother doesn't want. You could even end up dying young, get involved with gangs etc. And if you don't listen to God, then you could end up on a path that doesn't lead to heaven, which God doesn't want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment here, though perhaps not for the reasons you intended. This is precisely the church's message, and for precisely the reason a mother might promise a reward: to get the "child" to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Telling your child "clean your room and you'll get cake" does little to teach him the importance of being tidy. It only serves to teach that he shouldn't have to clean if no cake is promised. When he's off on his own and no one is baking for him, why would he bother ever cleaning up? The only reward he's ever known is cake.

---

This goes the same for the first paragraph i wrote. Once a child realizes the importance of cleaning his room, then he won't need cake to realize its importance. And he would thank his mother for teaching him this important lesson. God wants more than Heaven to be our only goal. He wants a relationship with us, like a mother wants a relationship with the child. The child loves the mother for being there and teaching him, and also loving him no matter what. It ends up not being about the cake does it? i mean, do you love your mother for the rewards she gave you? or because of the love she promised. ( again I am talking about the ideal mother). Then, after both of you know that you love each other, the cake becomes something you can both enjoy mutually, a gift of love, because of love.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dewitback

You state the same thing in the last two paragraphs. That God dictates everything you do your whole life, while a mother only does it for a while and then lets you go. Well, I purposely mentioned, "...while you are still young" (when the mother is talking to the child). When you listen to God while you are "young" in religion, you don't know too much and you are like child. But, as you grow, God's rules and regulations become your own rules and regulations.

---

There is sense in this, yet I feel we are talking about two different things. When I talk about religion, I mean religion as an institution; that is the comparison I make... Not that God is like an abusive husband, but that the church and religious doctrine is. In this sense, the mother/child metaphor does not work for me. If we were to be honest about these relationships, we would see that the ideal mother is nothing at all like God.

Mother talks to you directly when she tells you to clean your room. You do not have to try to hard to believe in her existence because she is right before you. You can physically touch her, and she runs to your aid when you fall and scrape your knee. She does not cloud her existence in mystery and set unbreakable rules to govern you forever. There may be a time in your life when chocolate cake is absolutely appropriate, after all. But if it's in Gods book, you may as well forget about it.

Quote:

---

The longer you listen to God, the more his rule make sense, and the more you make his morality your own morality.

---

Religion may attempt to teach morality, but morality is not the sole domain of the religious, nor does being religious make one moral. I'd go as far to say that there isn't any corrolation at all between whether a person is moral and whether they are religious unless you define "morality" as following one specific text.

Quote:

---

If you don't listen to your mother when you are kid, you are going to go down a path of hardships and trouble, which your mother doesn't want. You could even end up dying young, get involved with gangs etc. And if you don't listen to God, then you could end up on a path that doesn't lead to heaven, which God doesn't want.

---

I haven't seen any statistics on dying young and gang involvement in regards to following God, but I'd be happy to look at any if you have them. My guess is that there are just as many Christians in those categories as anywhere else. The mafia is full of church-goers, from what I understand.

Quote:

---

Once a child realizes the importance of cleaning his room, then he won't need cake to realize its importance. And he would thank his mother for teaching him this important lesson.

---

Some of us get it without the cake.

Skysaw, I completely agree with you. I have made that comparison here too. When I think of people taking up for what the insane the God in the Bible is written to have done, I think of abused wives with black eyes and teeth knocked out saying, "Oh, he does this to me because he loves me." And then there is that eternal torture stuff, along with plagues and natural disasters and such. Dewitback, none of that stuff can be argued to be for anybody's own good. Also, parents have to work within the laws of reality as they are. The God of your religion is a character who is supposed to be able to change them. That is another enormous difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.


There is sense in this, yet I feel we are talking about two different things. When I talk about religion, I mean religion as an institution; that is the comparison I make... Not that God is like an abusive husband, but that the church and religious doctrine is. In this sense, the mother/child metaphor does not work for me. If we were to be honest about these relationships, we would see that the ideal mother is nothing at all like God.

---

your welcome for the response. thank you for your as well.

You know, i agree with you that "religion" can be seen as an institution and can be extremely detrimental. people get very caught up with religion instead of what the true purpose is. Having a relationship with God. People get all into the do's and don'ts of religion when they forget why they doing them in the first pace.

Jesus got extremely upset with the priests in his day. They were all about the dos and donts, dont walk so many miles on the sabbath, dont do this, do that, blahbidy blah blah. Jesus was really upset about all that. He wanted to make it known that its the relationship with God, and not about the rules! Jesus broke alot of the rules, and that got the priest so pissed off that they ended up crucifying him! sounds a bit like the religious freaks who judge gays, who gossip about the guy who wears a korn t-shirt to church, who do a bunch of stuff that religion has taught them not to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Mother talks to you directly when she tells you to clean your room. You do not have to try to hard to believe in her existence because she is right before you. You can physically touch her, and she runs to your aid when you fall and scrape your knee. She does not cloud her existence in mystery and set unbreakable rules to govern you forever. There may be a time in your life when chocolate cake is absolutely appropriate, after all. But if it's in Gods book, you may as well forget about it.

