Families Are Forever . or Not

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably as many would change that way as would change knowing they would not be seeing others eternally into less responsible and kind because they didn't worry about being held accountable in the afterlife in some way.

I am very grateful for the belief in eternity I have because I don't hate a number of people for unintentionally and intentionally (in the sense they knew they were being dismissive of what was important for me or people generally) robbing me of my dreams because I can still fulfill them in the next life.  I am grateful for the belief in eternity so I don't have to think of my mother's last years as robbed from her due to dementia, as what made her unique is gone.

Oh, I'm with you all the way, with my mom. I lost many years of her with Alzheimer's, she started at 62! I hope so much I see both my parents in the afterlife and her especially to catch up the years lost. But at the same time I wonder if some, not all, worry about "fixing" things in the afterlife, or having eons of years to do it with some relationships. And wondered if we thought this was it, we'd do better. But I do see your side as well.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I'm with you all the way, with my mom. I lost many years of her with Alzheimer's, she started at 62! I hope so much I see both my parents in the afterlife and her especially to catch up the years lost. But at the same time I wonder if some, not all, worry about "fixing" things in the afterlife, or having eons of years to do it with some relationships. And wondered if we thought this was it, we'd do better. But I do see your side as well.

There are so many things we can't fix.  I think for me the burden of that would cripple me emotionally, but that could be due to always believing there would be healing eventually.  If I had been brought up without that hope, I likely would have developed coping mechanisms.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/1/2020 at 12:58 PM, theplains said:

I would say the real concern should be if you are forever separated from Jesus or not.  

But regarding LDS theology, a forever family is dependent on whether all family members are exalted
to Godhood.  If not, I suppose this could then be termed a 'not-forever-family'.  Assuming Heavenly
Father was once a man who became a God (as Joseph Smith taught) and He had brothers, He too
might currently be living in such a disconnected forever-partial-family.

The covenants we make in the temple bind us and our posterity for all eternity. There is no indication that some will be excluded. The only exception may be the extremely rare loss of a loved one to Perdition.

[Islander]

7 hours ago, cacheman said:

The excerpts smac posted above appear to show that her writing is not motivated or born out of tension, but to highlight the fact that despite differences in religious thought, we still share life experiences and lasting connections.  She expressed this in a way that was respectful towards her former faith.  I think it's poor form to respond to her writing by implying that she is experiencing tension due to unsettled beliefs, and that she is not a 'true athiest'.  In the excerpts above, it's not apparent that she views herself as an athiest.  In any case, why should I give credence to your desription of what a 'true athiest' believes, when I could simply ask an athiest?  

 

I used the word "tension", in quotes to reflect the fact that it could be called tension as to when a person is experiencing/expressing thoughts, feelings or attempting to reconcile two juxtaposed concepts. Se claims that she no longer believe there is anything on the other side of death. That implies that she is no longer an adherent to Christianity. While at the same time wondering about how people that do believe (her family) experience death and what expectations they hold now that she is no longer a member of that tribe. Could she be a Buddhist? I guess.

As far as atheists are concerned, I just pointed to (R. Dawkins and J. Grey) some of the most public and vocal exponents of that philosophical current and what they think and say about humanism. This is atheism taken to its logical conclusion. I know, it is not pretty, but it is clear and simple where you end up when you reject all and every notion that there is God that created the universe.

[Islander]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:08 PM, mfbukowski said:

We do not believe in omniscience and certainly not omnipresence.

We believe in an immanent God who allows himself to be subject to natural law, and "organizes" worlds from existent material instead of ex nihilo.

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God;_Omnipresence_of_God;_Omniscience_of_God

 

The text that you quoted states: that their power is immanent "in all and through all things" and is the power "by which all things are governed" which means that God's power is present everywhere at all times. Further states: "No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning." So He knows ALL things. 

God exists outside His own creation, including time and space. He is NOT part of it not is He subject to His own creation (including natural law) which would imply that His own creation has power over Him. Christ is God made man and as a man He experienced in His flesh as to fulfill the ends of the Law and satisfy the requirement of it. But He commanded the elements at will.

