how loving christians are!

[popsthebuilder]

To me, it's not splitting hairs. It's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself. Exercising good judgment.

Absolute selflessness is unequivocal cooperation, at best, and doormat servitude at worst. That's the problem with Holy Law. It never has sufficient nuance to be the perfect solution. It's better to say that the golden rule is a code of conduct. But life is competition, as well as cooperation.  And competition is selfishness, made into an effective catalyst for growth.


Sometimes your worth is greater than the other. Like if he's trying to take your life. You have seconds to decide your moral response. Kill or be killed. How much will the doormat lay down for his absolute selflessness? Your personal value skyrockets as his plummets.

Or maybe he's trying to take your job. Are you supposed to give it up because he has 4 kids to your 3?

Morality in life, is never objective. Not even “near-objective.” It's full of human drama, and weirdness. It requires good judgment, but rarely gives you a lot of time to make an informed or well thought out answer. You just try to apply the golden rule, as circumstances allow.


So which are you then? Greedy or proud?


Things like that. Right.

But again,  it's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself.

I agree with what you are saying.

Though as you say; what I speak of; negation of self from moral equations is more or ideology. At this time and with the way most are being selfless can put you at a disadvantage, but that isn't the point I was trying to make or refute. Think of it more as a way for all humanity to peaceably advance and thrive together as a whole.
Basically what I'm talking about would only really work for the benefit of all if all actually abided by it.  But that isn't to say that the greedy or prideful cannot slowly learning and eventually change by witnessing altruism. If someone is angry with you and you unlike kind get angry in retaliation then no good will come from it. If one is angry at you and you exude compassion, sincerity and humility towards them, negating want or pride, then chances are that person will be receptive to this, just like they would be receptive to your anger. The difference is that one causes negative effects while the other at least had the potential to cause positive effects, not just immediately for the ones involved, but for witnesses and others that said individual may interact with later.

That's just one example, and probably not a very good one.

Selflessness as a virtue is good. Does it allow for one to be used by others.... It can. But that wouldn't even enter the mind of someone actually striving to be selfless.

You did make a valid point about self defense. But I personally would draw the line at the defence of others. Namely women and children. I understand that my case is an exception.

You might be surprised what things are given for sustenance to those who don't seek it.

Not saying I don't work, I must eat to live. Just that somehow, giving without want of even recognition leads to one's own needs being met.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

Solomon, I was moving toward this verse, but waiting for Pops to come up with a verse or two where he is against the literal interpretation.  But Pops seems to be so vague that I would probably have to wait forever for him to directly address the issue.  He is a master at the duck and ignore such requests.

Sorry, Brother. I had actually wondered why you hadn't mentioned it. I assumed you were unaware of it. He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt, but I think it's a troubling passage for anyone who wants Christ, without Christianity.

[Solomon Zorn]

I agree with what you are saying.

Though as you say; what I speak of; negation of self from moral equations is more or ideology. At this time and with the way most are being selfless can put you at a disadvantage, but that isn't the point I was trying to make or refute. Think of it more as a way for all humanity to peaceably advance and thrive together as a whole.
Basically what I'm talking about would only really work for the benefit of all if all actually abided by it.  But that isn't to say that the greedy or prideful cannot slowly learning and eventually change by witnessing altruism. If someone is angry with you and you unlike kind get angry in retaliation then no good will come from it. If one is angry at you and you exude compassion, sincerity and humility towards them, negating want or pride, then chances are that person will be receptive to this, just like they would be receptive to your anger. The difference is that one causes negative effects while the other at least had the potential to cause positive effects, not just immediately for the ones involved, but for witnesses and others that said individual may interact with later.

That's just one example, and probably not a very good one.

Selflessness as a virtue is good. Does it allow for one to be used by others.... It can. But that wouldn't even enter the mind of someone actually striving to be selfless.

You did make a valid point about self defense. But I personally would draw the line at the defence of others. Namely women and children. I understand that my case is an exception.

You might be surprised what things are given for sustenance to those who don't seek it.

Not saying I don't work, I must eat to live. Just that somehow, giving without want of even recognition leads to one's own needs being met.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Don't misunderstand me either, Brother, I agree with you on the need for brotherly love, I only think that Holy Absolutes are insufficient to bring it about. And that if you did have your altruistic Utopia, it might not be that much different than an altruistic Dystopia.

[popsthebuilder]

By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I reconcile it with great ease.

Matthew: 5. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Bible Offline

The law is written on the heart of the true believer. That would be the conscience.... The Holy Spirit.

To not follow the law written on the heart is to not be faithful to GOD.

All of the law is upheld with the holding to and adhering to the conscience and the Two commands of the Christ.
This too was stated specifically by the Christ.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

...He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt...

Behold the prophetic powers of The Uneducated Hick!

[Solomon Zorn]

I reconcile it with great ease.

Matthew: 5. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Bible Offline

The law is written on the heart of the true believer. That would be the conscience.... The Holy Spirit.

