 |
Just as you have never provided OSE for god's existence, but still claim that whatever you believe is factual...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why should to me apply what seems not to apply to yourself ?
This is essential the same as your point 1, so once more :Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why should to me apply what seems not to apply to yourself ?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Still in denial even after a thread that went over 500 posts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Come on Cred. Just a diversion from not answering or proving your points made in your OP. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
g&p
Tom, I've also tried to reach a truce with you to no avail. You claim to want to discuss respectfully, yet you keep dredging up past conversations and claiming that your way is the only way.
I've extended the olive branch with you and had it thrown back in my face. Now I know what you'll say, you'll claim it's me, that I wouldn't discuss respectfully, and you'd be partly right. After many attempts to have a respectful discussion with you, I gave up and decided to stoop to your level instead.
You have your own agenda, and nothing will get in the way of that. I don't think you really want to hear what others have to say, you're only here to preach you beliefs, to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
There is not respectful discussion with someone who doesn't want to listen. Feel free to say the same of me, because again, you'd be partially right. I have no desire to listen to any more of your rantings.
You are the only one of this board that I have a problem with Tom, doesn't that tell you something?
Alty,Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
If you want to have respectful discussion, it is entirely in your hands. Just stop the abuse. And if you do not plan to do so, then why not just stop talking about it, and move on somewhere else.
You do not like me disagreeing with you. And that "olive branch" is the only one that I have seen with poison tipped thorns - It comes with conditions that I must do as you say, accept your beliefs, stop disagreeing with you, etc. conditions that you know are not reasonable. I impose no conditions on you. I will treat you respectfully no matter what, but a respectful discussion is a 2-way street. So, once again, if you want to discuss respectfully, all you need to do is to stop the attacks, and lets get into the discussion.Quote:
I've extended the olive branch with you and had it thrown back in my face.
Yes, my agenda is the truth.Quote:
You have your own agenda, and nothing will get in the way of that.
The question is not whether we believe that our religious views are right and your religion is wrong. Every person believes that or they would not hold to their religious views. The problem comes when one person says that the other must accept their views, as you have said to the Christians on here. All of us present our views on here, yourself included, but most including myself accept the right of others to respectfully disagree. Why won't you agree to that also? Why must others accept YOUR religious views?Quote:
I don't think you really want to hear what others have to say, you're only here to preach you beliefs, to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
And following your logic, that means that you have no intent to discuss respectfully - BINGO! Alty, I have absolutely no interest in constantly listening to your attacks and abuse. If you don't want to talk to me, put me on ignore. That won't hurt my feelings one iota. IF you want respectful discussions, then drop the axe and let's discuss. I hold nothing against you, and am more than willing to start over with you anytime that you are ready to do so. That door will never close. But either way, your constant attacks against me serve no purpose.Quote:
There is not respectful discussion with someone who doesn't want to listen. Feel free to say the same of me, because again, you'd be partially right. I have no desire to listen to any more of your rantings.
Indeed, it leads one to wonder why you chose to interrupt this discussion to launch a person attack against me. Are you planning to do this on every thread? Kindly get over it and move on. This is beginning to look like an obsession.
Tom, when I say that I would like people to accept my beliefs, I'm not saying that you have to agree with them, simply accept that there are other beliefs than your own.
I don't expect anyone to jump on board and follow my beliefs, I would simply like the same respect that you expect.
You really don't see it do you? You expect everyone to say that your way is the only way, that your "proof" is absolute, that you beliefs are the one true way to God. But, when I ask that you listen to what I have to say you won't. You just quote scripture and say that only you are right.
That's why there can be no discussion with you. A one sided discussion isn't a discussion, it's preaching, that's what you are doing Tom.
So, no matter how hard I try, it's not possible. I know you don't agree, so be it, I think we've already established that you and I don't see eye to eye. Until you drop your guard we cannot have respect for one another, because you do not respect me, so how can you hope to respectfully discuss religion with me? It's not possible.
I wish it were different Tom, but it is what it is and I can't change it, I'm tired of trying.
Maybe I'll see you around the boards, maybe one day we can both be respectful, until then I think it's better for everyone if we just ignore each other.
Cred, I do apologize for getting off topic. Good luck with your thread.
Peace.
Alty out.
Alt,
There is an Ignore feature on this site. Now seems like a good time to use it.
