Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 21:20:18 GMT -5
A friend of mine had seven children. She expected each of her children would give her as many grandchildren. Instead of 49 grandchildren she got just one, and that was by accident (!) She went to church, none of her children do.
As secular Jews in Israel can see plainly - religious people have the most kids. Why is that? Some suggest it’s the "loss of optimism."
The connection between religion and childbirth demonstrates the deep complexity of religion which detractors overlook.
Same too with monarchy. I was surprised to learn that those nations which retained their monarchies fared as well or better than those which removed them. Monarchies suffered from less civil strife and war (think England vs Russia.) In fact religion bound Europe together, atheism helped drive it apart.
In the 20th Century about 85% of all major conflicts and mass killings weren't done in the name of religion. This figure comes from tallying up the death toll from wars such as World War I & II and ideologies such as Communism.
But interestingly, these "facts" about childbirth, national stability and war are rarely mentioned in books about the tyranny of monarchies and religion. Like Doug Parker's "facts" the statements which are missing are often the ones crucial in separating polemic from truth.
And Jesse Lackman's thread on Camille Paglia reminded me of another. The dispensing of religion in modern culture was not done in isolation - much of the Western cannon of literature and philosophy is also being lost, if not outright trashed.
Is the loss of religious sensibilities destroying the foundations of Western Civilization? Or is religion just one more facet of our lives being dismantled lockstep?
I cannot prove it, but I suspect that in losing our religion and the notion of higher authority, we are left only with the religion of self importance and personal authority. If God is dispensed with, how much more so Monarchs and philosophers?
There are ties between religion, government, philosophy, national cohesion, Capitalism - even the rise of science, strangely. It is no accident that it was the Christian West which was able to build our modern world.
We are in the process of isolating all these facets of our life and unpicking them. Our grandchildren (should we have any) are going to inhabit a nihilistic world where every cherished value is reversed. And as history shows us - our expected outcomes are often the opposite of what we hoped.
Banishing religion is not going to build a better world.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 2, 2015 0:47:48 GMT -5
Agree totally. In my opinion, there seems to be a significant amount in secularism that is all about the individual, rather than being other person centred. This is an interesting article - Christianity is experiencing rapid growth in China. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.htmlI attended an interesting lecture last year on how a number in the Chinese leadership look at the West and its abandonment of Christianity and wonder why. They see Christianity and in particular the Judeo-Christian tradition as inextricably linked with the rise of Western civilisation. It will be interesting to see if the West's abandonment of Christianity is aligned to the fall of Western civilisation? I think the closing paragraph in the article you referenced highlights the accuracy of the piece: "If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added. You do have to give the Chinese government credit for forbidding baptism until the individual is at least 18 years of age and can think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2015 1:51:12 GMT -5
A friend of mine had seven children. She expected each of her children would give her as many grandchildren. Instead of 49 grandchildren she got just one, and that was by accident (!) She went to church, none of her children do.
As secular Jews in Israel can see plainly - religious people have the most kids. Why is that? Some suggest it’s the "loss of optimism."
The connection between religion and childbirth demonstrates the deep complexity of religion which detractors overlook.
Same too with monarchy. I was surprised to learn that those nations which retained their monarchies fared as well or better than those which removed them. Monarchies suffered from less civil strife and war (think England vs Russia.) In fact religion bound Europe together, atheism helped drive it apart.
In the 20th Century about 85% of all major conflicts and mass killings weren't done in the name of religion. This figure comes from tallying up the death toll from wars such as World War I & II and ideologies such as Communism.
But interestingly, these "facts" about childbirth, national stability and war are rarely mentioned in books about the tyranny of monarchies and religion. Like Doug Parker's "facts" the statements which are missing are often the ones crucial in separating polemic from truth.
And Jesse Lackman's thread on Camille Paglia reminded me of another. The dispensing of religion in modern culture was not done in isolation - much of the Western cannon of literature and philosophy is also being lost, if not outright trashed.
Is the loss of religious sensibilities destroying the foundations of Western Civilization? Or is religion just one more facet of our lives being dismantled lockstep?
I cannot prove it, but I suspect that in losing our religion and the notion of higher authority, we are left only with the religion of self importance and personal authority. If God is dispensed with, how much more so Monarchs and philosophers?
There are ties between religion, government, philosophy, national cohesion, Capitalism - even the rise of science, strangely. It is no accident that it was the Christian West which was able to build our modern world.
