Yes, with the care and and love we give ourselves.

@josephr you can't give what you ain't got. I agree.

@HankSherman Great way to put it. "You can't give what you ain't got!"

@josephr thank you, sure I heard or read it somewhere.

"Catfish?" I'm in no way deriding your comment, but i was wonder what deception you're seeing? Is the moral any less functional because someone might have created a fictional parable? Just asking.

ha wadr the Bible is full of them, and believers are the most roundly vilified in Scripture (you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then turn them into twice the sons of hell you are), the NT is even the record of the failure of a Theocracy?

so don't get me wrong ok, i get why you say that, but i suggest that we have been fooled

@bbyrd009 Stories main purposes are to engage (make think) , perhaps learn( they are the ones we remember easiest , and perhaps amuse or happily alter our views . I am looking for heartwarming science stories.

@Mcflewster hmm, dunno about heartwarming, but heard the one about Cassini--whom we name shit after, right--and his colossal blinder viz the orbit of Io, i think it was?
""In 1676 an anomaly in the orbit of Io, Jupiter's innermost moon, led the astronomer Ole Roemer to make a very specific prediction. Io would appear from behind Jupiter at 5:37 pm on November 9, 1676, he said--and that would prove light travels with a finite speed. Roemer's mentor, Jean-Dominique Cassini, head of the Paris Observatory, rubbished the idea; light spread instantaneously, he said. His beliefs () led him to a different prediction. According to Cassini, it would be 5:27 when Io appeared.

Io appeared at 5:37 and 49 seconds. On hearing of this, Cassini announced that the facts fit with the story he had presented (faith). Although Cassini had made his (erroneous) prediction at a public gathering of scientists, not one of them demurred when he denied it; they all backed him up. Roemer had to wait fifty years to be vindicated; only after Cassini had died did scientists accept that the speed of light was finite."
[books.google.com]

so the lesson maybe is that scientists can be just as religious as believers. or something.

@Mcflewster "And science, we must quickly add, is a method that allows broad populations of otherwise unrelated people to form a single mind in understanding creation (John 17:23, Acts 2:46, 2 Corinthians 13:11)..." [abarim-publications.com]
"
God, like the psyche, cannot be measured and therefore theology is not the study of God but rather the study of everything: those objects, phenomena and events that surely can be measured and which may or may not arise from a Creator who may or may not exist.

The familiar Greek word θεος (theos) belongs to a family of words that also contains words like theory and theatre. Biblical theology has never had anything to do with religion but has always been the mother of all sciences, the umbrella under which all other scientific disciplines exist, the rainbow that gives all scientific colors their place. Biblical theology has nothing to do with religion but is the Higgs field from which all other sciences derive their mass..."

@bbyrd009 Interesting. But above everything else if the Bible is science it needs an update VERY urgently. This fact alone shows that it is man-made

@bbyrd009 Taken from Abraham Publications "This in turn means that, contrary to popular belief, science is a method that always proves wrong and never right,"

You really have got it in for science have you not? That is sad but you are not alone. In fact science is a method of producing the best possible conclusions at the time. It can only be changed however by doing better science that a large body of scientists agreed with. Bible writers are dead and cannot match this . Please I implore get real. Allow evolution of ideas by people who can test, reject or advance.

@Mcflewster ha well i don't agree with everything the guy says anyway ok, but "science always proves wrong, and never right" is pretty much an axiom i think? Not a bad thing at all imo

@bbyrd009 Any thing does not have to be WRONG to be improved. It might be extremely near perfect( perfection does not exist in reality but only in one person's perception). Science is about improving something which may be already good. Just getting better all the time especially if one improves the science methodology ( which is currently good but not perfect) . To refute me you really have to try to produce some original science AND convince say a group of people that what you have found is true. Please enjoy doing it or you will not do it, I predict.

Me too.

I did also, aand it seems the older I get, the more I react to stories like this.

@HankSherman I definitely blubber more at anything sentimental!