A clash of values - doing business with a Christian

Share |

In this blog I take the opportunity to cast dispersions on religion. Religion is of course the dominant value system in the Western world, and for that reason it goes unchallenged because its considered impractical to challenge it. This article will no doubt have negative implications for my future career. Why? Because contrary to Christian philosophy – they all judge – as they were supposed to. The problem is their judgement is motivated by fear and evasion rather than a respect for facts. The following is a recount of a dialogue with a Christian on an online trading site.

The counterparty in this dialogue has been concealed because its purely for educational purposes.

Communication before the auction

Hi Joe, I am living in XXXXX. It would be inconvenient to go to the South Island to get it, unless I organised a canoe trip to there in future. Might you have reason to meet half way in Wellington? I was the one who asked if you wanted to relist. I know the product, so if the condition is good, I can buy. I have a Tahiti already overseas. Might also be interested in the Tahiti as well for GF. posted by: shouganai 2:11 pm, Tue 30 Dec

Hi, we will be going to Wellington some time the end of March if this suits you. 9:09 am, Fri 2 Jan

After the auction

Hi Joe, I bought your canoe online. As per my posting below, I am a firm buyer, though I have a problem with a bank deposit payment because you could leave the country. Will you accept Paypal, credit card, cash on delivery (Wellington) as previously indicated? Sorry to ask this after purchasing one item, but TradeMe gives me no option to contact you. This method of purchase is more secure because if the canoe goes astray I can do a charge-back for non-performance. You don't have a credit history on TradeMe as a seller either. If you have other items like life jackets, oars, helmets I would be interested in those as well, subject to quality and price issues. Let me know, and I'll accept your offer at $210 on the Tahiti canoe as well. Thanks, Andrew

Thanks for getting back to me, I understand your concern about payment and oddly enough the reason we will be in Wellington the end of March is we are heading overseas, So now I've told you when I'm going to leave the country you don't need to worry. But our kids want to go to Wellington before we leave for a weekend, this will more than likely be Feb sometime does this still suit you? and cash on delivery will have to be fine. I'll keep you updated on our plans. Also I'm a Christian and stealing is not my thing :)

Hi Joe, Feb is even better, so that's no problem. I'm an atheist, but stealing is not my thing either. And I would caution you that there are Christians that do steal. Mostly it just comes down to a capacity to rationalise and opportunity. :) Regards, Andrew

A month passed until I initiated the next communication

Hi Joe, Are you still retaining the Bali canoe? And do you still envisage going to Wellington in Feb? Thanks, Andrew

No reply for 3 days

Hi Joe, You don't seem to be responding to my emails. I bought a canoe from you. Are you honouring our agreement? You even said you were a Christian. I'm interested to know what that means to you? Does it mean you are 'only human'? I would hope that means I should look up rather than down upon you. I hope I am wrong about you. Maybe you are rationalising that I can get one elsewhere. Yeh, but now I am left unprepared for an upcoming trip. Nice to receive an apology....an apology if you sold it elsewhere. It would be nice to get a reply so I know if you are overseas, out canoeing, or just repressing your guilt. I'm going with repression, it’s very popular these days. Regards, Andrew

Andrew. Firstly- Get over the attitude. Secondly- We are not sat by the computer waiting for your emails. (It was Waitangi weekend we was busy, However none of your business). Yes we still have the canoe but have not yet sorted out our plans to wellington. However after your outburst and total lack of trust maybe the deal is not such a good idea. Remember we were trying to help you out by meeting in Wellington. Apology.... no I don't think so we never agreed on any set day. I am sorry that everyone in your eyes is trying to rip you off, we have bought and sold many items and not come across this before (the double canoe was paid for immediately and they collected it from the Picton ferry terminal. They were happy and posted that on Trade Me.)

