Humanity should be BEFORE god

when Humanity thinks of god , god is always superior to Humanity

yet I have never found this attitude to be a good attitude

do you ?

0 Replies

No, I don't think it's a good attitude either.

I think the concept of putting humanity before anyone or anything else IS God: it is love - and God is love - so Love is God.

If all humans were capable of doing this we wouldn't need a god because we would be God.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

No, I don't think it's a good attitude either.

I think the concept of putting humanity before anyone or anything else IS God: it is love - and God is love - so Love is God.

If all humans were capable of doing this we wouldn't need a god because we would be God.

hmmm

I'm not talking " love " I'm just talking about being " GOOD " people towards each other

0 Replies

Surely taking life in the name of anything isn't "good". Of course, if a huge authority figure like God allows it; thusly making it "good", then one could justify the morality of any action at all.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

inotherwords ;

no Human life should be taken in the name of any god

discuss

This subject, not exactly in this form, is quite recurrent in A2K.

I could say that I don't agree, to make it very short - but then why posting at all...? So here are some of my thoughts about it.

Stating that human life is the most important thing on earth to preserve, more than God if it comes to that, is something most people tend to agree with. My minority report is that such a view will eventually turn humanity in something else, something that is not really human (or too human).

What's the future for men not accepting any risk for imposing themselves on their environment, escaping conflicts and violence? We shall know that soon, I guess. The last (western) men will peacefully respect the human rights while their civilization wanes and eventually dies.
(Btw, I do not mean that the war on terror has been an appropriate response).

Generally (human) life has taken good care of itself so far, occasionally establishing human rights, very seldom respecting them. It seems that we have come this far not by putting human life above anything else, but by supporting different values. Dominant groups might have presented such ideologies like the "neminem laede" you seem to endorse, but the practice has normally been quite different. Even Gandhi, probably the greatest übermensch history has produced so far - and I am dead serious about that, or Jesus Christ, never accepted compromise, never refused the sacrifice of lives for achieving a greater goal.
I am deliberately quoting these two anti-violence figures, just because I want to highlight the difference (and the danger IMO) of your view compared to them. Even rejecting the practice of violence, they sought conflicts, huge conflicts. They accepted risks and the possible loss of their lives - and that eventually happened for both of them as for many of their followers. Christ maybe did that for a God, Gandhi for his people - against other people - and for a model of society.
Whether they were right or wrong, good or bad, is totally irrelevant from my point of view.
Without this impulsion and the action to change the environment, through conflicts whenever necessary, taking (economically) irrational risks, one can barely speak of humanity.

I guess that your ideal is more concerned with the preservation of individuals, than of humanity.
An individual in itself - stripped of anything it has done or could do - has no great value IMO, his "rights" are not in the natural order of things and, ultimately, every individual is expendable.
(As I see it, this is as one of the reasons that have made mankind flourish to date. I guess that this last statement is something you could not ever subscribe. But do not worry. I fear that the future, a very short future anyway, will be different).

1 Reply

@north,

Humanity are indeed before any god, just that some fanatics are not able to comprehend that.

0 Replies

@aidan,

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son."

BUT, "The wages if sin is death."

What kind of love is that?

0 Replies

@attano,

attano wrote:

north wrote:

inotherwords ;

no Human life should be taken in the name of any god

discuss

Quote:
This subject, not exactly in this form, is quite recurrent in A2K.

I could say that I don't agree, to make it very short - but then why posting at all...? So here are some of my thoughts about it.

Quote:
Stating that human life is the most important thing on earth to preserve, more than God if it comes to that, is something most people tend to agree with.

yet what is your evidence for this thinking , for I see no evidence

Quote:
My minority report is that such a view will eventually turn humanity in something else, something that is not really human (or too human).

what something else ?

Quote:
What's the future for men not accepting any risk for imposing themselves on their environment, escaping conflicts and violence? We shall know that soon, I guess. The last (western) men will peacefully respect the human rights while their civilization wanes and eventually dies.
(Btw, I do not mean that the war on terror has been an appropriate response).

that is something we must all learn

not just western man but ALL of man

name me a part of the globe that has all three under control

Quote:
Generally (human) life has taken good care of itself so far, occasionally establishing human rights, very seldom respecting them. It seems that we have come this far not by putting human life above anything else, but by supporting different values. Dominant groups might have presented such ideologies like the "neminem laede" you seem to endorse, but the practice has normally been quite different. Even Gandhi, probably the greatest übermensch history has produced so far - and I am dead serious about that, or Jesus Christ, never accepted compromise, never refused the sacrifice of lives for achieving a greater goal.

