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]

From what I have seen you have a denomination of one, and never mind I have said you ignore what the Bible says in favour of your own ideas, but you have pretty much dismissed mainstream Christianity because you disagree with it. You don't see the problem with pointing to the speck of dust in the eye of all those other denomination, but fail to see the lump in your own eye?

What I have ignored?

Please tell what is the "lump" in my eye?

1213 something that shows that you believe that God is downloading Truth into your head, and anyone who says different is wrong.

Actually I just read directly what is said in the Bible.

The 'lump' is right here: You posted - Yes, it is very clear for anyone who remains in truth. Different denominations come, because people don't remain in truth and like more of their own doctrines than what is said in the Bible.

I already said that you have developed a denomination of your own because you are coming up with your own ideas and backing them up with questionable quotes, even one or two that refute you; but you Believe they support you. Do you think other denominations can't quote scripture to their purpose?
You claim to be following the Bible but I think what you are doing is what all these founders, dissenters and apologists do - Come up with their own ideas abd beleive that God is dowloading Truth into their heads. Come on now, isn't that really what you think is happening? You then pick Bible verses that you think fit, and present them as 'evidence'. Just as the Creationist fiddled science evidence to support what they believe God is telling them.

You know and I'm sure, your insistence that you know better than what the Bible appears to say is direct from God, into your ever -lovin' bonce, isn'tit, really?

And, let's be very clear: Franciscan Monks are required to study the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Church Father's writings, etc. before they can become Monks. I dare say they have quite a bit of "truth" (as 1213 calls it) - yet, I don't think they've ended with the same result of "truth" as 1213. I doubt 1213 has had far less education - but seems to have far more "Truth". He must be a prophet!

[TRANSPONDER]

From what I have seen you have a denomination of one, and never mind I have said you ignore what the Bible says in favour of your own ideas, but you have pretty much dismissed mainstream Christianity because you disagree with it. You don't see the problem with pointing to the speck of dust in the eye of all those other denomination, but fail to see the lump in your own eye?

What I have ignored?

Please tell what is the "lump" in my eye?

1213 something that shows that you believe that God is downloading Truth into your head, and anyone who says different is wrong.

Actually I just read directly what is said in the Bible.

The 'lump' is right here: You posted - Yes, it is very clear for anyone who remains in truth. Different denominations come, because people don't remain in truth and like more of their own doctrines than what is said in the Bible.

I already said that you have developed a denomination of your own because you are coming up with your own ideas and backing them up with questionable quotes, even one or two that refute you; but you Believe they support you. Do you think other denominations can't quote scripture to their purpose?
You claim to be following the Bible but I think what you are doing is what all these founders, dissenters and apologists do - Come up with their own ideas abd beleive that God is dowloading Truth into their heads. Come on now, isn't that really what you think is happening? You then pick Bible verses that you think fit, and present them as 'evidence'. Just as the Creationist fiddled science evidence to support what they believe God is telling them.

You know and I'm sure, your insistence that you know better than what the Bible appears to say is direct from God, into your ever -lovin' bonce, isn'tit, really?

And, let's be very clear: Franciscan Monks are required to study the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Church Father's writings, etc. before they can become Monks. I dare say they have quite a bit of "truth" (as 1213 calls it) - yet, I don't think they've ended with the same result of "truth" as 1213. I doubt 1213 has had far less education - but seems to have far more "Truth". He must be a prophet!

Well... : ...I can hardly beef about independent thinkers, since all those assiduous Bible students haven't picked up a single serious contradiction or pretend they haven't. So I regard them with contempt as bamboozled dunces or dissembling scoundrels rather than Bible authorities. But thanks for pointing this out - I should commend our pal for thinking it out for himself (or herself, not that it matters) but my problem is that the differences don't appear to be based on any real understanding of the Bible, but personal ideas derived from faith, as the Biblequotes were only pasted on afterwards to provide the skinny king with impressive clothing. IF the belief was faithbased - and thus ascribed to revelation from God, even if they try to pretend it is logically worked out from the Bible (they cherry - pick or quotemine Biblequotes to fit afterwards) - so they are the only ones getting the Right Revelation? Nahh...