Regards Joe

Hi Joe, There is no need to be defensive....I was merely entertaining the possibility that agreements mean nothing to some people, and you might be one of them. My attitude is an extension of your comment upon purchase where you implied that you are a Christian, so therefore I am safe. Christianity is often used as an ethical device by others looking to gain others confidence. I was suspicious from that conversation. Yeh, I've dealt with a lot of Christians. I did consider the possibility that you might have been on holidays, and I concede that I could have waited longer than 3 days. A friend is asking me to travel so that created some urgency, and I wanted to canoe.
Actually I don't think having a holiday on Waitangi constitutes an issue of privacy, but clearly you don't like your honesty being questioned by people who have never met you. The distrust is because I have never met you and your lack of reply, and the Christian declaration. Probably best left unsaid - as it sounded so morality superior (arrogant). The fact that you were on holiday is pertinent because it’s a reasonable explanation for not replying. I should have waited longer before answering.

I actually didn't perceive the delivery to Wellington as helping me out, because you are not going out of your way. As I understood it, your kids wanted to go there, so easy to bring it along. So I perceived it as a counter-party trying to sell their product, and doing whatever it takes to do it. I suggest if there was any significant Christian charity (which you never see :) ) then you would be making such a sacrifice. i.e. In fact to be a very good Christian, you should be coming to Wanganui. But actually, I have too much regard for others to ask that, and too little belief that Christians actually believe in self-sacrifice. Anyway, everyone has their spin on Christianity. The story has changed so much in 2000 years, so it’s now more selfish, e.g. Charity begins in the home.

Correct, you don't owe me an apology. I merely canvassed the possibility that you might, and was trying to solicit a response rather than an evasion (i.e. The possibility of no reply) that gave me no idea where I stand.

I don't have a fear that everyone is going to rip me off, but I know there are dishonourable people in the world. That is reality. And there are more of them doing deals on the internet where they can stay anonymous. The fact that you are going overseas is also reason for distrust. Like I said, I was open to the possibility that you might have bad character. I don't think you should give so much weight to what strangers think of you. In fact you might show more empathy for their vulnerability. After all it’s possible I will be at risk, whereas you might have happily sold the canoe to a neighbour.
For what it’s worth I am pleased you think values are important. A lot of people don't. But clearly if you are acting on the premise that you are doing me a favour, then you are mistaken, and PERHAPS being dishonest with yourself. That's common too. Why? Because you are professing to be morally superior when you are not. Not that I consider charity as moral. I actually regard selfishness as virtuous, but not the flawed Christian conception. My guess is you didn't see that response coming. Regards, Andrew

Mr. Sheldon, You are making this very personal and your personal opinion is not something that I am at all interested in. You really need to get over the whole Christian thing. We are selling a Canoe that is all! YOU were the one that said it would be hard to get to the South Island so please a one line response will be more than enough. Do you still want the Canoe...YES or NO? If not that is fine. However If you do, unless you are prepared to pick it up here you will have to wait until we get to Wellington and that will likely be mid March. I would like to remind you that in the advert on Trade-Me we ONLY offered delivery to the South Island. Regards, Joe

Hi Joe, Everything is personal, that's what makes values worth pursuing. I didn't need to know your religion. You volunteered that info, I just made a value judgement based on the limited knowledge I had..hoping for a reply; to which you got defensive...but enough philosophy.

Back to the canoe. You offered to deliver the canoe to Wellington - in the ASK QUESTIONS section. But it’s ok, I might be able to relieve you of that burden. I might actually have reason to go to the South Island to meet a friend, though it’s not certain I will, or that I will take the car. I'm currently waiting for him to come back to me. Regards, Andrew

Andrew, we have just got advice from the team at trade me as the deal between us is not working. They not only told me to put what has happened in your feedback but also have stated that payment has to be received within a week of the auction closing, this is not open to discussion afterwards. As there has not been any payment within a week of the online auction, the auction has been broken. Before you start to jump up and down stating I could run off with the money, I would just like to point out a couple bought the double canoe, they paid for it by the Friday and they had it by the Sunday, they kept to all the online auction code of conduct and so did I and if you want you can read that in their feedback. Didn't have any personal insults from them. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask why this auction between us didn't work but the auction between myself and the other couple (who I didn't know) worked. Interesting under the code of conduct all buyers and sellers are expected: "Conduct themselves honestly and in good faith at all times" I have been honest and interestingly the word "faith" I thought I would look that up in the New Zealand dictionary- 1 strong belief; trust. 2 a system of religious belief. Did you have any trust from the beginning? N.Z is a Christian country, so I didn't feel I was out of order to state I'm a Christian. If a Bible ever does falls on your doorstep look up 2Timothy 3:1-7, see I'm not sure why but this scripture keeps coming into my head when I read your Emails (maybe it’s the part that talks about being self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect.), receiving Emails from you strengthens our faith in the Bible, so Thank you for that.