We are in the process of isolating all these facets of our life and unpicking them. Our grandchildren (should we have any) are going to inhabit a nihilistic world where every cherished value is reversed. And as history shows us - our expected outcomes are often the opposite of what we hoped.
Banishing religion is not going to build a better world. Having seven children in today's world with an over population problem that is already causing catastrophic situations is actually unethical and some would say immoral.
That you don't know the fact that religion did NOT bind Europe together but rather that religious contention was the reason for Europe's almost constant wars indicates what I have already suspected; -that you know very little of the history of those times.
In those centuries all major conflicts and mass killings WERE done in the name of religion. I see foundations of Western Civilization doing much better even in my life time. Secular governments are more oriented towards equal rights for everyone, while religion separates different races & ethnic & gender groups and plays them off against each other
I see leaving religion behind has actually caused people to be more aware of the importance of each other person's civil rights.
Actually, it was the lessening of the Christian idea of the divine right of kings, & the beginning rights of the common man which has built our modern world.
That is the reason that the power of monarchies begin to fall.
In the US, our own founding fathers rejected monarchies & were determined to establish a secular government because they had witnessed what happened under the religious governments of Europe.
So, I see the demise of religious power as empowering for the majority of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 2:13:37 GMT -5
Yes, that's the secular take on things Dmmchgood.
Methinks that if America had stayed within the British Commonwealth it would be no different in terms of freedoms that what Canada, New Zealand and Australia enjoy. And there would have been no Civil War because there would have been no slavery - and the British wouldn't tolerate civil strife. And there would not have been World War I and II, with America dashing in at the end to save the day - the war simply would never have started because the British Empire would have been in a totally unsurpassed position.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 2, 2015 2:35:18 GMT -5
Yes, that's the secular take on things Dmmchgood.
Methinks that if America had stayed within the British Commonwealth it would be no different in terms of freedoms that what Canada, New Zealand and Australia enjoy. And there would have been no Civil War because there would have been no slavery - and the British wouldn't tolerate civil strife. And there would not have been World War I and II, with America dashing in at the end to save the day - the war simply would never have started because the British Empire would have been in a totally unsurpassed position. Me thinks that you wouldn't last very long in a government based on religion.
You would probably be beheaded fairly quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 10:20:58 GMT -5
Slavery began during British occupation of Norte America. I don't think elimination of religion or morals would bring a better society. Hitler and Stalin were atheists. I don't think outlawing atheism would be a good thing either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 10:23:11 GMT -5
Bert, you do have some good points at times. But you obsess too much over Doug Parker, TTT, VOT, Brad Lewis' website, me, Ilylo's TLT site or anyone else you deem as ENEMIES OF THE TRUTH/KINGDOM. I remember workers being paranoid in the 1990s but today they seem to accept the fact that these internet enemies aren't going away anytime soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 10:25:04 GMT -5
US troops kept freedom alive in the 1940s. Otherwise the NAZIs and Japanese dictators would have controlled Europe and Asia. Thank an American soldier for your freedom, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 2, 2015 11:07:19 GMT -5
Same too with monarchy. I was surprised to learn that those nations which retained their monarchies fared as well or better than those which removed them. Monarchies suffered from less civil strife and war (think England vs Russia.) In fact religion bound Europe together, atheism helped drive it apart.
Good post Bert. George Bernard Shaw was an influential Fabian Socialist who actively worked for socialism in Europe, praised and supported Communism in Russia, and was an outspoken atheist. So one might wonder why he wrote the following in Too True to Be Good. Shaw is on record saying the "young gentleman-soldier-burglar-chaplain" was not the "mouthpiece of my own opinions", but he did not say that about the Elder. Anyway here it is;
THE ELDER. I did not approve. Had I been of military age I should have been a conscientious objector.
AUBREY. Oh, you were a conscientious objector to everything, even to God. But my mother was an enthusiast for everything: that was why you never could get on with her. She would have shoved me into the war if I had needed any shoving. She shoved my brother into it, though he did not believe a word of all the lies we were stuffed with, and didnt want to go. He was killed; and when it came out afterwards that he was right, and that we were all a parcel of fools killing one another for nothing, she lost the courage to face life, and died of it.
THE SERGEANT. Well, sir, I'd never let a son of mine talk to me like that. Let him have a bit of your Determinism, sir.
