Sign in to follow this  
Chavez

"I don't trust nobody who don't love Jesus"

Recommended Posts

And by the way, in the end, if you can't answer the final question, then your whole system falls apart and the child realizes that there isn't a real reason to behave ethically.  (With the "green leaves" question, a parent can finally reach the point where they have to say "I don't know, it just does" without it affecting a child's behavior; whereas to finally answer "behave ethically, just because you should" doesn't work so well.)

 

1389367[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You a seeking a mechanical answer to a question of philosophy. Integrity and faith are not mechanical structures that are defined with a universal rules set. Some folks have attempted to capture it in books and methods of belief like the Koran or Bible, and those without the will or desire to determine thier own integrity and morals, can choose to follow those templates. But even in that world, there are varying degrees of what would to most people be deemed unethical behavior, including killing in the name of whatever god you are worshipping and thinking it "ethical" and to be "rewarded". So even these templates are not able to truly set in stone what you are asking us to do, despite thousands of years of fine tuning.

 

You will never get a satisfactory answer. Humans are too diverse.

 

The best answer to your question of why would someone choose not to be unethical is because they can.

Edited by cre8tiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about shared tribal memory? Evolutionary social instincts? We certainly had to band together as proto-humans to survive...

 

1389268[/snapback]

 

 

 

tribal memory and evolutionary social instincts may account for cooperation on the tribal level. it can account all the way up through hobbes' notion of social contract and stuff. can't quite account for something as universal as the golden rule, IMO. except to the extent you can say universalist/religious ethics themselves are part of our evolved social instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best answer to your question of why would someone choose not to be unethical is because they can.

 

1389390[/snapback]

 

 

 

And this is what is still the problem--why would they choose a strategy that is going to make themselves worse off?

 

(for example, I can eat mayonnaise, but that doesn't mean that I am going to eat mayonnaise if I think my sandwich will taste better without it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seemed to be making a point that the GR sprung from religion, but was not related to theism necessarily.

1389379[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

no, the golden rule, as it came into being in human civilization, has been very much related to theistic religion.

 

"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you."

-- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India,

circa 3000 BC

 

 

 

"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary."

-- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition,

circa 1300 BC

 

 

 

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself."

-- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition,

circa 600 BC

 

 

 

"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful."

-- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition,

circa 525 BC

 

 

 

"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you."

-- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition,

circa 500 BC

 

 

 

"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated."

-- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition,

circa 500 BC

 

 

 

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss."

-- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition,

circa 500 BC

 

 

 

"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."

-- Socrates (the Greek philosopher),

circa 470-399 BC

 

 

 

"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."

-- Epistle XLVII,11, from the Seneca tradition,

circa 5-65 AD

 

 

 

"Therefore all things whatsoever you desire that men should do to you, do you even so to them. For this is the Law and the prophets."

-- New Testament, Matthew 7:12, from the Christian tradition,

circa 30 AD

 

 

 

"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God."

-- Ko-ji-ki, Hachiman Kasuga of the Shinto tradition,

circa 500 AD

 

 

 

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."

-- Koran, Sunnah, from the Islam tradition,

circa 620 AD

 

 

 

"We obtain salvation by loving our fellow man and God."

-- Granth, Japji XXI, from the Sikh tradition,

circa 1500 AD

 

 

so which of those traditions isn't theistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's all?

:D

 

1389382[/snapback]

 

 

 

yep--it's a simple question really, isn't it? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but isn't it possible that religion is based on the GR rather than the other way round?

 

1389379[/snapback]

 

 

 

That is exactly the answer, unless u think that we ran around with dinosaurs...

 

Religions are gatherings of other religions, stories etc.... Wasn't till humans started writing chit down did it start coming together ... there are many studies, thesis etc about moray's and morals and how they have come about.... Many look at different cultures , far apart , that could never have influenced each other but yet have the same moral code...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both society and econmics demand that we be ethical to some extent. I don't see the golden rule being unique to Christians. It is universal in society, and if a society is to last must be followed to some extent. In a business deal it would not bother me to deal with an athiest. Society demands that we be treated ethically to a point. While athiest may not fear punishment in the after life, they probably fear prosecution in this life time, so I don't see it as an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should anyone trust someone who believes in something that can't be proved? Prove God or Jesus exists to me. I can easier prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exist more than God. I'll show you the Christmas presents and eggs.

