love your neighbour

[MonkeyFire]

Love thy neighbor, love thy enemy. It's hedonistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

My next door neighbor to the east is a lawyer.
Representing a condo association, he once tried to evict a tenant of mine.
He used bogus claims to mask the fact that they really didn't want children
living there. She had 3 kids. He's a nasty fellow.
Anyway, he lost, & the association had to pay her compensatory damages.
Love him?
I despise him.

I know this is largely irrelevant, but I got good stories to tell.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your Oxford dictionary definition does not include many forms of Buddhism, a religion with over a billion followers.

Re-read it, and pay special attention to Definition #3. Also consider that Buddhism can include gods, and is often regarded as a philosophy when no gods are worshiped.

Absolutely not. All humans are created in the Image of God,

Belief.

with equal inherent worth and dignity.

Worth? Depends on the worth. I'll not be turning to Stephen Hawkings, or even an uncle of mine, for help with physical labor any time soon. Nor will I turn to those with mental disorders and hindrances for assistance with matters that their issues don't measure up to. Call it harsh, but that's the way of it.

And while ideology might push that all children have the same potential and sense of social worth or dignity, this is lost when maturity steps in. Would you say that Hitler is deserving of the same recognition of worth and dignity as Martin Luther King Jr.?

Where do you get the notion that humans even have such an inalienable right? You don't even believe that all humans have equal dignity and worth.

You're assuming the worst. Just because I recognize that not everyone is equal in worth and dignity does not mean that I believe people deserve to be treated cruelly or unjustly.

You have to have a foundation from which to argue that humans have rights in the first place and logically, it must be upon some shared attribute that all humans share. Otherwise you have no logical reason to believe in the notion of human rights, at least not for everyone.

And do you think I should base this off some belief that we're made in the image of a god? That a god made sacrifices for our spiritual well-being, or some such other intangible and spiritual determining factor? That certainly seems to be the route this whole thing is taking; even right from the OP, where it's claimed that we suffer because we ignore religion.

Or is it rather based of pragmatics? That I recognize the simple social fact that unless the people that I despise the most are offered fair and just treatment under guard of the law, my own comforts and social existences can just as easily come under scrutiny and judgement? That's all "human rights" are, really--something that we made up to maintain social order and fair treatment of all people within a nation or society. It does not come from "being made in the image of god" - a god who it is believed also made all other animals on this earth. But ask a bear sometime what it thinks of human rights, and I'm sure the answer would not result in recognition of the inherent human divine worth of it's creator.

To have liberty and democracy, you have to realize that others share the same yearnings as you do. That is a step to recognizing the inherent dignity of all. It's empathy taken to its logical conclusion.

No.

To have liberty, all I must do is permit my neighbor to live as they please unhindered. If my neighbor is a fat jobless slob, with a pile of cat feces growing beside their door, living of government aid and welfare checks then they are socially worthless and through their own devices lacking in any dignity whatsoever. Liberty allows them to live in that poor manner.

To have democracy, they must be allowed a voice. Even if they make stupidly blind and party-loyal decisions, or decisions with the express purpose of putting down other groups that they do not approve of. They can use their voice and their vote to ensure oppression, to out-speak progress, and to secure whatever future they see best. Democracy gives them that voice.

In neither ideology and principle am I required to love them. Neither must I call them "brother or sister", or recognize them as anything to me at all. I can even find them utterly contemptible, yet still uphold the principle that should they be found suspect of a crime, they are allowed due process. And should they be found guilty, that their punishment is relative to their crime in severity.

 

[leibowde84]

That's pretty good, but it doesn't rule out faith in and worship of Kim Jong Un. I wouldn't call that a religion. Would you? That's a cult of personality to me.

How about if we add a god to the mix, or at least supernaturalism?

I don't think a god is necessary. And, I think the faith in and worship of Kim Jong Un definitely qualifies as a religion. And, they almost do qualify Kim as a god of some kind. But, I don't think a deity is absolutely necessary for faith and worship to be considered a religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Belief.


Worth? Depends on the worth. I'll not be turning to Stephen Hawkings, or even an uncle of mine, for help with physical labor any time soon. Nor will I turn to those with mental disorders and hindrances for assistance with matters that their issues don't measure up to. Call it harsh, but that's the way of it.