---

For many who believe in God, God is very real to them. He shows himself in many ways. You can't physically touch God, or physically hear him, but he makes himslef real in other ways. My parents are missionaries, so I've seen first hand the stuff he has led them into and the miracles that can occur. some are simple and subtle, and others are bigger and more prominent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Religion may attempt to teach morality, but morality is not the sole domain of the religious, nor does being religious make one moral. I'd go as far to say that there isn't any corrolation at all between whether a person is moral and whether they are religious unless you define "morality" as following one specific text.


I haven't seen any statistics on dying young and gang involvement in regards to following God, but I'd be happy to look at any if you have them. My guess is that there are just as many Christians in those categories as anywhere else. The mafia is full of church-goers, from what I understand.


Some of us get it without the cake.

---

i didnt mean to whatchamacallit...group people into a certain order..whats the word?? stereotype! i didn't mean to stereotype children who didn't listen to thier mothers, and God and mothers are very different. God is perfect, and parents are flawed.

But I agree with you. Religion can be abusive, but that doesn't mean God is.

Religion is like Stockholm's Syndrome. :rolllaugh:

Good posts from both of you. I'm inclined to go with Skysaw's though because religion is flawed and he has a Chapman Stick. (I won't let you hear the last of it until I get one... then I'll start asking and talking to you about it :lol:)

Great analogy, Skysaw. God is often protrayed or said to be "jealous". OT god seemed to be obssessed with the possibility that his followers may turn to other religions, and even commanded people to kill family and community members if they did cheat on him with other gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

cheat on him with other gods.

---

Thou shalt not commit God-Adultery.

Dewitback, a God doesn't need to exist, for us to have the right morals. Our emotions take care of that.

I dont think so. A humans morality needs to be built up by the environment. Its not innate

Look at it like this;

We humans don't kill each other (too much) because we can get joy from each another. Also, we know it feels great to be alive, and thus we don't want to die, since then we can't feel anymore. Since we can sympathize with each another, we don't kill each another, because then the person we killed would loos the ability to live and feel great.

Our morals are based on our own wordly experiences and how we can sympathize with others. This is why psycopats can exist. They often lack the ability to sympathize, thus they don't care for other humans, unless these are beneficial to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

I dont think so. A humans morality needs to be built up by the environment. Its not innate

---

Can we differentiate good from bad on our own discretion? Yes.

You really can't argue that with any certainty. It can be said just as well that one learns that things cause pain towards oneself and others, and will try to avoid them for both people. This is morality.

I genuinely believe that humans can be moulded to any morality no matter how despicable. And morality is not innate, it is built up by the environment. Emotions as you say Marvo, are influenced by environmental stimuli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

I genuinely believe that humans can be moulded to any morality no matter how despicable. And morality is not innate, it is built up by the environment. Emotions as you say Marvo, are influenced by environmental stimuli.

---

I'd have to agree with PS on this one. Look at fanatic muslims. You would think their innate morality would stop them from being extremists, but they were raised in the environment of extremists religion, so they bomb the fuck out of innocent people.

So we need a universal moral code.

Get where I'm going ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

So we need a universal moral code.

Get where I'm going ....

---

If you're insinuating the bible. Then stop right there :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

So we need a universal moral code.

Get where I'm going ....

---

There is nothing to say we "need" one. You're right up to here, about human morality being flexible depending on nurture; but that's all.
There is no higher moral code rather than what we impose. There is no need for a universal code, why should there be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omicron

There is nothing to say we "need" one. You're right up to here, about human morality being flexible depending on nurture; but that's all.
There is no higher moral code rather than what we impose. There is no need for a universal code, why should there be?

---

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/RBL/RBL008/b11831.jpg

Do you question my exeeestance?!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

---

Yes. It can easily be broken; and manipulated- hence the ridiculous amounts of evil and suffering [IMHO] in the world..

There doesn't need to be an objective moral code; just because it feels unfair to us "he gets to steal". Existence isn't fair from our moral point of view, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

We've deduced that there needs to be a moral code, right. And the moral code needs to be universal or the whole system breaks down. i.e. "how comes he gets to steal". The feeling of inequality among varying moral codes within the same society prevents a succesful moral code from being inconsistent. And if a moral code is subjective and personal then it can be easily broken. e.t.c ....e.t.c ......e.t.c.

