Dear Atheists/Non-Believers

I think that as a psychologically functioning human I can recognise that other Humans are like me. I like to give consent for things such as a exchange of goods, they too must like to consent before a exchange of goods. I wouldn’t like to not give consent as that is stealing from me, I recognise that they too must give consent or I am stealing which I wouldn’t like.

Sort of a complex treat others how you would like to be treated.

Not that all church goers are saints , but there are studies showing how the parents went to church translating to to how their kids attend. Father sporadically was ranked over Mother often in % of kids continuing…

@Despade no internet argument would ever bother me - I have staked my eternity on it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s a more than fair call out about the negativity, and my intention was not to paint people of faith as weak, more as survivors, apologies for that, but I definitely understand how it can be taken that way reading back over it. Appreciate the call out and it has been well received.

1 Like

I took it as a “Chewy” reference, but I would not be offended even if insult was met.

Insults really reveal the truth nature of the insultor, not the insultee.

But, thank you, nonetheless. You’re a mensch.

1 Like

There is no such thing as a “Christian God”. It’s a pet peeve of mine. There is just ‘God’. Christianity is a faith, a religion. It did not create nor does it posses “God”.
And you are correct. Philosophical arguments can get you deductively to the existence of God, but that’s as far as that goes.
You can infer a lot of things from that, and the fork in the road can go different directions. But nobody should confuse that proving the existence of God proves a religion is right, wrong or indifferent.
Like I said before, it’s gets you as far as Deism, if you want to deal in only certainty or near certainty… But that’s pretty good too. No small feat by dead philosophers yore who gave us these arguments.

That is a correct summary of the Law, including all the “regulations.” It’s found in various forms in the Torah itself, but this formulation actually dates back to about 100 BCE. It’s recounted in Shabbat 31a of the Talmud.

It recounts a story about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai (who was a bit of a hardass), who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house.

The gentile did not give up and went to Hillel. Hillel accepted the challenge, and said:

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this–go and study it!”

To say it differently, the “regulations” just drill down on specifics. To give an obscure example people always think is stupid: mixing types of materials in a fabric (e.g., silk and linen) is forbidden.

Well why?

The rule had a couple of purposes: first, it was a consumer-protection rule – people would mix a fine material with cheap and sell at a higher price. It’s principles apply to other things – like gold with a cheap metal (dross) and saying it’s pure gold, etc. So cheating in the market is a no-no – you know, because you wouldn’t like to be cheated, either.

It was also about “not putting on airs” – that is, faking being rich. (This relates back to envy of another’s stuff – and being a good person you should avoid putting your neighbor in a place where he sins becasue he envy’s your stuff.) This second reason is also why Orthodox Jews, rich and poor, tend to wear the same clothes, especially to Synagogue. We’re all just servants to G-d, and you shouldn’t make someone feel bad because his suit sucks. (A fake Louis Vuitton breaks this rule, too, for example.)

Correct. If you read the Torah, there are really two “covenants.” The first is to descendants of Adam and Noah (that is, everyone). These are the Noahadic laws referenced above. While this is an oversimplification, it’s the ten commandments, less Shabbos.

And then the rest, which are details.

The second covenant is the Covenant of Mt. Sinai. This applies to only the Jews (and most of it to only a specific class of Jewish people and only during specific events, like the Paschal sacrifices). It also has something to say about the ownership of a small parcel of otherwise unremarkable land at the corner of Asia, Africa, and Europe that apparently is quite controversial these days, but that’s a completely different thread.

The takeaway from this post is this: if you read something in the Bible that contradicts “Love the Lord with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself,” you are reading the Bible wrong somehow.

1 Like

No worries.

1 Like

:laughing: My dad and I have a great relationship and we’re both more philosophically inclined. Meanwhile, most of the conservative Christian father/son relationships strike me as emotionally distant and sometimes even competitive. But that’s just a generalization based on my experience.

You should have read the second part of my argument about society more closely, where I explain that healthy societies simply do better than unhealthy ones, and social morality is a part of that health. Societies that promote people due to ability out-compete societies that promote based on nepotism. Societies in which people respect intellectual property laws create a safe place for innovation while countries that don’t end up with an uninspired population that doesn’t see much point in trying. Economic bubbles are created when delusions outrace sound investments. A marriage based on affection and respect is going to be happier than one based on authoritarianism. And the American government has made some of its worst decisions when it was the least democratic.

I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household. My beliefs have been fluid, but identify as agnostic.

My girlfriend was raised in an ardently Catholic family.

We have been together a while and live together, but long-term she doesn’t see it working out because I will never be able to sincerely accept God, especially Catholicism doctrine, which to be fair is a pretty big deal in the context of potentially starting a family/marriage.

Time won’t change my views as I’m an empiricist. I wouldn’t say being agnostic falls under the realm of being “wrong” in reference to the OP, but regardless of how you want to label it, I am quite neutral on whatever the truth really turns out to be.

What does that mean?

That doesn’t sound out of the ordinary to me at all. People also have distant, withdrawn and competitive relationships with their deity.

Hell, some of them even think they’ve won.

1 Like

I hope I have a reason to travel to Pittsburgh one day.
:thumbsup:

1 Like

That would be great. We could grab some Popeye’s!

“Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millenia ago. They were…more trouble than they were worth.” - Worf on DS9, episode Homefront

I know I’m a little late to this thread but I have seen this come up a few times. Relevant video

1 Like

Excellent points… Loving your enemy is Christian tenet, only.

1 Like

He makes the very same points about the Crusades that I do… If it were not for the Crusades, Muslim conquest would have happened a long time ago…

I don’t know if you find that in other faiths, but remember the Charleston church shooting in 2015? That crazy young man opened fire in a Black church, and those church ladies were so kind, and forgiving. I was so moved by their response to that.

1 Like

“Loving your enemy” is found in Torah and Talmud in a number of various formulations. Just off the top of my head:

Exodus 23:4 says, “If you see your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you should surely bring them back.”

Proverbs urges that when your enemy falls, man should not rejoice and say, “I will do to him as he has done to me” (I think that’s in the Proverbs 20 or so).

Similarly, the Talmud, expanding upon this admonition says, “Let not your heart be glad when your enemy falls lest the Lord see it and it displeases Him” (That’s in Ethics of the Father somewhere.)

and this one, Nazarines should recognize:

“Forgive thy neighbor the hurt he hath done thee; and then your sins shall be pardoned when you pray.”

Indeed, Mar Zuṭra 's prayer I say every day: “O my G-d, forgive all such as have wronged me, even as you, G-d, forgive transgressions without harboring revenge, so be it also with me, harbor no hatred in my heart.”

So, no, while the Nazarine’s formulation is nice and concise, it’s not unique concept to the religion.

1 Like

To answer the question no .