And while ideology might push that all children have the same potential and sense of social worth or dignity, this is lost when maturity steps in. Would you say that Hitler is deserving of the same recognition of worth and dignity as Martin Luther King Jr.?


You're assuming the worst. Just because I recognize that not everyone is equal in worth and dignity does not mean that I believe people deserve to be treated cruelly or unjustly.


And do you think I should base this off some belief that we're made in the image of a god? That a god made sacrifices for our spiritual well-being, or some such other intangible and spiritual determining factor? That certainly seems to be the route this whole thing is taking; even right from the OP, where it's claimed that we suffer because we ignore religion.

Or is it rather based of pragmatics? That I recognize the simple social fact that unless the people that I despise the most are offered fair and just treatment under guard of the law, my own comforts and social existences can just as easily come under scrutiny and judgement? That's all "human rights" are, really--something that we made up to maintain social order and fair treatment of all people within a nation or society. It does not come from "being made in the image of god" - a god who it is believed also made all other animals on this earth. But ask a bear sometime what it thinks of human rights, and I'm sure the answer would not result in recognition of the inherent human divine worth of it's creator.


No.

To have liberty, all I must do is permit my neighbor to live as they please unhindered. If my neighbor is a fat jobless slob, with a pile of cat feces growing beside their door, living of government aid and welfare checks then they are socially worthless and through their own devices lacking in any dignity whatsoever. Liberty allows them to live in that poor manner.

To have democracy, they must be allowed a voice. Even if they make stupidly blind and party-loyal decisions, or decisions with the express purpose of putting down other groups that they do not approve of. They can use their voice and their vote to ensure oppression, to out-speak progress, and to secure whatever future they see best. Democracy gives them that voice.

In neither ideology and principle am I required to love them. Neither must I call them "brother or sister", or recognize them as anything to me at all. I can even find them utterly contemptible, yet still uphold the principle that should they be found suspect of a crime, they are allowed due process. And should they be found guilty, that their punishment is relative to their crime in severity.

So you really don't have a foundation to base your notion if human rights on other than some apparent notion of "just because". I'm more trying to get at what it is that you think humans have in common that would serve as a foundation for rights. That's basically it, because this is already starting to get off track.

To clear up some misconceptions you have:
Of course you wouldn't ask Hawking to do manual labor because he's obviously disabled. Not all people are equal in terms of physical ability. But that's not what worth and dignity are getting at, anyway. It's a philosophical question. It's saying that we all deserve at least some minimum respect and rights in treatment in virtue of our shared humanity.

Yes, Hitler would have the same amount of inherent worth and dignity as MLK. Inherent means it's inborn and can't be taken away, regardless of what we do.

To be made in the image of God means to have a rational soul with all the attendant faculties of reason. So trying to ask a bear anything is pointless.

The "fat jobless slob" you describe sounds like a mentally ill person. I would say that society has a duty to help such a person and not let them deteriorate further.

A democracy must have some shared values, obviously, or it's just a mob and falls apart. Obviously the American system is fraying at the seams and that is a problem.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So you really don't have a foundation to base your notion if human rights on other than some apparent notion of "just because".

No, hardly "just because". As I said:

I recognize the simple social fact that unless the people that I despise the most are offered fair and just treatment under guard of the law, my own comforts and social existences can just as easily come under scrutiny and judgement

I'm more trying to get at what it is that you think humans have in common that would serve as a foundation for rights.

Citizenship of a society.

Of course you wouldn't ask Hawking to do manual labor because he's obviously disabled.

And so his physical worth is much less than that of, say, Hafþór Björnsson.

But that's not what worth and dignity are getting at, anyway. It's a philosophical question. It's saying that we all deserve at least some minimum respect and rights in treatment in virtue of our shared humanity.

Take my example of my literal neighbor three doors down, who's never given me anything but cockroaches. (He's not mentally ill, either. Only lazy and parasitic. Society - my tax dollars - have gone quite enough to helping him buy junk food and neglect basic hygine.) You would really suggest that he has the same worth and dignity as someone who actively contributes to society and the community that they live in? It's easy to type "yes," but when actually met with someone such as these, the social judgement might be quite different.

