Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

It certainly goes beyond just "leaving him be."

Legitimately, I don't see how. Look here, you say: It means to honour, sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person. Embedded in it is the idea you know what the other guy needs. You may. Even if you do, can't see how you're empowered to impose a solution. Offer one, sure. But when told no thanks back off.

Oh, nobody says "impose." What you're supposed to do is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So that's how you assess what they need: what do you need? Give him just as good.

[BigMike]

It certainly goes beyond just "leaving him be."

Legitimately, I don't see how. Look here, you say: It means to honour, sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person. Embedded in it is the idea you know what the other guy needs. You may. Even if you do, can't see how you're empowered to impose a solution. Offer one, sure. But when told no thanks back off.

Oh, nobody says "impose." What you're supposed to do is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So that's how you assess what they need: what do you need? Give him just as good.

"Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." ~ George Bernard Shaw

[henry quirk]

If love meant respect, then wouldn't the Bible have used the word respect?

I'm not Christian, Gary. Yeah, the thread is about Christianity, but -- as Nick periodically points out -- no one, in-thread, agrees on what Christianity is, so if I wanna throw in my two cents now & again, as a deist, I will.

So, lookin' at what the end result of love thy neighbor ought to be, it seems respect the other guy is the best fit. It can encompass Mannie's position (to sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person) when that person asks for help. But it can also be about buttin' the hell out even if you know the other guy is wrong (in which case you may very well be self-defendin' against the consequences of his bad choices).

Seems to me: the minute you become so sure you're right that you'll sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person even when he sez no thanks is the minute you mebbe need to get knocked off your high horse.

If I have a (small, very small) beef with (*some) Christians it's that their certainty, in their minds, trumps the other guy's agency; that their love diminishes the other guy's autonomy.




*and, no, I ain't talkin' about Mannie...he's not imposed on me in any way

[henry quirk]

It does not pop out of the air or drop down from the sky.

No, it doesn't. It's inside man, plain as day. But, it was put there. Man didn't, doesn't, create it.

The word 'ought' comes from a Old English word āgan which means 'to owe'. So he owes it to do something else does make sense to me.

Yes. To himself, to his fellows, to God.

[henry quirk]

It certainly goes beyond just "leaving him be."

Legitimately, I don't see how. Look here, you say: It means to honour, sacrifice for, and seek the best for the person. Embedded in it is the idea you know what the other guy needs. You may. Even if you do, can't see how you're empowered to impose a solution. Offer one, sure. But when told no thanks back off.

Oh, nobody says "impose." What you're supposed to do is *"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So that's how you assess what they need: what do you need? Give him just as good.

*All I'm sayin' is: you better ask first.

[Dubious]

but -- as Nick periodically points out -- no one, in-thread, agrees on what Christianity is, so if I wanna throw in my two cents now & again, as a deist, I will.

It's the Judaism of the Gentiles...its Judaic version as instigated and agreed upon by the gospels with variations and elaborations. The Satanic are those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah which also includes the non-conforming Jews.

[Gary Childress]

...as I now conceive it, religion and religious practice must be defined in terms of its purpose.

So truth is off the table, for you. If Nazi occultims "worked," and "had a purpose," you wouldn't see it as immoral?

You think you're saying something radical and new. But you're not. You're channelling the old, Westernized pseudo-Hinduism that tries to pick and choose the elements of that worldview it likes, and dump the rest...thus becoming incoherent in the process.

Here, you engage as you often do with a haughty imperiousness.

Here I "engage" with rationality. Coherence is an attribute of beliefs that make sense with themselves. Your beliefs don't have it, it seems.

Nazism didn't work. It was destroyed by an overwhelming international consensus that it was the wrong way to do things.

[henry quirk]

but -- as Nick periodically points out -- no one, in-thread, agrees on what Christianity is, so if I wanna throw in my two cents now & again, as a deist, I will.

It's the Judaism of the Gentiles...its Judaic version as instigated and agreed upon by the gospels with variations and elaborations. The Satanic are those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah which also includes the non-conforming Jews.

Pretty sure not everyone, in-thread, agrees.

[Dubious]

but -- as Nick periodically points out -- no one, in-thread, agrees on what Christianity is, so if I wanna throw in my two cents now & again, as a deist, I will.

It's the Judaism of the Gentiles...its Judaic version as instigated and agreed upon by the gospels with variations and elaborations. The Satanic are those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah which also includes the non-conforming Jews.

Pretty sure not everyone, in-thread, agrees.

I'm quite sure you're right but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity derived from a minority of Jewish believers in Jesus.

[henry quirk]

For you, it doesn't really matter. Whatever "works," and whatever it "works for" is fine, in pragmatism.

Nazism didn't work. It was destroyed by an overwhelming international consensus that it was the wrong way to do things.

But if it did work, would that make it right?

A while back, the ACA was proposed and implemented. Repubs attacked it cuz it couldn't work. They were right, of course, but it follows, from their argument, if Obamacare worked, then it would be A-Okay.

Simple fact is: the ACA was, is, wrong, and it would be wrong even if it worked, even if it were the most successful gov program in the history of gov programs.

That sumthin' works or doesn't work can't be the measure of the rightness of it.

[henry quirk]

It's the Judaism of the Gentiles...its Judaic version as instigated and agreed upon by the gospels with variations and elaborations. The Satanic are those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah which also includes the non-conforming Jews.

Pretty sure not everyone, in-thread, agrees.

I'm quite sure you're right but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity derived from a minority of Jewish believers in Jesus.

Sure, I'm not disputin' that. What I'm sayin' is its history isn't its definition.

[Gary Childress]

For you, it doesn't really matter. Whatever "works," and whatever it "works for" is fine, in pragmatism.

Nazism didn't work. It was destroyed by an overwhelming international consensus that it was the wrong way to do things.

But if it did work, would that make it right?

A while back, the ACA was proposed and implemented. Repubs attacked it cuz it couldn't work. They were right, of course, but it follows, from their argument, if Obamacare worked, then it would be A-Okay.

Simple fact is: the ACA was, is, wrong, and it would be wrong even if it worked, even if it were the most successful gov program in the history of gov programs.

That sumthin' works or doesn't work can't be the measure of the rightness of it.

I disagree. If health care can be made affordable by all, the ostensible purpose of the ACA, then it would work and be moral. The fact that it isn't working to make health care affordable for all is proof that it's not moral. It needs to be improved or revised and it probably will be as we go along. Or do you think some people shouldn't be given decent medical care?

[henry quirk]

Nazism didn't work. It was destroyed by an overwhelming international consensus that it was the wrong way to do things.

But if it did work, would that make it right?

A while back, the ACA was proposed and implemented. Repubs attacked it cuz it couldn't work. They were right, of course, but it follows, from their argument, if Obamacare worked, then it would be A-Okay.

Simple fact is: the ACA was, is, wrong, and it would be wrong even if it worked, even if it were the most successful gov program in the history of gov programs.

That sumthin' works or doesn't work can't be the measure of the rightness of it.

I disagree. If health care can be made affordable by all, the ostensible purpose of the ACA, then it would work and be moral. The fact that it isn't working to make health care affordable for all is proof that it's not moral. It needs to be improved or revised and it probably will be as we go along. Or do you think some people shouldn't be given decent medical care?

If you take from one, without his consent, no matter how well-intentioned you are: you're a thief.

[Gary Childress]

But if it did work, would that make it right?

A while back, the ACA was proposed and implemented. Repubs attacked it cuz it couldn't work. They were right, of course, but it follows, from their argument, if Obamacare worked, then it would be A-Okay.

Simple fact is: the ACA was, is, wrong, and it would be wrong even if it worked, even if it were the most successful gov program in the history of gov programs.

That sumthin' works or doesn't work can't be the measure of the rightness of it.

I disagree. If health care can be made affordable by all, the ostensible purpose of the ACA, then it would work and be moral. The fact that it isn't working to make health care affordable for all is proof that it's not moral. It needs to be improved or revised and it probably will be as we go along. Or do you think some people shouldn't be given decent medical care?

If you take from one, without his consent, no matter how well-intentioned you are: you're a thief.

If someone gives money to a beggar, does that make the beggar a thief?

If those who can afford taxes are too stingy to help those who can't afford proper healthcare, then that is immoral on their part. I don't think you're seeing the issue properly. Everyone benefits from a functioning society. The Nazis couldn't garner the support of the majority of the world because they were immoral by the standards of all those (the majority) who opposed them. It's not that might makes right. It's that right makes might. I think you have the cart pulling the horse.

[henry quirk]

If someone gives money to a beggar, does that make the beggar a thief?

Of course not. Askin' someone for help is fine; forcin' someone to help, isn't fine at all

If those who can afford taxes are too stingy to help those who can't afford proper healthcare, then that is immoral on their part.

It's theirs, Gary, not yours.

It's not the might makes right. It's that right makes might.

It's not either of those. It's right is right even if no one likes it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone thinks it's grand.

The ACA is wrong. It's thievery. It's slavery. Even if, as I say, it worked: it would still be wrong.

Everyone benefits from a functioning society

An ant colony is a functioning society, but I'm not keen about livin' in a human version of one.

Me, I'd rather live in a civilization. Takin' from one to give to another, deprivin' one of choice to create equity for another, these aren't civilized acts and they aren't moral ones either.