>Well, I understand your objections. I rather think that theis doesn't remove the facts, particularly with respect to the notion of the cultural origins of these laws as they have been included in the fabric of our culture today. Stealing is still considered 'wrong' in spite of its origin (culturally) in the 10 Commandments.

Sorry to disappoint you, but stealing was illegal in ancient Egypt, far before Christianity. Check your origins.

This is not the first example of this religion claiming to be the origin of things which existed before. Did you know most of ancient Slavic gods made it later as Christian saints in Orthodox pantheon?

>teaching children to not steal then so be it. It is a fact that this is one of the 10 commandments and that in our society there is a direct 'link' to this teaching and its direct emmination from either Judaism or Christianity. That's not 'forcing' it on anyone. That is a straightforward recognision of the facts in this case.

Given the above voice of dissent, I'd agree that marking theft as unwanted is a longstanding achievement of civilization is a fact. It's also a fact that Judeo-Christian culture endorses it. I just wouldn't go as far as claiming copyright on that.

>Now, if you reject the concept to not steal you must replace it with something! What do you replace an absolute with but its antithesis?

I assume you are not color blind. Therefore, if someone told you to paint your roof white, what choice do you have if you don't like that?
- paint it black.
If you can't find anythin "replace an absolute with but its antithesis", you've run out of options at this point. If this dichotomy is overcome, or completely circumvented, you may discover that you may
- paint it any other color
- not paint it at all
- remove the roof and put a balcony instead
- do whatever fits your imagination.

Ergo, what is a better antithesis of an absolute: an equal absolute on the other end of the line, or a non-absolute?

The bipolar, or dichotomic, point of view is a trademark of the selfsame Judeo-Christian civilization. In many cases, it simply blurs your vision and leads to misunderstanding.

I do think that "do not steal", and in general "don't hurt others" is a thing which should be taught to the kids, because it's one of the foundations of civilization, as well as the idea of teaching.

>>If there was such a thing, I think they should not be called Commandments; first line should probably be "don't even try to command others".
>
>Except those of us who they disagree with. <g> "Take out your 10 commandments!" <g>

Wouldn't apply to you (it's the "agnostic code of ethic", remember), just the same as your first four commandments don't apply to me - but then you'd be faced, in time, by a bunch of agnostic eople who dissent the whole idea of being commanded :)

>Well I suppose from that aspect of the discussion. You do understand that the English translation of the word 'agnostic'' is pretty close to 'ignoramous' don't you? <g> a-gnosko = no knowledge

That's Latin (ergo, English) translation of the Greek, but the common use differs. An ignoramus doesn't have the knowledge while probably claiming he does; agnostic claims the knowledge is unreachable, i.e. "we can not know".

>>Afraid? Where did you get this from?
>
>From some 30 years of observation. Also, some people actually hate God. Kind of a crazy idea, don't you think?

Then they believe in him - you can't hate something that doesn't exist. But then they may hate the church(es), the whole way religions try to rule people's lives etc etc. Since the churches have power and priests are often masters of verbal combat, these poor guys redirect their feelings toward the guy who is not speaking in his defense.

> Even for someone who doesn't believe or know if there were a God you'd be prett dumb to hate Him. No sense on getting God mad at you. <g>

Don't tease the god of vengeance, for he will not turn the other cheek?
(no need to reply to this one - it was just an exercise in misinterpretation)