Yes, Hitler would have the same amount of inherent worth and dignity as MLK.

Then you have the rarest of social outlooks. But, as I said, it's easy to type.

To be made in the image of God means to have a rational soul with all the attendant faculties of reason.

It remains a belief, just as human rights remain a self-serving social construct. It's made up, and outside the gates of so-called civilization, it fades to dust.

A democracy must have some shared values, obviously, or it's just a mob and falls apart. Obviously the American system is fraying at the seams and that is a problem.

Actually, no, America's not fraying at the seams--not if it's a democracy. Because that's what democracy truly amounts to; mob rule while allowing the minority to flail and shout with what little voice they have.

 

[osgart]

Jesus went even further and pronounced to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. human nature and disposition perhaps is to outdo your neighbor and lose the weak.

false pride says to be above and be superior. love says to lift people up, and help them to achieve and to contribute.

it seems to me that life and love are the proponents of a civil society. there are degrees of love. there are different kinds of love. a love that cares for souls vs a love that is the treasure of your heart.

if we are to ever evolve further, I agree with jesus; we are to care for all souls. in doing so we will be at the door of eternal life. to me I can love the soul and hate the crimes of that soul and punish those crimes as deserves. but the intent of love is to seek the welfare of others, to give deserve, and to lift up and inspire those whom are in need. so love is the foundation of civilization. love produces good, good produces love. if we do good to everybody, than opportunity is created.

I believe deserve is the balance of love. I put heart above intellect, for with great intellect and no good heart comes world wars. love can be tough for love isn't about being gushy and sweet and giving foolishly above measure of deserve. love works according to deserve to bring about what's best for all.

so someone that is unable but willing with a good heart, it is man's responsibility to make opportunity for the unable to become able. those in position to do so should do so.

you can either make life or make oppression and death, to me if you want life , create it's opportunity. if eternal life was a needle in a haystack, I'd say it's because people lack love at heart.

the misconception about love is that it ain't tough, and that it's some doughy sentimental weakness. on the contrary love doles out deserve, not with ever the intention to destroy but to make better of anyone. love can punish and reward and take things to where they belong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, hardly "just because". As I said:




Citizenship of a society.


And so his physical worth is much less than that of, say, Hafþór Björnsson.


Take my example of my literal neighbor three doors down, who's never given me anything but cockroaches. (He's not mentally ill, either. Only lazy and parasitic. Society - my tax dollars - have gone quite enough to helping him buy junk food and neglect basic hygine.) You would really suggest that he has the same worth and dignity as someone who actively contributes to society and the community that they live in? It's easy to type "yes," but when actually met with someone such as these, the social judgement might be quite different.


Then you have the rarest of social outlooks. But, as I said, it's easy to type.


It remains a belief, just as human rights remain a self-serving social construct. It's made up, and outside the gates of so-called civilization, it fades to dust.


Actually, no, America's not fraying at the seams--not if it's a democracy. Because that's what democracy truly amounts to; mob rule while allowing the minority to flail and shout with what little voice they have.

Okay. Well, I disagree with what you're saying but I will leave it there. Peace be unto you.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That doesn't classify as a religion in my book.

... so?

 

[Desert Snake]

... so?

Selective bias much?

 

[syo]

Are you just using your own, made-up definition of the term "religion"?

yes. religion is a lifestyle.

 

[syo]

Are you sure that's what Christ taught?

yes, I think.

 

[syo]

My next door neighbor to the east is a lawyer.
Representing a condo association, he once tried to evict a tenant of mine.
He used bogus claims to mask the fact that they really didn't want children
living there. She had 3 kids. He's a nasty fellow.
Anyway, he lost, & the association had to pay her compensatory damages.
Love him?
I despise him.

I know this is largely irrelevant, but I got good stories to tell.

people who behave with evil in their hearts know not love. we must cure these people by showing our love. these people are actually sick, they need our help.

 

[Revoltingest]

people who behave with evil in their hearts know not love. we must cure these people by showing our love. these people are actually sick, they need our help.

I showed him defeat.
Others can handle the love side of his self improvement.