By the way as for philosophy you may want to remember that one man's philosophy is to another verbal diarrhoea. Please don't even bother to reply with a thesis on your own personal view points that we have absolutely no interest in,you can't seem to get it we were selling a canoe nothing more. I'll save you the time and block you out of my Email address. Joe.

Hi Joe, I don't care if you read this or not, it’s all content for my blog on religion, so the reply to you is incidental. The primary goal is research for my blog. In response to all your points:

1. True to my early points, you are taking the high (self-righteous) moral ground and contacted TradeMe. So what? No doubt you gave them your biased perspective. The context which you will be missing is that prior to the auction you offered to deliver to Wellington (saving me a $350-450 ferry trip). You agreed to deliver the canoe to Wellington, and it was cash on delivery. The point being that I did not re-negotiate the delivery terms after, it was in the questions.

2. I had a legitimate reason not to pay because you mentioned that you were going overseas. You say that the other canoe was sold without incident. Likely they were going to the South Island anyway, or had it delivered, and they wanted it within one week. You probably didn't tell them you were Christian, or maybe they were as well. Maybe they know less about human nature because you are behaving as a Christian would behave. i.e. rationalisation, evasion.

3. You said that you have been honest and forthright from the start, but actually I have found you to engage in gross rationalisations.

4. It was I that contacted you wondering whether the sale was going to proceed. I conceded that I could have waited more than 3 days before casting dispersions on your character. I actually agree I have a low opinion of Christian values for the reasons highlighted by this conversation.

5. Where is the evidence that I have not acted dishonestly, or in bad faith?

6. Well I don't read the Bible because it’s all dogmatic assertion divorced from the real world, but I will indulge you. Am I self-assuming, haughty, headstrong ect? Yep, all true, and you are insecure, evasive and repressed, which is not a combination that is going to get along. I have (honestly) conceded that I should have waited a few more days before sending my follow-up email. Three days was not enough.

7. The prospect that my emails strengthened your faith in the Bible is contradiction. Faith is unconditional, so my actions should have no impact. But there you go, the Bible has contradictions, so why should I expect any less from you.

8. Actually NZ is not a Christian country, it is just a country dominated by Christians. Let me go further. Politically there is a separation of religion and the head of state. If you want a religious country, you will find more luck in Iran, where there is a religious head of state. Secondly, the other aspect of NZ, the market economy is based on the premise of self-interest, which is contrary to the philosophy of selflessness which you espouse. You trade value for value, not selfless act for selfless act. For example, I don't surrender my money for more than I judged the value of your product, and you did not deliver to my city because it’s too far away. We reached an agreement half way in between at your convenience and mine.

9. In conclusion, this online sale failed because I sometimes choose not to grant people contractions. Sometimes for practical reasons I don't feel inclined to correct people. Usually Christians are more gracious than you, since I often debate them when they come to my door. The fact that I did not validate your repressed, conflicted ego made you upset and emotional. It’s to be expected. Did I expect you to change your values. No. This is merely an educational tool for those who want to understand the true nature of religion. Thanks for the example of your values.

10. You should consider this as you 10 Commandments if you want to be a better person. Of course I don't expect it.

I dare say that people will think me as much a 'religious' zeolot as Joe. True enough. I think values are important, and I want to bring to the forefront of people's minds the importance of effective thinking, and warn people as to the dangers of religion. The intent is not to persecute Joe. No force has been applied to Joe. When he stops being self-righteous the discussion will be over, and I will shift to another issue. The good news is - I don't go knocking of doors :) But as you can guess, I am always willing to open them. Always disappointed. I have lengthy conversations, but it always ends in empty assertions and quotes from the Bible. The contradictions I identify, they cannot answer. See other blog posts.