 

Think about if the Bible was written today. It'd sound as kooky as Scientology and may be confused for a "Night of the Living Dead" movie. A guy creates everything, threatens that if you don't believe him, he'll condemn you to eternal suffering, sends his son down to save you, rises from the dead.... :kookoo:

 

The majority of people do good because it is either hardwired into you or you were raised that way. Not because of the fear tactics that you will burn in hell. I have no fear of eternal darnation...none. I am part of the carbon cycle. Period. I still try to do as much good towards others as possible. Not to be rewarded, but because I think the human race (like most other mammals) are hardwired or taught not to kill each other. I'd lean more towards hardwired than teachings by the parents. You see other mammal life forms helping each other. One will feed the other, keep them warm, etc. It's the reason the species survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  I'd lean more towards hardwired than teachings by the parents.  You see other mammal life forms helping each other.  One will feed the other, keep them warm, etc.  It's the reason the species survive.

 

1389612[/snapback]

 

 

 

its probebly both

 

and are u saying santa is not real...... i see him everyday dammit :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should anyone trust someone who believes in something that can't be proved?  Prove God or Jesus exists to me.  I can easier prove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exist more than God.  I'll show you the Christmas presents and eggs.

1389612[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

the bible is the single most challenged piece of literature in all of human history and it has never been proven as anything other than authentic. in that authentic literature is the story of jesus christ captured first hand, by several different authors. each story complements and is consistent with the other. there is no more proven, tried and true, collection of documents in the history of man. it has satisfied every test of journalistic integrity we know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bible is the single most challenged piece of literature in all of human history and it has never been proven as anything other than authentic.  in that authentic literature is the story of jesus christ captured first hand, by several different authors.  each story complements and is consistent with the other.  there is no more proven, tried and true, collection of documents in the history of man.  it has satisfied every test of journalistic integrity we know about.

 

1389660[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D u are kidding right :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D  u are kidding right  :D

 

1389666[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

no kidding ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no kidding ...

 

1389672[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

click....click......click.....

 

WEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
click....click......click.....

 

WEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

1389683[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

hey, i'm not making it up. people have written books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note: This is why faith is such a dangerous thing. We cannot prove faith incorrect or misguided. Faith, by it's very definition, is something that does not have to be proved. It's the perfect, airtight arguement for the flock and the leader. You don't have to be rational or smart to have faith-- you just need to believe.

 

Can the atheist and agnostic have faith in their own beliefs? Would the religious extremeist doubt their faith? Or is that what they are already doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bible is the single most challenged piece of literature in all of human history and it has never been proven as anything other than authentic.  in that authentic literature is the story of jesus christ captured first hand, by several different authors.  each story complements and is consistent with the other.  there is no more proven, tried and true, collection of documents in the history of man.  it has satisfied every test of journalistic integrity we know about.

 

1389660[/snapback]

 

 

 

well, this is partly true and partly absurd. "single most challenged piece of literature"? yeah, most likely. "authentic"? well, sorta depends what exactly you mean, but yeah.

 

"the story of jesus captured first hand"? nope. nearly all serious biblical scholars concur that none of the gospels were written by firsthand witnesses. mark, the earliest gospel, displays serious ABWF-caliber misunderstandings of palestinian geography, for one thing. the gospels were written beginning about 40 years after jesus' death. not by firsthand witnesses, but still...by first generation christians, at a time when firsthand witnesses probably WERE still alive. that in itself is pretty remarkable, as ancient historical sources go.

 

"each story complements and is consistent with the other"? eh, sort of. we can say they "complement each other" from a post-new-testament-era perspective to a degree, but the gospels express a great deal of theological disagreement between themselves. they tell the same story in completely different ways....like the arrest in gethsemane. this paragraph (from biblical scholar JD crossan) tells it better than i can...

