|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2017 14:56:39 GMT -5
Like most things in the bible that are impossible it becomes 'God's ways are mysterious'. There are so many reasons why a world wide flood is completely impossible. You have to be pretty strong in your faith mode to completely ignore the huge amount of data that says it's just not possible. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest. |
|
|
|
Post by manna on Jun 25, 2017 16:43:58 GMT -5
the Israelites were meticulous genealogy keepers, I have no valid reason to doubt their history ✌️ So were the Egyptains. The number of people who left Egypt, according to the bible, would have been in the 2 million range. Plus the cattle. Seems like someone would have made a note: "Cut back a bit on the dinner reservations." 2 million people getting water from a single spring coming out of a rock. Consider the sewer system for a city of 2 million. Now consider the system for 2 million people wandering in the desert. So odd that no trace of these 2 million people has not been found. Any of these reasons to doubt their history? If the 2 million people were walking 12 abreast, separated by 3 feet, the line would have been about` 100 miles long. isnt manna a wonderful food, a perfect food in many ways!
|
|
|
|
Post by Does truth hurt on Sept 3, 2017 22:41:56 GMT -5
If truth hurts 10 people, should we avoid telling it??
|
|
|
|
Post by Does truth hurt on Sept 3, 2017 22:52:38 GMT -5
If truth hurts 10 people, should we avoid telling it??
"Eh, Noah.... can explain that what you preach will
mean millions will die, and only ye and your kin will
survive?? That kinda teaching should not be
tolerated by humans??" Spoke as Noah entered the
Ark ..... the rest is his-story. ! ✌️
|
|
gells
Senior Member
Posts: 744
|
Post by gells on Sept 4, 2017 11:18:14 GMT -5
BTW this story has the first lie by god in Genesis 2:17 you read "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." They ate but did NOT die. In the story, Adam and Eve didn't die, but someone DID die. They covered themselves with animal skins. So, an animal must have died in order for that to happen. As you read further into Exodus and Leviticus, you can see how that fits in with the rituals that were done when animals were sacrificed on the altar to atone for the sins. This is the first picture of an atonement sacrifice, and Jesus on the cross was the final one. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 4, 2017 12:43:37 GMT -5
BTW this story has the first lie by god in Genesis 2:17 you read "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." They ate but did NOT die. In the story, Adam and Eve didn't die, but someone DID die. They covered themselves with animal skins. So, an animal must have died in order for that to happen. As you read further into Exodus and Leviticus, you can see how that fits in with the rituals that were done when animals were sacrificed on the altar to atone for the sins. This is the first picture of an atonement sacrifice, and Jesus on the cross was the final one. I don't see how you could get from: " ... in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." to
"... in the day that you eat from it, some animal will die."The idea that god decided to kill his son as a sacrifice for you, because you have done or will do something so terrible, is a horrible moral example. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 4, 2017 14:16:30 GMT -5
In the story, Adam and Eve didn't die, but someone DID die. They covered themselves with animal skins. So, an animal must have died in order for that to happen. As you read further into Exodus and Leviticus, you can see how that fits in with the rituals that were done when animals were sacrificed on the altar to atone for the sins. This is the first picture of an atonement sacrifice, and Jesus on the cross was the final one. I don't see how you could get from: " ... in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." to
"... in the day that you eat from it, some animal will die."The idea that god decided to kill his son as a sacrifice for you, because you have done or will do something so terrible, is a horrible moral example. It's a belief in blood sacrifice just like many other tribes in that day. Incas, Mayans, Hebrews well the list could go on for a long time. However, it's proof that the Hebrew God was no different in that aspect from many other gods different cultures worshiped at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 4, 2017 15:48:34 GMT -5
In the story, Adam and Eve didn't die, but someone DID die. They covered themselves with animal skins. So, an animal must have died in order for that to happen. As you read further into Exodus and Leviticus, you can see how that fits in with the rituals that were done when animals were sacrificed on the altar to atone for the sins. This is the first picture of an atonement sacrifice, and Jesus on the cross was the final one. I don't see how you could get from: " ... in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." to
"... in the day that you eat from it, some animal will die."The idea that god decided to kill his son as a sacrifice for you, because you have done or will do something so terrible, is a horrible moral example. The Creator of Scientific Laws, also Created moral Laws!! We absolutely need both. ✌️✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 4, 2017 16:00:23 GMT -5