In defence of Joe, I don't think he is a person with bad intent. Why? Because he is proud. Its actually a good value if not rationalised. I just think he has a flawed value system which is embraced by too many people. Its great that he believes in something, but I want to convey that his dogmatic ideas are a threat to civil society because they are motivated by fear. His rationalisations meant I did not get the canoe I contracted to buy. This is the type of rationalisation that turned a previously 'civil' society like downtown LA into a looting tribe, as we saw with the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

THE END. P.S. Unless Joe is like me and likes the final word.

Is Christianity the root of all evil? No, but its close. The root is man's failure to live in accordance with his nature - He needs to think rather than evade that responsibility. To focus rather than repress. There is too much of the latter, whether motivated by religion or collectivism.

--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Evidence for evolution and against creationism

Share |

If you want evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years I suggest you study geology. There is so much evidence for a protracted history for Earth - it begs belief. Let me start:
1. Geological principles of cross-cutting rock structures
2. Process of sediment to rock maturation - we can observe rocks deposited up to 7,000 metres think without deformation, so they must have been layed down. We can observe typical speeds of deposition.
3. Dating of radiometric isotopes in rocks, ice core. Not just one isotope but a plethora of them from different rocks, each of which tells a story that integrates with the rest.
4. Tree rings alone can be 6,000 years. But there are also tree fossils preserved in rocks which can extend the sentiment history even further. Afterall x number of rings in a rocks must be at least X times older than the rock in which it was found, and they take a lot of compression & heat to mature sediments into rocks.
5. Lake sentiments recording the annual deposition of snow-melt related muds.
6. The massive global database of rocks around the world - empirical veracity
7. The movement of hot spots - eg. Hawaii has left a trail of volcanoes which tell us the age, distance, speed of movement
8. The movement of continents - magnetic reversals from spreading centres
9. Direct observation of geological events. eg. Frequency of meteorites.

Given more time I will think of some more. But lets stack the Bible up against science. They don't so much argue that science has contradictions, but that there is gaps in science. Its not surprising or a concern that there should be gaps. The important issue is that assertions are based on evidence. So let's look at the Bible.

Evidence of strange mystical powers? The Bible and other sources showing that people paralysed in fear by experiences they didn't understand in a pre-science era.
Evidence to refute such assertions. Given the Bible was written by disciples of God, contradictions in the Bible and its philosophy highlight its flaws. This blog is all about those, so don't waste any time.

I would leave you with another point. There is no reason to believe there was actually a starting point for the universe. I would contend that the universe has never started, that it has changed forms, but it has never come or gone in or out of existence. For that reason, I assert that the universe has always existed and always will. I would argue that the formation of the universe as we know it 24 billion years ago was actually just the start of a cycle, and that there has been an infinite number of such cycles.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Intelligent Design - the pitfalls

Share |

I see this argument as an over-simplification or context-dropping if you prefer. Actually there is no definition of God since God does not exist. What people take to accept as God is really just a repudiation of what is 'real''. For instance God is 'supernatural' (= non-natural), Gof requires such to accept him on 'faith' (non-reason), he wants us to love others unconditionally (non-values), he wants us to live this life his way (non-reality) for a chance to live in another. When a dictator asks me to trust him to deliver a better life, I am cynical. When a ghost does it, I laugh. When >50% of the population think this is a reasonable proposition, I consider democracy dangerous.

