To treat others as you would be treated is an important part of the Golden Rule, which is the essence of the law given by Christ. It is not a natural instinct. If you live by that code, then you are very close to living a Christian lifestyle. Where did you obtain this code...from your own sense of righteousness?
To treat others as you would be treated is an important part of the Golden Rule, which is the essence of the law given by Christ. It is not a natural instinct. If you live by that code, then you are very close to living a Christian lifestyle. Where did you obtain this code...from your own sense of righteousness?
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
To treat others as you would be treated is an important part of the Golden Rule, which is the essence of the law given by Christ. It is not a natural instinct. If you live by that code, then you are very close to living a Christian lifestyle. Where did you obtain this code...from your own since of righteousness?
[/quote]
Yes, it is a standard thing humanity has always had, and civilizations all had their own way of saying the same thing, pretty laughable that you think such a basic truth is monopolized by christers only or is in any way it's creation, lay off the jebus crack, the smoke is going to your head.
Steeplerot,
I'm not going to argue about the origin of the Golden Rule, because you will believe what you choose...right or wrong. But, I'm curious, is that how you wish to be treatedl...insulted for speaking your mind?
I'm not going to argue about the origin of the Golden Rule, because you will believe what you choose...right or wrong. But, I'm curious, is that how you wish to be treatedl...insulted for speaking your mind?
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Here is a little "Golden Rule" History
Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE. Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful."
(Udana-Varga, 5.18)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
(Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada)
The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
If you really want to say christianity is the sole source of the golden rule throughout mankind before it, then I will point out that bible authors were nothing but 2bit plagiarists when you get right down to it.
Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE. Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful."
(Udana-Varga, 5.18)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
(Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada)
The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
If you really want to say christianity is the sole source of the golden rule throughout mankind before it, then I will point out that bible authors were nothing but 2bit plagiarists when you get right down to it.
As I said previously, this sentiment is only part of the Golden Rule. However, when I asked where you got your moral code, you didn't quote any of these. So which, if any, did you obtain your moral code from?
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I think you fail to grasp or ignored when I stated that "the golden rule" is a instinctual part of the human race. We have socio-psychological reasoning since our species depends on cooperation for our survival. Its a tool, kinda like opposable thumbs.
Typical Christian belief these days ... that without organized religion, one cannot have a moral code. Talk about closed-minded.
I am still waiting for a logical arguement from Seekermeister.
Perhaps you might present a couple of true premises and draw a conclusion?
Perhaps you might present a couple of true premises and draw a conclusion?
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: daniel49
science once said the earth was flat as well
And now it doesn't. Science changes based on evidence to the contrary. That's what makes it valid.
Various parts of religion have been proven wrong over time. The Earth is certifiably not 5000 years old. Humans were not created out of clay. The problem with religion is that if you have to accept everything it states, then you are instantly accepting falsehood.
If only religion was actually the religion of the soul, then it might be valid and worthwhile. But if it continues to rely on a storybook like the Bible, which is nice but some parts of it are completely ludicrous, it will never be accepted as valid by any logical being.
Are you saying that everyone that believes in religion is not a "logical being"?
Yep. If they subscribe to absolute faith without any corroborating evidence, then they cannot consider themselves completely logical in regards to religion.
They can be logical beings, but not when it comes to religion. In fact the only logical reaction to religion is to just ignore it.
However, that is not saying religion is a bad thing. I personally believe that the soul is something that is not in the realm of science and logic. But I accept that for what it is, my personal belief without any evidence to support it. I would suggest everyone do the same, but we all know that will never happen as long as religious wackos, that goes for every country, are in power.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: daniel49
science once said the earth was flat as well
And now it doesn't. Science changes based on evidence to the contrary. That's what makes it valid.
Various parts of religion have been proven wrong over time. The Earth is certifiably not 5000 years old. Humans were not created out of clay. The problem with religion is that if you have to accept everything it states, then you are instantly accepting falsehood.
