Un-conversion

I think there is more to it than that. Of course I agree that children are likely to assume the faith of their parents up to a certain age. Just a couple of points though. Most religions have a basic belief in the Golden Rule. Why is that? Did that concept just evolve from what was originally a total non-moral and even non-intelligent source or is there an intelligent moral source for this idea that has spoken it into human imagination? I contend that the latter is more plausible but that is just my opinion.As virtually all world religions seem to agree on a basic level, (whether or not the adherents of these various religions actually put it into practice of course is another story), in the fundamental belief that the Golden Rule is a good thing, then it seems to me that we have to consider the possibility that this is as a result of an intelligent moral entity implanting the notion into human imagination. After that I would agree that there are a lot of things added on to religions that have very human origins. (I would suggest that the idea of being made right with God based on theological beliefs would be an example of that.) AS I said earlier there is no certainty and within religions there are huge differences in doctrine. There was a thread last year asking the question of whether different Christians worship different gods. IMHO the answer was yes.As far as Christianity is concerned it came into existence based on belief in the resurrection of Jesus. If it didn't happen then Christianity is irrelevant, but if it is an historical event, as I believe, then it is hugely important.

I guess I have trouble understanding your use of the word logic. The word doesn't seem to fit where you are using it.

The Golden Rule is not only embedded in most religions it's in most secular institutions too; our laws and socities are built on it. It was part of Jewish culture before Jesus, in fact it's a neurological condition that we call empathy.It's not an imagined idea, it's a part of our hardwiring. People that don't have it we call pscychopaths are we lock them away. Without empathy societies can't work, it's got absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and religion, it's an evolved trait that had it not evolved neither would humans - or monkeys.Now, if you say that a god invented empathy and planted it in our heads (and the heads of related species too), in such a way as to make it look like it evolved, there's nothing much I can say in response. But I am going to shake my head a little because you're now so far away from Christianity and the bible that you might as well start again and invent a new religion, one that makes a bit more sense of the known facts.

Christianity has no valid claim over the Golden Rule.Ever read the Pirke Avoth? "The Saying of the Fathers". You should. It was required reading in my Rabbinic Literature class in 1971. It includes the story of Pharisee Rabbi Hillel's encounter with a gentile who demanded that he recite the whole of the Law while standing on one foot.In the first season of Star Trek (I'm talking TOS, back in 1966), one "Bar-David" wrote a screenplay, Dagger of the Mind, which contained a reference to that encounter, though instead of "rabbi" it was "philosopher".The way that ancient academies operated was that the students memorized all the writings they studied; Jewish jeshivas continued that tradition, such that their students memorized an entire encyclopedia, which was the Talmud. So the challenge was for the rabbi to recite the entire Torah (AKA "First Five Books of the Bible", ie, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) while standing on one foot. The leader of the Sadducees ran that idiot off, with a stick, just exactly as that idiot deserved. But Rabbi Hillel, leader of the Pharisees, responded with:

quote:

---

Do not to others that which you do not want to be done to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation. Now go do it!

---

The Golden Rule. And "the spirit of the law". All by a Pharisee rabbi. At 20 BCE. A full fifty years before that "Yeshua bar Yoseph" was supposed to have regugeritated it fifty years later.Duh?Edited by dwise1, : Link to Wikipedia article on "Dagger of the Mind"

That was my point. It is in all religions and it is in the secular world as well. The question I’m asking if it is more plausible that the concept of treating others as we would like to be treated came from an intelligent and moral first cause or a non- intelligent non-moral first cause. I believe the first is more plausible whereas you presumably believe the opposite.

quote:

