Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

If the "Thou Shalls" were well defined, then they would look like nagging. And nobody want's a nagging God.The "Thou Shalt Nots" are not really all that well defined either. For example, it is often stated as "Thou shalt not commit murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill". This allows all kinds of equivocation. For example, it allows people to convince themselves that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis being killed is not murder, but is merely an unfortunate side effect of war.Sad to say, but experience seems to show that the two primary moral principles are:

Remove all sensory input, and you will very likely die.

There is also a lot of sensory input from proprioception - internal signals about the state of the body.

I am mildly amused at your relativism.AFAIK most literalists are vigorously opposed to such relativism.

I will cede that one to you iano

Legend and Ringo316 are both making more sense than you are.

quote:

---

But just to see for yourself whether you are blindly siding with your buddies, maybe you could do an exposition on this gem.

​

ringo writes:

​

The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.

---

Sorry. I don't want to touch that one. I have no idea what Jesus didn't mention. At best I could tell what he is not reported as having mentioned. However, the gospel reports are far from a complete record of his life.