If only religion was actually the religion of the soul, then it might be valid and worthwhile. But if it continues to rely on a storybook like the Bible, which is nice but some parts of it are completely ludicrous, it will never be accepted as valid by any logical being.
And you will never find God with your mind.
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: daniel49
science once said the earth was flat as well
And now it doesn't. Science changes based on evidence to the contrary. That's what makes it valid.
Various parts of religion have been proven wrong over time. The Earth is certifiably not 5000 years old. Humans were not created out of clay. The problem with religion is that if you have to accept everything it states, then you are instantly accepting falsehood.
If only religion was actually the religion of the soul, then it might be valid and worthwhile. But if it continues to rely on a storybook like the Bible, which is nice but some parts of it are completely ludicrous, it will never be accepted as valid by any logical being.
And you will never find God with your mind.
Funny, because nothing you enjoy today could have been found with God
.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
And you'll be waiting for many years to come, Jack. Seeker doesn't draw conclusions, at least for himself. He doesn't even answer direct questions posed to him, except when the answer to said question fits into his limited understanding of his bible, as anyone who has read this thread so far has seen for themselves. He also doesn't debate. He only makes arguments, and when challenged on any of them, says that he doesn't argue.:laugh:
edit: His post below mine proves my post was correct, in its entirety.
Aisengard,
It is obvious that you wouldn't agree, but everything that you enjoy comes from God...except for what is evil.
It is obvious that you wouldn't agree, but everything that you enjoy comes from God...except for what is evil.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
The more kriesters talk the more I am finding myself agreeing with whathisname who says parents should be charged with child abuse for teaching them xtrianity warping them young.
A good movie about the virus called religion -The real root of all evil
The God Delusion
(Yes, the host is a bit of an ass but one of the worlds best evolutionary scientists and takes no sh1t from these brainwashed wingnuts) Ted Haggard being one of them he interviews at length.
Let's be logical for a second. When you look at the world you see that people whose parents were Christians and grew up exposed to Christian ideas turn out, generally speaking, to be Christians and so on for every other religion in the world. Nobody who never heard of Hinduism, for example expresses a belief in Indian Deities. Every religious person, generally speaking believes in the religion he was raised around and in.
Logic tells you, therefore, that whatever it is you believe is an accident. All the religious people in the world just happened to be born in the only true religion, their own. Logic tells us, therefore, that if you think you know the true religion you are completely wrong. If you were born elsewhere or in a different time you would believe some completely different only truth.
Logically therefore, religion is just an accretion of horse poo, except for the fact that every were you go in any time there is always some religion. So something in the human animal keeps making up regions that are the absolute truth and therefore obviously not the truth at all.
Logically, therefore, the truth is that man invents religions, millions of them endlessly and all of them are the only way.
Logically, then, some people, the folk who start religions, are having some sort of experience, prefrontal lobe epilepsy, chemically induced hallucinations, meditatively induced brain function alteration, psychic vision, discourse with higher beings, mental illness, extreme mental health, or something or other that alters their consciousness is some way as to produce experiences that create a sense of finality, certainty, and meaning, some deep psychological sense of well being and connection with life that induces them to want to share this with others.
Logically then, God, Nirvana, the great Spirit, Atman, all the millions of names associated with this mental sense are just arrows pointing to the fact that contained within the human experience is the potential to experience something big.
I would call it the ending of duality and entry into being in the now, a state of undivided consciousness where what is is what is conscious. It is a state of consciousness in which the sense of self disappears and love begins. But that's just more empty words.
It doesn't matter what you call it. Your beliefs about what it is are what make it impossible to experience. It doesn't matter if you say it does not exist. It does not, for you at any rate, so you are not only right if you don't believe, you non-belief insured it does not.
