Better alternatives to the ten commandments?

The ten commandments always seemed sorely lacking. All that stuff concerning god’s pet peeves and thought crimes and not a lot that is a benefit to mankind as a whole. I hadn’t realized so many had put their minds to coming up with alternatives until I found this:

I particularly like Hitchens version and the “Atheist New Ten Commandments”. They seem so much better than the bible version. Of course George Carlins " 1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful, especially to the provider of thy nookie." might deserve a place on the list too :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: . Does anyone have a commandment they’d like to see added to the list?

In Australia we only have one commandment; “Don’t be a cunt”

The ten commandments make a lot more/ less sense when one realises that there are actually 613 commandments which make up Mosaic law. They are all found in the Torah. (The first five books of the old testament). Individually they are called mitzvah. (commandment) Collectively they are known as ‘The Mitzvot’ (commandments) They cover every aspect of life. It’s argued that “The Law” is what kept the Jews together as a people for over 1000 years.

If a person obeys just one, “Love your neighbour as yourself”, all of the other [moral laws] are superfluous… Jesus himself is recorded as saying that next only to loving god, loving your neighbour is the most important commandment. Seems to me it’s also the most egregiously ignored, in Christianity, Buddhism (" above all, loving kindness") and Confucianism (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”)–at least

After removing the nonsense which refers to ritual, I think the essentially the same moral laws contained in pretty much every religion are just fine ***.That the flaw is within human beings who find those rules just too hard.

When men invent religions, they seem to deliberately set standards they know few will ever meet. Over years, I’ve begun to suspect that moral laws are either meant to be guides or goals or more likely, instruments of control over believers.

***don’t lie, cheat or steal and do not harm others.


Like Jesus’s rule that just to even imagine having sex with anyone equals actually having had that sexual encounter. Bollocks, its not. What would that 33 year old virgin know?
The Golden Rule says it all, but “Don’t be a cunt.” is shorter then again “Noli esse cunnus” would look cooler on a T-shirt.

I am ordering one of those!!! AND the cap and Jacket!

Quite. I’ll have a look on Ebay. You’d be amazed at what you can find there. In the last 4 years I’ve made over 250 purchases. Only this week I discovered that my account seems to have been hacked. Changed password immediately, cancelled dedicated card and ordered a new one. It’s only $50 and I’m not certain I didn’t buy whatever it was. My bank is chasing it up and will do a recall. If it’s kosher, that will trigger a response from an outraged vendor. Could take a month.

In making something as natural as sex and sexual thoughts sinful, the church instantly created guilt, power and control.

I simply don’t believe Jesus said any such thing. Quite a bit attributed to him strongly suggest the Gospel writers were not Jewish and had little understanding of Jewish custom. Had Jesus said many of the things attributed to him, his own disciples would have probably stoned him for blasphemy, or at least reported him to the temple and they would have stoned him (or at least cast the first stone)

“He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone” ( John 8:7) is the earliest example of the Tu quoque, fallacy I’ve come across: The woman had committed adultery. Under Mosaic law, the penalty was death by stoning .Period***. Had Jesus interfered and had the gall to claim to forgive her, he probably would have joined her, for blasphemy.

***Judaism is the most legalistic religion of which I’m aware. (LOOK UP the list of 613 Mitzvot (Commandments.) The Law was that which held Jewish society together for nearly 2000 years.

1 Like

Jim Jefferies has the best list I have ever heard of.

  1. Try not to be a cunt.

Yet not one word expressly condemning rape of a spouse, or one word condemning child abuse.

Even Anton Lavey got that one on his list of commandments with "Do not harm little children, " though it’s my understanding that many child molesters don’t think they’re causing harm so directly saying “Do not sexually molest children” might be a better commandment. Not sure how much good any commandments do really since there is so much weaseling with excuses and semantics, and people basically still do what they want. The “Thou shall not kill” hasn’t seemed to slow down Christians much. I think it’s stated that in the original Hebrew the word was murder not kill, which isn’t the same as justifiably killing someone. Still, a better set of Christian commandments might have had at least some effect for the good. It seems like it was a wasted opportunity to set out a better set of rules that didn’t involve god being petty.

I like Marcus Aurelius’s 4 principles, in this case 4 is better than 10 (in my not so humble opinion):-

  • Nature: Nature is rational.
  • Law of Reason: The universe is governed by the law of reason. …
  • Virtue: A life led according to rational nature is virtuous.
  • Wisdom: Wisdom is the the root virtue. …
  • Apathea: Since passion is irrational, life should be waged as a battle against it.

This gets better every time I hear it.

1 Like

Sounds like 4 deepities (I actually counted 5 but you said 4 :woman_shrugging:t2:).

They make no sense…unless “nature” is your god… then they still make no sense but explains why you listed this.

You may be correct, and yes I did list 5 (so much for my cut and paste skills).
My take on Stoicism is as follows.

We are all part of nature - not independent of it nor superior because we have evolved with a greater cranial capacity than many other species. We are the product of the evolutionary process as are all other species.

The universe does what the universe does and it can be examined, measured and predictions made about it. It is not conscious.

When we observe nature (which we are part of) we see natural processes taking place. A pride of lions eating a gazelle while it is still alive is not good nor bad nor is it pleasant, it just is. You could change the situation by shooting the gazelle, but your action is neither good nor bad. There is reason behind what is taking place - the evolutionary drive of the lions to survive.

