| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2010 08:32:35 PM · #1951 |
| You don't think our Deist forefathers were influenced by their classical educations? ;) |
|
|
|
10/14/2010 08:46:12 PM · #1952 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't think our Deist forefathers were influenced by their classical educations? ;) |
Were Plato, Aristotle, and Homer attempting to persuade by means of logic and reason, or imposing holy writ as the Earthly representative of the sole Divinity? From the writings left behind, it seems that the most influence their Deism wrought was to make it clear that religious dogma should not dictate civil law. |
|
|
|
10/14/2010 10:09:59 PM · #1953 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Just because Christians and Muslims claim the same spiritual/physical ancestor does not mean that they are brothers. |
Of COURSE they're brothers; all men (and women) are brothers (and sisters). It is our curse and our doom, basically, that so few of seem to understand this, and it is to our undying shame, collectively, as a race (humankind) that we allow our religion(s) to drive wedges between us by by exacerbating our genetic predisposition towards xenophobia.
One might expect, in the best of all possible worlds, that the core goal of religion would be to bring peoples together, not to keep them apart.
R. |
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 01:58:31 AM · #1954 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.........
|
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:47:30 AM · #1955 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that......... |
Probably this: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
Treating someone differently is not the same as treating someone poorly. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 04:20:54 AM · #1956 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that......... |
Probably this: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
Treating someone differently is not the same as treating someone poorly. |
...so are you saying that the contents of Matthew 7:12 is advocating this... or is this another one of those religious tenets that is open to interpretation.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 10:00:56 AM · #1957 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that......... |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Probably this: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
Treating someone differently is not the same as treating someone poorly. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...so are you saying that the contents of Matthew 7:12 is advocating this... or is this another one of those religious tenets that is open to interpretation.
Ray |
A biblical verse open to interpretation as it suits?????? Say it ain't so!!!!!
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 10:01:23.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2010 01:39:55 PM · #1958 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...so are you saying that the contents of Matthew 7:12 is advocating this... or is this another one of those religious tenets that is open to interpretation. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
A biblical verse open to interpretation as it suits?????? Say it ain't so!!!!! |
Yep. That's the problem I have with protestants. They have no authority on the bible except the bible itself. Pretty circular reasoning.
Catholicism, has more to draw from than just the bible. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 02:23:55 PM · #1959 |
| The Western idea that we should treat others "as ourselves" regardless of whether they belong to our "ingroup" or not is distinctly Judeo-Christian and the foundation for all subsequent versions of this (in the Western world at least). While it may see self-evident to us now, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And while we can all point to times and places when this ideal has not been upheld (even by its adherents), it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 02:46:52 PM · #1960 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Western idea that we should treat others "as ourselves" regardless of whether they belong to our "ingroup" or not is distinctly Judeo-Christian and the foundation for all subsequent versions of this (in the Western world at least). While it may see self-evident to us now, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And while we can all point to times and places when this ideal has not been upheld (even by its adherents), it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
But not the sole source, especially in the "non-Western" world you seem to casually write off, even though it comprises close to two-thirds of today's human population. Seems to me that the Buddha might have an independently-derived if not prior claim on the basic concept:
Originally posted by Cited article:
Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition ...
For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to outcaste street sweepers, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. From the outset, Buddhism was equally open to all races and classes, and had no caste structure ... |
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 14:47:38. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:02:12 PM · #1961 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I try to treat all people with respect and dignity as human beings, but the number of people that I consider brothers and treat them as such is much smaller. |
Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that......... |
Probably this: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
Treating someone differently is not the same as treating someone poorly. |
...so are you saying that the contents of Matthew 7:12 is advocating this... or is this another one of those religious tenets that is open to interpretation.
Ray |
I think Matthew 7:12 is pretty straight forward. If someone can read the menu at McDonald's then they should be able to understand that Bible verse.
The Bible does not say that we should treat all people the same. It does say that we should treat all people with love, respect, kindness, etc. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I've never met someone who treat's a random Joe the same way they treat their family members or close friends.
