What if... Morality = Empathy?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: What does it mean for religion, and society, if morality is just empathy, and that's it?

Empathy as in, you don't want to be hurt, you try to avoid hurting others. You're honest with yourself, and it goes exactly as far as you would want it to go, if you were in the opposite position. It stops, and there's no moral obligation to heed some request, if you'd genuinely not make such a request. Provided you wouldn't want anyone to simply kowtow and submit to you if you were being an awful tyrant, it stops, and there's no obligation, if someone likewise does not respect you or provide basic moral consideration to you.

What if morality is really this simple, has been this simple since prehistory, and people have been trying to overwrite or invalidate it with their own self-serving rules, for about three thousand years, or even more? What does it mean for religion, and the world?

Seems to me that we just have to navigate carefully and be honest with ourselves when people have different needs, and that's it. All of society's problems are solved and a lot of people whose business it is to inflate and profit from them, are out of a job.

[boatsnguitars]

Question for debate: What does it mean for religion, and society, if morality is just empathy, and that's it?
...

So, it would be ok then to kill someone empathically?

And for example, if there is a murderer and his victim. The victim is obviously dead, and dead need no empathy, so we can leave all empathy for the murderer.

I think empathy is not sufficient on its own and can lead to wrong decisions.

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't. The Christian has to defend both, so since they can't defend it based on empathy (after all God is not an empathetic figure, they are taught), they must base it on "God says so." Then they force themselves that such Authoritarian/Patriarchal law-making is the truest expression of Love. "God is just telling us what he demands of us, and it's loving because he doesn't want us to burn in Hell!"
That's messed up.
"The Don is just telling us what he demands of us, and it's loving because he doesn't want us to get whacked!"
"My Dad is just telling me what he demands of me, and it's loving because he doesn't want me to be grounded!"

"OK, but what if what he asks is unreasonable?"

"Who are you to question God/The Don/My Dad?"

Divine Command Theory turns morality on it's head. It has to because the Bible can't be questioned, only defended. Therefore, when you get absurd commands from God, they flip the script: It's not that the moral law is based on reason and results in Goodness - it's based in God, who is Goodness itself, therefore it is Good because it's from God. Even if he commands the death of babies for what their parents have done.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

[1213]

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

I think morality that is based on empathy is too arbitrary and not objective enough for to be just. In my opinion law, or what is good and right, should be based on reasoning and I think the best law therefore is, love your neighbor as yourself, which leads to, do others what you want to be done to you. This means, what ever right you take, you give to others. For example, if you steal, you give the right also for others to steal from you.

Obviously, if you have empathy, you may think stealing is wrong, and it is good. But, empathetic people can also say stealing is right in some cases. Therefore it is not useful on itself, because it can lead to any conclusion.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't.
....

What of the ten commandments is in your opinion rooted in empathy?

I think all God's rules are based on reasoning what is good and what rights people can have, not on subjective feelings. For example it can be said humans have no right to murder. Reason for that is: People have not given life, so they have not right to take it, because no one has given such right. And, if person himself gives right for himself to kill, he also gives the same right for others, because there is no way why he could deny it from others, if he has taken it himself also.

And it is interesting that in Bible, the law is given for that people would live long and prosper. It is not really about hell and afterlife, but about this life, how to live here in a good way.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

I don't think God kills killing of innocent people. If God would command killing, it would be people that are not innocent.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

It is interesting how for example Jews thought they have not right to kill.

Then Pilate said to them, You take him and judge him according to your own Law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,
John 18:31

How could it be clear for them, but not for you?

I think, the problem of unclarity comes form that people don't really want to hear the truth. They will use any excuse they can for to commit their crimes.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

I think morality that is based on empathy is too arbitrary and not objective enough for to be just. In my opinion law, or what is good and right, should be based on reasoning and I think the best law therefore is, love your neighbor as yourself, which leads to, do others what you want to be done to you. This means, what ever right you take, you give to others. For example, if you steal, you give the right also for others to steal from you.