We call it the Agony in the Garden but there is no Garden in Mark

and no Agony in John. In Mark it is Jesus who is prostrate on the ground

(14:33-35), who asks if the cup of suffering could be avoided although he

is willing to accept it if necessary (14:35-37), and who watches his

disciples abandon him and flee (14:50-52). In John it is the full 600

soldiers of Jerusalem's auxiliary cohort who are prostrate on the ground

(18:4-6), while Jesus asserts his unqualified intention of accepting the

cup of suffering (18:10-11), and then commands the cohort to let his

disciples go (18:7-9). Two radically different interpretations of the same

event. As history, they cannot both be true, even if we were never able to

tell which, if either, actually happened. But as gospel they are both true.

Mark describes the Son of God almost out of control, arrested in agony,

fear, and abandonment. John describes the Son of God in total control,

arrested in foreknowledge, triumph, and command. Each interpretation spoke

directly to and from the experience of the writers' communities but

different experiences begot different theologies of the passion's

inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tribal memory and evolutionary social instincts may account for cooperation on the tribal level.  it can account all the way up through hobbes' notion of social contract and stuff.  can't quite account for something as universal as the golden rule, IMO.  except to the extent you can say universalist/religious ethics themselves are part of our evolved social instincts.

 

1389393[/snapback]

 

 

 

Az, I'm curious if you are familure with Carl Jung, and if so, what do you think of his theories of archetypes and spirituality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toss this one around .... it's harder to prove that God doesn't exist, than it is to prove that He does.

 

Seriously, try proving that God doesn't exist. See what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az, I'm curious if you are familure with Carl Jung, and if so, what do you think of his theories of archetypes and spirituality?

 

1389755[/snapback]

 

 

 

not as familiar as i should be. i keep trying to crack "answers in job", for one, but can't seem to get past the intro. i know he's an enormous influence on certain strands of modern, mostly gnostic-based, christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toss this one around .... it's harder to prove that God doesn't exist, than it is to prove that He does.

 

Seriously, try proving that God doesn't exist.  See what happens.

 

1389759[/snapback]

 

 

 

See my post on faith above... I agree with you June.

Edited by TDFFFreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not as familiar as i should be.  i keep trying to crack "answers in job", for one, but can't seem to get past the intro.  i know he's an enormous influence on certain strands of modern, mostly gnostic-based, christianity.

 

1389765[/snapback]

 

 

 

Psychotherapist who is probably the father of mixing spirituality with psychology.

 

Making it real simple: he basically believes that there are archetypes within the human fabric that are unexplainable by each individual's own experience and hence there are things that may be passed down in a more spiritual way. By the reading I have done, he was a bit of a nut, but a real smart nut that was way ahead of his time.

Edited by TDFFFreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the story of jesus captured first hand"?  nope.  nearly all serious biblical scholars concur that none of the gospels were written by firsthand witnesses.  mark, the earliest gospel, displays serious ABWF-caliber misunderstandings of palestinian geography, for one thing.  the gospels were written beginning about 40 years after jesus' death.  not by firsthand witnesses, but still...by first generation christians, at a time when firsthand witnesses probably WERE still alive.  that in itself is pretty remarkable, as ancient historical sources go. 

 

 

1389754[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

point taken. +1 on the pretty remarkable comment.

 

regarding differences, none are substantial enough to disprove or negate. that is what i meant by "complement and consistent." individual differences in interpretation could be present, but that makes it all the more real to me. they do, indeed, read like different accounts from different people who observed the same things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychotherapist who is probably the father of mixing spirituality with psychology.

 

Making it real simple:  he basically believes that there are archetypes within the human fabric that are unexplainable by each individual's own experience and hence there are things that may be passed down in a more spiritual way.  By the reading I have done, he was a bit of a nut, but a real smart nut that was way ahead of his time.

 

1389788[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

sounds like c. s. lewis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like c. s. lewis.

 

1389796[/snapback]

 

 

 

Lewis was a theologian, did he dabble in psychology too? I don't know too much about the guy outside of Narnia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.