I treat everyone as either a brother or as a potential brother. If you're not my brother I will treat you as if you could be my brother.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Western idea that we should treat others "as ourselves" regardless of whether they belong to our "ingroup" or not is distinctly Judeo-Christian and the foundation for all subsequent versions of this (in the Western world at least). While it may see self-evident to us now, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And while we can all point to times and places when this ideal has not been upheld (even by its adherents), it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
But not the sole source, especially in the "non-Western" world you seem to casually write off, even though it comprises close to two-thirds of today's human population. Seems to me that the Buddha might have an independently-derived if not prior claim on the basic concept:
|
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I believe Leviticus predates Buddha.
"Â You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
(Leviticus 19:18 ESV)"
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 15:11:55. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:12:06 PM · #1962 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Probably this: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
I think Matthew 7:12 is pretty straight forward. If someone can read the menu at McDonald's then they should be able to understand that Bible verse.
The Bible does not say that we should treat all people the same. |
Yes, it says exactly that: treat people as you want to be treated. There are two parties mentioned, yourself and someone else, and it says treat them the same -- "whatever" is an all-inclusive term.
You want it to read "whatever someone does to you, do something similar to them" but, sorry, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:21:25 PM · #1963 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Western idea that we should treat others "as ourselves" regardless of whether they belong to our "ingroup" or not is distinctly Judeo-Christian and the foundation for all subsequent versions of this (in the Western world at least). While it may see self-evident to us now, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And while we can all point to times and places when this ideal has not been upheld (even by its adherents), it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
But not the sole source, especially in the "non-Western" world you seem to casually write off, even though it comprises close to two-thirds of today's human population. Seems to me that the Buddha might have an independently-derived if not prior claim on the basic concept: |
Possibly true, but beyond the scope of the conversation. When I talk to people on these threads I'm talking almost exclusively to members of the western world. I remind them of their roots, that's all. I'm not "casually writing off" anybody, but rather keeping the conversation focused to the folks at hand. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:26:27 PM · #1964 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think Matthew 7:12 is pretty straight forward. If someone can read the menu at McDonald's then they should be able to understand that Bible verse. |
Originally posted by Matthew 7:12 NKJV:
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. |
Really? Someone who could read a McDonald's menu would understand, "for this is the Law and the Prophets." Sorry, but you need the Jewish history and tradition to understand that phrase. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:48:22 PM · #1965 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Western idea that we should treat others "as ourselves" regardless of whether they belong to our "ingroup" or not is distinctly Judeo-Christian and the foundation for all subsequent versions of this (in the Western world at least). While it may see self-evident to us now, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. And while we can all point to times and places when this ideal has not been upheld (even by its adherents), it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
But not the sole source, especially in the "non-Western" world you seem to casually write off, even though it comprises close to two-thirds of today's human population. Seems to me that the Buddha might have an independently-derived if not prior claim on the basic concept: |
Possibly true, but beyond the scope of the conversation. When I talk to people on these threads I'm talking almost exclusively to members of the western world. I remind them of their roots, that's all. I'm not "casually writing off" anybody, but rather keeping the conversation focused to the folks at hand. |
... and you're not being highly selective as to the starting point for this "root" just because it happens to be most compatible with your ongoing narrative, right? I mean Judeo-Christianity is the first mover, it has no roots...