Obviously, if you have empathy, you may think stealing is wrong, and it is good. But, empathetic people can also say stealing is right in some cases. Therefore it is not useful on itself, because it can lead to any conclusion.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't.
....

What of the ten commandments is in your opinion rooted in empathy?

I think all God's rules are based on reasoning what is good and what rights people can have, not on subjective feelings. For example it can be said humans have no right to murder. Reason for that is: People have not given life, so they have not right to take it, because no one has given such right. And, if person himself gives right for himself to kill, he also gives the same right for others, because there is no way why he could deny it from others, if he has taken it himself also.

And it is interesting that in Bible, the law is given for that people would live long and prosper. It is not really about hell and afterlife, but about this life, how to live here in a good way.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

I don't think God kills killing of innocent people. If God would command killing, it would be people that are not innocent.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

It is interesting how for example Jews thought they have not right to kill.

Then Pilate said to them, You take him and judge him according to your own Law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,
John 18:31

How could it be clear for them, but not for you?

I think, the problem of unclarity comes form that people don't really want to hear the truth. They will use any excuse they can for to commit their crimes.

This fills me with horror. This is the best worst example I have seen of how religious belief makes good people do bad things. I think (from how you post) you are a good person. But just look at the awful stuff you post.

Aside from the pointless' questioning 'Don't covet my stuff' is obviously based on Reciprocity, which is the application of reasoning to instinctive empathy. If you don't understand that, you lack the basics to even discuss the matter. Your talk of rights is based on a misunderstanding (admittedly common) of human ethics. You seem to think it is a cosmic law that we have to try to discover, like how many stars in the universe, or what's at the bottom of the ocean. Apart from evolved instinct, the rules of morality are devised by us and have no more Cosmic validity than the rules of chess.

You ignore what Paul says about the Law. Paul says it was given to increase sin. Well, Paul was a liar, so I accept that the theology is that it was given for hardness of heart (as the gospels says on divorce law - the rules were given because people sinned and marriages fell apart). In that respect the Law was given to try to corral people into forming queues. If left to themselves, they all push to the front. It is not, as you say, about Hell or afterlife, because works do not save. The message of Christianity is that we are all deserving of Hell and death because of Eden. Only Jesus can save us from that and just dying on the cross does not automatically save everyone - it is an offer of salvation that one has to buy a ticket for.

So far it's only foggy thinking but now the horror starts. God's massacres - they deserved it. Lane Craig I recall showed himself to be a psychopath who should be socially censured by excusing the Flood as they all had it coming. This is the horror of religion, it will see people slaughtered rather than admit they worked it out wrong.

It is interesting that you (and others, generally) don't know their Bible is wrong. On all evidence, there was no Passover release custom, the Blasphemy charge does not make sense, Jesus could not have done the Temple Fracas without Pilate's garrison jumping on him and the Sanhedrin did have the right to kill people. (1) They may have had to get the approval of the Roman governor first, but they could and did execute people. On all we know, the writers of the Bible wrote some false claims and assertions, and the place to start is, not assuming everything in it is right, true, correct, eyewitness and without contradiction. It is full of it.

This is clear and I hope that YOU will 'want to hear the truth' in the way you expect of other people - if it only was the Truth you want to believe it is. Sorry, it isn't. You have to face up to this, you either follow the evidence and question the Bible, or you reject the evidence and have Faith in the Bible. Which leads, it seems to endorsing slaughter and massacre if that is supposed to be what God orders. "I suppose they must be wicked; kill them all".

(1) the Gospel writers seemed to have the idea that stoning was a kind of mob violence occasioned by some action that outraged them. That was not how it worked. One had to observe the Rules, obtain a false beard, obtain appropriate missiles and wait for the whistle.