The Creator of Scientific Laws, also Created moral Laws!! We absolutely need both. ✌️✌️ Where do atheists get their morals? |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 4, 2017 18:15:43 GMT -5
The Creator of Scientific Laws, also Created moral Laws!! We absolutely need both. ✌️✌️ Where do atheists get their morals? Morals is shorthand for moral Laws. Just as we have Laws in nature, we Have moral Laws, that have consequences. Pay the piper, when you fall off a tree.... Pay the piper when you tell a lie.... |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 4, 2017 18:31:52 GMT -5
Morals is shorthand for moral Laws. Just as we have Laws in nature, we Have moral Laws, that have consequences. Unlike natural laws morals change and can get better over time. ie. Early in the USA, slavey was ok (like it still is in the bible) and now it's immoral. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 4, 2017 21:38:36 GMT -5
Morals is shorthand for moral Laws. Just as we have Laws in nature, we Have moral Laws, that have consequences. Unlike natural laws morals change and can get better over time. ie. Early in the USA, slavey was ok (like it still is in the bible) and now it's immoral. Moral Laws have consequences If you break one, you pay. Matters not if you think you won't be paying You harvest what you sow. ✌️✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 5, 2017 13:11:12 GMT -5
The Creator of Scientific Laws, also Created moral Laws!! We absolutely need both. ✌️✌️ Where do atheists get their morals? I have often wondered how people can think that they would be any different if they didn't believe in God. Does anyone here that is a theist, fear that if you somehow lost your faith today you would go out and murder and rape? If you do then you are obviously someone who needs the fear of hell to make you a decent human being. If you don't think you would do that then why would you think I could do that, just because I'm an atheist? I am very aware of my responsibility to leading a life that does as little harm to others as possible. I think that mindset appeals to most theists too. The difference is what or who we give credit to when we do act responsibly. Because in reality, that's what morality is about, acting responsibly with other's well being in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 6, 2017 3:07:50 GMT -5
Where do atheists get their morals? I have often wondered how people can think that they would be any different if they didn't believe in God. Does anyone here that is a theist, fear that if you somehow lost your faith today you would go out and murder and rape? If you do then you are obviously someone who needs the fear of hell to make you a decent human being. If you don't think you would do that then why would you think I could do that, just because I'm an atheist? I am very aware of my responsibility to leading a life that does as little harm to others as possible. I think that mindset appeals to most theists too. The difference is what or who we give credit to when we do act responsibly. Because in reality, that's what morality is about, acting responsibly with other's well being in mind. Do you think you will reap what you "sow" , snow?? Who created you?? ✌️✌️. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 6, 2017 12:50:18 GMT -5
I have often wondered how people can think that they would be any different if they didn't believe in God. Does anyone here that is a theist, fear that if you somehow lost your faith today you would go out and murder and rape? If you do then you are obviously someone who needs the fear of hell to make you a decent human being. If you don't think you would do that then why would you think I could do that, just because I'm an atheist? I am very aware of my responsibility to leading a life that does as little harm to others as possible. I think that mindset appeals to most theists too. The difference is what or who we give credit to when we do act responsibly. Because in reality, that's what morality is about, acting responsibly with other's well being in mind. Do you think you will reap what you "sow" , snow?? Who created you?? ✌️✌️. Thanks! What exactly am I sowing? My parents. I am the end result of what this universe will support. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 6, 2017 13:15:13 GMT -5
[ Moral Laws have consequences If you break one, you pay. Matters not if you think you won't be paying You harvest what you sow. ✌️✌️ The christian idea of “ you will harvest or reap what you sow” is similar to karma in the afterlife. We want to think that in the end the universe is fare even though during our lifetime not everything that happens to us is a result of our own actions. Most of the time if you are nice and fare to people these same people in general will reciprocate and in return treat you nice and in a fare manner. But we all have life experiences where that isn’t the case. The reality is that nice people can be taken advantage of. A smile given doesn’t always get a smile in return. Crimes are committed on the innocent, criminals go uncaught and some homicides are never solved. We read here that even children are raped by the clergy and never caught! People like to believe that those who did them wrong in this life will pay in an afterlife where all wrongs will be made right and perfect justice will be established. This is such a comforting thought, but there is no evidence that there is an afterlife, and it appears that the universe is indifferent to mankind. Sorry to say but to some extent crime does pay.