[Islander]

On 5/2/2020 at 2:20 PM, Tacenda said:

I think I could handle being this kind of humanist! I like what she said in the video about treating people how they wanted to be treated vs. the old way, treating people how you would want to be treated. https://www.abc4.com/gtu/meet-the-9-year-old-author-of-elle-the-humanist/?fbclid=IwAR0d4Db_ow5-wpRpbObmm-3VZt0c4EhNtRGVUtrfltY5AYshsRUYzNxT9gg

In the secular West that is a prevailing view but not so elsewhere. Humanists avail themselves of the moral values and privileges of societies with a Judeo-Christian foundation while discarding the notion of God as the bedrock of said values and way of life. It was the God of the bible that said "Love thy neighbor as thy self" before men decided to paraphrase the "golden rule". 

Without a moral absolute dictated by a Moral Law, handed down from a Moral Law Giver, you could love your neighbor or eat them, depending on the circumstances. I have been places where that is not a euphemism. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

He is NOT part of it not is He subject to His own creation (including natural law) which would imply that His own creation has power over Him.

Nope.

It is called "self determination"

If you promise yourself to never eat chocolate cake, would that imply that chocolate has power over you?

I have no clue how "power" could be "present" anywhere.

"My power is present in that table".

What does that mean?  Perhaps I have power to move or do something to the table but my power is resident in ME not the table.  "All powerful"?  Powerful enough to make a boulder he cannot lift?   That is the absurd phrase used to show the logical contradiction in the idea itself

 

This is a semantic game and not worth pursuing.

 

The body of the savior was clearly "immanent" and as a body in space, still is, or it does not "exist" in any intelligible sense.  We are materialists- "there is no immaterial matter".  Spirit matter is more refined it is said, but is still material, and thus is also "immanent" and not "transcendent"

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Further states: "No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning." So He knows ALL things. 

Saying that "no event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning" is not logically equivalent to "He knows all things"

First of all what do you men by "things"??  Are ideas "things"?  How much do they weigh?

Can you see what Paulsen is talking about here are EVENTS- just as he says?   William James likens an immanent God to a Master Chess Player who takes all possible events into consideration in his planning, but who does not necessarily know which event will come next.   We just know that he is prepared for any possible occurrence, and all fit into his plan.   THAT is what is being said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

Quote

In religion, transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience, transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence, and by some definitions, has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, rituals[1], meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions".

For us, even spirit is "matter" and therefore part of the "material universe"   Were God not immanent, he could not be, nor act as our "Father".  He simply could not care, he would be above all this human nonsense and we would have no purpose for even being except to perhaps give him praise and glory- implying that he is a narcissist.  

Christ "commanding the elements at will" simply shows that there is no event or natural law with which he is not familiar.

Hundreds of years ago, radio transmission would look like a "miracle", but it is simply mankind learning more about what works for us in this material universe, and what we can do.   It teaches us more about US than the universe.  "Oh look!  We can now use nuclear power" is not about our power being somehow in all places at all times. 

It is just about what works and knowing how it works.

If you already know how the universe works, you do not NEED "miracles" or the "supernatural" since you know that all things are "natural" anyway and subject to natural laws.

Omnipotence and Omniscience are no longer necessary concepts, or useful descriptions because they are logically flawed concepts.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

 

Without a moral absolute dictated by a Moral Law, handed down from a Moral Law Giver, you could love your neighbor or eat them, depending on the circumstances. I have been places where that is not a euphemism.

And how is that culture surviving?   I am a believer but evolution itself will take down a culture which believes that.  It self - destructs, thank God, or its neighbors take them out first. 

People don't like to be eaten by their friends for some odd reason.

Unfortunately atheists tend to be pretty moral folks and have no need for a "Moral Law Giver".   Morals simply evolve in any society or it will fail, headhunters included.  That argument simply doesn't work, that some kind of Law Giver is necessary for a moral society.

Edited May 4, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And how is that culture surviving?   I am a believer but evolution itself will take down a culture which believes that.  It self - destructs, thank God, or its neighbors take them out first. 

People don't like to be eaten by their friends for some odd reason.

Unfortunately atheists tend to be pretty moral folks and have no need for a "Moral Law Giver".   Morals simply evolve in any society or it will fail, headhunters included.  That argument simply doesn't work, that some kind of Law Giver is necessary for a moral society.

Immanuel Kant noted several centuries ago, morality is largely constituted by categorical imperatives: nonnegotiable rules of behavior to which every human being must conform. I will argue that such a demand makes sense only if there exists a moral lawgiver who made us as moral agents capable of apprehending an objective moral standard external to us and applying it to ourselves. We exist in a world that comes packaged with a moral law that we did not invent. We discover it and once we do, we find that we are bound by it.