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 15:48:44.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2010 03:58:40 PM · #1966 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Possibly true, but beyond the scope of the conversation. When I talk to people on these threads I'm talking almost exclusively to members of the western world. I remind them of their roots, that's all. I'm not "casually writing off" anybody, but rather keeping the conversation focused to the folks at hand. |
... and you're not being highly selective as to the starting point for this "root" just because it happens to be most compatible with your ongoing narrative, right? I mean Judeo-Christianity is the first mover, it has no roots... |
You are welcome to present your case for evaluation. :)
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 16:03:05. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 04:02:31 PM · #1967 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, it says exactly that: treat people as you want to be treated. There are two parties mentioned, yourself and someone else, and it says treat them the same -- "whatever" is an all-inclusive term. |
The manner in which I treat all people is generally the same because all people are human beings, but not all human beings are my brothers. At a minimum, I will treat you has a human being, but if you are my brother I will treat you differently. We treat people differently depending on our relationship status, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is wrong to treat someone as less than a human being, but there is nothing wrong with treating someone in a special way if you have a special relationship with them. That's all I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2010 04:11:49 PM · #1968 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
The Golden Rule pre-dates Judaism and Judeo-Chrisitianity by a dozen or more centuries. The ideal of Reciprocity was one of the Principles of Ma'at in Ancient Egypt, and was discussed in many variations by Greek philosophers. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 04:32:43 PM · #1969 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...it does not remove Judeo-Christianity as the source of the ideal. |
The Golden Rule pre-dates Judaism and Judeo-Chrisitianity by a dozen or more centuries. The ideal of Reciprocity was one of the Principles of Ma'at in Ancient Egypt, and was discussed in many variations by Greek philosophers. |
Greek philosophers post-date Judaism by quite a bit. You'll have to present your case for Ma'at. Some sites I find the word "reciprocity" and others (like wiki) I do not. I'd like to see some sources for it and what it means and who it was intended for (do you only show reciprocity to your "in-group" or to everybody or what)?
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 16:35:35. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 06:26:15 PM · #1970 |
There's plenty of bible bashing here. What about the religion of science and it being infallible. Well of course it is fallible, that comes with the scientific method. But even though theories are proven wrong, they are still used.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Science has come a long way, but it still has it's problems. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 06:33:11 PM · #1971 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Greek philosophers post-date Judaism by quite a bit. |
Hillel is commonly mentioned as the source for the Judaic intonation of the Golden Rule. c. 110 BCE.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll have to present your case for Ma'at. |
I don't believe I do. I simply pointed out your unequivocal statement that Judeo-Christianity as the source of reciprocity is disputable. You're free to reject any alternative interpretations as you see fit. :-) |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 06:59:19 PM · #1972 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Greek philosophers post-date Judaism by quite a bit. |
Hillel is commonly mentioned as the source for the Judaic intonation of the Golden Rule. c. 110 BCE.
|
Leviticus was written more than a thousand years before that, so if it's "commonly mentioned" they are "commonly wrong"...
Message edited by author 2010-10-15 18:59:43. |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 07:17:04 PM · #1973 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll have to present your case for Ma'at. |
I have left my city, I have come down from my province,
having done what is right (ma'at) for its lord, having satisfied him with that which he loves,
I spoke ma'at and I did ma'at, I spoke well and I reported well....
I rescued the weak from the hand of one stronger than he when I was able;
I gave bread to the hungry, clothing [to the naked], a landing for the boatless.
I buried him who had no son,
I made a boat for him who had no boat,
I respected my father, I pleased my mother,
I nurtured their children.
Autobiographical text circa 2400BCE. Lots of similar stuff from around 2600BCE onwards really. In particular the so called Wisdom Texts which were didactic handbooks for how to lead a good life essentially. A good example are The Instructions of Ptah-hotep
I studied Egyptology for a few years and have many of these in translation so i'll have a look in the morning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
.....and who it was intended for (do you only show reciprocity to your "in-group" or to everybody or what)? |
Intended for everyone really, from the Pharoah downwards. The actual texts were for the literate higher and middle classes though but were in some part intended to teach them how to treat the poorer illiterate working class as well, as equals in the grand scheme of things, Ma'at. This was probably only true for Egyptians though as they were an incredibly insular people.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2010 07:21:24 PM · #1974 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Leviticus was written more than a thousand years before that, so if it's "commonly mentioned" they are "commonly wrong"... |
Depends on which school you ascribe to, I suppose. Some aren't quite as, um...liberal...with the dates, but I know how you love that old "bible is history" chestnut. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/15/2010 07:23:36 PM · #1975 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
This was probably only true for Egyptians though as they were an incredibly insular people. |
Didn't some dude named Charlton Heston Moses spend some time there? I believe he even wrote down some of what he knew, sometime after he left in a hurry ... |
|
