What morals and ethics do Christians and other religions follow over time?

[shmogie]

Similar quotes can be found in the religions of the world before and after the life of Christ.



In no place is slavery condemned in the Bible. The only thing that 'may be interpreted' in the Bible is you love your slaves the same as you lover others.



I do not judge others and accept the witness of others concerning their statement of belief. We are all fallible humans.



Let Christ judge not me.

Matthew 7:2 - For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged;
and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.

James 3:12 -There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?



Yes, of course, it is how you view science.

I see, you own a slave because you want to be a slave, profound.

Disabuse is a verb, as I used it it means change my mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see, you own a slave because you want to be a slave, profound.

ok?

Disabuse is a verb, as I used it it means change my mind.

I do not use the word often, but in a way you want to persuade science is in error. Like the flea trying to disabuse the elephant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is an emphatically universalistic creed like the former and unsurprisingly having the 'right view' is every bit as essential to that religion as it is in the other belief systems mentioned, in a way one couldn't say for Hindus, Jains or Sikhs; indeed it is one of the central precepts of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Vouthon, the Noble Eight-Fold path is a nice enumeration by Buddha; however, 'Dharma' is the same in all Indian religions, whether Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism. Hindu 'dharma' does not differ from Buddhist 'dharma'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Disabuse is a verb, as I used it it means change my mind.

I will add that your use of Disabuse is an awkward word negative construction based on the word 'abuse,' and this is probably more appropriate fro an aggressive form of dialogue, and I prefer the persuade in dialogues as here in the Forum, which is the dominant purpose of a constructive use of those on this and other forums that use a positive approach

 

[Augustus]

I will add that your use of Disabuse is an awkward word negative construction based on the word 'abuse,' and this is probably more appropriate fro an aggressive form of dialogue, and I prefer the persuade in dialogues as here in the Forum, which is the dominant purpose of a constructive use of those on this and other forums that use a positive approach

An interesting comparison of your "logic":

Constructive, positive dialogue: Your anti-intellectual, out of hand rejection of any academic scholarship that doesn't match your preconceived opinions, coupled with claims that even citing such material constitutes dishonesty and/or other ethical failings

"Aggressive", negative dialogue: Using a common word without negative connotations in a perfectly correct way

 

[shmogie]

I will add that your use of Disabuse is an awkward word negative construction based on the word 'abuse,' and this is probably more appropriate fro an aggressive form of dialogue, and I prefer the persuade in dialogues as here in the Forum, which is the dominant purpose of a constructive use of those on this and other forums that use a positive approach

Get a dictionary, and look the word up. You just cannot bear being wrong, even when you aren't familiar with a word.

Disabuse isn't aggressive, and it has nothing to do with abuse.

In common discussion of people fluent in English, it means, "convince me otherwise".

If I said to a city councilman ( and I have) " I disagree, but you can try and disabuse me of that position", it is perfectly proper and correct, with no sinister overtones as you imply.

You didn't know what the word meant, no big deal

Then you try and screen your ignorance by nonsensical blather.

Man up

 

[Vouthon]

Vouthon, the Noble Eight-Fold path is a nice enumeration by Buddha; however, 'Dharma' is the same in all Indian religions, whether Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism. Hindu 'dharma' does not differ from Buddhist 'dharma'.

Be that as it may, it is my understanding that there are differences in the fundamentality of the concept of "right view" in each of the four religious traditions.

Buddhism would seem to take the strongest stance in this respect by making samma ditthi ("right view/perspective") the first tenet of the Noble Eightfold Path, over against miccha ditthi ("wrong view/perspective").

With Jainism, in contrast, you have anekāntavāda ("non-absolutism" / "many-sidedness of truth/non-one-sidedness") and syādavāda ("could-be-ism" / "relativity of knowledge" / "probabilism") which were the subject of significant intellectual critique from the famous Vedantist/Hindu Adi Shankara (8th century CE). He described them as being "like a mad man's cry" because of their alleged self-contradiction. Ramanuja concurred with that assessment. Shankara, moreover, claimed that Jains use this doctrine to be "certain that everything is uncertain".

Dharmakīrti, the influential seventh century CE Indian Buddhist philosopher, likewise said: "These shameless and naked Jainas make contradictory statements like a mad man" (Pramana-Vartika)

Jains understood both Buddhist “nihilism” and Hindu “eternalism” - to use but one example - to be correct and yet incomplete "views/perspectives". Translated literally anekāntavāda means “no-one-perspective-ism". In Anekantavada, all positions are in some sense partially true. The Buddha's response to this would be that other positions are "wrong view" because they are based on false assumptions, not that they are all partially correct fragments of a greater truth (except in the limited cases of anekamsika propositions which might be "true, with qualifications").

See the paper, ''The Rudiments Of Anekāntavāda In Early Pali Literature'' by the scholar Bhagchandra Jain:

But the difference between these two theories is that the Jainism accepts all statements to possess some relative (anekāntika) truth, while Buddhism does not accept that all non-categorical statements (anekaṁsika) can be true or false from one standpoint or another. [Jain] Anekāntavāda, unlike [Buddhist] Anekāṁsikavāda, conceives of the possibility of knowing reality from one or more standpoints.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Be that as it may, it is my understanding that there are differences in the fundamentality of the concept of "right view" in each of the four religious traditions.

Yes, there are differences in fundamentals even among the various sects of Indian religions but not when it comes to 'dharma'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, there are differences in fundamentals even among the various sects of Indian religions but not when it comes to 'dharma'.

The concept of dharma is to broad and subjective for anyone to disagree with the definition.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This thread was inspired by a thread started in Christianity DIR.

