Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don't atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?

[Joan1969]

Hi Innocente,

You distinguished between gay and civil rights, but gay rights are part of civil rights whether or not we agree with their case.

You are making an assertion, and I don’t agree. Homosexuality is a behavior, regardless of how strong the temptation to it. I would see it as analogous to drug addiction, and not as analogous to membership in a certain racial group. Drug addicts surely enjoy all their civil rights, but there are no “drug rights”.

We do not know God’s mind; we allow Him to speak to us under His terms. Our knowledge of God is extremely limited here on earth (originaly a quote from me)

Which is one reason why I don’t believe in objectivity in morals. (your response)

A total non-sequitur. Our knowledge of God may be limited, but that is not the same as non-existent. If God has chosen to reveal aspects of Himself (theology), or the realities of our own nature (morals), then that knowledge is reliable, enduring and critially important.

This doesn’t sound at all right to me. A Catholic who disagrees in conscience with an aspect of the RCC’s teaching must blindly follow the herd or be guilty of a thought crime?

To freely and intelligently study reliable information is not “blindly following the herd”.

You misrepresent conscience. A conscience that does not heed authority is not a conscience at all, but a series of personal rationalizations. A good conscience belongs to the person who is willing to learn what is good and true, according to their individual situation.

To the best of my knowledge and ability, I am accurately presenting the Catholic position here.

We’re agreed then that most Christians don’t take the Ten Commandments as representing the mind of God.

I have certainly not agreed to that idea. The Ten Commandments all stand, and are commonly used by Catholics to examine the conscience in preparation for confession.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[inocente]

You are making an assertion, and I don’t agree. Homosexuality is a behavior, regardless of how strong the temptation to it. I would see it as analogous to drug addiction, and not as analogous to membership in a certain racial group. Drug addicts surely enjoy all their civil rights, but there are no “drug rights”.

I don’t see sexual orientation as at all analogous to drugs while knowing some Catholics disagree. But I’m just following the standard definition of civil rights, meaning equal citizenship without unjust discrimination, and CCC 2358 says “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.

A total non-sequitur. Our knowledge of God may be limited, but that is not the same as non-existent. If God has chosen to reveal aspects of Himself (theology), or the realities of our own nature (morals), then that knowledge is reliable, enduring and critially important.

That would follow if all religions taught exactly the same morality, but God has apparently revealed different morals to different religions.

You misrepresent conscience. A conscience that does not heed authority is not a conscience at all, but a series of personal rationalizations. A good conscience belongs to the person who is willing to learn what is good and true, according to their individual situation.

I’m just following the dictionary definition of conscience. Agreed we must form and inform our conscience well, but it would be playing with words to say someone doesn’t have a conscience if she doesn’t agree with us. In that situation, where she isn’t in ignorance, the CCC is clear:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Granted, 1792 goes on to say that, amongst other things, rejection of the Church’s authority can be at the source of errors of judgment, but only can.

I have certainly not agreed to that idea. The Ten Commandments all stand, and are commonly used by Catholics to examine the conscience in preparation for confession.

We’ll leave that one then. But it remains that Christians follow Christ in ignoring the restriction of doing no work at all on the Sabbath, and so in practice we don’t take the Commandments as an entirely objective revelation of the mind of God.

 

[Joan1969]

That would follow if all religions taught exactly the same morality, but God has apparently revealed different morals to different religions.

I see no reason to believe that God has contradicted Himself. Much more reasonable to believe that human beings may be the inconsistent ones.

I’m just following the dictionary definition of conscience. Agreed we must form and inform our conscience well, but it would be playing with words to say someone doesn’t have a conscience if she doesn’t agree with us. In that situation, where she isn’t in ignorance, the CCC is clear:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

Granted, 1792 goes on to say that, amongst other things, rejection of the Church’s authority can be at the source of errors of judgment, but only can.

The interpretaion of conscience that you seem to be making here is a misuse of the idea, and has sadly been very common in recent decades. It works to overturn the rest of the moral law, and thus contradicts the entire Catholic worldview. It is not reasonable to suppose the CCC supports such a view. The Catholic teaching on conscience must be taken in the context of her total moral law, which teaches objective and enduring values.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[tonyrey]

Re: Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don’t atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?