Religious people seem to accept the notion that there was a Big Bang. I prefer to believe that there was a succession of Big Bangs every 24 billion years or so, that in fact the universe was not created or destroyed, but rather is recycled. I see no evidence that matter can be created or destroyed, just that it changes forms, whether at a chemical or sub-atomic level. The universe explodes, expands, coalesces, contracts, then explodes again. I dont see the need necessarily for a single 'symmetrical' Big Bang, because I see no structural reason for assymmetry. But maybe the assymmetry of the universe is reason to believe there are sometimes multiple Bangs or the coalition of matter. I don't know all the dynamics. I know that the ethics underpinning religion are flawed and contrary to human nature (ie. faith is not compatible with reason).
I dont think the creation of humanity is such a mystery. Nor do I think that the conditions for the development of life are so stretched. I think the problem is the low probability of sustaining conditions on a planet long enough (billions of years) without some meteorite destroying it. But we dont know we are alone. Maybe the odds are higher than we expect. Maybe lifeforms are on their way as we speak.
I dont think there is a wrong or right amount of energy, since there is a focus of area where conditions where conditions would have been right somewhere in the universe. The problem was not that there was no place suitable, the problem was sustaining those conditions. The 'cratered' moon shows Earth was spared destruction, that humanity was given the opportunity to evolve, because we had an atmosphere. Some want to believe it was because of God. But Earth is not the only planet with an atmosphere, or with oxygen. So where is the 'intelligent design' that requires God.
The next question is really a nonsense question. "Why were we created?" There is no answer to this question because its an illegitimate question. Its like asking the reason for reason. It just is. Reason is inherent in the transformation of things, not in the things themselves. You can't ask why an orange is yellow instead of green beyond understanding the light that causes it. It just is. At root this question is really 'why do life forms evolve?' to give it a non-religious bias? We just do. The nature of things is so organised. If we destroyed everything it would happen again, and not because of God's grace. What possible explanation could God have for the meteorite explosion that wiped out the dinosaurs? Did this perfect God decide to reschedule human evolution? Duh!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Filipinos and religion

Share |

I have made the point that religion is a terrible philosophy because it creates a dichotomy between moral and practical action. The problem is shared by all collectivist philosophies. Religion is worse because you only get salvation after you are dead. Though I'm sure you could find a few faithful socialists who are still clinging to the dream. Here is a dialogue between my girlfriend and a relative that strikes me as not too unfamiliar in the Philippines. See 'A Sense of Entitlement'. My point with this post is to provide a practical example of the altruist creed that 'its moral to give, but practical to take'. This is how an altruist manipulates people into bestowing them with benefits.
I thank my girlfriend for the recount of her conversation. Her court scribing skills are appreciated.

---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A positive spin on religion

Share |

Is there anything positive we can say about religion? I think there is. Religion was man's first attempt to explain the events that shape his world. Its not surprising that religion is based on fear since in an age before science, there was a great deal that was unknowable. But we now know. It is not surprising that he is depicted in negatives, because we really have no relationship to him. Afterall isn't he a he because we dont know any better. Isnt he 'supernatural' because 'he' or 'it' is not natural.
So the most positive thing you can say about religion was that it was humanities first attempt to explain the world and the elements that shape it. But why do people still believe it today? I suggest its because fear-ridden people communicate the same fears and confusion to their kids.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Science quashes the existence of ghosts

Share |

This is a little off-topic but then, if you believe in God, I guess other forms of mysticism are not much of a stretch. Here is an interesting documentary I watched the other day. It presented evidence to disprove the evidence of ghosts - see http://www.tvokay.com/documentary/5th-dimension-ghosts.htm. Several of the conclusions were:
1. Magnetic fields are often around us, and they can cause people to feel a burning sensation on the skin or a sense that something has brushed by them. This can cause the person to think there is a presence in the room.
2. Dark places can make the most ardent 'ghost skeptics' believe there is something in a room. Being in a dark room elevates stress levels and this can cause people's sight to deteriorate, particularly peripheral vision. This observation was actually proven by a scientist who thought he was in the presence of a ghost. He tested his own hypothesis.
3. Rationalisations - people want to believe in certain things because they dont have the critical mind which would question the validity of their conclusions.

Perhaps more impressive was the fact that they even showed how these physiological responses occurred using a simulation when a person was placed under these types of conditions. Check it out!
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The Ten Commandments - a new translation!