That is not what you have done in practice. In practice, you have demanded that we accept that your views are equally right, and of course many Christians have disagreed with your perspective on that and tried to explain to you that your request is not reasonable. Further, you have never practiced that view of accepting Christian views as equal to yours or we would not be having this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
You have it and always have had. If you want a respectful discussion, then stop the attacks and let's have that discussion. If you don't, then why not just move on or put me on ignore.Quote:
I don't expect anyone to jump on board and follow my beliefs, I would simply like the same respect that you expect.
Alty, this is not true, but there is no value in arguing it with you. If you really believe it, then move on or put me on ignore. These constant rants against me across the board serve no purpose.Quote:
You really don't see it do you? You expect everyone to say that your way is the only way, that your "proof" is absolute, that you beliefs are the one true way to God. But, when I ask that you listen to what I have to say you won't. You just quote scripture and say that only you are right.
Then why do you carry on these abusive rants?Quote:
That's why there can be no discussion with you. A one sided discussion isn't a discussion, it's preaching, that's what you are doing Tom.
Sure you can - just stop the rants and start respectful discussion. Or move on or put me on ignore. Simple. It is entirely in your hands. I hold nothing against you and am more than willing to accept either approach. If you chose to drop the axe and start discussing respectfully, I will continue to treat you respectfully. If you choose to put me on ignore, you can do so with my best wishes for your future. Keep in mind that at any time you could always choose to change that decision, and I will keep the door open for you. No matter what you have done to me, or said to me, it will not change that.Quote:
I wish it were different Tom, but it is what it is and I can't change it,
Why can't you accept that, make your decision and move on in the path that you choose?
I believe that you are the only one that sees "abusive rants" here. Please stop attempting to paint yourself as a victim, it's not working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
NK,Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You are, if course, welcome to your opinion, however you have not been known for taking the neutral middle ground either, so I would not expect any endorsement or agreement from you (and I hardly think that you are in a position to speak on behalf of all members of AMHD). But that does not matter, because while you and Alty try to focus on the person, you appear to have forgotten the topic, and I find that rather ironic. :D I wonder, what would this thread and this discussion have been like if ALL posts in the thread had been written with the Golden Rule as the primary focus?
In any case, I do hope that Alty is able to bring closure to her decision and then move on.
Tom
I agree. As for the open door that Tom speaks of, it was never open to begin with, and I'm tired of knocking. Ignore it is, I'm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Alty, it was and is and always will be open. It is not wide enough for you to carry that axe through it I(nor can you get through it by knocking on it with the axe ;) ) , though it is easy for you to walk through. Drop the axe, and come on in anytime, now or in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Now, in hopes that we can get back on topic, I just wanted to bring the last input on the topic of the thread to the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The same can be said of you so it's no argument for your side as it were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I've been here a long time and know the mods and admin a little. I know how this place works. I stand by my comments. We've seen people like you come and go. People who think they are smarter than everyone else. You seem to have thin skin for that type of person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Sigh! I see that you have still not read the thread topic. Why do people so much want to attack others rather than deal with the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No, NK, despite your false judgments, it is not true at all. Indeed, quite the contrary. I have learned a great deal from those on boards such as this, but the learning is much greater for all concerned when the participants choose to respectfully discuss the topic.Quote:
I've been here a long time and know the mods and admin a little. I know how this place works. I stand by my comments. We've seen people like you come and go. People who think they are smarter than everyone else. You seem to have thin skin for that type of person.
I have tried to discuss some points with you, but you prefer to be cryptic in your responses. Maybe because you think that you are smarter than me - I don't know, and I don't care. It seems to matter to you, and if so, that is your business and your issue to deal with.
Now, are you done? Can we get back to the discussion, or do you want to carry on in a very ironic sidelight to the thread topic? If you are not done, maybe you should consider the ignore feature also.
Let's try this again (unless someone wants to post another example of what the Golden Rule is not).Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Now, in hopes that we can get back on topic, I just wanted to bring the last input on the topic of the thread to the top.
The "golden rule" is also known as the "Ethic of reciprocity" and is certainly not a concept originally thought of in the bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Here are versions of the golden rule in various religions: Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
I live by this rule as well, plus it's a tenet of my parenting. No bible is required for good morals.
And as I responded before, let's look at the two assumptions that come from this:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
1) You are assuming that the source is not Biblical. So far you offered no evidence for that. You assume that some other documents are older than the first instance of this in the Bible, but you have not validated that statement.
2) Second, you have not validated why you believe the source to be not Biblical. This appears to be point that you have missed. Usually where similar things appear in difference document (and for the time being, let's assume that to be the case), it typically refers to a common source. All you have done is identify some documents that you claim to have existed and claim to have been older than the Bible (a point which remains unvalidated in any case), but you have not addressed the point that the source itself of the Bible is God, and in such a case, God would be the likely primary source.