THE ELDER [rising impulsively] Determinism is gone, shattered, buried with a thousand dead religions, evaporated with the clouds of a million forgotten winters. The science I pinned my faith to is bankrupt: its tales were more foolish than all the miracles of the priests, its cruelties more horrible than all the atrocities of the Inquisition. Its spread of enlightenment has been a spread of cancer: its counsels that were to have established the millennium have led straight to European suicide. And I--I who believed in it as no religious fanatic has ever believed in his superstition! For its sake I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now look at me and behold the supreme tragedy of the atheist who has lost his faith--his faith in atheism, for which more martyrs have perished than for all the creeds put together. Here I stand, dumb before my scoundrel of a son; for that is what you are, boy, a common scoundrel and nothing else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 13:31:56 GMT -5
Stalin and Mao probably killed more and were fierce atheists. Churches were banned. Stalin and Mao had larger populations to kill however. Even among atheists, ideology can replace religion.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 2, 2015 13:39:38 GMT -5
Stalin and Mao probably killed more and were fierce atheists. Churches were banned. Stalin and Mao had larger populations to kill however. Even among atheists, ideology can replace religion. Actually, I totally agree that ideology like Marxist and Stalin can be just as bad. But since most of the world has been predominately religious for thousands of years, more holy wars and killing in the name of various gods likely still outnumbers the amount that atheists are supposed to be liable for. Being an atheist is just a non belief in any Gods. Doesn't mean that an atheist can't do harm. They just have one less reason to do harm than those who feel they need to defend a God and spread it around the world. Most atheists that I know are humanists and support the good of humanity regardless of religion or non religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 19:32:46 GMT -5
There's a lot less restraint in secular behavior. During the Inquisition for instance you could be spared if you repented. Not so under the Bolsheviks or Maoists for instance.
Notice how in some countries people don't seem to "value life" like Westerners do. People get killed over little, ie burning brides, infanticide etc.. As the West becomes more secular those same attitudes are creeping in, ie the debate about euthanizing handicapped children in England or abortion. The churches fought all these trends - and lost.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2015 0:24:19 GMT -5
There's a lot less restraint in secular behavior. During the Inquisition for instance you could be spared if you repented. Not so under the Bolsheviks or Maoists for instance.
Notice how in some countries people don't seem to "value life" like Westerners do. People get killed over little, ie burning brides, infanticide etc.. As the West becomes more secular those same attitudes are creeping in, ie the debate about euthanizing handicapped children in England or abortion. The churches fought all these trends - and lost.
Be careful what you wish for. That's not really true regarding the inquisition. A lot of it was political to take over estates and so even if they repented they were killed. Witches really couldn't win because they would weigh them down and throw them in the water and if they drowned they were considered innocent and if they didn't they were a witch and then they were burned at the stake. Oh yes, it was a fine time the RCC had all in the name of their version of God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2015 0:54:59 GMT -5
There's a lot less restraint in secular behavior. During the Inquisition for instance you could be spared if you repented. Not so under the Bolsheviks or Maoists for instance.
Notice how in some countries people don't seem to "value life" like Westerners do. People get killed over little, ie burning brides, infanticide etc..
As the West becomes more secular those same attitudes are creeping in, ie the debate about euthanizing handicapped children in England or abortion. The churches fought all these trends - and lost.
Be careful what you wish for.
More B*ll Sh*t, Bert! You give no references as usual.
You don't know one iota World History! You are in sad need to learning even a little bit of History! Go to your local college & take at least one semester of history!
Then you find out how much you DON'T know.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2015 0:57:37 GMT -5
There's a lot less restraint in secular behavior. During the Inquisition for instance you could be spared if you repented. Not so under the Bolsheviks or Maoists for instance.
Notice how in some countries people don't seem to "value life" like Westerners do. People get killed over little, ie burning brides, infanticide etc.. As the West becomes more secular those same attitudes are creeping in, ie the debate about euthanizing handicapped children in England or abortion. The churches fought all these trends - and lost.