Atheist philosopher Louise Anthony writes, "I take it that theists and atheists will agree about what it means to say that morality is objective: first, whether something is right or wrong does not depend on any human being’s attitudes toward it, and second, moral facts are independent of human will." An atheistic (or simply Humanistic) worldview has no external framework for anyone to accept your notion of evil, or to accept your standard. And some civilizations have moved on for thousands of years while ignoring a moral law as we see it and understanding. 

Again, anyone can (and many do) go on living, enjoying and benefiting from the values and perks of the societies and civilizations that are grounded in a Judeo-Christian world view. While many others, the world over, do the same while existing in and ascribing to a completely different world view. But I contend that no Humanist or Atheist philosophical theory can prove that ethics and morality just "evolved" from human understanding. It was much later in human history that an argument to exclude God from the moral law and ethics took form. But still, neither purely humanistic or materialistic arguments can fully account for it.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Islander said:

Immanuel Kant noted several centuries ago, morality is largely constituted by categorical imperatives: nonnegotiable rules of behavior to which every human being must conform. I will argue that such a demand makes sense only if there exists a moral lawgiver who made us as moral agents capable of apprehending an objective moral standard external to us and applying it to ourselves. We exist in a world that comes packaged with a moral law that we did not invent. We discover it and once we do, we find that we are bound by it.

Atheist philosopher Louise Anthony writes, "I take it that theists and atheists will agree about what it means to say that morality is objective: first, whether something is right or wrong does not depend on any human being’s attitudes toward it, and second, moral facts are independent of human will." An atheistic (or simply Humanistic) worldview has no external framework for anyone to accept your notion of evil, or to accept your standard. And some civilizations have moved on for thousands of years while ignoring a moral law as we see it and understanding. 

Again, anyone can (and many do) go on living, enjoying and benefiting from the values and perks of the societies and civilizations that are grounded in a Judeo-Christian world view. While many others, the world over, do the same while existing in and ascribing to a completely different world view. But I contend that no Humanist or Atheist philosophical theory can prove that ethics and morality just "evolved" from human understanding. It was much later in human history that an argument to exclude God from the moral law and ethics took form. But still, neither purely humanistic or materialistic arguments can fully account for it.

So now Kant teaches LDS theology, huh?

You are really making an argument from authority trying to do what?  Show that Kant believed in God.

Sure he did.

I suggest you summarize his argument instead of skipping it.   I am not going to debate Kant with you, and besides what Kant thought is irrelevant to LDS doctrine- I don't know why you brought it up.

Or perhaps you could summarize correctly Antony's argument (you misspelled her last name) instead of relying on one quote.

Of course that might be a nice conversation- but again irrelevant to LDS theology.

One can cite different theological positions all day long about what people believe, but you have repeatedly NOT replied to any of my posts, you always go off on a different angle that does not make a coherent argument.

 

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder all the time, if people didn't know they'd see their loved ones, wouldn't they be kinder and not waste time or take each other for granted? Maybe this would change the way things are put down for their future progenitors as well. 

Exactly.

[Islander]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So now Kant teaches LDS theology, huh?

You are really making an argument from authority trying to do what?  Show that Kant believed in God.

Sure he did.

I suggest you summarize his argument instead of skipping it.   I am not going to debate Kant with you, and besides what Kant thought is irrelevant to LDS doctrine- I don't know why you brought it up.

Or perhaps you could summarize correctly Antony's argument (you misspelled her last name) instead of relying on one quote.

Of course that might be a nice conversation- but again irrelevant to LDS theology.

One can cite different theological positions all day long about what people believe, but you have repeatedly NOT replied to any of my posts, you always go off on a different angle that does not make a coherent argument.

 

We have drifted hopelessly away from the topic. I pointed to the fact that the author of the article in question had become an atheist with a humanistic veneer. You posited that there was nothing wrong with humanism. I counter that humanists have no legs to stand on since they are adhering to a sense of morality that voided of a moral law has no real foundation. I pointed to the fact that even early philosophers and humanists believed that ALL moral law precedes the musings of men and God is the author and moral law giver. We can pretend, and many do, to live away from God while enjoying the benefits and perks of societies founded on a Judeo-Christian world view.

