• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

love your neighbour

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
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.

Leviticus says 'love your neighbor as yourselves.' Jesus quoted it and even extended it to more than as yourself, but 'love one another as I have loved you.' But people being people with fallen human natures will negotiate does what it means to love your neighbor - which by the way was the 2nd greatest law according to Jesus. The greatest? Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syo

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

Glad to know. I got the impression that you saw mankind and his civilization as failed.

Does this mean that you see humanity as improving over time? So many believers tell me about ongoing the decay and decadence in everything from our lives to our genomes. They see everything as getting worse in anticipation of famines, earthquakes, wars, and rumors of wars, and seem to welcome it.

Where you see the solution in the grace of God, I see it in the efforts of man.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Jesus didn't preach religion, he preached love.
I disagree on both points.

Going the Bible, he preached a new sort of religion that was different from the religion around him, and a mixture of love for some and hatred for others.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Its pretty ridiculous to slanderize Jesus' message.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
yes. religion is a way of living, a lifestyle. it gives us laws of how we should live our lives.

Doesn't that make everybody religious? We all have a way of living / lifestyle and rules for our lives however noble or depraved those might be. Extending the application of this term to that degree renders it useless. We already have words for world view, ideology, and life style. Why add religion to that pile, and then have no word for world views and life styles characterized by god beliefs?
 

syo

Well-Known Member
Doesn't that make everybody religious? We all have a way of living / lifestyle and rules for our lives however noble or depraved those might be. Extending the application of this term to that degree renders it useless. We already have words for world view, ideology, and life style. Why add religion to that pile, and then have no word for world views and life styles characterized by god beliefs?
religion makes these rules into unbreakable laws. there is no ''point of view'' in religion so that anyone could bend the laws. for example, ''don't kill'' is the law in religion, there are no ''buts'' and ''ifs''. religion is the norm.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Its pretty ridiculous to slanderize Jesus' message.

Jesus' message is just as subject to critical analysis as any other. Much of what is attributed to Him is bad advice, and Christians seem to understand that when they modify the meaning of the words.
  • What's blessed about being meek? Meekness is a character defect, not a virtue. It is spinelessness, and represents a poverty or smallness of spirit - a form of cowardice. The meek are used. They are easily exploited. Humility, cooperation, being of service, and politeness are all laudable deferential behaviors, but not meekness.
  • Likewise with turning the other cheek. This only invites a second blow. My advice? Try to negotiate a peace if possible, or walk away if your attacker is uninterested. If unable to do either, at least put up your fists to protect your face. Offering the other cheek a mistake.
  • And again regarding loving enemies. Why would you love somebody that has chosen to be your enemy? Do you love ISIS terrorists or the Christian terrorists at Charlottesville? I don't. The best that enemies should hope for is that no revenge is exacted, that they are excluded from one's life, and that they are regarded with indifference rather than hatred. Love is for family, friends, and strangers. Enemies are people that are willing to hurt us. How do you love somebody that would drive a car into a crowd that you were part of?
Would this be an instance of ridiculously slandering Jesus' message? I say that it's legitimate criticism.

I could go on. What do these three have in common with one another and with ideas such as that it is good to be long-suffering and blessed to be poor - that they will be rewarded after death if they just accept their miserable lot on earth?

Collectively, these are a set of instructions for people to not resist being treated unfairly.

The following are not the words of Jesus, but presumably, they represent His teaching to Peter

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Who gives advice like this to people that they care about? This is what you tell people whom you intend to exploit and hope that they will accept your exploitation without rising up.

This is what Constantine undoubtedly wanted from his subjects, and probably what he found so appealing about this particular religion.

Confucius and Buddha didn't give advice like that. Their writings wouldn't be of any use to somebody like Constantine or the emperors and kings that followed him.

The Christian apologist will tell you that none of these mean what they say, that they are all mistranslated. All of them? And all in the same direction from good and loving advice to a code apparently intended to inhibit fortitude or courage in the face of power or authority?

Napoleon understood:
  • "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
So did Seneca:
  • "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
religion makes these rules into unbreakable laws.
Overstated. Many religions and denominations, especially nowadays, do believe and teach that the individual does have the right to determine what their personal beliefs are and what their own actions may be even if it goes against what the religion/denomination teaches. Didn't use to be that way historically though, no doubt.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
religion makes these rules into unbreakable laws

I thought that you aid that the word religion applied to any world view or lifestyle and its rules? I doubt that too many people, whatever their world view or lifestyle, considers the rules they agree to today unbreakable laws.