That doesn’t alter the truth of Christ’s teaching. It merely shows that not all Christians put it into practice.

Selectively picking a few Articles does not a Declaration make. Did the leaders of all the non-Christian nations suddenly convert to Christianity when they signed on the dotted line?

How is that related to the fact that Christ’s teaching is the basis of modern civilisation and of the principles enshrined in the Declaration?

Can you cite any evidence that the teaching of Jesus is the sole basis of the Declaration?

The onus is on you to prove otherwise…

And errrm … gender equality in the sense women can be priests?

Do you assess the truth of Christ’s teaching by the failure of those who claim to be His followers?..

 

[inocente]

I see no reason to believe that God has contradicted Himself. Much more reasonable to believe that human beings may be the inconsistent ones.

But surely it would be unreasonable to say only Christians have access to a “real” morality and other religions get it wrong. The common standard should be what we all agree on rather than every religion or group trying to impose its own morals on others, no matter how heartfelt.

The interpretaion of conscience that you seem to be making here is a misuse of the idea, and has sadly been very common in recent decades. It works to overturn the rest of the moral law, and thus contradicts the entire Catholic worldview. It is not reasonable to suppose the CCC supports such a view. The Catholic teaching on conscience must be taken in the context of her total moral law, which teaches objective and enduring values.

I’m rather hoping to support the Catholic worldview, not overturn it.

There’s a difference between doctrine and indoctrination, and the RCC isn’t a cult which brainwashes folk. If a Catholic doesn’t agree with a policy in conscience then the CCC appears to say clearly that she must act in that conscience. I’d assume the rest is between her, her priest and God.

 

[inocente]

That doesn’t alter the truth of Christ’s teaching. It merely shows that not all Christians put it into practice.

Yet Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. do put it into practice while the Christian USA doesn’t. Rather than demonstrating that non-Christians are better Christians than Christians, might it just be that they arrived at truths by another route?

How is that related to the fact that Christ’s teaching is the basis of modern civilisation and of the principles enshrined in the Declaration?

Christ’s teaching is the basis for the nation state, power blocks and capitalism? The Ancient Greeks had nothing to do with democracy? The Declaration fits with Western and Christian values but also fits with the values of other religions.

There could be someone on another forum right now saying Hinduism is the sole basis of the Declaration. She would also be wrong.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise…

Don’t think debate works like that, you made the assertion, it’s up to you to provide evidence. But I’ll cite evidence anyway that the teaching of Jesus is not the sole basis of the Declaration:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) (French) (Spanish) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. - ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Do you assess the truth of Christ’s teaching by the failure of those who claim to be His followers?..

Don’t know what that meant tony. I was simply observing that many churches are not equal opportunity employers.

 

[larkin31]

Don’t think debate works like that, you made the assertion, it’s up to you to provide evidence.

Indeed.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Indeed.

Yeppers

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t alter the truth of Christ’s teaching. It merely shows that not all Christians put it into practice.

Perhaps you could cite a **non-Christian **source prior to Jesus which states that God is our Father - and that women and children are equal to men…

Christ’s teaching is the basis for the nation state, power blocks and capitalism? The Ancient Greeks had nothing to do with democracy? The Declaration fits with Western and Christian values but also fits with the values of other religions.

Perhaps you would cite a** non-Christian** source prior to Jesus which states that God is our Father and that women and children are equal to men…

Don’t think debate works like that, you made the assertion, it’s up to you to provide evidence. But I’ll cite evidence anyway that the teaching of Jesus is not the sole basis of the Declaration:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) (French) (Spanish) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. - ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx

How does all that prove that Christ’s teaching proclaimed more than two thousand years ago is not the basis of modern civilisation and of the principles enshrined in the Declaration?

The evidence is that Christ taught that we are all children of the same Father and equal in His sight. He rejected the prevalent belief that men are superior to women and children - and the Jews are superior to the Gentiles.

Do you assess the truth of Christ’s teaching by the failure of those who claim to be His followers?..

Don’t know what that meant tony. I was simply observing that many churches are not equal opportunity employers.

Which has no bearing on Christ’s teaching that we are all free to choose good or evil, all equal in the sight of the Father and all members of His family, i.e. the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

So much for the “yes-men”!