No one said that the Bible is required for good morals, but unless morals have a standard upon which they are based, they will vary from persons to person, culture to culture and over time. The morals may still be called "good" because relativism is the standard.Quote:
No bible is required for good morals.
Nk your link does not specify dates in most cases.
As to the OP - NK prove where "good" morals come from in the first place.
What is "good" - does that change with time, geography or culture or religion? As Tj points out - that is relative.
A history of human sacrifice and cannibalism
g&p
The Golden Rules is as old as humanity : by serving the interests of the tribe or group you belong to, you serve your own interests just as well. Even under simians and other animals you see this same behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
That is why you find the Golden Rule in almost every philosophic and/or religious view also.
Every religion in the Middle East from long before the era described in the Old Testament had the Golden Rule already as one of it's corner stones.
The Golden Rule started as a survival measure, but over time evolved also as basis for moral and ethical thinking.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Agreed. But this does not validate what the source is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I accept this as your theory. Can you validate it?Quote:
By serving the interests of the tribe or group you belong to, you serve your own interests just as well. Even under simians and other animals you see this same behavior.
That is why you find the Golden Rule in almost every philosophic and/or religious view also.
Every religion in the Middle East from long before the era described in the Old Testament had the Golden Rule already as one of it's corner stones.
The Golden Rule started as a survival measure, but over time evolved also as basis for moral and ethical thinking.
BTW, the Golden rule by itself is not a standard for ethical behaviour. The reason is that as cultures, time, and societal attitudes change, what is considered ethical behaviour also changes, and thus the golden rule, not tied to a specific standard of what is "good" becaomes a matter of relativistic ethics.
Wolf Country, the pack, body postures and social structureQuote:
Even under simians and other animals you see this same behavior.
Like wolves? Does the alpha really have to really treat the lowest members the way he does? How would he [ the alpha ] feel if the lowest member treated him that way? Oh, that's right - he is dominant.
How about lions -
LION
Nope - no golden rule - dominance survives
How about bees - why does the queen get waited on - nope no golden rule there either
How about black widows - sexism and canibalism, but no golden rule there
How about gorillas?
ADW: Gorilla gorilla: Information
No golden rule there - dominance against
How about chimps?
The ABC's of Chimpanzee Behavior
No golden rule there - again dominance.
Cred the OSE is against your statement. :confused:;):rolleyes::p
g&p
I stated :Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The Golden Rules is as old as humanity : by serving the interests of the tribe or group you belong to, you serve your own interests just as well. Even under simians and other animals you see this same behavior.
That is why you find the Golden Rule in almost every philosophic and/or religious view also.
Every religion in the Middle East from long before the era described in the Old Testament had the Golden Rule already as one of it's corner stones.
The Golden Rule started as a survival measure, but over time evolved also as basis for moral and ethical thinking.
First I stated that the Golden Rule is as old as humanity. I also explained why that happened.
Than I stated in an add-on that "EVEN" under simians and other animals...
I did not state all animals, or specified any specific animals.
So why don't you keep to the main line of my reply : that The Golden Rules is as old as humanity : by serving the interests of the tribe or group you belong to, you serve your own interests just as well.
I know why you attack the way you do here : you know that I am correct that the Golden Rule is as old as humanity...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
And as I responded before, let's look at the two assumptions that come from this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
1) You are assuming that the source is not Biblical. So far you offered no evidence for that. You assume that some other documents are older than the first instance of this in the Bible, but you have not validated that statement.
2) Second, you have not validated why you believe the source to be not Biblical. This appears to be point that you have missed. Usually where similar things appear in difference document (and for the time being, let's assume that to be the case), it typically refers to a common source. All you have done is identify some documents that you claim to have existed and claim to have been older than the Bible (a point which remains unvalidated in any case), but you have not addressed the point that the source itself of the Bible is God, and in such a case, God would be the likely primary source.
Cred,Quote:
The Golden Rule started as a survival measure, but over time evolved also as basis for moral and ethical thinking.[/B]
First I stated that the Golden Rule is as old as humanity. I also explained why that happened.
Than I stated in an add-on that "EVEN" under simians and other animals...
I did not state all animals, or specified any specific animals.
So why don't you keep to the main line of my reply : that The Golden Rules is as old as humanity : by serving the interests of the tribe or group you belong to, you serve your own interests just as well.
I know why you attack the way you do here : you know that I am correct that the Golden Rule is as old as humanity...
