@fmf saidI don’t think the premise of your OP is correct.
The application of ubiquitous 'Golden Rule'-type moral imperatives - like love thy neighbour and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - clearly evolve over time. How is this evolution best approached?
How have they clearly evolved over time? I don’t think they’ve evolved at all - in interpretation or application.
19 Mar 23
@plantermoo saidOk, thanks for that thought.
I don’t think the premise of your OP is correct.
How have they clearly evolved over time? I don’t think they’ve evolved at all - in interpretation or application.
19 Mar 23
@fmf saidMick Jagger sang something like 'Do unto strangers, what you do to yourself.'
The application of ubiquitous 'Golden Rule'-type moral imperatives - like love thy neighbour and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - clearly evolve over time. How is this evolution best approached?
Which is sort of evolutionary, although I'm not sure what he meant by that.....
@indonesia-phil saidAs Zappa sang:
Mick Jagger sang something like 'Do unto strangers, what you do to yourself.'
Which is sort of evolutionary, although I'm not sure what he meant by that.....
Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 177029
19 Mar 23
@fmf saidSeems there’s a change in the wording from “ love” to “hate”.😢
The application of ubiquitous 'Golden Rule'-type moral imperatives - like love thy neighbour and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - clearly evolve over time. How is this evolution best approached?
20 Mar 23
@great-big-stees saidI think the fact that some people have a God figure who they believe hates "sin" is used by many of those people to justify their replacement of "love" with "hate" in their perception and interaction with people they adjudge to be "sinners".
Seems there’s a change in the wording from “ love” to “hate”.😢
@fmf saidThis has not evolved over time. It's just as true now as the day it was written. Treating people with the same respect as you would like to have for yourself is the foundation of civilized behavior. So, you don't have to approach "this evolution" differently because there is no evolution.
The application of ubiquitous 'Golden Rule'-type moral imperatives - like love thy neighbour and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - clearly evolve over time. How is this evolution best approached?
Many people have lost site of the fact that Gods laws and teachings were not designed to unduly restrict us, but rather to keep us from destroying ourselves, and each other.
Now, if you'll excuse, the WA Open is 6 weeks away, and as Vince Lombardi once said: "The will to prepare to win is more important than the will to win!" 😏
20 Mar 23
@mchill saidYou don't have to approach "this evolution" differently because there is no evolution
This has not evolved over time. It's just as true now as the day it was written. Treating people with the same respect as you would like to have for yourself is the foundation of civilized behavior. So, you don't have to approach "this evolution" differently because there is no evolution.
How about the status of women? How about tolerance of homosexuality? How about the rejection of slavery? How about the turn away from capital punishment? What about the emergence of the notion of individual human rights? Just five examples. No change? No evolution?
20 Mar 23
@plantermoo saidThe Bible clearly supported slavery. Thank goodness we have evolved on from those days. (Difficult to love your neighbour when your neighbour is viewed as property).
I don’t think the premise of your OP is correct.
How have they clearly evolved over time? I don’t think they’ve evolved at all - in interpretation or application.
20 Mar 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI disagree.
The Bible clearly supported slavery. Thank goodness we have evolved on from those days. (Difficult to love your neighbour when your neighbour is viewed as property).
The Bible mentioned slavery multiple times and even gave some guidelines regarding it but did not specifically support it.
@mchill saidIn Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
I disagree.
The Bible mentioned slavery multiple times and even gave some guidelines regarding it but did not specifically support it.
How is the above not specifically supporting slavery?
20 Mar 23
@mchill saidYou really are ignorant [like typical Christians], about what the bible contains. The bible supports the Jews enslaving others. Now what you can claim is that there were good reasons for this at that time since these people wanted to destroy the Jews as well. Here is the Law of Moses on this matter of having people as possessions
I disagree.
The Bible mentioned slavery multiple times and even gave some guidelines regarding it but did not specifically support it.
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. (Leviticus 25:44-46 KJV)
20 Mar 23
@ghost-of-a-duke saidChristian churches do not preach what the bible contains. They preach that they are saved and everyone else is going to hell.
I sometimes wonder if some Christians actually know what's in the Bible.