 

[larkin31]

Which has no bearing on Christ’s teaching that we are all free to choose good or evil, all equal in the sight of the Father and all members of His family, i.e. the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

I have never heard the idea of political “liberty” and “equality” in the modern democratic sense being linked to any of the sayings of Jesus. Could you be more specific with the Biblical passage, please? I am very interested in this.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Perhaps you could cite a **non-Christian **source prior to Jesus which states that God is our Father - and that women and children are equal to men…

Not that I’m in agreement with it all, but since you asked, we’ll start with a Christian source, one of many:

“The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the the religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian.”
~St Augusitne, Retractions

“There are many things that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.”~St. Augustine, City of God

Then we can go on, remembering that in Ancient Egypt, the land of Moses’ education, women were far more equal to men than they are in our Country today:

“All that went into the making of the Christian historical set-up was long pre-extant as something quite other than history, was in fact expressly non-historical, in the Egyptian mythology and eschatology. Fro when the sun at the Easter equinox entered the sign of the fishes (Pices) about 255 BCE, the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age and had been traveling hither as the Ever Becoming One through all preceding time…During those 10,000 years, that same incarnation of the divine ideal in the character of Iusa, the Coming Son, had saturated the mind of Egypt with its exalting influence. Little did men of that epoch dream that their ideal figure fo man’s divinity would in time be rendered historical as a man of flesh.”~ AB Kuhn, --Who Is This King of Glory?

According to Sir Wallis Budge in his Egyptian Religion A typical ancient text declares >God is One and alone and none other is existing with him. >God is the One creator who has made all things. >God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the divine spirit. >God is from the beginning. >He was when nothing else had being. >He shall endure to all eternity. >God is truth. >God is Life. >He gives life to humanity and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. >God is teh father and mother. >God is the father of fathers. >He is the creator of of the heaves and the earth. >He is the primeval Potter who turned man and gods into being out of his hands.

You can do your own research; here is a partial list:

Higgins, GAnancalypsis: An Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and
Religions.
Smith, JZDrudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianity & the Religions of
Late Antiquity
Loisy, AFThe Birth of Christian Religion
Finklestien & SibermanThe Bible Unearthed
Hornung, EConceptions of God and Man in Ancient Egypt
Mack, BLThe Lost Gospel: the Book of Q and Christian Origins
Dunand & Zivie-CocheGods and Men in Egypt, 3000BCE to 395CE
Assman, Jan Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism
Doane, TWBible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions
Massey, GAncient Egypt, the Light of the World: A work of Restitution and
Reclamation
Wheless, JForgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the
Christian Religion
Mosheim, JL vonHistory of the Christian Religion
Kuhn, ABThe Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures
Brandon SFGReligion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Events
Gadalla, MHistoric Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt
Smith, JZDrudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianity & the Religions of
Late Antiquity
Wells, GA~~Can WeTrust the New Testament? Thoughts on the reliability of Early
Christian Testimony
Faulkner, RO (trans) The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Hoffmann, RJ (trans)Celsus on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians
Carpenter, EdwardPagan and Christian Creed: Their Origin and Meaning
Leedom, TCThe Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read

 

[tonyrey]

Not that I’m in agreement with it all, but since you asked, we’ll start with a Christian source, one of many:

“The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the the religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian.”
~St Augusitne, Retractions

“There are many things that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.”~St. Augustine, City of God

Then we can go on, remembering that in Ancient Egypt, the land of Moses’ education, women were far more equal to men than they are in our Country today:

“far more equal”! What do you think that proves?

“All that went into the making of the Christian historical set-up was long pre-extant as something quite other than history, was in fact expressly non-historical, in the Egyptian mythology and eschatology. Fro when the sun at the Easter equinox entered the sign of the fishes (Pices) about 255 BCE, the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age and had been traveling hither as the Ever Becoming One through all preceding time…During those 10,000 years, that same incarnation of the divine ideal in the character of Iusa, the Coming Son, had saturated the mind of Egypt with its exalting influence. Little did men of that epoch dream that their ideal figure fo man’s divinity would in time be rendered historical as a man of flesh.”~ AB Kuhn, --Who Is This King of Glory?