[boatsnguitars]

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

I think morality that is based on empathy is too arbitrary and not objective enough for to be just. In my opinion law, or what is good and right, should be based on reasoning and I think the best law therefore is, love your neighbor as yourself, which leads to, do others what you want to be done to you. This means, what ever right you take, you give to others. For example, if you steal, you give the right also for others to steal from you.

Obviously, if you have empathy, you may think stealing is wrong, and it is good. But, empathetic people can also say stealing is right in some cases. Therefore it is not useful on itself, because it can lead to any conclusion.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't.
....

What of the ten commandments is in your opinion rooted in empathy?

I think all God's rules are based on reasoning what is good and what rights people can have, not on subjective feelings. For example it can be said humans have no right to murder. Reason for that is: People have not given life, so they have not right to take it, because no one has given such right. And, if person himself gives right for himself to kill, he also gives the same right for others, because there is no way why he could deny it from others, if he has taken it himself also.

And it is interesting that in Bible, the law is given for that people would live long and prosper. It is not really about hell and afterlife, but about this life, how to live here in a good way.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

I don't think God kills killing of innocent people. If God would command killing, it would be people that are not innocent.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

It is interesting how for example Jews thought they have not right to kill.

Then Pilate said to them, You take him and judge him according to your own Law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,
John 18:31

How could it be clear for them, but not for you?

I think, the problem of unclarity comes form that people don't really want to hear the truth. They will use any excuse they can for to commit their crimes.

This fills me with horror. This is the best worst example I have seen of how religious belif makes good people do bad things. I think (from how you post) you are a good person. But just look at the awful stuff you post.

Aside from the pointless' questioning 'Don't covet my stuff' is obviously based on Reciprocity, which is the application of reasoning to instinctive empathy. If you don't understand that, you lack the basics to even discuss the matter. Your talk of rights is based on a misunderstanding (admittedly common) of human ethics. You seem to think it is a cosmic law that we have to try to discover, like how many starts in the universe, or what's at the bottom of the ocean.Apart from evolved instinct, the rules of morality are devised like us and have no more Cosmic validity than the rules of chess.

You ignore what Paul says bout the Law. Paul says it was given to increase sin. Well, Paul was a liar, so I accept that the theology is that it was given for hardness of hears (as the gospels says on divorce law - the rules were given because people sinned and marriages fell apart). In that respect the Law was given to try to corral people into forming queues. If left to themselves they all push to the front. It is not as you say about Hell or afterlife, because works do not save. The message of Christianity is that we are all deserving of Hell and death because of Eden. Only Jesus can save us from that and just dying on the cross does not automatically save everyone - it is an offer of salvation that one has to buy a ticket for.

So far it's only foggy thinking but now the horror starts. God's massacres - they deserved it. Lane Craig I recall showed himself to be a psychopath who should be socially censured by excusing the Flood as they all had it coming. This is the horror of religion, it will see people slaughtered rather than admit they worked it out wrong.

It is interesting that you (and others, generally) don't know their Bible is wrong. On all evidence, there was no Passover release, the Blasphemy charge does not make sense, Jesus could not have done the Temple Fracas without Pilate's garrison jumping on him and the Sanhedrin did have the right to kill people. They may have had to get the approval of the Roman governor first, but they could and did execute people. On all we know, the writers of the Bible wrote some false claims and assertions, and the place to start is, not assuming everything inb it is right, true, correct, eyewitness and without contradiction. It is full of it.

This is clear and I hope that YOU will 'want to hear the truth' in the way you expect of other people - if it is the Truth you want to believe it is. Sorry, it isn't. You have to face up to this, you either follow the evidence and question the Bible, or you reject the evidence and have Faith in the Bible. Which leads it seems to endorsing slaughter and massacre if that is supposed to be what God orders. "I suppose they must be wicked; kill them all".