We all should act so as to make the world better now, and for those to come by pointing out injustices when they happen, reporting crimes, and standing up for what is right in the here and now. Religion can prevent some from acting by a false belief that “god will give them their just reward in the afterlife” so I'll leave it in his hands. In this case they become the enablers of more crimes. Could the belief “ you will reap what you sow” be the cause why some criminals are never caught, or why some religious people enjoy persecution? |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 6, 2017 22:45:10 GMT -5
[ Moral Laws have consequences If you break one, you pay. Matters not if you think you won't be paying You harvest what you sow. ✌️✌️ The christian idea of “ [foWe want to think
by a false belief that “god will give them their just reward in the afterlife” so I'll leave it in his hands. In this case they become the enablers of more crimes.
Could the belief “you will reap what you sow” be the cause why some criminals are never caught, or why some religious people enjoy persecution?
[ Do you have confidence in humanity ability to administer true justice? Even those that "get caught " and tried jhave been involved with erroneous trials both to acquit , others condemned Yet, so, I believe that moral laws are as binding as the laws of science. When you break a law, their are real consequences , You might "think" there are no consequences. , You "sow" hate for right, you reap that same hate. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 7, 2017 7:31:46 GMT -5
Do you have confidence in humanity ability
to administer true justice? I don't think there is perfect justice, but using the supernatural for the standard of morality instead of fact and reason is much worse. If you like that kind of justice you might enjoy living under Sharia law. In the USA at one time "spectral evidence "was allowed in courtrooms. This lead to burning witches (you know - like the bible commands). Spectral evidence is a form of evidence based upon dreams and visions. Thank goodness we no longer allow spectral evidence, as evidence. More recently we have people like Andrea Yates who confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub believing killing her children was the only way to win her battle with Satan for her children's souls -- if she killed them while they were still under the "age of accountability," they would join God in Heaven. It reminds me of the bible account of Jephthah who killed his daughter because of his vow with god. Today I think everyone would condemn these immoral acts. Yet, so, I believe that moral laws are as binding as the laws of science. You may believe that, many in the world do, it's what enables Sharia law. Unlike dogma our secular laws and morals change over time, and laws can be different from country to country. In general secular justice is getting more moral. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 7, 2017 10:13:34 GMT -5
Moral laws do not change.
Do unto others as you would they do unto
You. ✌️✌️
|
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 7, 2017 10:18:16 GMT -5
Do you have confidence in humanity ability
to administer true justice? I don't think there is perfect justice, but using the supernatural for the standard of morality instead of fact and reason is much worse. If you like that kind of justice you might enjoy living under Sharia law. In the USA at one time "spectral evidence "was allowed in courtrooms. This lead to burning witches (you know - like the bible commands). Spectral evidence is a form of evidence based upon dreams and visions. Thank goodness we no longer allow spectral evidence, as evidence. More recently we have people like Andrea Yates who confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub believing killing her children was the only way to win her battle with Satan for her children's souls -- if she killed them while they were still under the "age of accountability," they would join God in Heaven. It reminds me of the bible account of Jephthah who killed his daughter because of his vow with god. Today I think everyone would condemn these immoral acts. Yet, so, I believe that moral laws are as binding as the laws of science. You may believe that, many in the world do, it's what enables Sharia law. Unlike dogma our secular laws and morals change over time, and laws can be different from country to country. In general secular justice is getting more moral. It's just a question. Not a secular standard Do you believe breaking a moral law has a consequence? It seems that you do not...✌️ I do, but that doesn't mean we ignore our secular judicial system ?? Are you saying moral Laws are only suggestions, with NO penalties?? So, your own conscience should tell you that you will Not get away with doinga wrong ✌️✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 7, 2017 10:59:38 GMT -5