Be careful what you wish for. That's not really true regarding the inquisition. A lot of it was political to take over estates and so even if they repented they were killed. Witches really couldn't win because they would weigh them down and throw them in the water and if they drowned they were considered innocent and if they didn't they were a witch and then they were burned at the stake. Oh yes, it was a fine time the RCC had all in the name of their version of God. Ah, yes, Snow! You know that & I know that and everyone who has studied even a little history, but Bert? I think Bert just makes it up as he goes along!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 3, 2015 8:40:38 GMT -5
The so-called Christians who engage in horrific acts of violence are no more Christian than Stalin, Mao or an atheist is. The actions of those who choose to commit and support horrific acts of violence prove what kind of moral governor they have. So it's irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to true Christian beliefs. True Christian belief is summed up in the two NT commandments; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2015 11:21:23 GMT -5
The so-called Christians who engage in horrific acts of violence are no more Christian than Stalin, Mao or an atheist is. The actions of those who choose to commit and support horrific acts of violence prove what kind of moral governor they have. So it's irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to true Christian beliefs. True Christian belief is summed up in the two NT commandments; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Actually, I totally agree with this, except the comment that they are 'Christian' values. Atheists and Christians live by the love rule and some do not. Religion just makes it harder to live by the love rule imo because they need to defend and propagate their religion which divides them from others with other religions or no religion. Atheists that live by the love rule have one less issue because they don't need to defend their religion. Also, Judeo/Christian/Muslim world work off books that can be interpreted in many many ways and not all the things in those books can be considered to be moral living anymore. So I think it is harder for people of religion to live morally by the love rule than atheists because they have those verses in their books that tell them certain things are to be despised. A good example of that at the moment is Kim Davies. She thinks she is doing what her God wants but is she being loving which is really the only rule that matters? The RCC during the inquisition and crusades etc. thought they were ridding the world of heathens and making it a world that God would want. This is now regarded as delusional thinking but I am sure most of the ones involved in the whole horrific event were not really bad people, but zealous people that truly fell for the rhetoric preached to them by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. Hitler is often rejected by Christians as being a Christian but he was. He is noted for saying he was ridding the world of the people that killed his savior and the RCC backed him in it. Again, people who wrongly believed what they were doing was good in the eyes of their God. After all, their God committed genocides and asked the Hebrews to commit genocides, all for the presumed 'greater good' so why wouldn't those in that religion with the power and the means to do it, not also believe that it was right to commit these horrific crimes to humanity? That is one reason why I consider religion to be dangerous to humanity. Not because some people live by the good things it teaches, but because many pick and choose and some choose to live by the horrific things it teaches. And then feel 'righteous' in their decisions to do terrible things and justified because they were doing it for their God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 3, 2015 12:00:49 GMT -5
Actually, I totally agree with this, except the comment that they are 'Christian' values. Atheists and Christians live by the love rule and some do not. Religion just makes it harder to live by the love rule imo because they need to defend and propagate their religion which divides them from others with other religions or no religion. Atheists that live by the love rule have one less issue because they don't need to defend their religion. I didn't say Christian "values" or mean the love rule is exclusive to Christians. I've always said that many atheists live the love rule better then many Christians do. On the other hand there are atheists that "need to defend and propagate their atheism which divides them from others". That is very evident. Here's how yknot put it; "I am beginning to ask if perhaps the human needs that drive “evangelism” are not present in all of us." That need for evangelism is obviously present in many atheists to the point it affects them in the same way a religion affects people. Atheistic evangelism at its disrespectful and sarcastic level is what drove the invention of Camille Paglia's new term: Snark Atheism.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 3, 2015 13:31:12 GMT -5
Actually, I totally agree with this, except the comment that they are 'Christian' values. Atheists and Christians live by the love rule and some do not. Religion just makes it harder to live by the love rule imo because they need to defend and propagate their religion which divides them from others with other religions or no religion. Atheists that live by the love rule have one less issue because they don't need to defend their religion. I didn't say Christian "values" or mean the love rule is exclusive to Christians. I've always said that many atheists live the love rule better then many Christians do. On the other hand there are atheists that "need to defend and propagate their atheism which divides them from others". That is very evident. Here's how yknot put it; "I am beginning to ask if perhaps the human needs that drive “evangelism” are not present in all of us." That need for evangelism is obviously present in many atheists to the point it affects them in the same way a religion affects people. Atheistic evangelism at its disrespectful and sarcastic level is what drove the invention of Camille Paglia's new term: Snark Atheism. I don't think there is the slightest doubt (as placid-void expressed) that the "human needs that drive 'evangelism' are present in all of us." In my view, you will find pretty much the whole spectrum of humanity wearing the "Christian" label. Likewise you will find the whole spectrum of humanity wearing the "atheist" label. You will find similar thought processes and behaviors within both groups. (Not to mention within pretty much every other identifiable group on the face of the planet.) There's something within each of us that has a tendency to want to feel superior because we might wear one label over another, frequently based on the thoughts we might think and the beliefs we might espouse. I have hope when I see more and more people moving beyond labels, and giving themselves a chance to experience more of what we have in common, rather than what makes us different.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2015 14:04:48 GMT -5