As far as LDS theology, you seldom hear it articulated from the pulpit. You have to go to the journal of discourses and others texts. Study aids brush lightly on it. But the biblical record is clear and explicit as to the nature of God. The Vision does nothing to discredit that fact. God reveals Himself to His creation in whatever form He chooses according to the circumstances. In Gen. 15 He appears to Abraham as a furnace. Are we to believe that is the "form" of God? He appears in bodily form for our benefit. As far as His power and omniscience, God knows everything and He acts on whatsoever He desire for His own purposes, when He pleases. LDS theology affirms that as well.

Psalm 115:3  in order to affect the covenant

Daniel 4:35 

Isaiah 46:10 

Proverbs 21:1 

Psalm 135:6 

Proverbs 19:21 

Ephesians 1:11 

Romans 8:28 

Psalm 103:19 

Proverbs 16:33 

Romans 9:18 

Proverbs 16:9 

1 Chronicles 29:11 

Proverbs 16:4 

Genesis 50:20 

1 Timothy 6:15 

John 6:44 

Just a few verses. That was the core of the argument. 

 

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Islander said:

We have drifted hopelessly away from the topic. I pointed to the fact that the author of the article in question had become an atheist with a humanistic veneer. You posited that there was nothing wrong with humanism. I counter that humanists have no legs to stand on since they are adhering to a sense of morality that voided of a moral law has no real foundation. I pointed to the fact that even early philosophers and humanists believed that ALL moral law precedes the musings of men and God is the author and moral law giver. We can pretend, and many do, to live away from God while enjoying the benefits and perks of societies founded on a Judeo-Christian world view.

As far as LDS theology, you seldom hear it articulated from the pulpit. You have to go to the journal of discourses and others texts. Study aids brush lightly on it. But the biblical record is clear and explicit as to the nature of God. The Vision does nothing to discredit that fact. God reveals Himself to His creation in whatever form He chooses according to the circumstances. In Gen. 15 He appears to Abraham as a furnace. Are we to believe that is the "form" of God? He appears in bodily form for our benefit. As far as His power and omniscience, God knows everything and He acts on whatsoever He desire for His own purposes, when He pleases. LDS theology affirms that as well.

Psalm 115:3  in order to affect the covenant

Daniel 4:35 

Isaiah 46:10 

Proverbs 21:1 

Psalm 135:6 

Proverbs 19:21 

Ephesians 1:11 

Romans 8:28 

Psalm 103:19 

Proverbs 16:33 

Romans 9:18 

Proverbs 16:9 

1 Chronicles 29:11 

Proverbs 16:4 

Genesis 50:20 

1 Timothy 6:15 

John 6:44 

Just a few verses. That was the core of the argument. 

 

Thank you, yes I have read those scriptures several times, and understand that they were written by fallible though inspired men, and  I understand the process by which they were selected to be crowned "scripture", as well as the vagaries of translation, and so I am not convinced that they are necessarily the "word of God" as literally written.  Though I have used the term myself, there really IS no LDS "theology" in any systematic sense- there are only interpretations of scripture from individual men as they are inspired to share.   We do not do "theology" in the sense that other faiths use that term.

The only way we can determine if we should regard them as "scripture"- AND the implications of doing so- is through the spirit as revealed to each of us personally.

I know I have received my answers, and believe you have received yours.   Everyone is at different points in the path, and God teaches us what we individually need to learn. 

[california boy]

20 hours ago, Islander said:

In the secular West that is a prevailing view but not so elsewhere. Humanists avail themselves of the moral values and privileges of societies with a Judeo-Christian foundation while discarding the notion of God as the bedrock of said values and way of life. It was the God of the bible that said "Love thy neighbor as thy self" before men decided to paraphrase the "golden rule". 

Without a moral absolute dictated by a Moral Law, handed down from a Moral Law Giver, you could love your neighbor or eat them, depending on the circumstances. I have been places where that is not a euphemism. 

Christ certainly said a lot of very wonderful ldeals to live by, but those that follow Judeo-Christian beliefs don't even come close to actually living those ideals.   I see little evidence of the "golden rule" being a bedrock of western culture.  I actually have seen more kindness and respect for others in other cultures.  Certainly the Asian culture is based on a respect for others much more than western cultures.

The argument you present is a myth.  Western civilization may very well have used some of the principles taught in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that Christians actually practice what Christ taught.  

[Islander]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Christ certainly said a lot of very wonderful ldeals to live by, but those that follow Judeo-Christian beliefs don't even come close to actually living those ideals.   I see little evidence of the "golden rule" being a bedrock of western culture.  I actually have seen more kindness and respect for others in other cultures.  Certainly the Asian culture is based on a respect for others much more than western cultures.