Do you believe breaking a moral law has a consequence? It depends. Consider if there was only one person on an island, they could do anything they wanted and there would be no consequences for any actions. Now with two or more people on that island, they tend will make some rules for the benefit of the group. If one person is caught breaking that rule then the punishment for that crime may be applied. Societies operate this way because most people treat people the way they want to be treated. This has nothing to do with the Christian religion. The golden rule predates Christianity. Scientifically this behavior can be observed in many forms of life and is known as reciprocal altruism. I do not believe there is any judgement or consequence for being immoral after death. Any consequence to being immoral occurs during ones lifetime. Reciprocal altruism and being part of a group are behaviors which humans have evolved to improve their chance of survival. Often Christians say you need god to be good, but take a look at the data. You will find that the more moral countries (as measured by crime data) are the least religious. Are you saying moral Laws are only suggestions, with NO penalties?? Morals are rooted in reciprocal altruism and group dynamics, which have evolved over time. Humans have reduced these to laws and punishments which allow for the continuation and flourishment of society. Think about it..... Which is the more moral person? A. An atheist who does good just because he thinks it's the right thing to do without expectation of any afterlife reward B. A christian who does good because if he doesn't he believes he will be punished in hell and if he does he will get an afterlife reward. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 7, 2017 11:25:00 GMT -5
Moral laws do not change. Do unto others as you would they do unto You. ✌️✌️ Golden Rule Chronology .......... Here is how it starts out 1,000,000 BC The fictional Fred Flintstone helps a stranger who was robbed and left to die. He says "I'd want him to help me." Golden rule thinking is born! c. 1,000,000 BC to 10,000 BC Humans find that cooperative hunting works better. Small, genetically similar clans who use the golden rule to promote cooperation and sharing have a better chance to survive. c. 1800 BC Egypt's "Eloquent peasant" story has been said to have the earliest known golden-rule saying: "Do to the doer to cause that he do." But the translation is disputed and it takes much stretching to see this as the golden rule. (See my §3.2e.) c. 1450 BC to 450 BC The Jewish Bible has golden-rule like passages, including: "Don't oppress a foreigner, for you well know how it feels to be a foreigner, since you were foreigners yourselves in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 23:9) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). c. 700 BC In Homer's Odyssey, goddess Calypso tells Odysseus: "I'll be as careful for you as I'd be for myself in like need. I know what is fair and right." c. 624-546 BC First philosopher Thales, when asked how to live virtuously, reportedly replies (according to the unreliable Diogenes Laertius c. 225 AD): "By never doing ourselves what we blame in others." A similar saying is attributed to Thales's contemporary, Pittacus of Mytilene. c. 563-483 BC Buddha in India teaches compassion and shunning unhealthy desires. His golden rule says: "There is nothing dearer to man than himself; therefore, as it is the same thing that is dear to you and to others, hurt not others with what pains yourself" (Dhammapada, Northern Canon, 5:18). c. 551-479 BC Confucius sums up his teaching as: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." (Analects 15:23) c. 522 BC Maeandrius of Samos (in Greece), taking over from an evil tyrant, says (according to the historian Herodotus c. 440 BC, in his Histories 3.142): "What I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself." Xerxes of Persia c. 485 BC said something similar (Histories 7.136). c. 500 BC Jainism, a religion of India that promotes non-violence, compassion, and the sacredness of life, teaches the golden rule: "A monk should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." (Jaina Sutras, Sutrakritanga, bk. 1, 10:1-3) c. 500 BC Taoist Laozi says: "To those who are good to me, I am good; and to those who are not good to me, I am also good; and thus all get to receive good." (Tao Te Ching 49) A later work says: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." (T'ai-Shang Kan-Ying P'ien) c. 500 BC Zoroaster in Persia teaches the golden rule: "That character is best that doesn't do to another what isn't good for itself" and "Don't do to others what isn't good for you." c. 479-438 BC Mo Tzu in China teaches the golden rule: "Universal love is to regard another's state as one's own. A person of universal love will take care of his friend as he does of himself, and take care of his friend's parents as his own. So when he finds his friend hungry he will feed him, and when he finds him cold he will clothe him." (Book of