okay, it’s hard for me to find time to focus on just this > but here I’ll try and get it answered as best I can

Empirical stuff is what I'd mostly advocate for - testable observable etc.

I see what you’re sayin here – so I’ll use “empirical” here because the things in the knowable world are “testable observable etc.” okay > movin forward >

I do think there's great evidence for most of morality being genetic. We observe what we'd consider moral behavior from chimps and lions and all sorts of things. It makes sense for our genetics to encode us with some of that understanding, especially as social animals, as it's the basis on which reciprocity, reputation, etc. all work.

okay, great, let’s take that, now … how about the flip side? If morality can work this way – by genetics – can a lack of morality work this way too? A person didn’t get morality in their genes. What d’ya think?

Wu Li is Chinese for physics (Wu Li literally means Move Force)

thanks > you taught me a lil Chinese today > I’ll associate that with Bruce Lee – he was a force that moved – so, thanks for that

You don't seem to subscribe to any real hardline school of Christianity I can tell. What I grew up in would probably be considered fundamentalist or literalist. Yes the Bible was written by different people but to suggest that their biases substantially affected the message would be something akin to blasphemy. You also apply outside perspectives to vet sections of the Bible, rather than taking the Bible as the unerring word first and then interpreting other things in light of THAT. You obviously don't subscribe whole-cloth to what the majority of Christians believe so what is it about what's there that you find useful? If it's not all literally true, why is it that great of a belief system at all?

okay, I gotta split this up > “don’t subscribe to any real hardline school of Christianity” > right – nothing “hardline” > “school of Christianity” > I’ve never been to school for any part of Christianity > if I had … this quote comes to mind > “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” (Mark Twain or Grant Allen) > the things I’ve experienced firsthand bein my “education” here

“What I grew up in … fundamentalist or literalist.” > I don’t know exactly what that means, but by the sounds of it … does it mean strict? Maybe harsh? Or maybe even cruel? If I’m in the ballpark, I am so sorry that’s what you experienced growin up. Whoever made your childhood be that way was wrong > it’s what I’ve come to know as spiritual abuse > some of my friends’ and my experience is where there’s spiritual abuse there’s physical abuse > physical assaults in childhood

“suggest that their biases substantially affected the message” > “biases”> “some sports, such as lawn bowling, the irregular shape given to a ball”

“affected the message” > yes > example > in the bible, who’s the main person? > Jesus? > I say Jesus > if we say Jesus is the main person in the bible > the thing that’s empirical > then why’d they get who Jesus’ grandfather is wrong? > in this empirical thing look at the book of Matthew > 1st chapter > we see with our eyes it says Jesus’ grandfather was Jacob > turn the pages of this empirical thing to Luke > 3rd chapter > says Jesus’ grandfather was Heli.
okay, so, Heli in Luke > Jacob in Matthew > that’s a big deal > because if the main person in this empirical thing is Jesus > the Matthew part of this empirical thing says his grandfather was Jacob > the Luke part says Heli > they can’t both be right > Matthew and Luke have bias/irregularity to each other > one’s wrong > which one? > what else is wrong? > In other words, I’m careful what I believe that I see in this empirical thing.

“substantially affected the message” > yes > example > Lord’s Prayer > is prayer substantial? > I say yes > You? > main character > Jesus > Matthew 6 writer and Luke 11 writer > both said Jesus said … pray like this > Matthew says more things than Luke > what happened? > prayer is substantial > which one d’ya go by? > Matthew and Luke have bias/irregularity to each other.

“substantially affected the message” > more substantial? > yes > example > Last Supper > Jesus’ blood and body > Matthew 26 writer, Mark 14 writer, Luke 22 writer … check, check, check > all wrote about it … John writer > no > John’s irregular to Matthew, Mark, and Luke > for people who read the bible and try to figure out this thing called life with it … this part of the Last Supper > Jesus’ body and blood > substantial? > most say yes > but not in John > John’s irregular to Matthew, Mark, and Luke > why? >
akin to blasphemy

John Dominic Crossan > heard of him? > former Catholic priest > Jesus’ blood and body > “It doesn’t happen in the gospel of John, for example. And you wonder why on earth does this not happen in John, did he forget it as it were? And if it was so important [substantial], how can he leave it out?” > link here Mr. Crossan says this to Peter Jennings (safe link)

“did he forget it”? > made me laugh > blasphemy? > not to me > to you? > Genesis 21 > And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh … > Ecclesiastes 3 > A time to weep, and a time to laugh … > If I’ve said anything here that you say is blasphemy and that blasphemy offended you, I apologize. Because I didn’t mean to offend you and I didn’t mean it to come across as blasphemy. I meant it to be what it is to me > one a the funny things about bein human > Ooops I forgot that part – well that’s a pretty big part to forget, right?! … but okay … no more laughin here

“majority of Christians believe” > majority of Christians you know > majority of Christians I know > different majorities?

“so what is it about what's there that you find useful? If it's not all literally true, why is it that great of a belief system at all?” > where do I start? Well, I’m brokenhearted > it’s healing that > example > catastrophic injury > self-righteous say “everything happens for a reason” > not everything > Luke 10 > “by chance” > means without plan or intent > self-righteous also say God punishes people in this life > no > Luke 9 > Jesus: “not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” > then he tells the disciples who said to hurt people that they don’t know “what manner of spirit” they’re of > things like that > there’s a lot > golden rule > use it to weigh anything to see if you can go by it or not > Einstein > The world as I see it > p. 76 >

“If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets
and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it
of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests,
one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.”

hope this helps