I was formulating a very similar response. Sadly, I don't know if religionists, especially Abrahamist religionists, see how horrible their view is. They need to accept that God could command the killing of men, women, children, livestock - for the Bible tells them so. But, then they need to distinguish that Righteous event with the one Hamas performed recently. They are exactly the same events - especially to the victims.

Yet, the Abrahamist must believe that the children in the OT were sinful, the ones today were innocent. There is no way to know if a child is a sinner. They simply must assert it to be true - and then defend themselves on their religious high horse.

One could go one step further - ala WLC - and simply claim everyone is sinful, so, no big deal! WLC was more concerned about the poor soldier who had to drive a sword through a babies head while the mother tried to fight him off... poor guy!

Again, when we see this in the context that there is no God. This becomes starkly horrific.

Numbers 31: 1-18
It was a beautiful, sunny day at the baseball park. The smell of hotdogs, the crack of the bat, children playing around the stands. Good natured chants from the bleacher, and the light sounds of John Cougar Melloncamp coming from a radio somewhere. Suddenly, 9 black vans pull up and men with large crosses on their black jackets unshoulder their rifles and start shooting indiscriminately. They first kill the men, then the women. They drive down or gun down those who try to run. They shoot the dogs playing in the dog run. Then they go for the children and babies. They start exectuting them one by one until only a few young girls remain.
As they force the girls into the vans they check to make sure their job was done to perfection, as their Commander demanded. They come across a woman, pregnant and cradling her dead 3 year old in her arms..

"But, why?," she gurgled through the blood filling her lungs.

The man raised the gun to her head, and before the last shot rang out said, "Because you're evil,"

In this story, Christians are hailing the men in the black jackets and worshiping the one who commanded the massacre. Only religion can be this messed up. This is why religious people can't understand morality. They will never understand morality when they have been told they need to somehow leave mental space to accept the murder I described was Righteous.

Read Numbers 31: 1-18 for yourself. I made it benign in comparison - at least in my description, they died quickly.

[boatsnguitars]

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

I think morality that is based on empathy is too arbitrary and not objective enough for to be just. In my opinion law, or what is good and right, should be based on reasoning and I think the best law therefore is, love your neighbor as yourself, which leads to, do others what you want to be done to you. This means, what ever right you take, you give to others. For example, if you steal, you give the right also for others to steal from you.

Obviously, if you have empathy, you may think stealing is wrong, and it is good. But, empathetic people can also say stealing is right in some cases. Therefore it is not useful on itself, because it can lead to any conclusion.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't.
....

What of the ten commandments is in your opinion rooted in empathy?

I think all God's rules are based on reasoning what is good and what rights people can have, not on subjective feelings. For example it can be said humans have no right to murder. Reason for that is: People have not given life, so they have not right to take it, because no one has given such right. And, if person himself gives right for himself to kill, he also gives the same right for others, because there is no way why he could deny it from others, if he has taken it himself also.

And it is interesting that in Bible, the law is given for that people would live long and prosper. It is not really about hell and afterlife, but about this life, how to live here in a good way.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

I don't think God kills killing of innocent people. If God would command killing, it would be people that are not innocent.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

It is interesting how for example Jews thought they have not right to kill.

Then Pilate said to them, You take him and judge him according to your own Law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,
John 18:31

How could it be clear for them, but not for you?

I think, the problem of unclarity comes form that people don't really want to hear the truth. They will use any excuse they can for to commit their crimes.

This fills me with horror. This is the best worst example I have seen of how religious belief makes good people do bad things. I think (from how you post) you are a good person. But just look at the awful stuff you post.

Aside from the pointless' questioning 'Don't covet my stuff' is obviously based on Reciprocity, which is the application of reasoning to instinctive empathy. If you don't understand that, you lack the basics to even discuss the matter. Your talk of rights is based on a misunderstanding (admittedly common) of human ethics. You seem to think it is a cosmic law that we have to try to discover, like how many stars in the universe, or what's at the bottom of the ocean. Apart from evolved instinct, the rules of morality are devised by us and have no more Cosmic validity than the rules of chess.

