With regards to one, just because it was not original does not discount its value. That only supports my point that it was an attempt to present a way to live -

With regards to one, just because it was not original does not discount its value. That only supports my point that it was an attempt to present a way to live - a failed attempt given hindsight. I never said it was original nor entirely good. That's why we can both recognise the good parts as generally good advice. 2. I'm not preaching. I was brought up Catholic and learned enough to reject it. Catholicism and the actions of that church and other splinters are fundamentally at odds with what Jesus actually preached - love your neighbour. Somehow, it was ok to burn your neighbour alive if they did not believe Jesus was God, which the rule did not mention. I am not a Catholic today - there is too much hypocrisy. My assertion was that these, regardless of what we know now, were misguided hypotheses that had mixtures of valuable advice along with ideas that we now know are wrong. The structure built on top of that is perhaps a hypothesis taken too seriously. My thinking is that what originally was the equivalent of Aristotle to some Newton was misunderstood and taken to the extreme. I share your sentiments exactly. > Yes, at the time. But not today This was exactly my point. Your English is very good, by the way. If I didn't know better, I'd mistake your German directness as rude and blunt. I would agree. Perhaps not empiric but more practical which lends itself better to empirical study.