Share |

Christians have long been blessed with a simple rule book for living - the 'Ten Commandments'. What could be simpler? Well I am a little perplexed by it. Might reality be a little more complicated. I dont know about you but I was given a different rule book growing up. But thats ok, I eventually reached my current thinking for similar reasons. These commandments come from the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible: Exodus 20:2–17, and I have got this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments. Lets consider the rules:

1. Do not have any other gods before Me: Hmmm, can we take it that God is not an advocate of free markets and competition. Why then did he make competitors? Why didn't he just make me - one human with one subordinate woman like Eve. That would have been consistent at the very least since we are expected to be subordinate to him. And on that point, why do we have to worship him. My parents gave birth to me. Do I worship them because they might claim to have invested 18 years in me. No, because if they didn't have a selfish motive, why did they do it. How can he give man free will, but not let him exercise it. How can he pretend to give you a choice if you the choice is submission or damnation. Its like the choice you get from the tax office or any other common criminal. This strikes me as a big vague anyway coming from a God. It would need a court room interpretation. If I was looking for loopholes, I would say I am free of damnation if I praise no God since by doing so I am placing no God before, because I am not accepting any.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: OK, well I do think alot of myself, and I think anyone with a healthy self esteem would do the same. But I dont care if you are a God, I dont accept flacky arguments that dont add up. I always thought weak people have idols, whether footballers or shrines. Frankly I think this rule is God trying to be intangible so he can grab market share. A cynical ploy. I think his strategy is to be everything so he essentially kills all competition. But if he is 'the sun, the light, the holy spirit', is he not 'the idol' as well....see so he's not consistent.
3. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me: Dont worry I would never be so pathetic. Get this next section...He is a jealous God. That strikes me as rather insecure and not very understanding. How can you justifiably punish a child for the behaviour of their parents if you believe in free will, as God is supposed to. And if that was ok,why would you stop at the 3rd or 4th generation, and if you were perfect, why couldn't you decide which one - 3rd or 4th. This Christian God is looking pretty pathetic. I think he's pretty insecure, consider that he seems insolent like a child 'those who reject me'...classic manic depressive symptoms. He's like a school bully.
4. but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. This doesn't make sense either for the same reason. OK I can understand him being rapped at the idea of getting attention, but why should generations 2-999th get a free ride, and why stop there. Cant he count higher?
5. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. I grew up with a different understanding. I thought we were supposed to not use God's name in vain, but this has a different meaning. This new interpretation seems to place a copyright on the use of God's name. Very smart! In fact its the first smart thing he has said. But even his commercial astuteness doesn't pass because he has on many occasions deplored the accumulation of wealth as a terrible sin, and what are royalty cheques but a blatant receipt of the 'almightt dollar'. This strikes me as an act of idolising.
6. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy: This one is a bit vague. Ok I grant God his Holy Day. Dont like shopping anyway, so I dont see myself missing Sunday's anytime soon. Mind you, this doesn't require me to go to church. He in fact doesn't even define what 'holy' is. But he does tell us in the following commandment - what it isn't.
7. For six days you shall labour and do all your work: Ok I dont agree to this one. But I can live with it because like a great many things it depends on how you define your terms, and I have yet to see a book called the 'Holy Dictionary' which means that everything is pretty much in the air. Mind you, I think a sensible God would not be so loose with his commandments, so he doesn't retain much credibility with me. For instance, does Sunday start at 12AM as that time format was estsblished later.
8. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. Ok he's starting to sound like a lawyer now. But read this - God is actually giving credence to the notion of slavery. He is tacitly supporting slavery. I am overwhelmed. No wonder why religious institutions seem to be constantly rewriting or revising their old interpretations. This is damning evidence that God is a closset fascist - and not even a benevolent fascist like America's Thomas Jefferson who also had slaves. At least Jefferson treated his slaves well....I cant say the same for God - apart from the Sunday holiday. And its not like he offered time and half...that came much later. And if you think its 'money' ok, but its money to the employer too, so why should it not go to the person with more need. No sense there.
9. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it. This item seems a bit redundant. For a perfect God he's a bit repetitive.
10. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ok this is grounds for impeachment. Firstly my parents made a great many mistakes. Second, why should I honour parents intrinsically when you dont. If we are living on the same earth, why is your moral code different from mine? You damn them and their children for 1000 generations, so why would I dogmatically honour them for that.
11. You shall not murder. Well I dont agree with this. I think it depends on the situation. If my life was threatened by others, I would feel compelled to kill them to retain my life. That is to say I would kill only in response to someone else initiating force. I think God stuffed up on this commandment. Poor judgement. How can you justify placing others right to kill above your own right to live. People will rationalise that you should have faith, but I've got no confidence in this God. I dont even think I want to capitalise his name any more...so 'god'...shame on you! Pity your disciples a 1000-fold. His mistake here is clearly that he stated it as a dogma, not as a principle that needed to be held in context of other facts. eg. Whom is seeking to derive a sense of value by fraud or force. That is the basis of philosophy, and why religion has nothing to add on ethics. Shame on him!
12. You shall not commit adultery. I think this commandment is the closest one could come to a credible commandment. Certainly you should not engage in extra-marital affairs without your partners knowledge, that would be lying. And as above, it would amount to trying to receive a value by deception. Here again, definition is important. If you have an open and honest agreement with your wife to have an open relationship, that should be legally ok, though I think it undermines the legitimacy of the relationship. But then that is not in question. They might be doing it to preserve the stability of family for the kids. I dont think its necessary if handled correctly, but its an error that I dont think anyone should be damned over. I give his half points for this one because I am a generous person, or generous God based on his performance.
13. You shall not steal. This suffers the same error - definition and context. I think its ok to steal from people who have stolen from you, though I think one needs to establish a support for objectivity, otherwise its likely to lead to rationalisation. That objectivity comes from confessing your actions after the fact so that an independent legal authority can determine the merit of the counter-claims. One could argue that this results in mob rule, but I think there is a context in which it might be ok to steal. eg. A society in which government has the moral right to steal (taxation). I dont care if one person or a person claiming to represent 50% of the population steals, it is still stealing. Righteousness is not a popularity contest.
14. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour: I think this commandment is not bad...but its not very comprehensive, so falls short, so I give him half points for this one. Its one thing to lie to others, but its equaly important that one doesn't delude oneself.
15. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. This is good too, but its not clear why? The problem is we dont know whether he is speaking metaphorically, whether one's 'neighbour' is a peer in the community, or anyone. I suspect anyone. If that is a universal principle, might this commandment be suggesting that we shouldn't covet any wife, slave, animal (whether for sex or possession I guess...lets not quibble) or possessions. Anyway it makes sense in as much as you shouldn't covet things because others possess them. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with honest ambition.