Mozi, ch. 4) c. 440 BC Socrates (c. 470-399 BC) and later Plato (c. 428-347 BC) begin the classical era of Greek philosophy. The golden rule, while not prominent in their thinking, sometimes leaves a trace. As Socrates considers whether to escape from jail, he imagines himself in the place of the state, who would be harmed (Crito). And Plato says: "I'd have no one touch my property, if I can help it, or disturb it without consent on my part; if I'm a man of reason, I must treat the property of others the same way" (Laws). (Wattles 1996: 32-6) c. 436-338 BC Isocrates in Greece teaches the golden rule as promoting self-interest (you do unto others so that they'll do unto you). He says: "Don't do to others what angers you when you experience it from others." The golden rule then becomes common, in positive and negative forms, in Greco-Roman culture, in Sextus, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Cassius Dio, Diogenes Laertius, Ovid, and others. The golden rule has less impact on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and early Stoics. (Meier 2009: 553f) c. 400 BC Hinduism has positive and negative golden rules: "One who regards all creatures as his own self, and behaves towards them as towards his own self attains happiness. One should never do to another what one regards as hurtful to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of righteousness. In happiness and misery, in the agreeable and the disagreeable, one should judge effects as if they came to one's own self." (Mahabharata bk. 13: Anusasana Parva, §113) 384-322 BC Aristotle says: "As the virtuous man is to himself, he is to his friend also, for his friend is another self" (Nicomachean Ethics 9:9). Diogenes Laertius (c. 225 AD) reports Aristotle as saying that we should behave to our friends as we wish our friends to behave to us. c. 372-289 BC Mencius, Confucius's follower, says (Works bk. 7, A:4): "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." c. 300 BC Sextus the Pythagorean in his Sentences expresses the golden rule positively and negatively: "As you wish your neighbors to treat you, so treat them. What you censure, do not do." (Meier 2009: 554 & 628) |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 7, 2017 11:54:27 GMT -5
Golden Rule talk
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2017 15:57:51 GMT -5
You can't make this smell good. The god you believe in, as recorded in the text you believe in, killed Job's family and the slaves he owned to prove a point. There is no situation where this is not a display of immorality. i think that satan did that if i remember correctly...remember God said satan could do anything except take jobs life... By that point Job was probably hoping he'd just be able to die and God even denied him that. He just had to stay alive and suffer. Not very loving or humane that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2017 16:38:22 GMT -5
I don't see how you could get from: " ... in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." to
"... in the day that you eat from it, some animal will die."The idea that god decided to kill his son as a sacrifice for you, because you have done or will do something so terrible, is a horrible moral example. It's a belief in blood sacrifice just like many other tribes in that day. Incas, Mayans, Hebrews well the list could go on for a long time. However, it's proof that the Hebrew God was no different in that aspect from many other gods different cultures worshiped at that time. And just as irrational. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 16:48:51 GMT -5
Moral laws do not change. Do unto others as you would they do unto You. ✌️✌️ Golden Rule Chronology .......... Here is how it starts out 1,000,000 BC The fictional Fred Flintstone helps a stranger who was robbed and left to die. He says "I'd want him to help me." Golden rule thinking is born! c. 1,000,000 BC to 10,000 BC Humans find that cooperative hunting works better. Small, genetically similar clans who use the golden rule to promote cooperation and sharing have a better chance to survive. c. 1800 BC Egypt's "Eloquent peasant" story has been said to have the earliest known golden-rule saying: "Do to the doer to cause that he do." But the translation is disputed and it takes much stretching to see this as the golden rule. (See my §3.2e.) c. 1450 BC to 450 BC The Jewish Bible has golden-rule like passages, including: "Don't oppress a foreigner, for you well know how it feels to be a foreigner, since you were foreigners yourselves in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 23:9) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). c. 700 BC In Homer's Odyssey, goddess Calypso tells Odysseus: "I'll be as careful for you as I'd be for myself in like need. I know what is fair and right." c. 624-546 BC First philosopher Thales, when asked how to live virtuously, reportedly replies (according to the unreliable Diogenes Laertius c. 225 AD): "By never doing