You ignore what Paul says about the Law. Paul says it was given to increase sin. Well, Paul was a liar, so I accept that the theology is that it was given for hardness of heart (as the gospels says on divorce law - the rules were given because people sinned and marriages fell apart). In that respect the Law was given to try to corral people into forming queues. If left to themselves, they all push to the front. It is not, as you say, about Hell or afterlife, because works do not save. The message of Christianity is that we are all deserving of Hell and death because of Eden. Only Jesus can save us from that and just dying on the cross does not automatically save everyone - it is an offer of salvation that one has to buy a ticket for.

So far it's only foggy thinking but now the horror starts. God's massacres - they deserved it. Lane Craig I recall showed himself to be a psychopath who should be socially censured by excusing the Flood as they all had it coming. This is the horror of religion, it will see people slaughtered rather than admit they worked it out wrong.

It is interesting that you (and others, generally) don't know their Bible is wrong. On all evidence, there was no Passover release custom, the Blasphemy charge does not make sense, Jesus could not have done the Temple Fracas without Pilate's garrison jumping on him and the Sanhedrin did have the right to kill people. (1) They may have had to get the approval of the Roman governor first, but they could and did execute people. On all we know, the writers of the Bible wrote some false claims and assertions, and the place to start is, not assuming everything in it is right, true, correct, eyewitness and without contradiction. It is full of it.

This is clear and I hope that YOU will 'want to hear the truth' in the way you expect of other people - if it only was the Truth you want to believe it is. Sorry, it isn't. You have to face up to this, you either follow the evidence and question the Bible, or you reject the evidence and have Faith in the Bible. Which leads, it seems to endorsing slaughter and massacre if that is supposed to be what God orders. "I suppose they must be wicked; kill them all".

(1) the Gospel writers seemed to have the idea that stoning was a kind of mob violence occasioned by some action that outraged them. That was not how it worked. One had to observe the Rules, obtain a false beard, obtain appropriate missiles and wait for the whistle.

I saw Life of Brain in my teens. Thought it was hilarious - obviously. I knew it was based on the Bible, but little did I know how much scholarship went into it. For example, how many factions and prophets were around at the time.

Also, the song at the end. Both Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) use Psalms 22:2: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" as the last words spoken by Jesus from the cross. Psalms were songs. Did Jesus actually sing the song? Probably not, but it's funny to imagine!

https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress ... holarship/

It holds up really well today. Even the "I want to be a woman" sketch is timely.

[1213]

Aside from the pointless' questioning 'Don't covet my stuff' is obviously based on Reciprocity, which is the application of reasoning to instinctive empathy. If you don't understand that, you lack the basics to even discuss the matter. Your talk of rights is based on a misunderstanding (admittedly common) of human ethics. ...

I think 'Don't covet my stuff' is also based on what rights people have, or can have.

Paul says it was given to increase sin.

Sorry, I don't think that is true, only your poor interpretation.

So far it's only foggy thinking but now the horror starts. God's massacres - they deserved it. Lane Craig I recall showed himself to be a psychopath who should be socially censured by excusing the Flood as they all had it coming. This is the horror of religion, it will see people slaughtered rather than admit they worked it out wrong.

Do you think God should allow evil to continue forever and allow life to be eternal suffering for all?

I have no problem, if God doesn't allow evil people to live forever. But, I think humans don't have the right to kill other humans.

It is interesting that you (and others, generally) don't know their Bible is wrong. On all evidence, there was no Passover release custom, the Blasphemy charge does not make sense, Jesus could not have done the Temple Fracas without Pilate's garrison jumping on him and the Sanhedrin did have the right to kill people. (1) They may have had to get the approval of the Roman governor first, but they could and did execute people. On all we know, the writers of the Bible wrote some false claims and assertions, and the place to start is, not assuming everything in it is right, true, correct, eyewitness and without contradiction. It is full of it.