The so-called Christians who engage in horrific acts of violence are no more Christian than Stalin, Mao or an atheist is. The actions of those who choose to commit and support horrific acts of violence prove what kind of moral governor they have. So it's irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to true Christian beliefs. True Christian belief is summed up in the two NT commandments; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. It is as irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to atheists as well. Unless you have some inside information can you really determine who is and who is not a christian? Sounds like your argument could be flawed by the logical fallacy of No True Scotsman.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 3, 2015 14:52:13 GMT -5
The so-called Christians who engage in horrific acts of violence are no more Christian than Stalin, Mao or an atheist is. The actions of those who choose to commit and support horrific acts of violence prove what kind of moral governor they have. So it's irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to true Christian beliefs. True Christian belief is summed up in the two NT commandments; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. It is as irrational to attribute horrific acts of violence to atheists as well. Unless you have some inside information can you really determine who is and who is not a christian? Sounds like your argument could be flawed by the logical fallacy of No True Scotsman. I don't think a crusade is how to demonstrate you are living the second commandment from Christ; "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Do you?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2015 21:45:46 GMT -5
I don't think a crusade is how to demonstrate you are living the second commandment from Christ; "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Do you? I think that was the same guy who called the scribes and pharisees snakes and vipers. I seem to remember them being referred to as blind guides and murderers. Subject to public ridicule. Maybe that is how some people treat their neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 4, 2015 8:29:07 GMT -5
I don't think a crusade is how to demonstrate you are living the second commandment from Christ; "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Do you? I think that was the same guy who called the scribes and pharisees snakes and vipers. I seem to remember them being referred to as blind guides and murderers. Subject to public ridicule. Maybe that is how some people treat their neighbors. Were they snakes and vipers? Were they blind guides - neglecting the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. Yes they were. Were they murderers? Yes they were. Did they treat the downtrodden like neighbors per the good Samaritan definition of neighbor? No they didn't. Did they live the law of love per that definition? No they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2015 9:51:06 GMT -5
I think that was the same guy who called the scribes and pharisees snakes and vipers. I seem to remember them being referred to as blind guides and murderers. Subject to public ridicule. Maybe that is how some people treat their neighbors. Were they snakes and vipers? Were they blind guides - neglecting the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. Yes they were. Were they murderers? Yes they were. Did they treat the downtrodden like neighbors per the good Samaritan definition of neighbor? No they didn't. Did they live the law of love per that definition? No they didn't. You could also make a long list of the things the christian crusaders claimed about the people who took the 'holy land' and justify their invasion. What you have done is to provide justification for not loving your neighbor and for not treating them as you would like to be treated.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 4, 2015 9:59:33 GMT -5
Were they snakes and vipers? Were they blind guides - neglecting the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. Yes they were. Were they murderers? Yes they were. Did they treat the downtrodden like neighbors per the good Samaritan definition of neighbor? No they didn't. Did they live the law of love per that definition? No they didn't. You could also make a long list of the things the christian crusaders claimed about the people who took the 'holy land' and justify their invasion. What you have done is to provide justification for not loving your neighbor and for not treating them as you would like to be treated. How have I done that?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2015 10:38:39 GMT -5
You could also make a long list of the things the christian crusaders claimed about the people who took the 'holy land' and justify their invasion. What you have done is to provide justification for not loving your neighbor and for not treating them as you would like to be treated. How have I done that? We actually know little about these people. Do you know if they were guilty of what you claim or are you going by the recorded opinion of what Jesus said? And even if they were guilty does it justify public humiliation? I fail to see how that is loving your neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 4, 2015 11:24:59 GMT -5
Well they wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery. No mercy - 100% condemnation.
Here's the definition of neighbor story;
"And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee."
Is identifying the facts; the man fell among thieves, was stripped, was wounded, abandoned, half dead "providing justification for not loving your neighbor and for not treating them as you would like to be treated."?
Likewise is identifying the facts that both the Levite and priest walked on by "providing justification for not loving your neighbor and for not treating them as you would like to be treated."?
I'm not sure identifying facts automatically means not "loving your neighbor". It's got a little to do with the positions people are in. With more power and authority comes more responsibility. If someone doesn't have the means to help or love themselves how can they help or love another? The law of love is about what you do after the facts have been identified - and sometimes what you do in spite of what the facts reveal. On the flip side of the "public humiliation" is "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" They killed him too, of which he said; "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2015 11:43:19 GMT -5
Well they wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery. No mercy - 100% condemnation. They were Jews and that was the law from their god. Jesus decided to ignore god's law. Tough to see who was in the right.
|
|