Quote:
I am deliberately quoting these two anti-violence figures, just because I want to highlight the difference (and the danger IMO) of your view compared to them. Even rejecting the practice of violence, they sought conflicts, huge conflicts. They accepted risks and the possible loss of their lives - and that eventually happened for both of them as for many of their followers. Christ maybe did that for a God, Gandhi for his people - against other people - and for a model of society.
Whether they were right or wrong, good or bad, is totally irrelevant from my point of view.
Without this impulsion and the action to change the environment, through conflicts whenever necessary, taking (economically) irrational risks, one can barely speak of humanity.

Gandhi was of Humanity

christ is not

Quote:
I guess that your ideal is more concerned with the preservation of individuals, than of humanity.

no Humanity

Quote:
An individual in itself - stripped of anything it has done or could do - has no great value IMO, his "rights" are not in the natural order of things and, ultimately, every individual is expendable.

where did this come from ????

Quote:
(As I see it, this is as one of the reasons that have made mankind flourish to date. I guess that this last statement is something you could not ever subscribe. But do not worry. I fear that the future, a very short future anyway, will be different).

because of god

god will be the down fall of Humanity

1 Reply

@north,

I have neither proofs nor confutations to offer.
You asked for thoughts, and that's what I have tried to present.
I have no more evidence for my views than you have for yours, maybe less...

north wrote:

Quote:
Stating that human life is the most important thing on earth to preserve, more than God if it comes to that, is something most people tend to agree with.

yet what is your evidence for this thinking , for I see no evidence

As I said I am not here for presenting evidence. I find this theme of the the absolute value of the preservation of humanity, without "if-s" and "but-s", echoed in many posts appearing on A2K, the reply that you got in this thread seems not to contradict that.

north wrote:

Quote:
My minority report is that such a view will eventually turn humanity in something else, something that is not really human (or too human).

what something else ?

There is not a single answer for that. It is a complex issue that I am not able to unravel it in a few lines. There would be also a key distinction to do between the ideology and the actual set of leading (moral) values. In my view a thoroughly objective analysis is not possible here - leaving aside if a thoroughly objective analysis is possible at all in philosophy.
Anyway, just as an example, even the French Revolution, which probably was the first to embrace this religion of humanity, posited reason and freedom as the greatest goods to achieve, not the preservation of humanity.

north wrote:

Quote:
What's the future for men not accepting any risk for imposing themselves on their environment, escaping conflicts and violence? We shall know that soon, I guess. The last (western) men will peacefully respect the human rights while their civilization wanes and eventually dies.
(Btw, I do not mean that the war on terror has been an appropriate response).

that is something we must all learn

not just western man but ALL of man

name me a part of the globe that has all three under control

Sorry, but I fail to understand your point.
What are the three out of control? (risk, conflict and violence? I still don't get the point).

north wrote:

Gandhi was of Humanity

christ is not

Regardless who was what, Gandhi was not against religion as Christ was not against humanity, far from it for both of them. Still, IMO none of them posited the preservation of humanity as their goal. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that Gandhi would have agreed that no man man should be killed in the name of God, but probably because of what he considered to be the true nature of religion.

north wrote:

Quote:
An individual in itself - stripped of anything it has done or could do - has no great value IMO, his "rights" are not in the natural order of things and, ultimately, every individual is expendable.

where did this come from ????

That would be my opinion...
As outrageous as it may sound to you, I am not going to change it because of 4 question marks. (But, of course, you are free to dislike it and criticize it).

north wrote:

Quote:
(As I see it, this is as one of the reasons that have made mankind flourish to date. I guess that this last statement is something you could not ever subscribe. But do not worry. I fear that the future, a very short future anyway, will be different).

because of god

god will be the down fall of Humanity

(I believe that you attach some importance to capital letters, therefore Humanity with "H" shows the respect you pay to it, while god with "g" your disrespect. I have nothing against that, I just inform you that my use of caps and smalls is not symmetric to yours).

I do not mean to defend God, he definitely would not need me to do that and, anyway, he's dead...
But the old God had the quality to sustain and push men through life, occasionally to death too - btw, we all shall die some day, also in the foreseeable future.
(I would find more dignifying to be slain by the hand of god (or his agents) rather than being run over by a truck, or electrocuted by a hair drier fallen in my tub - but that's just a matter of personal taste, I guess).

Weather humanity is a better god than God... well I just tried to say that I do not think so, at least not for the humanity seeking self-preservation as the greatest good.

0 Replies

Humanity should be BEFORE god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know