My Ten Commandments
As a final word....I am wondering why all the talk of 'Ten Commandments' because I can identify about 12 here - allowing for the fact that he is a little repetitive. I did not see much value in these commandments. I was trying to be generous - I give him 2 out of 12 points, and thats being picky about what you call a commandment. So thats just over 16% - not a good rating for a 'god'. But what is interesting is the things that he left out. Are there any acts of morality not covered in the Twelve Commandments? Well I can think of a few:
1. Be honest with thyself - not just others
2. Dont attempt to attain values by coercion or deception - more comprehensive than 'god's'.
3. Empathise with vested interests - but dont live for their sake
4. Live by your own judgement and place nothing above it
5. Live in accordance to your own hierarchy of values - Live for your own sake
6. Identify and pursue your values with a integrity and deliberance
7. Find purpose in everything you do - except your personal rehabilitation
8. Embrace reason as the standard of value
9. Take 100% responsibility for your achievements and failures in your life - even if others fail you
10. Feel free to junk these commandments and do what you like, but be prepared to pay the consequences on this earth - there is no other pertinent to your life until another is discovered

Mind you - you dont have to call me God. And I really couldn't care a F**K if you followed these rules or not. Its your life to screw up....you wont need damnation in another world, you will have it in this one. You will experience it in your career, your relationships, your personal sense of self worth. Have a nice day!