Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus stating that love thy neighbour is the golden rule is already evidence enough for me to follow his philosophy. I'm just not sold on the whole Christ concept.
In fact the 'Golden Rule' is not 'Love your neighbour' (which can so often translate into 'convert them to your beliefs - by any means necessary - for their own good') but 'Don't do to them what they don't want done to them'.
Which is a philosophy found everywhere and is not especially reflected in the Gospels - though it does appear is more or less mangled form. And that is why I do not follow the Gospel philosophy in particular but any philosophy which seems logically and rationally sound and which complies with the Golden Rule, with the caveat that the demonstrable truth is important, whether people want to hear it or not.
And the whole Christ concept is demonstrably, I assert, not the truth.
In fact the 'Golden Rule' is not 'Love your neighbour' (which can so often translate into 'convert them to your beliefs - by any means necessary - for their own good')
Nope, certainly not.
If you where to love your neighbour like you love yourself than you would not convert others to your beliefs. And most certainly not by any means necessary.
I guess people who believe that loving others like you love yourself translates to converting them to your beliefs by any means necessary don't understand 1 iota of the concept of love.
I'd even say that they are confusing love with monotheism (read: the belief that the world will turn into a Garden of Eden when the whole world has converted to Christianity).
Jesus stating that you should love the stranger like you love yourself is transcending the ego, which only leads to the destruction of the group. So following Jesus eventually leads off the path of dividing people in strangers and group members.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA Nope, certainly not.
If you where to love your neighbour like you love yourself than you would not convert others to your beliefs. And most certainly not by any means necessary.
I guess people who believe that loving others like you love yourself translates to converting them to your beliefs by any means necessary don't understand 1 iota of the concept of love.
I'd even say that they are confusing love with monotheism (read: the belief that the world will turn into a Garden of Eden when the whole world has converted to Christianity).
I approve your viewpoint. It points up that 'love' can mean an awful lot of things and a lot of awful things. It is also true that I am probably guilty of wanting to 'convert' people. And 'by any means necessary' is tempting, but I try to resist and just put the evidentially substantiated and rational view. I do believe that people are entitled to that in order to allow them to make an informed decision. But they have the right to make that decision for themselves and that's the 'GoldenRule' cut -off point.
Quote:
Jesus stating that you should love the stranger like you love yourself is transcending the ego, which only leads to the destruction of the group. So following Jesus eventually leads off the path of dividing people in strangers and group members.
Luke (who is the only one who recounted this memorable parable and therefore undoubtedly he wrote it himself, rather than quoting Jesus) is sending a message of how one might act in order to look charitable and attract converts - a method the churches well learned.
That said, it can be given a positive spin in expressing a desire to help people of other groups. It is a good example and probably there are similar examples in other literature. It in no way persuades me that there is any reason to give the Gospels or the Bible any particular uber significance today.
Luke (who is the only one who recounted this memorable parable and therefore undoubtedly he wrote it himself, rather than quoting Jesus) is sending a message of how one might act in order to look charitable and attract converts - a method the churches well learned.
The way I see it helping others to help yourself (helping others with the purpose that they will convert to your cause) is more a case of opportunism than proof of love.
I approve your viewpoint. It points up that 'love' can mean an awful lot of things and a lot of awful things.
You are referring to human love, Arequipa. God's pure agape love is unconditional. It is very difficult for us humans to evoke within our consciousness . . . which is why Jesus was necessary. I am so glad you have returned to the discussions (not debate) especially with your more accepting but still skeptical and rational attitude toward theism. You have a fine mind and are an excellent participant without your prior unwarranted certainty.
You are referring to human love, Arequipa. God's pure agape love is unconditional. It is very difficult for us humans to evoke within our consciousness . . . which is why Jesus was necessary. I am so glad you have returned to the discussions (not debate) especially with your more accepting but still skeptical and rational attitude toward theism. You have a fine mind and are an excellent participant without your prior unwarranted certainty.
Thank you. You and Gaylen and Chalmers certainly gave me something to think about. I am still thinking about it and I have posted where I am now elsewhere.
I have always said that I was open to the possibility of a Deist/Pantheist Sortagod so it isn't exactly a sea- change. And on man - made religions and personal gods I am with Einstein, Anthony Flew, Russel and Dawkins - unbelieving.
But, as I explained elsewhere, I still regard Sortagod as not yet proven and is required to be proven. And so is any kind of philosophical mental 'Agape -love' construct based on human delusions about gods.
However, the topic is possible evidence for Jesus. Jesus the historical figure I am inclined to think must have existed. Jesus the invisible messiah floating about in an invisible heaven expected daily by a lot of bods who for the Lord's sake, whole down responsible jobs, I am sure doesn't.
All of those fruits (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) are expressions of love, either for God or for other people. And, love comes from the heart, if it's authentic.
All of those characteristics are visible among people in every religion and no religion.
If your theory is that anything good that happens proves the existence of your god you have a lot to learn about evidence.
My internet is working pretty well, finally, but I won't try to answer every post made in my absence.
But, I will say this: It seems that a majority here would not be convinced by any amount of evidence. You believe what you believe and that's that. Interestingly, I'm getting basically the same kind of responses in that other thread, so I guess the bottom line is that we believe what we want to believe.
I suppose the question really is WHY do we want to believe what we believe?
There's always a lot of talk on these boards about evidence of the truth of Jesus, or not, so let's approach it from another angle.
What WOULD it take to convince you that Jesus really is the resurrected Son of God?
Something that's tangible or viewable by millions, not a book written by MEN who in places can't even get their stories straight.
I'm thinking that to prove to me that Jesus is real, that he would have to come down, schedule sermons at town hall meetings, turn water into wine on TV, maybe make a few talk show appearances.. (Maybe for Oprah's last show?) and do a few interviews on what he thinks the current state of the world is.
But, I will say this: It seems that a majority here would not be convinced by any amount of evidence. You believe what you believe and that's that. Interestingly, I'm getting basically the same kind of responses in that other thread, so I guess the bottom line is that we believe what we want to believe.
Not so fast. You've been given pages of responses outlining what it would take to convince non-believers and you choose to ignore most of them by claiming that you aren't here to answer questions; but, you seem to want to disingenuously dismiss our responses as 'nothing will convince us'. Baloney. Most of the answers boil down to wanting credible and verifiable evidence to examine. (and some parameters for what you are asking us to believe in) Most of us have not been convinced by the evidence offered but are willing to examine new evidence. The response you received is a far cry from 'nothing will convince us'.
The question you posed to the theists obviously didn't go over too well, judging by the lack of response. Previously, you tried to imply that the theist response was superior as it showed, I dunno, firmer convictions. When that didn't go over too well you come back and try to equate our responses as similar. Which is it? I can only surmise that you are trying to lump the atheists and the theists together as you are embarrassed by the close minded non-answers provided in the theist thread. Basically, the two threads show that atheists are willing to look at new evidence while theists state, if they answer at all, that they are not willing to consider anything different. I don't know why I'm so disappointed by your attempt to re-frame the responses; I should know better by now.
Last edited by Maia160; 05-22-2011 at 02:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just not sold on the whole Christ concept.
Nope, certainly not.
And most certainly not by any means necessary.
I guess people who believe that loving others like you love yourself translates to converting them to your beliefs by any means necessary don't understand 1 iota of the concept of love.
So following Jesus eventually leads off the path of dividing people in strangers and group members.