Sorry, I rather believe Bible than you. For example because it is much older than you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, this is why I keep saying Christians don't understand morality. Morality may not equal empathy, but they are clearly intertwined. Mirror neurons are a major player in how we interact with other animals. Empathy and Sympathy are hallmarks of the human species, but of most mammals, and many other creatures.

Morality without empathy is just cold, reptilian or even robotic law. But, this is what Christians believe: "Don't wear mixed fabrics," says God. Why? No reason. It's just the law. There is no empathy, there is no sympathy. There is nothing behind the law. It's just an unreasonable demand.

I think morality that is based on empathy is too arbitrary and not objective enough for to be just. In my opinion law, or what is good and right, should be based on reasoning and I think the best law therefore is, love your neighbor as yourself, which leads to, do others what you want to be done to you. This means, what ever right you take, you give to others. For example, if you steal, you give the right also for others to steal from you.

Obviously, if you have empathy, you may think stealing is wrong, and it is good. But, empathetic people can also say stealing is right in some cases. Therefore it is not useful on itself, because it can lead to any conclusion.

Think of the Ten Commandments. Some are rooted in empathy, others aren't.
....

What of the ten commandments is in your opinion rooted in empathy?

I think all God's rules are based on reasoning what is good and what rights people can have, not on subjective feelings. For example it can be said humans have no right to murder. Reason for that is: People have not given life, so they have not right to take it, because no one has given such right. And, if person himself gives right for himself to kill, he also gives the same right for others, because there is no way why he could deny it from others, if he has taken it himself also.

And it is interesting that in Bible, the law is given for that people would live long and prosper. It is not really about hell and afterlife, but about this life, how to live here in a good way.

So, take the attack in Israel in which Hamas killed innocent children: Biblically, that could be defended as Just and Good if God commanded it. Meanwhile, it's obvious to almost anyone that it was evil - except Theists.

I don't think God kills killing of innocent people. If God would command killing, it would be people that are not innocent.

And, to drive a point I make often home: A real God would understand this problem and not command people to kill - for fear that it would be misused. A real God would be very clear in declaring that no one - ever - would be told to kill for God because (after all) God could do it himself more efficiently, and without the problem of knowing whether you - an innocent victim - are being killed because God wanted you dead, or if you are being killed because of some evil doer.

It is interesting how for example Jews thought they have not right to kill.

Then Pilate said to them, You take him and judge him according to your own Law. Then the Jews said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,
John 18:31

How could it be clear for them, but not for you?

I think, the problem of unclarity comes form that people don't really want to hear the truth. They will use any excuse they can for to commit their crimes.

This fills me with horror. This is the best worst example I have seen of how religious belief makes good people do bad things. I think (from how you post) you are a good person. But just look at the awful stuff you post.

Aside from the pointless' questioning 'Don't covet my stuff' is obviously based on Reciprocity, which is the application of reasoning to instinctive empathy. If you don't understand that, you lack the basics to even discuss the matter. Your talk of rights is based on a misunderstanding (admittedly common) of human ethics. You seem to think it is a cosmic law that we have to try to discover, like how many stars in the universe, or what's at the bottom of the ocean. Apart from evolved instinct, the rules of morality are devised by us and have no more Cosmic validity than the rules of chess.

You ignore what Paul says about the Law. Paul says it was given to increase sin. Well, Paul was a liar, so I accept that the theology is that it was given for hardness of heart (as the gospels says on divorce law - the rules were given because people sinned and marriages fell apart). In that respect the Law was given to try to corral people into forming queues. If left to themselves, they all push to the front. It is not, as you say, about Hell or afterlife, because works do not save. The message of Christianity is that we are all deserving of Hell and death because of Eden. Only Jesus can save us from that and just dying on the cross does not automatically save everyone - it is an offer of salvation that one has to buy a ticket for.