---

empathy
n.
1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

---

Actually empathy is just the ability to sympathize with someone. That isn’t the same as doing for others as you would have them do for you. What we are talking about is acting on empathy not empathy itself. If I drop a 20 dollar bill on the sidewalk I would hope that whoever saw me do it would pick it up and return it to me. So if I follow the Golden Rule and I see somebody drop a 20 dollar bill and just pick it up and stick it in my pocket then I’m not following the Golden Rule. It means that I’m not the greatest of people and I should be ashamed, but somehow I don’t think that qualifies me as a psychopath. Actually, societies work all the time with very little empathy. That’s why we continue to have wars. I have certainly never suggested that Jesus instituted the Golden Rule. I agree that it taught in societies long before Jesus walked the planet. Actually I think altruism is a better word than empathy but aside from that I don’t see where the idea that that God instilled it in human consciousness and that it has continued to evolve is contrary to Christianity. It may be contrary to the Christianity that you rejected but I don’t see as contrary to orthodox Christianity any more than I see physical evolution contrary to Christianity. Just as I don’t know how abiogenesis occurred I don’t know how the first seed of altruism was planted either but if we look at the course of human history I contend that the world on the whole has evolved into a more altruistic place than it was in the past. Once again — is the root cause intelligent and moral or has it all evolved from a random collection of atoms?

If you read what I said you would see that I made the point that the GR is in virtually all world religions. I would also agree that it is part of secular societies or institutions as well. I think you missed my point entirely.When Jesus responded to the question of which was the most important law He drew His reply from the Hebrew Scriptures. (Leviticus 19:18 for one) There never was a claim that this was an original idea of His.

And yet you said: Ok, the purported resurrection took place circa 30 AD. The story of Rabbi Hillel took place circa 20 BCE, a full fifty years before the purported resurrection of circa 30 AD. Duh?

So what? What is your point? What has the resurrection got to do with the Golden Rule? Why is it necessary to put "Duh?" at the end of your posts?

Just!It's what makes us human. It's gives us Theory of Mind, the knowledge that others have minds too, you know, consciouness - everything flows from that. Altrusm is a by-product of empathy. Without empathy why would we do anything for someone else?It's a brain condition that resides in the frontal cortex - it's not an idea or something we learn, it's hardwired. If the cortex is damaged, we lose it and behave like sociopaths.You may find the story of Fred interesting. Message 1It's not at all inconsistent with Christianity, it just makes it redundant. Christianity, along with most religions, just adopted something that is intrinsic to humanity and built a huge pile of ritual, myth and nonsense around it. We can throw it all away and start thinking on human terms about these things now. We don't need the crap anymore.Saying God embedded empathy in our brains just shoves God further back in the chain of events and has got nothing to do with biblical Christianity.

If I might step in;I think that GDR meant to say that Christianity came into existence as a result of belief in a resurrected Jesus, not that the Golden Rule came into existence that way. I think the two of you have your wires crossed.Mutate and Survive

The resurrection has absolutely nothing to do with the "Golden Rule".Duh?The Golden Rule is not in any way dependent upon the Resurrection.The Resurrection is immaterial.Duh?

Sure, I understand that. GDR has accepted that the golden rule has existed before Christianity and in other religions.He's also said that the resurection is the belief that is necessary for Christianity - I'm fine with all this.But I think the second has got nothing whatsoever to do with the first.

Yeah, I agree. It was just kind of tacked on the end there. No real thematic link between the two statements.I just thought I might try and defuse the apparent misunderstanding.Mutate and Survive

I might add that humanity's 'golden rule hardwiring'' has some.. limitations, that speak against divine orgin. It's presence seems to vary among humans af far I'm aware, and this literally concerns everyone(and their morality!). Not to mention, as noted, it can be absent entirely. This is troubling for the notion God planted this, as it's plainly not a even constant. It also causes problems for soul/body dualism, but that's off topic.The second point is humanity's other major hardwiring: thinking in groups. Although some people might do not have this as strongly as others, it's well known that people tend to apply the golden rule to their own group, but not others. This especially becomes a problem if somebody invokes this effect. This includes Nazi-germany of course, but it's still often used in nationalistic thinking. And there also a well known experiment done by a teacher, that some of you might already know: the third wave movement. By invoking group culture in his class, before long, group effects not unlike those in Nazi-germany started to surface. I did just look it up, but it grew from 30 to 200 in just 4 days, and the teacher cut it off out of fear it would spiral out of his control. Did God plant those dangerous group mechanics on purpose as well? Strong enough for a history teacher to easily mold a student movement that felt better then the rest?I'm skeptical on the notion of God being the designer of our psyche because of these two factors. You can't examine human qualities unless you're willing to look at the entire picture.

Thank you. I was dealing with the two issues in one post and had never intended to imply that there was a connection between the two issues.