ourselves what we blame in others." A similar saying is attributed to Thales's contemporary, Pittacus of Mytilene. c. 563-483 BC Buddha in India teaches compassion and shunning unhealthy desires. His golden rule says: "There is nothing dearer to man than himself; therefore, as it is the same thing that is dear to you and to others, hurt not others with what pains yourself" (Dhammapada, Northern Canon, 5:18). c. 551-479 BC Confucius sums up his teaching as: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." (Analects 15:23) c. 522 BC Maeandrius of Samos (in Greece), taking over from an evil tyrant, says (according to the historian Herodotus c. 440 BC, in his Histories 3.142): "What I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself." Xerxes of Persia c. 485 BC said something similar (Histories 7.136). c. 500 BC Jainism, a religion of India that promotes non-violence, compassion, and the sacredness of life, teaches the golden rule: "A monk should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." (Jaina Sutras, Sutrakritanga, bk. 1, 10:1-3) c. 500 BC Taoist Laozi says: "To those who are good to me, I am good; and to those who are not good to me, I am also good; and thus all get to receive good." (Tao Te Ching 49) A later work says: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." (T'ai-Shang Kan-Ying P'ien) c. 500 BC Zoroaster in Persia teaches the golden rule: "That character is best that doesn't do to another what isn't good for itself" and "Don't do to others what isn't good for you." c. 479-438 BC Mo Tzu in China teaches the golden rule: "Universal love is to regard another's state as one's own. A person of universal love will take care of his friend as he does of himself, and take care of his friend's parents as his own. So when he finds his friend hungry he will feed him, and when he finds him cold he will clothe him." (Book of Mozi, ch. 4) c. 440 BC Socrates (c. 470-399 BC) and later Plato (c. 428-347 BC) begin the classical era of Greek philosophy. The golden rule, while not prominent in their thinking, sometimes leaves a trace. As Socrates considers whether to escape from jail, he imagines himself in the place of the state, who would be harmed (Crito). And Plato says: "I'd have no one touch my property, if I can help it, or disturb it without consent on my part; if I'm a man of reason, I must treat the property of others the same way" (Laws). (Wattles 1996: 32-6) c. 436-338 BC Isocrates in Greece teaches the golden rule as promoting self-interest (you do unto others so that they'll do unto you). He says: "Don't do to others what angers you when you experience it from others." The golden rule then becomes common, in positive and negative forms, in Greco-Roman culture, in Sextus, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Cassius Dio, Diogenes Laertius, Ovid, and others. The golden rule has less impact on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and early Stoics. (Meier 2009: 553f) c. 400 BC Hinduism has positive and negative golden rules: "One who regards all creatures as his own self, and behaves towards them as towards his own self attains happiness. One should never do to another what one regards as hurtful to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of righteousness. In happiness and misery, in the agreeable and the disagreeable, one should judge effects as if they came to one's own self." (Mahabharata bk. 13: Anusasana Parva, §113) 384-322 BC Aristotle says: "As the virtuous man is to himself, he is to his friend also, for his friend is another self" (Nicomachean Ethics 9:9). Diogenes Laertius (c. 225 AD) reports Aristotle as saying that we should behave to our friends as we wish our friends to behave to us. c. 372-289 BC Mencius, Confucius's follower, says (Works bk. 7, A:4): "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." c. 300 BC Sextus the Pythagorean in his Sentences expresses the golden rule positively and negatively: "As you wish your neighbors to treat you, so treat them. What you censure, do not do." (Meier 2009: 554 & 628) so basically you got nothing except for maybe a story from eygpt for something that predates the bible? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 7, 2017 17:05:07 GMT -5
so basically you got nothing except for maybe a story from eygpt for something that predates the bible? The point that I was trying to make was the golden rule did not start with Christianity and it is basically putting yourself in the place of another, or empathy. I just did a quick search on The Evolutionary Origins of Empathy which moves the date back to the Pleistocene epoch, or ice age. (The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago.) I liked this quote from the article; " I view my fellow man not as a fallen angel, but as a risen ape," - Desmond Morris. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 7, 2017 17:19:51 GMT -5
Moral laws are moral laws.
Ignoring laws will leave you guilty of
Breaking the Law✌️
✌️✌️
|
|