Wisdom is understanding that we have similar drives as the lion and the gazelle and that we are here because our species has successfully adapted to find our niche in the environment.

Passion is not a path to truth (whatever the hell truth is) as it clouds our thinking, makes us do dumb arsed things, and prevents us from being rational. We should therefore fight against passion and attempt to observe the world with indifference. In other words, seek to enjoy ours lives, understand that we here because of natural processes, some of which suck. Good and bad things will happen to all of us. Enjoy the ride or get pissed off about it, the choice is up to us.

Yair. Here it was not possible in law for a husband to rape his wife. That only changed in the late 20th century. Still the case in Islam as far as I know.

From the very beginning (I’m assuming a correct translation). When Adam fucked up and ate the forbidden fruit, he naturally blamed Eve. However, I just looked it up.:

Most translations say Exodus 3:1 " And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

So it seems men misunderstood from the start . The woman was given to be with Adam, not as his property. In Christendom, it took nearly 2000 years for Christian men to start to get that right. A long way to go because EG a lot of men have the gall to impose their will on women and reproduction. That’s now, in the 21st century. I can’t imagine the rage many American women must feel. Just one legacy of the erstwhile president, Donald Trump, who has stacked the US Supreme Court.

Yeah, there’s definitely some rage. Can’t blame it all on men though, plenty of women wanting to force their ridiculous religious views of sex on other women. Lots of these women have comfortable lives and are smugly sure the law won’t in anyway impact them or those they care about and who who think they’ll get brownie points from god. Amy Coney Barrett for one. Trump is being oddly coy and not jumping on the band wagon. He says his aides are “Looking into the Texas law, and that it’s likely temporary”. WTF? I think he’s waiting to see the laws impact and how most people respond. I don’t think he realizes yet how whole heartedly his base is for it. I’ve always suspected that Trump isn’t really against abortion, it was just a way to get votes. As a rich man who has no qualms having as much sex as he can get it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s helped pay for an abortion or two.


In the 29 years Staunch Methodist Sir Thomas Playford was State Premiere South Australia was called " The Wowser State"

Wowsers are people are against sex, lest it lead to dancing. Wowsers of both sexes are permanently chicken lipped. That’s because they suspect someone ,somewhere is having a good time.

Misogynism in what is now called the Middle East is nothing new, and predates the writings in the Torah and the Christian Bible. For example, laws in Assyria around 1000 BCE were heavily misogynistic and draconian. Examples follow.

If a man raped a woman without first asking if she’s already married (or just claim he didn’t know, or claimed she said she wasn’t married), it was OK, and he would not be punished. The woman, however, could be punished by her husband after the fact.:

I.14. If a man have intercourse with the wife of a man either in an inn or on the highway, knowing that she is a man’s wife, according as the man, whose wife she is, orders to be done, they shall do to the adulterer. If not knowing that she is a man’s wife he rapes her, the adulterer goes free. The man shall prosecute his wife, doing to her as he likes.

Only the woman will be blamed for having sex outside marriage:

I.16. If a man have relations with the wife of a man at her wish, there is no penalty for that man. The man shall lay upon the woman, his wife, the penalty he wishes.

If divorced, the woman depends on the generosity of her former husband. No rights for economic support whatsoever:

I.37. If a man divorce his wife, if he wish, he may give her something; if he does not wish, he need not give her anything. Empty shall she go out.

Veiling of women was not invented by Islam, but has long traditions in the Middle East. The Assyrian laws (and their continuing traditions) were so heavily misogynistic and strict and draconian that in fact, it is argued that the islamic laws regarding veiling of women could be viewed as a liberation. Source: Paul Kriwaczek: Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization ( The law stated:

I.40. If the wives of a man, or the daughters of a man go out into the street, their heads are to be veiled. The prostitute is not to be veiled. Maidservants are not to veil themselves. Veiled harlots and maidservants shall have their garments seized and 50 blows inflicted on them and bitumen poured on their heads.

A man can beat a woman, causing her to miscarry, and only pay a fine, or receive the same amount of beating himself. On the other hand, if a woman is suspected to have caused an abortion, she shall die a most gruesome death:

I.50. If a man strike the wife of a man, in her first stage of pregnancy, and cause her to drop that which is in her, it is a crime; two talents of lead he shall pay.
I.51. If a man strike a harlot and cause her to drop that which is in her, blows for blows they shall lay upon him; he shall make restitution for a life.
I.52. If a woman of her own accord drop that which is in her, they shall prosecute her, they shall convict her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her. If she die from dropping that which is in her, they shall crucify her, they shall not bury her.

Unless special circumstances, a woman can legally be beaten by her husband:

I.58. Unless it is forbidden in the tablets, a man may strike his wife, pull her hair, her ear he may bruise or pierce. He commits no misdeed thereby.

(list of laws at Internet History Sourcebooks)

I saw this comment a while back, it resonates with me - “What has always worked for me in this matter is this. I’m 80, and I still live my life by the 4-H pledge: I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and the world… the 4-H motto is, to make the best better… the 4-H slogan is, to learn by doing”.

Fascinating. I’ve never seen that list before.

My understanding is John Wesley=Methodists and even Pentacostals = bigoted misogynists.

The contents and language of the list seem very modern to me. Be most interested to see evidence which shows Wesley actually wrote such a list. Right now, I’m unable to believe it.