Alternatively, as I say, the doctrine supposedly worked out from the Bible does not look correct to me, as I have argued. I could be wrong - I never claimed to be a Bible scholar, but it seems clear to me what Paul's argument is and also clear that gospels follow Paul and build on them rather than Paul following the gospels. I may be wrong, but so far I haven't seen a proper debunk. The point being that our pal's claim to have worked out this doctrine from scripture is clearly (to me) not true and what has been done was come up with ideas from somewhere and pick a few hardly relevant Biblequotes to prop it up.

It doesn't. So while the principle of question and re-examination is fine, just adding another faithbased cult to the rest is not doing much to progress the debate.

P.s in my earlier days a colleague took me to his little crazy cult to see a puppet show his fellow believer and bonk was putting on. She did the king's new clothes, the message being unbelievers and skeptics thought they had fine clothes but they were nude.

Afterwards I said "You don't see that the message applies more to those with Beliefs based on Faith rather than on evidence?" He looked at me like I'd been talking Assyrian.

[1213]

... I already said that you have developed a denomination of your own because you are coming up with your own ideas and backing them up with questionable quotes, even one or two that refute you; but you Believe they support you. ...

I think I have only presented what the Bible tells. Please tell how it is not Biblical, but just my own idea?

[TRANSPONDER]

... I already said that you have developed a denomination of your own because you are coming up with your own ideas and backing them up with questionable quotes, even one or two that refute you; but you Believe they support you. ...

I think I have only presented what the Bible tells. Please tell how it is not Biblical, but just my own idea?

You are altering what I said. I said you have invented your own Christianity. I did not say that you have presented something other than what the Bible says. But I reckon, since you fiddle what I argue, that you have done that, too, in other discussions. You have fiddled the implication of Abrahamic righteousness through Godfaith, with everything that goes with it, including following the commands, though i recall that you deny the commands that are evil. For example the many massacres in the OT ordered or even done by God, personally. But the excuse is, from the killing of the first born to the destruction of the Temple 'They had it coming'. Lovely religion, ain't it?

The Bible argues for Faith not works, and that is implicit, even though, sure it tries to make it seem that Works is what it's all about. The centurion, Syrio Phoenecian woman and even Pilate, Faith in Jesus is what matters and enables, not good deeds. The idea that works, not Faith is what saves is your own denomination of One, when compared to either mainstream Christianity or the Bible.

[1213]

...
The Bible argues for Faith not works,...

That is not true. By what the Bible tells, faith and works both are meaningful. But, they are only results, not the cause. And cause is more meaningful than the result, because it defines the results.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
The Bible argues for Faith not works,...

That is not true. By what the Bible tells, faith and works both are meaningful. But, they are only results, not the cause. And cause is more meaningful than the result, because it defines the results.

Evasive and wriggling. Playing with words to evade the actual case. I don't recall how this became a point of dispute, but I know i said it was Faith in Jesus (that is, through belonging to the right religion) that saves and not works. You have forgotten that I also said that , although Paul argued that Righteousness in Abraham was because he had Faith in God (you argued it was in what God said or told him, which is really the same thing) and that made him Righteous, not whether he did good deeds or not (I also pointed out that Abraham was willing to murder his son on God's orders though God stopped him) and Paul simply changed Godfaith to Jesusfaith, because (he argues) the law will not save people because they are not Righteous and that nullifies the law.

He then modifies his argument because people (even when in Faith (or reborn from above, as John puts it) are not good in their actions, which is as true of Christianity then as it is now, and he had (in Corinthians) to warn that sinning can lose grace of salvation -giving Faith because Salvation without works means you can do as you like.

So I have never denied that 'both are meaningful' but it is not Works that saves but Faith.

[1213]

...but I know i said it was Faith in Jesus (that is, through belonging to the right religion) that saves and not works. ...

Why should I believe you instead of the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

...but I know i said it was Faith in Jesus (that is, through belonging to the right religion) that saves and not works. ...

Why should I believe you instead of the Bible?

I am asking you to believe the Bible - what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say. On Faith, not works being what saves. On prayer not working as the Bible guarantees it will but...as it would if prayer wasn't answered at all, but by luck. That the resurrections contradict despite inventing stuff not in the Bible to try to make it work (1) and best of all denying that Genesis says the sun was created after the daylight that should not exist before the sun was made, and the denial of the morning and evening that the Bible plainly says it is.

The Ghost Bible' - the one that exists in the Bible apologists' head, saying what they want rather than what it does, is just one of the horribly fascinating things about Bible apologetics.

(1) I'd still love to know where you got this 'The women split up' apologetic.