 

[BilliardsBall]

all religions say we must live as brothers and sisters. yet no one lives that way, we all see other humans as our potential enemies. we shun religion, that is why we suffer.

Jesus taught the logical outcome of this:

We don't love God and neighbor supremely. We don't love consistently. We cannot inhabit utopia. We must be transformed to enter a utopia.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not about being in denial, it's about the sanctification of human nature through God's grace. Call me an idealist but I'm not satisfied with the present state of humanity. I often feel like a misanthrope due to disappointment. I want humanity to be better and to rise above its primitivity. Religion is a tool to do that. You could say Christianity is the original transhumanism.

Christianity is the original transhumanism? Christianity doesn't seem to be making people better, at least not in the United States. I think perhaps it does in the country I am living in now, but I don't really know.

It's not about what's written in the book, it's about how those platitudes are rendered. It's very easy to say love one another. The trick is to actually teach it and make people more compassionate and empathetic.

Consider the Golden Rule. Who embodies it better, Christians or humanists? I just left a post to a Christian on another thread about the DACA matter. He was trying to justify the expulsion of 800,000 children by suggesting that we had no room for them and could not afford them. I had to remind him of the Golden Rule and to cite two passages containing Jesus' admonition (Matthew 19:13-14 Matthew 18:10 ).

Consider the position that Christianity took in the same sex marriage battle. Who was treating other as they would like to be treated, the humanists who supported the right, or the Christians fighting tooth and nail to prevent it and then later to resist it by refusing to bake wedding cakes or issue marriage licenses?

I think that substituting humanist values and methods for their Christian counterpart would lead to a healthier nation.

So what is this "sanctification of human nature through God's grace"? You don't seem to think much of human nature.

Your disappointment with humanity is more typical of Christians, who are taught that man is a failed, spiritually defective species whose societies are decadent, or humanists, who see man capable of great nobility, courage, and compassion, and as the only source for improving the human condition. It's a burden to feel that your species is as you described us.

I realize that I am perceived by many as peeing in their cornflakes, but I am actually challenging the assumptions of Christianity and those about it by introducing ideas that have been carefully considered, are sincerely believed, and constructively offered.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

people who behave with evil in their hearts know not love. we must cure these people by showing our love. these people are actually sick, they need our help.

I showed him defeat.

This might be the most bad-*** reply I've ever seen on here.

 

[leibowde84]

yes. religion is a lifestyle.

Can you at least provide your definition of religion?

 

[Sanzbir]

all religions say we must live as brothers and sisters. yet no one lives that way, we all see other humans as our potential enemies.

True, but not entirely true. Most people view the world in terms of in-group and out-group. People they identify with and people they simply do not.

Basically towards their in-group most people will behave as if they are indeed kin. Most people would be willing to sacrifice themselves for their in-group, however broadly or narrowly that in-group is defined. For a person's in-group, loving their neighbor comes naturally.

But that presents a problem. If one is willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of their in-group, how much more willing would that person be to sacrifice a member of the out-group for the sake of that in-group?? Any member of an out-group that presents even a potential threat to that in-group thus becomes an enemy, and is not worthy of compassion.

We see this with racism and other brands of intolerance. Increasingly we see the in-group/out-group mentality applied to even political party affiliation. It's tribalism all the way down.

Seems like the solution is to go either one or two directions, each ending up at the same place. Either expanding one's sense of in-group to encompass everybody else. Or retracting one's sense of in-group to encompass no one, not even themselves. Which method is easier probably varies, person to person. But those are the only ways I can see for gaining a universal "love" for one's neighbor.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your disappointment with humanity is more typical of Christians, who are taught that man is a failed, spiritually defective species whose societies are decadent, or humanists, who see man capable of great nobility, courage, and compassion, and as the only source for improving the human condition.

Actually my view of humanity is more of a mixture of the two, with humanity reaching ever greater heights as our human nature is deified by God's grace (theosis) thus becoming more truly human. If you want some real "Christian" misanthropy, go read about Calvinism. Now there's some sadistically misanthropic depravity (which I guess suits them as they think humans are totally depraved, anyway). My theology is from Catholicism but leans more towards Eastern Christianity.