Religion is utter garbage. Non-belief is utter garbage. Garbage collectors like to argue whose garbage stinks the most. What does it matter when it's all garbage. We have all been stuffed full of crap. We know absolutely nothing at all. Do you really wonder why you are all ego? Without your ego you would be who you are.
Logic tells you, therefore, that whatever it is you believe is an accident. All the religious people in the world just happened to be born in the only true religion, their own. Logic tells us, therefore, that if you think you know the true religion you are completely wrong. If you were born elsewhere or in a different time you would believe some completely different only truth.
Logically therefore, religion is just an accretion of horse poo, except for the fact that every were you go in any time there is always some religion. So something in the human animal keeps making up regions that are the absolute truth and therefore obviously not the truth at all.
Logically, therefore, the truth is that man invents religions, millions of them endlessly and all of them are the only way.
Logically, then, some people, the folk who start religions, are having some sort of experience, prefrontal lobe epilepsy, chemically induced hallucinations, meditatively induced brain function alteration, psychic vision, discourse with higher beings, mental illness, extreme mental health, or something or other that alters their consciousness is some way as to produce experiences that create a sense of finality, certainty, and meaning, some deep psychological sense of well being and connection with life that induces them to want to share this with others.
Logically then, God, Nirvana, the great Spirit, Atman, all the millions of names associated with this mental sense are just arrows pointing to the fact that contained within the human experience is the potential to experience something big.
I would call it the ending of duality and entry into being in the now, a state of undivided consciousness where what is is what is conscious. It is a state of consciousness in which the sense of self disappears and love begins. But that's just more empty words.
It doesn't matter what you call it. Your beliefs about what it is are what make it impossible to experience. It doesn't matter if you say it does not exist. It does not, for you at any rate, so you are not only right if you don't believe, you non-belief insured it does not.
Religion is utter garbage. Non-belief is utter garbage. Garbage collectors like to argue whose garbage stinks the most. What does it matter when it's all garbage. We have all been stuffed full of crap. We know absolutely nothing at all. Do you really wonder why you are all ego? Without your ego you would be who you are.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
You've missed something. The most important thing, as a matter of fact: the various churches in America bring in more money per year than every other type of business. The only "business" that brings in more money per year is the US government. Bill Gates and Exxon don't hold a candle to the churches' monetary income. So, it seems that money is the root of all evil, after all.
In other words, you want scientists to interpret their findings in a fashion that would include God in the overall picture? Ironically, this would make science extremely closed-minded. The reason God is not included in any scientific theories is not because scientists are intentionally excluding Him, but rather He is unnecessary. "Unnecessary" in the sense that no evidence suggests that He is exists and that He is not required to make any theory work.
Scientists ignore God because he is counterproductive.
Back in medieval times, who thought the sun was a big ball of gas, and the moon just a big hunk of rock? No one knew what they really were, so they just attributed to be more of God's 'miracles.'
The scientific world could attribute things they can't yet explain (like the beginning of the universe, or black holes, or quantum mechanics) to God, but that would just be lazy. So the only thing they assume to be absolutely true is that they don't know anything. If only more people thought like that, the world would be an altogether better place.
Back in medieval times, who thought the sun was a big ball of gas, and the moon just a big hunk of rock? No one knew what they really were, so they just attributed to be more of God's 'miracles.'
The scientific world could attribute things they can't yet explain (like the beginning of the universe, or black holes, or quantum mechanics) to God, but that would just be lazy. So the only thing they assume to be absolutely true is that they don't know anything. If only more people thought like that, the world would be an altogether better place.
You are living in Medieval times, my friend. In fact what you see is the dark ages of Religion and Science, a time when neither knows much of anything. Again, because you are a Zero you have a need to pretend you are somebody who is advanced.
Um, thanks? And I assume you know you are advanced so you don't need to pretend anything? Stop being such a sanctimonious asshole.
feralkid,
You want a dictionary? Here's one:
You want a dictionary? Here's one:
Which part of my definition do you see as being contrary to the gist of these?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter