Again, the teachings I brought up originated with Christianity as far as I can see. I've seen teachings from the Dalai Lama that had the same sentiments but they came later in time. I wasn't arguing that only Christianity had good teachings or bad ones. I would never argue that. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.
And, it probably depends on your theology how you see it. The Christian would be prone to say "Jesus' crucifixion, therefore..." whereas the atheist or agnostic would say "brainwash the sheeple, therefore...." Which speaks to my larger point that damning evidence in one camp is nonsense in the other camp, and evidence really doesn't matter in the end. You choose what you want to believe (or the Holy Spirit inspired it or Dawkins pulled a fast one or whatever), and your brain can make it all seem sensible.
It probably does depend on one's understanding of theology. I'd agree with that. I disagree a little that evidence does or doesn't matter.
No I did not misunderstood. When it comes to similar teachings Buddhism had them written around the same time back in Tang Dynasty, it's not clear which was the first ever. After all, such teachings are rather cheesy and unrealistic. What I'm arguing about, is that you mentioned the world would have been better had people followed the teachings. What teachings? The good ones or the god awful evil ones?
You are confusing atheism as religion. However, It does not require a belief system to operate. It's not a choice between believe or not, it's a stance of what is true and not true. Being an atheist means that you don't claim to know but rather skeptical towards all religious claims. Until extrodinary evidences are presented, as an atheist, I'd rather hold my horse. We didn't choose not to believe, it is the people who claimed there is this almighty being, failed to prove its existence.
There isn't one. It cannot exist as the rules of faith are that evidence does not matter. When faced with contradictory evidence, you imagine some new rationale to maintain your belief system. You go a step further, if you are clever, and go the epistemological route and argue that all systems of knowledge are inherently based on individual perception and as such are equal. This way science becomes faith. Non-belief becomes faith. Evidence becomes faith. Definitions are fluid. All knowledge is an axiom in search of self-reinforcement. We simply believe what we want to believe and that belief is enough to make it valid. Oddly, this pattern of thinking shows up in half of the political debates in this forum. It is a funny game we intelligent beings play with ourselves. We create the world we want to believe in our own minds, and believe it.
The difference between most (not all) other uses of the "Golden Rule" and the one found in the bible is the positive vs negative connotation. Most (again, not all) times it appeared in ancient texts it was saying something like "don't do to someone else that which you don't want done to you." The difference may seem slight, but it is huge. The Bible's use of the command is not just to avoid doing things that hurt people or to treat people nicely, it is to "love" others. The Greek word used is agape which is a type love that is self sacrificing. Jesus uses the word when he gives the command to the disciples and says "as I have loved you." Jesus loved in a way that he died. He literally sacrificed himself for the good of humanity. Most Christians do not truly understand the power of the command. They may know the phrase and may know the story of the good Samaritan, etc. but they don't truly understand. I encourage anyone to do a real deep study of the language used in scripture, particularly when Jesus articulates the greatest commandment and the second that is like unto it. It is not as simple as "I love God and I treat others with respect."
If you attend a church that teaches this as just "outworkings" of the above idea then you might want to take a hard look at that church.
I know right. The whole belief system of mono religions is simply funny, well, at least the way it was interpreted and operated by its followers. Instead of proving such belief's legitimacy, they tend to go all the way out and try absolute the hardest to cherry pick flaws from opposite ideas(sometimes, proven facts) as if it makes their belief true. When they fail, well they always do, you become a hater. I guess you cant win.
Would it be a far stretch that the "golden rule" is a learned behavior based on our experiences? During our early childhood years, we learn that social behaviors has consequences on how you are treated and looked upon. If you are a kid who does not like sharing his/her toys, you will easily find out that other kids would be hesitant with sharing theirs with you. The opposite will be true if you like to share things. With regards to your statement about love, we all know that you cannot will yourself to love someone or others. For whatever reason, you either love somebody or you don't. Being 'good' is something you have more control off.
Hey, I'm a fellow atheist. I'm also holding my horses until good evidence presents itself. But, I wouldn't say I was confusing anything; let's just say you and I disagree. I think your pretense of a 'stance on what is true' isn't any different than a conviction by the Holy Spirit. But, for people who think historical evidence is valid information to go on, I can see how origins are relevant. I'm just not in that camp. There is a whole pantheon of denominations in the Christian church, and they emphasize different things. It seems that there is a pretty wide range in which someone can be wrong and still be defined as a Christian. The greatest commandment is about what Christians are commanded to do in the world. But, that doesn't say much about God, except in how he's reflected in his creatures. I would think it was a small God if the whole point was to have everyone love everyone else. What's the point of all of us existing, just to love? Salvation is a story of God's love and God's glory. To make the redemption secondary to the commandment to love puts God's love secondary to man's love, when everything should be revolving around God himself. So, yeah, I'd say outworkings. At least, that's what I would believe, if I were a Christian.
I mentioned the specific teachings I was referring to, and I haven't seen any teachings of Buddhism that say if your enemy strikes you, to offer him yourself as a target again, or that if your enemy steals from you, you should voluntarily give that enemy more of your belongings. You're welcome to think they are cheesy. That's entirely up to you. I disagree. I do think they are unattainable 100% of the time from 100% of the people, but if everyone made the effort, things would be better off. However, I don't fault anyone who disagrees with that. That's their decision and not mine.
I don't feel that folks use historical evidence to solely dispute the religious claims. It is just another piece of information that if combined with the rest of other refuted claims can add up to something that is more convincing.
Unless we have different interpretation of "offer the other cheek", to me it merely speaks of non violence. Buddhism has offered something similar... “If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.” (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)
I guess we do have a different interpretation of turning the other cheek. To me it means offering yourself as a target again which is a step further than simply not using violence. One of the reasons I see it this way is that it is a way of making an impact on the violent person. It also would send a message to those that witnessed the event.
??? Evidence is only as valid as the claim for which it is used to make. Historical evidence can only speak towards the religious practice itself, not the validity of truthful existence of god men, ghosts, or spirits. Historical evidence can tell us that cultural practice Y is little to no different than practice K which preceded it. Historical evidence can kick the pillars out from under textual literalism/fundamentalism. It cannot address new age mysticism or liberalization of religious belief into a hodgepodge of "I believes." It can, however, help us understand how Stone Age beliefs transformed into the modern Jedi Force. The transformations we see, via historical evidence, is that as science advances, so do our cultural rationalization for theological belief and religious interpretation. That is what historical evidence is good for. It cannot tell us there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky, but it can point us toward the human origins of the concept and how the concept has evolved with us. That we shift from a literal interpretation of the bible to free for all metaphorical or even spiritual interpretations does not change the fact that when people wrote that stuff down, they believed it to be true. That we have the good sense to toss out the silly stuff and roll with the more banal/abstract says something about the validity of the original mythology. Take for example the ongoing Scientology Reform Movement amongst independent Scientologists. These people are holding on to the core myth while trying to liberalize those elements of the practice they find outdated/oppressive/not in line with other cultural beliefs. That L. Ron just made it up is not a question for them. Finding a way to hold on to the core ideas despite the evidence of the nature of their institution is.
You don't need a structured practice and a single book (which has been tampered with and is from the flawed perspective of man anyways) to live out of pure love. Jesus (Yahshua) came to be an example of living a pure and loving life as well as standing up for what's right (even if it meant death), not to be worshiped in a cult of personality. I know most don't aim for the first second like you but it a still is a cult in general in many ways. Living by the rigid rules of organized religion is the spirtual equivalent of being stuck in second grade your entire life. Just because that science, history and English book is very much true doesn't mean there isn't a higher understanding.
The problem is you trust those religious texts without questioning their authenticity. I still haven't completely thrown them out myself. I'm not saying the Old Testement and the Bible or the Koran, etc... is or isn't true but it takes a giant leap of faith to assume with no questions they haven't been tampered with. And anyone who is aware of the Council of Nicea, to name one example, knows of such tampering and plans for indoctrination. I'll respect your beliefs and leave you be. But what's in bold NEVER made sense to me and given both the inner understandings and the outer research into the origins of Christianity, I could no longer justify accepting that as rational.