---

Ok, "psychology student" lets back up a second. Morality is a human construct, just as television is, just as art is, just as language is. It functions to serve human interaction, human interaction does not serve morality. What I'm saying is, have morality is not a prerequisite to being human, take a look at feral children or any other society where morality is radically different from our own. There is no need for a *universal* moral code from a scientific standpoint, i.e. it is not necessary for the human being or society of human beings to exist. There is a difference between the universality of a thing and the specificity of a thing. If you had said it like "all human beings need a moral code *of some kind* to interact with one another simply based on biological structure" then I would agree with you whole heartedly.

So, is this a matter of misunderstanding, or are you making a general assumption about all of humanity?

Wording is everything. Have they taught you about methodology yet in your psychology class?

Once again, humans working together effectively means better life standards, thus more joy and longer lifes. Since we humans are quite smart, we figured out some very basic morals, like don't kill, don't steal, don't be an ass.

That's how morals arose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traveling_Troubador

Ok, "psychology student" lets back up a second. Morality is a human construct, just as television is, just as art is, just as language is. It functions to serve human interaction, human interaction does not serve morality. What I'm saying is, have morality is not a prerequisite to being human, take a look at feral children or any other society where morality is radically different from our own. There is no need for a *universal* moral code from a scientific standpoint, i.e. it is not necessary for the human being or society of human beings to exist. There is a difference between the universality of a thing and the specificity of a thing. If you had said it like "all human beings need a moral code *of some kind* to interact with one another simply based on biological structure" then I would agree with you whole heartedly.

So, is this a matter of misunderstanding, or are you making a general assumption about all of humanity?

Wording is everything. Have they taught you about methodology yet in your psychology class?

---

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

---

Yeah that's true and fine.

Just leave it there though; there isn't a universal moral code as such; there are no objective morals etc.

There isn't, but there can be.

Actually, I don't think that there is any possible way to have a universal moral code in the society of human beings seeing as every interaction is a different circumstance of the morality between two human beings that express to understand each other.

Moreover, I don't believe there should be because it leaves all capacity for human growth and struggle which is essential to evolution of the social organism to be completely meaningless.

Normally I would say, "this goes without saying", but apparently psychological biases deny me that ease.

Do you believe that there should be a homogeneous set of moral values for all human beings, and if so, what would be the guidelines of this system and would there be any room for the flexibility of circumstance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

There isn't, but there can be.

---

How?

Do you mean just a moral code that all humans live by perfectly? Even if that happened it would still be subjective to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychology student

Im sorry did you think that I meant that humans need a moral code to survive? I mean they need one fro society to be decent and to function effectively.

---

And why should that moral code be the bible? its a work of fiction. Should i use harrypotter as my moral code?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

And why should that moral code be the bible? its a work of fiction. Should i use harrypotter as my moral code?

---

Ten points for Gryffindor!

I'd only give it one or two points. The point it makes is valid, but that particular line is somewhat overused. Same reason you get -5 points for bringing up the FSM. I'm actually losing five points just for even mentioning it in my post here.

Do I get bonus points if I bring up the Crawling Potato Creature?

my main qualm with religions in which there is a perfect god is this. If the god is perfect, but humans are flawed or corrupt, how could the comprehend a perfect being's speech? They wouldnt, the words of the being would become corrupted as soon as it enters a human's ears. Thats why none of the books that claim so can be the word of God, because even if it was inspired by him/her it was corrupted by the humans who wrote it.

A perfect being making a flawed creation is a flaw.

Therefore the being is also flawed.

exactly, yet another paradox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Same reason you get -5 points for bringing up the FSM. I'm actually losing five points just for even mentioning it in my post here.

---

No way. Just mentioning the FSM is enough to win any religious argument. It is an omnipotent trump card. No matter what any theist says in a debate, all you have to say back is, "Flying Spaghetti Monster?" and you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Do I get bonus points if I bring up the Crawling Potato Creature?

---

Hm, I guess it'd depend on how you're using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No way. Just mentioning the FSM is enough to win any religious argument. It is an omnipotent trump card. No matter what any theist says in a debate, all you have to say back is, "Flying Spaghetti Monster?" and you win.

---

You win, but you still lose points.

Any "moral code" we implement today will be archaic in a thousand years. The Bible's rules were used to control people in that time period when it was written. And was written with the mindset of that era. You know, killing people who work on Sunday and such. Not only would your code apply to all people, it would need to apply to all of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimeStopper

Any "moral code" we implement today will be archaic in a thousand years. The Bible's rules were used to control people in that time period when it was written. And was written with the mindset of that era. You know, killing people who work on Sunday and such. Not only would your code apply to all people, it would need to apply to all of time.

---

Well the Vatican is issuing new sins now. Road rage and polluting are now sins against god...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Road rage and polluting are now sins against god...

---

People keep getting road rage because God can't drive. He is always tailgating people and blocking up the passing lane, and he comes to complete stops right when he gets into merge lanes.

god breaks all the rules even his own.

God don't give a shit.