The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct, of the cultures over time. This is true of other religions also. The standards of morals and ethics such as the Ten Commandments are found in most other cultures and religions of the world. The evolution of morals and ethics can be seen to evolve from the Neolithic cultures. Even in the Neanderthal cultures evidence of care for the elderly and disabled is known based on the evidence.

For example: Slavery evolved in the different cultures over time. In Neolithic cultures slavery is virtually absent. Captured prisoners and women and children were most commonly adopted into tribe or community. This is true of Neolithic Native American cultures. Slavery appeared in Bronze Age civilizations, up through resent history when it gradually is becoming immoral in the cultures today, and the principle transition to none slave cultures began in the 19th century. Christians widely bought, sold and owned slaves in recent history just as slavery existed in other cultures over time, and it was not considered immoral by many if not most Christian in the past.

This is easy to answer, basically because Jews have spent thousands of years working it out, and have written it all down in volumes and volumes of books. LOL
It begins with the written Torah, with the 613 laws. The the Oral Torah was written down (the Talmud)--that's practically a small library. Beyond that, we have the writings of many sages commenting in their own times, even the wise of our own times.

I take the position of Conservative Judaism. Halakhah (Jewish Law) has never been constant. It has always been adjusted and readjusted. In this manner, it has been adjusted for our time as well. IN many ways, you could say that Judaism is unfolding. Our ideas concerning slavery have become clearer over the centuries -- it began with laws that made slavery so burdensome and unprofitable to the owner that it died out on its own. From there we moved to having an understanding of its innate conflict with the idea of each of us being made in the image of God. It is beautiful to watch something like this blossom like a flower in time. To me, I see the core values of Judaism coming alive more and more in modern society, not less and less. The ancient call for tzedakah is found in today's social justice, for example. Not every Jew believes in the admonish to repair the world, Tikkun Olam, but I certainly do. And that's what brings Judaism alive for me, whether it is in honoring my parents old school, or in protesting for civil rights new school.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is easy to answer, basically because Jews have spent thousands of years working it out, and have written it all down in volumes and volumes of books. LOL
It begins with the written Torah, with the 613 laws. The the Oral Torah was written down (the Talmud)--that's practically a small library. Beyond that, we have the writings of many sages commenting in their own times, even the wise of our own times.

Not so easy except when your trying to justify your own tribal agenda. Judaism and its scriptures offer no universal perspective for humanity in terms of contemporary morals and ethics. The scriptures of Judaism justify slavery and other morals and ethics from an ancient tribal perspective, and this is a witness as to how Judaism relates to the rest of the world. Other ancient religions like Hinduism can make the same claims as you, but then again they do so form the limited tribal perspective of their own world.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not so easy except when your trying to justify your own tribal agenda. Judaism and its scriptures offer no universal perspective for humanity in terms of contemporary morals and ethics. The scriptures of Judaism justify slavery and other morals and ethics from an ancient tribal perspective, and this is a witness as to how Judaism relates to the rest of the world. Other ancient religions like Hinduism can make the same claims as you, but then again they do so form the limited tribal perspective of their own world.

I'm not going to argue with you since you obviously simply want to dis Judaism. I'm simply going to state for the record that if you think Judaism endorses slavery, you are woefully ignorant of Judaism.

Good luck to you.

Bye.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not going to argue with you since you obviously simply want to dis Judaism. I'm simply going to state for the record that if you think Judaism endorses slavery, you are woefully ignorant of Judaism.

Good luck to you.

Bye.

Basically a failure to respond to facts of Judaism.

The endorsement of slavery is a matter of fact of scripture.

 

[shmogie]

Basically a failure to respond to facts of Judaism.

The endorsement of slavery is a matter of fact of scripture.

4,000 years ago, for a certain people, in a certain place ?

 

[shunyadragon]

4,000 years ago, for a certain people, in a certain place ?

4,000 years ago there is no archaeological evidence that Judaism existed other than maybe pastoral tribes in the hills of Judea. The oldest evidence, and it is sketchy, is the 10th and 11th century BCE.

 

[shunyadragon]

4,000 years ago, for a certain people, in a certain place ?

Second thought; This is a good description of ancient toots of Judaism, an ancient tribal and cultural worldview of the world from one 'certain place' in the vaste history of humanity.

 

[shmogie]

Second thought; This is a good description of ancient toots of Judaism, an ancient tribal world view of the world from one 'certain place' in the vaste history of humanity.

Not quite, but close. It was a long time ago, under a set of conditions that hasn't existed for thousands of years. What was then was the creation and maintenance of Israel in a terribly hostile environment.

Why use it now as a cudgel to try and defame Judaism?

 

[shmogie]

4,000 years ago there is no archaeological evidence that Judaism existed other than maybe pastoral tribes in the hills of Judea. The oldest evidence, and it is sketchy, is the 10th and 11th century BCE.

You are in error. In a primitive mine, found in Israel, is the oldest reference to the Jewish God, scratched onto the wall. It is also the oldest known example of a form of written Hebrew, it is dated between 2 and 3 thousand years BC.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are in error. In a primitive mine, found in Israel, is the oldest reference to the Jewish God, scratched onto the wall. It is also the oldest known example of a form of written Hebrew, it is dated between 2 and 3 thousand years BC.

False and no reference to justify the claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not quite, but close. It was a long time ago, under a set of conditions that hasn't existed for thousands of years. What was then was the creation and maintenance of Israel in a terribly hostile environment.

Why use it now as a cudgel to try and defame Judaism?

No crudet here. Crudjets is how ancient tribes resolved disputes over which God is the one true God. It is a contradiction and paradox in human history to claim that any one ancient tribal religion is the one 'true' religion in vaste diverse times of human history over thousands of years.

I believe in a more universal God not definable from the perspective of any ancient belief system nor culture. God's relationship with humanity evolves over time through Revelation.