According to Sir Wallis Budge in his Egyptian Religion A typical ancient text declares >God is One and alone and none other is existing with him. >God is the One creator who has made all things. >God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the divine spirit. >God is from the beginning. >He was when nothing else had being. >He shall endure to all eternity. >God is truth. >God is Life. >He gives life to humanity and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. >God is teh father and mother. >God is the father of fathers. >He is the creator of of the heaves and the earth. >He is the primeval Potter who turned man and gods into being out of his hands.

Abstract ideas are vastly different from the concrete teaching of Jesus which resulted in action throughout history and throughout the world. “By their fruits you shall know them…”

You can do your own research; here is a partial list:

Higgins, GAnancalypsis: An Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and
Religions.
Smith, JZDrudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianity & the Religions of
Late Antiquity
Loisy, AFThe Birth of Christian Religion
Finklestien & SibermanThe Bible Unearthed
Hornung, EConceptions of God and Man in Ancient Egypt
Mack, BLThe Lost Gospel: the Book of Q and Christian Origins
Dunand & Zivie-CocheGods and Men in Egypt, 3000BCE to 395CE
Assman, Jan Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism
Doane, TWBible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions
Massey, GAncient Egypt, the Light of the World: A work of Restitution and
Reclamation
Wheless, JForgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the
Christian Religion
Mosheim, JL vonHistory of the Christian Religion
Kuhn, ABThe Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures
Brandon SFGReligion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Events
Gadalla, MHistoric Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt
Smith, JZDrudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianity & the Religions of
Late Antiquity
Wells, GA~~Can WeTrust the New Testament? Thoughts on the reliability of Early
Christian Testimony
Faulkner, RO (trans) The Egyptian Book of the Dead
Hoffmann, RJ (trans)Celsus on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians
Carpenter, EdwardPagan and Christian Creed: Their Origin and Meaning
Leedom, TCThe Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read

The onus is on you to produce specific texts which prove that women and children were regarded and treated as equal to men.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

The onus is on you to produce specific texts which prove that women and children were regarded and treated as equal to men.

I’m sorry, Toneyrey, I don’t read or write those old languages and rely on folks who do, so I provided you with a statements and a list of reliable authors. The onus is also on you to use some of what’s between our ears, eh? As to what that proves, you asked and I gave you material that was elicited by your question. Are you making a career out of making people wrong who disagree with you or have different information???

 

[tonyrey]

I have never heard the idea of political “liberty” and “equality” in the modern democratic sense being linked to any of the sayings of Jesus. Could you be more specific with the Biblical passage, please? I am very interested in this.

Political liberty, equality and fraternity are meaningless catchwords if they are not based on the moral truths revealed and put into practice by Jesus. He constantly referred to God as a loving Father Who treats everyone equally - sending the sun and rain for all His children alike -, Who expects us to regard everyone without exception as members of His family and Who makes it clear that we all have free will because our eternal destiny depends on whether we obey His commandments.

Matthew 18:1-6 (KJV) “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sorry, Toneyrey, I don’t read or write those old languages and rely on folks who do, so I provided you with a statements and a list of reliable authors.

In other words you are simply appealing to authority…

The onus is also on you to use some of what’s between our ears, eh? As to what that proves, you asked and I gave you material that was elicited by your question. Are you making a career out of making people wrong who disagree with you or have different information???

Your sarcasm does not conceal the fact that you have failed to produce concrete evidence for your opinion…

 

[Ranklyfrank]

In other words you are simply appealing to authority…

Appealing? I read and research and come to conclusions. I don’t believe you do differently, except you appear to me to use a far narrower resource.

Actually, you just didn’t look. Call me back when you have.

[/QUOTE]

 

[larkin31]

Political liberty, equality and fraternity are meaningless catchwords if they are not based on the moral truths revealed and put into practice by Jesus. He constantly referred to God as a loving Father Who treats everyone equally - sending the sun and rain for all His children alike -, Who expects us to regard everyone without exception as members of His family and Who makes it clear that we all have free will because our eternal destiny depends on whether we obey His commandments.

Matthew 18:1-6 (KJV) “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Yes, I am familiar with this one. I have never before seen this associated with “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” the terms famous as the banner of the French Revolution (in French, of course).

Is there any other passage than this one about the equality of souls in heaven? I do agree, by the way, that Jesus was a social radical who disregarded the social and religious hierarchy of his day. He was killed for this.