The argument you present is a myth.  Western civilization may very well have used some of the principles taught in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that Christians actually practice what Christ taught.  

The fact that we continue to fail as christian is undeniable. But it is also a fact that the foundation of western civilization is the Judeo-Christian worldview. Our very own constitution is a good example. There is no other document that embodies the notion that men are created equal and endowed by God with rights that are not given by man. We can not confuse the failures of men with God's ideals and our inability to fulfill them. In practice, western societies continue to drift away from the notion that God matters. The result is that after nearly a century of socio-political engineering, the decay of society is all we have to show for, if any. 

As far as Asian societies go, I believe you have bought the myth of the 19th century peasant, Asian societies. I have been in Asia several times since the 90's and my view differs much from yours in that regard. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I see little evidence of the "golden rule" being a bedrock of western culture.  I actually have seen more kindness and respect for others in other cultures.  Certainly the Asian culture is based on a respect for others much more than western cultures.

I try to promote clear thinking and just point out logical errors.

It doesn't follow that even if the golden rule is the Bedrock of Western culture that other cultures could not be better at actually doing it.

Your argument shows us nothing about whether or not it is a bedrock of Western culture.

Similarly it may not be "true" in any empirical sense,  that we have inalienable rights given to us by God, for that assumption to be the bedrock of the Constitution, while yet having that belief justify human the idea of universal human rights.

This is just another manifestation of confusing empirical facts with the pragmatic value of moral beliefs.

Facts about what "is" obviously do not justify moral beliefs,  or else all minorities would empirically already have all the rights that they seek so earnestly.

Is it empirically true that all minorities are treated the way they would like to be treated? Obviously not. Ought that to be the case?

Of course!

Equality of rights is a Bedrock belief but yet it is not empirically the case.

I don't mean to be pedantic but it's just that this is a very important point that really causes our conversations about these matters to be convoluted and ultimately senseless.

Sometimes it is called the "Is-Ought" distinction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Edited May 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Islander said:

But it is also a fact that the foundation of western civilization is the Judeo-Christian worldview. Our very own constitution is a good example. There is no other document that embodies the notion that men are created equal and endowed by God with rights that are not given by man. We can not confuse the failures of men with God's ideals and our inability to fulfill them. In practice, western societies continue to drift away from the notion that God matters. The result is that after nearly a century of socio-political engineering, the decay of society is all we have to show for, if any. 

Holy cow!

We actually agree on something!

[Meadowchik]

Just an aside for these tangents: the Golden Rule preceded Christianity. And a version of the "higher law" so-named by Jesus Christ can be logically founded. It's really not that complicated.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

The fact that we continue to fail as christian is undeniable. But it is also a fact that the foundation of western civilization is the Judeo-Christian worldview. Our very own constitution is a good example. There is no other document that embodies the notion that men are created equal and endowed by God with rights that are not given by man. We can not confuse the failures of men with God's ideals and our inability to fulfill them. In practice, western societies continue to drift away from the notion that God matters. The result is that after nearly a century of socio-political engineering, the decay of society is all we have to show for, if any. 

As far as Asian societies go, I believe you have bought the myth of the 19th century peasant, Asian societies. I have been in Asia several times since the 90's and my view differs much from yours in that regard. 

Your claim was that the "golden rule" is the bedrock of western civilization.  Sorry I am not seeing that anywhere throughout western history.  Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, Blacks against Whites, gays against the most devout "christians", nations against nations.  Perhaps you could point to this "golden age" where western civilization lived by this rule. History shows western civilization more as a devisive culture, pitting one group against the other.

While the Constitution may very well be based on good principles, that is hardly the outcome of that document in its influence on all of western culture.

Your swipe at peasant 19 century peasants tells me you really haven't spent much time in Asia.  I have traveled for months in Asia.  China, South Korea, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, to name a few.  I have been invited into their homes and always, always been shown nothing but respect and kindness.  If it is some kind of myth as you claim, they are doing a heck of a job of covering it up.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I try to promote clear thinking and just point out logical errors.

It doesn't follow that even if the golden rule is the Bedrock of Western culture that other cultures could not be better at actually doing it.

Your argument shows us nothing about whether or not it is a bedrock of Western culture.

Similarly it may not be "true" in any empirical sense,  that we have inalienable rights given to us by God, for that assumption to be the bedrock of the Constitution, while yet having that belief justify human the idea of universal human rights.

