AWKWARD ZOMBIE

You gotta realize, also, that we're just as imperfect and mortal as the people who wrote the book in the first place. Do the people who write our laws always follow them? Hell no, and I kmow why. In each person's mind, an ideal society is one where they themselves get to do whatever the hell they want, while everyone else follows a very strict set of rules.

To put it simply: People are cunts.

Agreed, but if you dont even bother following the most basic stuff in the daisies book, how can you call yourself a good Christian? This isnt like all that other stuff that people almost knife fight over what the correct interpretation is, this is the Word Of God, directly from his mouth, if you're not going to follow THAT, whats the point in the first place? Though Im guessing whoever it was who wrote those down probably put most of it in to keep the early tribes from murdering eachother over stuff they wanted, especially that covet thing, considering theres like three separate sections describing what you are not allowed to covet.

I do agree with Stranger that the Commandments are pretty clear in what's expected of God's followers. You'll always find people that try to twist things to their advantage.

Most of the Commandments still work today, despite being written thousands of years ago. Do not steal, do not kill, don't commit adultery...
Still, you'll always have people trying to find loopholes. It's not something to be proud of.

People love feeling morally justified for the horrible crap they do, and there really is no better source for false reassurance than reinterpreting a holy text to fit whatever crime you want to do. It probably doesnt help that nearly all the war accounts in the Bible were written from the point of view that God WAS on their side while they did it.

You'll find people justifying 'Holy war' in any religion, though.

I know, it wasnt specifically targeted at Christianity. Hell, or even religion for that matter. Every side in every war always think theyre the good guys.

Usually, no one is.

Oh sorry, since we were talking about christian stuff I thought you referring to just christianity.

Speaking of which, it's really fascinating to research the christian crusades. They're great examples of war people thought was justified because their power-hungry religious leader said so.

Some people forget the scene in the gospel(s?? don't remember if it was included in one or some of them) where Jesus has to carry the cross to Golgotha and is aided by a random passerby, eve though it's pretty important in understanding what the cross is supposed to mean: it represents suffering, which is a constant in everyday life but is lifted with Jesus help. It's basically telling Christians that life may be hard but their god is always there, helping them in some way (this of course applies to people other than Christians, if the Christians you question are nice people)

Isn't he pagan as far as Christianity thinks of it? I thought Christians considered any "barbaric culture's" religion to be pagan, including the Roman/Greek Gods.

Wasn't that why they had some myth back then that God banished Hades/Pluto to the bottom of Hell for holding onto all of the souls and an explanation for why God was the true god amongst the others?

IDK, Christianity back then was kind of a mess of "my God can beat up your God" stuff.



The stones that the commandments were etched into were destroyed over the course of history and warfare, so the exact wording is lost, and considering it spread by word of mouth afterwards, it'd probably be condensed to the most "literal" and succinct definition people could remember them by. Still doesn't mean that people who know the current commandments and don't live by them are right, but if they were meant less bodaciously originally and more of a general guide to self-betterment... it depends.

Plus, some Christians treat things like confessionals as a way to wash themselves clean of all sins, so the fact that they break the commandments isn't a problem as long as God forgives them. Though, not everyone treats confession like that, so really, it depends on the Christian.

My Biology Teacher once talked about how Science can take a woman's skin cells and turn them into sperm. Does this make men useless?

People have more uses other than reproduction.

Yes, yes, but the gender would be useless if only females are necessary for reproduction.

The sperm making genes in the body are located only on the Y chromosome, which means that you'd likely need their involvement at some stage to go through spermatogenesis, even if the end result is solely X chromosome gametes.

Additionally, males are actually fully capable of producing eggs with their cells due to having the necessary genetic information on the X chromosome, so clinics could make egg cells out of male stem cells. The main issue becomes preventing the Y chromosome from dominating the X and getting rid of the Y eggs since they would likely be unable to be fertilized (unless an X sperm is able to set it off. A lot of chemical signals for the egg side of fertilization are on the X chromosome).

Either way, it's not likely that either gender is going to be rendered defunct anytime soon, and if Scientists can reverse/stop the damage to the Y chromosome, we won't have to worry about the human race ending due to that.

It's only a vague memory but I think an embryo has already been made with genetic material from two women.

I personally find it insulting that people talk about men being redundant or the Y chromosome being useless/phased out; It just comes off as unnecessarily petty man-bashing a lot of the time.

I guess the reason human beings (and a lot of other species) are not hermaphroditic is because women and men are optimised towards different roles; From nature's/evolution's POV it was beneficial for one sex to be the carrier of the offspring (with the mobility, discomfort and risk that brings) while the other sex provided for that carrier and protected them from predators.

Of course that was more relevant when human beings lived in forests and/or jungles and not cities, but men generally have a physique more suited toward manual labour (lifting/carrying) and women's and men's brains are generally optimised toward different tasks (men generally having a better three-dimensional perception, women having a better social/emotional perception*).

Taking human beings out of the forest/jungle lessens the importance of the male role to a degree, but it's not enough of a reason to discount men/the Y chromosome completely - not by a long shot.


*Those are not brilliant examples and they're pretty stereotypical and I know that some women have brilliant three-dimensional perception and that some men have great social sensitivity but I'm not really interested in investigating better examples right now.

EDIT: changed X to Y because I'm half asleep and made a goof.

I think you mean Y chromosome, dude.