 

[tonyrey]

Political liberty, equality and fraternity are meaningless catchwords if they are not based on the moral truths revealed and put into practice by Jesus. He constantly referred to God as a loving Father Who treats everyone equally - sending the sun and rain for all His children alike -, Who expects us to regard everyone without exception as members of His family and Who makes it clear that we all have free will because our eternal destiny depends on whether we obey His commandments.
*
Matthew 18:1-6 (KJV)*

Probably because we are so accustomed to Christian values that their origin is not obvious. The philosophes of the Enlightenment did not start from scratch. The basis of their ideas was their cultural heritage from Christianity, Islam, Greece and Rome.

Is there any other passage than this one about the equality of souls in heaven?

There are several sayings of Jesus which have to be taken in conjunction, e.g.

“Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

“The Father and I are one”.

God is not one Person - (That would be the apotheosis of egoism!) - but a Community of Persons Who are totally united by unselfish love. He tells us to be perfect, forget ourselves and identify ourselves totally with others. That is the only way we can live in peace, joy and harmony. We are all equal in the kingdom of heaven because we are not separated by the vices which cause so much misery and suffering on earth: pride, selfishness, greed, envy, the territorial imperative and lust for power. In the Beatitudes Jesus makes it clear that ultimately we all receive exactly what we deserve. We are forgiven to the exact extent that we forgive. We are all fundamentally equal in the sight of God but that does not mean we are equal in every respect. The first shall be last and the last shall be first!

I do agree, by the way, that Jesus was a social radical who disregarded the social and religious hierarchy of his day. He was killed for this.

His death - and the deaths of all the martyrs, Christian and non-Christian - has given life and freedom to the world, as have seen recently in eastern Europe and now in the Middle East. In reality the fundamental struggle is between good and evil which has no rational basis in a Godless universe…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe you do differently, except you appear to me to use a far narrower resource.

My resource is the effect of Christ’s teaching, life and death on the history of mankind over the last two thousand years…

 

[inocente]

Perhaps you could cite a **non-Christian **source prior to Jesus which states that God is our Father - and that women and children are equal to men…

Not sure what God being our Father has to do with the price of bread when it’s not mentioned in the secular Declaration, but see below for an OT source.

Jews may argue that the story of Adam and Eve is the origin of equality since it says we all come from the same parents and so must be equal. Hindus may want the credit since they worship God in both feminine and masculine form. Others may say that the NT is ambiguous about gender equality and quote 1 Tim 2:11-15 , 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Cor 11:7-9, 1 Cor 14:34-35 etc.

How does all that prove that Christ’s teaching proclaimed more than two thousand years ago is not the basis of modern civilisation and of the principles enshrined in the Declaration?

It says the Declaration was drafted by representatives with different cultural backgrounds. These presumably included original member states such as the USSR, the Republic of China, India, the United Arab Republic, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, for instance, the representative from the USSR would have gone straight to a gulag if his bosses thought anything in the draft came out of a religion.

Really don’t know where you’re going with this attempt to repaint Christ as a political philosopher who was the single author of modern civilization. Sure His teaching had influences, sure colonization spread those influences, but as well as taking a rather elitist stance (why “civilization” singular instead of plural, is that some kind of Yankee Go Home reaction? ), saying He is the basis of modern civilization would mean He is the basis of modernism, postmodernism, secularism and materialism.

Which has no bearing on Christ’s teaching that we are all free to choose good or evil, all equal in the sight of the Father and all members of His family, i.e. the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Probably because we are so accustomed to Christian values that their origin is not obvious.

Au contraire mon amie:

“Which has no bearing on Christ’s teaching that we are all free to choose good or evil” - Because the Lord gives wisdom: and out of his mouth comes prudence and knowledge. He will keep the salvation of the righteous, and protect them that walk in simplicity, keeping the paths of justice, and guarding the ways of saints. Then shall you understand justice, and judgment, and equity, and every good path. - Proverbs 2:6-13 NAB

“all equal in the sight of the Father and all members of His family”* - Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then does every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? - Malachi 2.10*
*
(I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. - Bhagavad Gita 9.29

So what of all these titles, names, and races? They are mere worldly conventions. - Sutta Nipata 648)*

“i.e. the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.” - Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity - Psalm 133:1