I agreed that it may very well be as old as humanity, but as I asked before if you can validate your claims regarding the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I called into question one specific quote. It is not an attack to show OSE that contradicts what you state.
1] I gave you two examples of simians NOT practicing the golden rule.
2] In addition you have not provided OSE for the statement that simians, whatever species practice the golden rule. I am holding you to the same standards that you hold Christians, the Bible, and God to.
3] Humanity's history is contrary to the golden rule. For example;
The Roman empire
Genghis Kahn
Darfur
Rwanda
The Congo
Mumbai
Stalin
Hitler
Eygptian slavery
Slavery in the US
9/11
Pearl Harbor
On and on...
So why is it, that we know what we should do but we don't do it?
You keep on dodging the point- where is your OSE that the golden rule is as old as humanity
g&p
It's same argument as christians and the ten commandments.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Nk.
Which are also Biblical! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Tj.[/QUOTE]
Hello:
This thread is CLOSED!
excon
Why? Because the Christians are winning... LOL... hey Cred. You never DID give me that apology. Come on... it will make you feel better... ;)
It seems that they have a single key to produce that line here on this Board !Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
BTW : what about the Golden Rule??
:)
.
.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
May I draw to your attention that the topic is "The Golden Rule"??Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Please stay on-topic!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
.
Why does it matter where the golden rule originated? What difference does it make? Doesn't the "spirit" of the golden rule prohibit this sort of nonsense bickering?
It's a good rule to follow - be nice to people. You don't have to be Christian to do that. You don't have to be an atheist, a muslim, or a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater. Christians don't always follow it, nor do atheists, muslims, or one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eaters.
The reason the quote in the OP is flawed is because atheists don't have a universal standard by which they live. The only universal among atheists is the lack of belief in a god. Any other "standard" is coincidence, and anyone who says there is a "standard" among atheists is wrong. I know lots of atheists who follow the golden rule, lots of Christians who do, and a few of both who don't.
What's wrong with just being nice to people? Who cares whose idea it was, where it originated, or which religion or non-religion is "better" at it? I kind of think if you are going to argue about being "better" at being nice to people, you probably aren't very nice to begin with... But that's just me.
Carry on with the ensuing flame war (again).
I don't know. A number of non-Christians and Atheists seemed to think that it was important.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Not to mention some of the other nastiness that we have seen on the thread.Quote:
Doesn't the "spirit" of the golden rule prohibit this sort of nonsense bickering?
You are right - you don't. But the difference, as I stated earlier in the thread, is that the golden rule itself is relative and thus what that means to non-Christians, especially atheists can and will vary over time, by culture and by location. What makes it different in Christianity is that we have a standard for behaviour that godes along with it, which does not allow for that variation. It does not mean that Christians are perfect, but whereas an atheists (for example) could, over time act in various different ways towards others and still claim to be following the Golden Rule, the same is not true for Christians.Quote:
It's a good rule to follow - be nice to people. You don't have to be Christian to do that.
Hello Cred:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I ain't got one of those, and I ain't a thread cop. I AM sneaky, though.
excon
It are religious fundamentalists like Tj3 who CLAIM that the Golden Rule is of biblical origin, which it certainly is not!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
And yes, it's a good rule to follow!!
But that does not mean that you have to accept religious fanaticism...
Just read post #113 to see what I mean !
:)
.
.
.
Yeah, I know ! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How about the Golden Rule ?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
.
Is he claiming it originated from the Bible or a Christian only thing or both?
I really don't want to read through all this disagreeing to figure out what Tj3 is claiming but I would like to know
Thank You Credo for explaining :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Tom is claiming that the Golden rule originated in the bible and that it isn't something that Atheists abide by. So both.
He claims that some Atheists do follow this rule but that it is not a set standard for them to live by, whereas it is a set standard for a Christian. At least that's my understanding, I could be wrong, goodness knows I have been bofore. ;)
Personally, I think that we should just let whoever has the most gold make the rules. It's a joke, laugh! :)
Well I agree with jill that it is not a set standard for atheists but
It is neither a set standard for many professing Christians either so
Really the question is more who actually does live by the golden rule and what are their standards and beliefs that they live by.
For the origin I would say where was its origination in history before the 10 commandments because the 10 commandments covered the golden rule in so many words.
Hello again:
The thing is, when you're talking about atheists, there is no "they". They don't go to a church. They don't join atheist clubs. They don't operate as a group. They don't subscribe to a particular philosophy...
The only thing atheists have in common is what they DON'T believe - not what they DO.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM. |