In Christianity, they're broken daily by adherents who lie, steal, cheat on spouses, betray one another, and are indifferent to the unfortunate. Religion hasn't made the rules unbreakable for them.

there is no ''point of view'' in religion so that anyone could bend the laws. for example, ''don't kill'' is the law in religion, there are no ''buts'' and ''ifs''. religion is the norm.

Not long after "Don't kill" comes the list of all of the people that you should kill - hardly an unbreakable law:

[1] Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests - "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel."(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

[2] Kill Witches - "You should not let a sorceress live. "(Exodus 22:17 NAB)

[3] Kill Homosexuals - "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

[4] Kill Fortunetellers - "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

[5] Death for Hitting Mom or Dad - "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."(Exodus 21:15 NAB)

[6] Death for Cursing Parents - "All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

[7] Death for Adultery - "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

[8] Death for Fornicating Daughters of Priests - "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

[9] Death to Followers of Other Religions - "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

[10] Kill Nonbelievers - "They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

[11] Kill False Prophets - "If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

[12] Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night - "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

[13] Kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

[14] Kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)

[15] Kill blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16)​

If you look into this kind of thing with the preconception that it's all rainbows and unicorns, that's what you'll see.
 

Deidre

Well-Known Member
I disagree on both points.

Going the Bible, he preached a new sort of religion that was different from the religion around him, and a mixture of love for some and hatred for others.
Who did he preach to hate?

And he wasn't about religion. Men turned his teachings into a religion.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Jesus' message is just as subject to critical analysis as any other. Much of what is attributed to Him is bad advice, and Christians seem to understand that when they modify the meaning of the words.
  • What's blessed about being meek? Meekness is a character defect, not a virtue. It is spinelessness, and represents a poverty or smallness of spirit - a form of cowardice. The meek are used. They are easily exploited. Humility, cooperation, being of service, and politeness are all laudable deferential behaviors, but not meekness.
  • Likewise with turning the other cheek. This only invites a second blow. My advice? Try to negotiate a peace if possible, or walk away if your attacker is uninterested. If unable to do either, at least put up your fists to protect your face. Offering the other cheek a mistake.
  • And again regarding loving enemies. Why would you love somebody that has chosen to be your enemy? Do you love ISIS terrorists or the Christian terrorists at Charlottesville? I don't. The best that enemies should hope for is that no revenge is exacted, that they are excluded from one's life, and that they are regarded with indifference rather than hatred. Love is for family, friends, and strangers. Enemies are people that are willing to hurt us. How do you love somebody that would drive a car into a crowd that you were part of?
Would this be an instance of ridiculously slandering Jesus' message? I say that it's legitimate criticism.

I could go on. What do these three have in common with one another and with ideas such as that it is good to be long-suffering and blessed to be poor - that they will be rewarded after death if they just accept their miserable lot on earth?

Collectively, these are a set of instructions for people to not resist being treated unfairly.

The following are not the words of Jesus, but presumably, they represent His teaching to Peter

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Who gives advice like this to people that they care about? This is what you tell people whom you intend to exploit and hope that they will accept your exploitation without rising up.

This is what Constantine undoubtedly wanted from his subjects, and probably what he found so appealing about this particular religion.

Confucius and Buddha didn't give advice like that. Their writings wouldn't be of any use to somebody like Constantine or the emperors and kings that followed him.

The Christian apologist will tell you that none of these mean what they say, that they are all mistranslated. All of them? And all in the same direction from good and loving advice to a code apparently intended to inhibit fortitude or courage in the face of power or authority?

Napoleon understood:
  • "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
So did Seneca:\


  • "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger

And that's why you're obviously not a Christian
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Who did he preach to hate?
The moneychangers in the temple, the "scribes and pharisees", the well-fed... I could probably think of a few others if I thought about it.

And he wasn't about religion. Men turned his teachings into a religion.
He was about a new take on Judaism, which is a religion. Whether he was looking to reform Judaism or establish a new religion I don't know, but he was very much about religion.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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.

What a bizarre claim. You start off saying that we should all treat one another as brothers and sisters, then end up by blaming everyone who doesn't follow your particular beliefs.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
yes. religion is a way of living, a lifestyle. it gives us laws of how we should live our lives.
Can you be more specific than that. I agree that religion is a way of life that provides laws, but does employment, the IRS, and pretty much every organization.

Being a law abiding citizen is a way of life, and the government provides laws for how we should live our lives. So, is government a religion?
 
Top