To not follow the law written on the heart is to not be faithful to GOD.

All of the law is upheld with the holding to and adhering to the conscience and the Two commands of the Christ.
This too was stated specifically by the Christ.

I don't buy that. Read the context. He is speaking of the Old Testament. Law would have been understood to mean that.

Here's a link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=KJV

[Baruch]

Solomon and Pops ... I gave you both likes, because you are both right, but still not quite saying the same things.

Mike ... your point about literalism is what turns the question.  I don't think Pops is literal, he is way too Indian.  I will speak of psyching a fictional character ...

Jesus would be thinking of Jewish law, but not literally, since Jesus wasn't a literalist.  He was both Jewish and not-Jewish, a Bu-Jew, a pacifist.  The point about selfless action ... is really about karma ... an Indian concept.  There were Indians in the ME back then, so some non-Indians would have learned about karma.  And the non-canonical Jesus who was connected with Kashmir ... would have known a lot about Indian culture.

If you know the Gita ... what would Krishna say to Jesus?  He would have advised devotion to the Father.  He would have also said, fulfill who you are (a Jew) while having not attachment to the results.  A Pharisee with a twist, perfect but with irony.  So translating ... doing something in the Holy Spirit accumulates no sin, no matter what it is.  But this isn't a blank check, it means you are free to be a devotee of the Father (in whatever social caste you are in ... in Jesus case, a minister to untouchables ... how Indian is that.  Kurukshetra was also an apocalypse, same as what Jesus anticipated.  This is why Gandhi resonated with the NT Jesus ... he saw India in it ... the Gita was his favorite scripture.

Seeing Jesus as a Christian, or a European ... and out of the time context (both local and regional as far as India) and you misinterpret him.

[Mike Cl]

Sorry, Brother. I had actually wondered why you hadn't mentioned it. I assumed you were unaware of it. He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt, but I think it's a troubling passage for anyone who wants Christ, without Christianity.

Hey, not a problem, Solomon.  I'm glad you brought it up.  For some reason he does not like to talk with me much.  He will often duck out in the middle or a conversation.  He has Trump's habit of not answering the question, but also changing the subject, while ducking the real question.

[Blackleaf]

What?  I'm sorry.  Really.  I must have overlooked them. Unintentionally I assure you.

Please, if you would, refer to the post number so I can read your previous post that you are speaking of.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I'll just copy/paste the verses for you.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15: - "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

God commands his people to give far away cities an ultimatum: Become slaves willingly or have your men killed in an unprovoked attack, and your women and children taken as plunder.

Romans 6:15-23: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

For a God who supposedly has high moral standards and hates slavery, he sure does enjoy comparing his people to slaves.

And here are some new passages to go with other previous points that I made:

Deuteronomy 28:68: "The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you."

Leviticus 25:46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Psalm 123:2: "As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a female slave look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he shows us his mercy."

[Mike Cl]

Seeing Jesus as a Christian, or a European ... and out of the time context (both local and regional as far as India) and you misinterpret him.

Baruch, because Jesus is a fiction one cannot 'misinterpret' him.  One constructs what you want him to mean according to your own likes and dislikes.  So, when one says that this is morality according to Jesus, they are wrong, it is morality to them.

[Baruch]

Baruch, because Jesus is a fiction one cannot 'misinterpret' him.  One constructs what you want him to mean according to your own likes and dislikes.  So, when one says that this is morality according to Jesus, they are wrong, it is morality to them.

I realize that you consider literary criticism as impossible.  It isn't sufficient objective.  But then neither is history, biography ... a lot of other stuff.  Some of us don't make a shibboleth out of objectivity, though when I was young I did make a stumbling stone out of Ayn Rand.

[Mike Cl]

I realize that you consider literary criticism as impossible.  It isn't sufficient objective.  But then neither is history, biography ... a lot of other stuff.  Some of us don't make a shibboleth out of objectivity, though when I was young I did make a stumbling stone out of Ayn Rand.

Actually, I don't think literary criticism is impossible.  In fact, I enjoy it--both high and low.  Have a few books about it and there are some excellent web sites that has some great material.  But, my point that Jesus is a fiction and therefore it cannot be determined if what he is supposed to have said is accurate or not. 

[alexxmedeiros]

The thing is, they're not Christians. Nobody is a Christian, because nobody can follow ALL the "rules" he purported passed along, they're contradictory at best, evil at worst.

I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solomon Zorn]

I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?

Oh for fuck's sake! Not another "atheists can't have morals, because all morals come from God" spewing dipshit. 

[Blackleaf]

I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans have empathy. It's a natural behavior that social creatures like us evolved to have because it helps us to work together for a common good. That empathy is where morality comes from, not religion. In fact, secular morality is constantly morphing religious "morality" to be more socially acceptable, but the religious don't even notice it happening. If Christians were still applying Biblical principles to their lives, slavery would still be legal, women wouldn't be allowed to vote or hold public office, and the wage gap would still actually exist.