So far it's only foggy thinking but now the horror starts. God's massacres - they deserved it. Lane Craig I recall showed himself to be a psychopath who should be socially censured by excusing the Flood as they all had it coming. This is the horror of religion, it will see people slaughtered rather than admit they worked it out wrong.

It is interesting that you (and others, generally) don't know their Bible is wrong. On all evidence, there was no Passover release custom, the Blasphemy charge does not make sense, Jesus could not have done the Temple Fracas without Pilate's garrison jumping on him and the Sanhedrin did have the right to kill people. (1) They may have had to get the approval of the Roman governor first, but they could and did execute people. On all we know, the writers of the Bible wrote some false claims and assertions, and the place to start is, not assuming everything in it is right, true, correct, eyewitness and without contradiction. It is full of it.

This is clear and I hope that YOU will 'want to hear the truth' in the way you expect of other people - if it only was the Truth you want to believe it is. Sorry, it isn't. You have to face up to this, you either follow the evidence and question the Bible, or you reject the evidence and have Faith in the Bible. Which leads, it seems to endorsing slaughter and massacre if that is supposed to be what God orders. "I suppose they must be wicked; kill them all".

(1) the Gospel writers seemed to have the idea that stoning was a kind of mob violence occasioned by some action that outraged them. That was not how it worked. One had to observe the Rules, obtain a false beard, obtain appropriate missiles and wait for the whistle.

I saw Life of Brain in my teens. Thought it was hilarious - obviously. I knew it was based on the Bible, but little did I know how much scholarship went into it. For example, how many factions and prophets were around at the time.

Also, the song at the end. Both Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) use Psalms 22:2: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" as the last words spoken by Jesus from the cross. Psalms were songs. Did Jesus actually sing the song? Probably not, but it's funny to imagine!

https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress ... holarship/

It holds up really well today. Even the "I want to be a woman" sketch is timely.

I think it may be one of the great comedy films of all time, but there is a lot one has to forgive. For one, it seems to be all in one town, supposedly Jerusalem as Pilate is there, but the sermon on the mount is of course in Galilee, and yet they go down the hill and are living in Jerusalem and Brian's mum is obliging the Jerusalem garrison. Some bits like the shepherds and the stuff about the suicide squad (apart from right at the end) was thankfully dropped, as also the stuff about Pilate's wife, which didn't work. But the joke about Balm was obviously 'Bomb?Put it in a trough of water!' but that was too anachronistic so they tried to pas it off as a wild animal she maybe dreamed. They can't all be gems.

But certainly they nailed the rebel - zealot aspect of Roman Judea which went back even to the Hasmoneans and was always seething in Roman Judea and Galilee providing the toughest zealots for some reason. The absurdity of the pompous and bureaucratic little revolutionary groups was a nice one and of course gay rights was a thing long before the film, in the 70's and Diverse quotas being imposed in the 80's (I knew it was wrong at the time. But maybe two wrongs here did make a right). And one journalist observed that mass crucifixions were the norm in Judea, rather than just three of them.

Of course, I reckon that the Jesus story is much more to do with Reg and his group than with the crazy cultists and the whacky prophets. Some stuff it is hard to explain the brilliance, but Palin's centurion dealing with the crucifixion victims as though in a dentists'waiting -room...ah yes, you can smell the antiseptic mouthwash... was just perfect.

[boatsnguitars]

I think...
In my opinion...
I think...
I think...
I don't think..
I think...

Very well. But what does God think? Tell us.

[1213]

Very well. But what does God think? Tell us.

If you really want to know that, I recommend to read the Bible.

[boatsnguitars]

Very well. But what does God think? Tell us.

If you really want to know that, I recommend to read the Bible.

Have you confirmed that God agrees with everything in the Bible?

(BTW, to all the lurkers: His is the kind of smarmy response you can learn if you read 3rd grade apologetics, too!)