0
   

The evolutionary "advantage" of moral behaviour

 
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 01:49 pm
Compassion, empathy, morality ..

Ah. Three words. They rise in the air like escaped balloons. Oh my, must we chase them..? shall we chase them? Look! See how their plastic sphincters rattle out gusts of old, stale wind! Oh see them rise!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 01:53 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
neologist wrote:
The social contract has one flaw: the eventual excesses of the powerful acting 'on behalf of' the weak.


Neologist,

I thought that your philosophy was Bible based. The powerful acting on behalf of the weak is one of the most consistant themes of Biblical ethics.


Perhaps in parts of the New Testament. But the Old Testament certainly doesn't indulge this theme.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 01:57 pm
Sorry I didn't more noticeably highlight the words 'on behalf'. As Denis Diderot so aptly said. "Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

One of my main arguments has to do with the way in which God's word has been hijacked as an ambidexter implement for exploiting those it was meant to comfort.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 02:06 pm
neologist wrote:
Sorry I didn't more noticeably highlight the words 'on behalf'. As Denis Diderot so aptly said. "Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

One of my main arguments has to do with the way in which God's word has been hijacked as an ambidexter implement for exploiting those it was meant to comfort.


Ambidextered implementatative exploitational hijacking?
I'm all for it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 09:24 pm
John Jones wrote:
Ambidextered implementatative exploitational hijacking?
I'm all for it.
Many are. Many are.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2005 09:31 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Neologist,

I thought that your philosophy was Bible based. The powerful acting on behalf of the weak is one of the most consistant themes of Biblical ethics.


Perhaps in parts of the New Testament. But the Old Testament certainly doesn't indulge this theme.


You are wrong there Frank. The Old Testament has many passages throughout that the rich should help the poor, and the powerful should help the weak. Some examples:

Exodus 22:25-27 wrote:

"If you lend money to My people-to the poor person among you, you must not be like a moneylender to him; you must not charge him interest.

"If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as collateral, return it to him before sunset. For it is his only covering; it is the clothing for his body. What will he sleep in?

And if he cries out to Me, I will listen because I am compassionate.


Jeremiah 12 wrote:

This is what the Lord says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don't exploit or brutalize the alien, the fatherless, or the widow. Don't shed innocent blood in this place.

For if you conscientiously carry out this word, then kings sitting on David's throne will enter through the gates of this palace riding on chariots and horses-they, their officers, and their people.

But if you do not obey these words, then I swear by Myself"-[this is] the Lord's declaration-"that this house will become a ruin."


Deut 24 wrote:

Do not oppress a hired hand who is poor and needy, whether one of your brothers or one of the foreigners residing within a town in your land. You are to pay him his wages each day before the sun sets, because he is poor and depends on them. Otherwise he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be held guilty.

... Do not deny justice to a foreign resident [or] fatherless child, and do not take a widow's garment as security. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. Therefore I am commanding you to do this.


I am angry at the hypocrisy of today's Christians who completely ignore these passages in favor of unbiblical nationalism and greed.

Christians who believed these parts of the Bible would have my respect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:14:25