Jesus Christ

[MJZiggy]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

It's not necessarily a religious question. But there are two options - you either do it because it is the right thing to do - as a mandate with no expectation of a return, or you do it (either evolutionarily or for Karma, etc.) because you have the expectation of a positive return for yourself.

If the former, which you argue for in the post quoted above, then you have to ask how you know what is the right thing to do. If you had been raised, say by Peter Singer, you would likely believe that is was perfectly acceptable to kill a child for convenience at any age up to 2 years old. If you were raised in more conservative Muslim cultures, you would believe that honor killings, clitorectomies, wearing hijabs were appropriate treatment for women. How would you possibly know that they were 'wrong?'

The knowledge of the right way to treat others comes from the way you'd want to be treated. Human dignity and respect. Would I want someone to kill me? No, therefore killing others is wrong, regardless the reason. Causing pain is wrong. It's not about treatment by others for myself. It's about my behavior toward others. If I hurt you, it's wrong.

[HowardRoark]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

Either one of you could walk away at any time from your pissing match. And it isn't ruining the thread, as I - and I suspect others - can easily choose to read the posts we care to read and avoid your posts as well.

I suppose this thread could have been titled Jesus, Etc.

[hoosier]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

Either one of you could walk away at any time from your pissing match. And it isn't ruining the thread, as I - and I suspect others - can easily choose to read the posts we care to read and avoid your posts as well.

I suppose this thread could have been titled Jesus, Etc.

Or Jesus Christ on a ham sandwich.

[MJZiggy]

Now that's not kosher.

[mraynrand]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

It's not necessarily a religious question. But there are two options - you either do it because it is the right thing to do - as a mandate with no expectation of a return, or you do it (either evolutionarily or for Karma, etc.) because you have the expectation of a positive return for yourself.

If the former, which you argue for in the post quoted above, then you have to ask how you know what is the right thing to do. If you had been raised, say by Peter Singer, you would likely believe that is was perfectly acceptable to kill a child for convenience at any age up to 2 years old. If you were raised in more conservative Muslim cultures, you would believe that honor killings, clitorectomies, wearing hijabs were appropriate treatment for women. How would you possibly know that they were 'wrong?'

The knowledge of the right way to treat others comes from the way you'd want to be treated. Human dignity and respect. Would I want someone to kill me? No, therefore killing others is wrong, regardless the reason. Causing pain is wrong. It's not about treatment by others for myself. It's about my behavior toward others. If I hurt you, it's wrong.

So you are doing the right thing because it is right (right being "The way you want to be treated"), not because you expect something in return (option 2 that I described above).

[MJZiggy]

For the most part. None of us is perfect, but the goal is to try to live a good life, be a good role model for my kid, etc. I don't think you have to have a deity telling you what to do (and also blanket forgiving any transgression for you--would it not be better to take responsibility for your own failings and make them right with the person you hurt in the process?) in order to have the goal of living well and behaving accordingly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think you have to have a deity telling you what to do (and also blanket forgiving any transgression for you

There is no blanket forgiveness. He knows we'll sin, but it's about your conviction. You don't get blanket forgiveness.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well said, aynrand. I tend to respect both of those guys, but both of them are getting kinda petty here.

Tyrone, we've had a couple of Muslims come out of the closet or the woodwork or whatever lately. I'm expecting anytime now for you to announce you're Jewish ....... Jewish AND black! What are you, the illegitimate son of Sammy Davis? That would make you Sammy Davis the 3rd.

This whole irrelevancy about the origin of the Golden Rule started when I pointed out that NOWADAYS--in the MODERN WORLD--the only reason there can be any expectation of the ethical behavior Ziggy was speaking of from others is the FACT that such a thing--commonly called the Golden Rule--is practiced in western civilized countries--Judeo-Christian influenced countries--OK, call it just Christian--Jews nowadays seem to be more into the old "eye for an eye" concept, which has a lot of merit too.

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.

You weren't able to dispute that rationally, so you diverted to the crap about the origin of it--typical of your testicularly challenged/intellectually challenged way of posting.

Plus, you didn't say the Christian church was responsible for the idea, only that is was Church doctrine.

And there is a distinct difference in the Golden Rule as viewed from Christian versus secular/evolutionary perspectives. In the evolutionary/secular filter the Golden rule can only work as quid pro quo - treat others well so that they will treat you well. It enhances your survival - maybe it enhances theirs too, but ya gotta live right? You are making a survival bargain - treating others in a way that will prevent them from harming you and may enhance your status. The Christian version is sacrificial and a mandate: Do unto others (command) as you would have them do unto you. There is no guarantee of return here, only a guide for behaviour that may not enhance your survival, but will demonstrate your belief and is more Christ-like, which is what Christians should strive for (and unfortunately often fail at) all the time.

That's not true in the least. I posted what it meant to me from a secular standpoint and this ain't it. The idea is very karmic in that no one wants to truly associate themselves with an asshole and you don't want to be an asshole, therefore don't act like one. Treat others (and that means all of them, Tex, not just the Christians) with the respect that you would have them show to you, regardless of whether they actually show it.

Well, it looks like we've come full circle.

What I said--the last time you just said what you said now--basically, is the if you do that ANYWHERE EXCEPT CIVILIZED WESTERN MOSTLY CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, YOU'LL GET YOUR ASS HANDED TO YOU BIG TIME! That could easily happen certain places and certain situations in this country--thanks to the tearing down of values and morals. And who's responsible for that? Pretty much everybody on your side of the political spectrum, Ziggy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

[texaspackerbacker]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

Oh, it's relevant, all right. Just consider the political slant of those states.

[MJZiggy]

Well, it looks like we've come full circle.

What I said--the last time you just said what you said now--basically, is the if you do that ANYWHERE EXCEPT CIVILIZED WESTERN MOSTLY CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, YOU'LL GET YOUR ASS HANDED TO YOU BIG TIME! That could easily happen certain places and certain situations in this country--thanks to the tearing down of values and morals. And who's responsible for that? Pretty much everybody on your side of the political spectrum, Ziggy.

They're not only very civilized in Tibet, they're very happy with the little they have there as well. They are phenomenal in Japan. Incredibly respectful folks I've been dealing with over there the last few months and last year, the guys from Abu Dhabi were wonderful. I haven't had my ass handed to me once. Ok, we did have one guy from Romania who was kind of a beast, but he was the exception. Everyone else over there is fine. The guy from Qatar was nice enough, though I have to admit I worked more with his American counterpart in New York. I haven't personally had to deal with anyone from Africa, but I've heard they're very nice in Botswana. You'd be amazed at how much you can get done by being civil to people. Where do you suppose I'm going to get my ass handed to me? Just ask me what religion the nicest guy in our office is....

I could forward you a story of a friend in Raleigh and the moral of the story was that being perceived as nice can take you a long way. It saved the dude thousands of dollars and a week's time in getting a goal accomplished. And that was in a government office. You have your cynicism, but I just don't see the world that way and it seems to work out well.

[Joemailman]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

[texaspackerbacker]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

[falco]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

oh i've got the balls. but i'm not sure what you said, so i can't deny it.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

I deny. I have long saggy balls.


Am starting to think you're the enemy of america with you're backwards thinking.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

You wouldn't find it that interesting if you knew history. This country wasn't established by ultra religious peoples, save for the puritans.

Censuses taken around 1700 show that over half the people didn't even have a religion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

'

ROTFLMAO