This is just another manifestation of confusing empirical facts with the pragmatic value of moral beliefs.

Facts about what "is" obviously do not justify moral beliefs,  or else all minorities would empirically already have all the rights that they seek so earnestly.

Is it empirically true that all minorities are treated the way they would like to be treated? Obviously not. Ought that to be the case?

Of course!

Equality of rights is a Bedrock belief but yet it is not empirically the case.

I don't mean to be pedantic but it's just that this is a very important point that really causes our conversations about these matters to be convoluted and ultimately senseless.

Sometimes it is called the "Is-Ought" distinction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

The statement that Islander stated, which responded to is this.

Quote

In the secular West that is a prevailing view but not so elsewhere.

That is just not true.  And while the Constitution may be founded on noble Christian views, that in no way means that Western Civilization is founded on or follows those beliefs. Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States does not define Western Culture throughout the centuries. Nor does it even represent the way all western nations are governed.  To dismiss other cultures as somehow not aspiring to live the "golden rule" just because they are not Christian is also a fallacy.

 I may not be addressing the points you made, but I am addressing the points Islander made.  He has presented a single document by a single nation who has fallen far short of it's ideals.  The Constitution of the United States does not represent the entire western civilization.

 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I may not be addressing the points you made, but I am addressing the points Islander made.

Then why are you bothering me with it?

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then why are you bothering me with it?

Because I think it is polite to respond to a comment, and try to clarify what my actual post was about.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Your claim was that the "golden rule" is the bedrock of western civilization.  Sorry I am not seeing that anywhere throughout western history.  Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, Blacks against Whites, gays against the most devout "christians", nations against nations.  Perhaps you could point to this "golden age" where western civilization lived by this rule. History shows western civilization more as a devisive culture, pitting one group against the other.

While the Constitution may very well be based on good principles, that is hardly the outcome of that document in its influence on all of western culture.

Your swipe at peasant 19 century peasants tells me you really haven't spent much time in Asia.  I have traveled for months in Asia.  China, South Korea, Thailand, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, to name a few.  I have been invited into their homes and always, always been shown nothing but respect and kindness.  If it is some kind of myth as you claim, they are doing a heck of a job of covering it up.

 

I said that the Judeo-Christian world view was the bedrock of western civilization. The fact that people continue to fail as Christian has nothing to do with what God has commanded and expects from us.  

In western societies, Christianity framed thought and discourse for nearly 1000 years. It was that education and worldview that shaped the beliefs and understanding of the world that led to the drafting of our Constitution, for example. To deny those facts is to simply play historical revisionism for kicks. 

Friend, Asians tolerate, entertain and even intermarry with white Europeans as a matter of course. But despise and are even openly hostile towards everybody else. I count myself among those that have experienced such treatment while traveling there for business. Do some research. Asians tend to be more xenophobic and ethnocentric than Europeans are, by far. 

[Islander]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Just an aside for these tangents: the Golden Rule preceded Christianity. And a version of the "higher law" so-named by Jesus Christ can be logically founded. It's really not that complicated.

Nobody can prove that morality emerges from logic; and they have tried. All systems of logic, that I'm aware of, have a concept of proof and a method of verifying with high degree of certainty whether an argument constitutes a proof. As long as the logic is consistent, once we verify a proof we can accept its conclusion without worrying that there may be another proof that makes the opposite conclusion. With morality though, we have no such method, and people all the time make moral arguments that can be reversed or called into question by other moral arguments.

Without being a system of logic, moral philosophical reasoning doesn't have any of the nice properties that a well-constructed system of logic would have, for example, consistency, validity, soundness, or even the more basic property that considering arguments in a different order, or in a different mood, won't cause a person to accept an entirely different set of conclusions. 

In an atheistic framework nothing can be right or wrong. After all, let us remember what R. Dawkins’s position is: that we are the random, unintended products of a universe that just happens to exist. We will live for some decades, if we are lucky, before descending into oblivion. There is no objective purpose in our life, as we are unintended. There is no ultimate consequence to our actions, as we will all be non-existent at some point in the not-too-distant future. There is nothing ‘sacred’ about human life. The idea of anything being intrinsically meaningful is anathema to atheism. Morality, the golden rule therefore, it is a meaningless concept to them for in their worldview it can not be justified.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Because I think it is polite to respond to a comment, and try to clarify what my actual post was about.

Ok sorry for being gruff.