Unless I’m mistaken, Jesus had some authority as far as you are concerned. So yet again…try using the golden rule - as he tells you you should, and see where it gets you.Freddy:
Doing something Jesus says only makes sense if He had some sort of authority otherwise it would be based on a personal preference.
What makes you think so? The three main ethical theories in the Western world come from outside of religious traditions—Aristotle, Kant and Mills. And they are all philosophical in essence. I would argue that Aristotle’s is the one most based in observation of how humans actually behave, but I’d have to give kudos to the others as well. But still, philosophy…
Except that doesn’t really answer anything.
Hey, we agree here.Freddy:
Doing something Jesus says only makes sense if He had some sort of authority otherwise it would be based on a personal preference.
I think the natural construct of it was primarily for raising young, which also had obvious societal benefit.
It was, rather, very purposeful. Almost right off the bat, the church enters its “age of martyrs” where folks were dying left and right for this delusional sufferer. But more to the point, any religion that has had “staying power” must have a lot to recommend it. Otherwise, you’re stretching credulity to its brink.
Why this reluctance to accept what Jesus has told us? It’s not in itself an answer to anything. It’s a means to make decisons as to what we should consider correct moral behaviour.Freddy:
Except that doesn’t really answer anything.
Perhaps not philosophy, but the basis would be on postulates that are easy to disagree with.
Goodness, every failed religion had an age of martyrs. They just didn’t come out of it.Hume:
It was, rather, very purposeful. Almost right off the bat, the church enters its “age of martyrs” where folks were dying left and right for this delusional sufferer. But more to the point, any religion that has had “staying power” must have a lot to recommend it. Otherwise, you’re stretching credulity to its brink.
For debate purposes I’m disputing the reasoning that the golden rule has any meaning under a morally relativistic system.
Carrot and stick. Eternal damnation if you don’t and everlasting bliss if you do.Hume:
But more to the point, any religion that has had “staying power” must have a lot to recommend it. Otherwise, you’re stretching credulity to its brink.
It’s not to be considered ‘under’ and moral system. It’s a moral system in itself. I guess I’ve reached the point where I have to ask you whether you think ‘Do unto others…’ has any merit at all.Freddy:
For debate purposes I’m disputing the reasoning that the golden rule has any meaning under a morally relativistic system.
As soon as I saw the term ‘eusocial’ and the reference to ants and termites I thought, ‘Hello, I bet he’s read The Social Conquest…’
Oh I’m sure some of Kropotkin’s are outdated as well but his is still a good book. I’m adding Wilson’s to my to read list right now.
You suggested it was accidental. History shows a very purposeful enduring of the Christian faith. Still, any and all unbelievers/atheists need to account for the success of religions that have had staying power somehow. “it was just an accident” is not a position that could be taken seriously.