| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
22 Oct 2006 11:13:56 AM |
| Object: |
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans.
however in practice such presents many difficulties.
in the first place, how one might wish to be treated assumes that the
other person would wish to be treated the same way.
immediately personality and cultural context intervene.
where is the authority or arbiter to rule which person's "desired
treatment" is actually the "good one."
Ah, back to square one as they say.
another fallacy "evacuated."
Hello,
'Treat others as you would want to be treated', still should produce
more peaceful situations than unpeaceful. Even those murdering
terrorists would unlikely want others to murder them. So there is
actually no "fallacy" here whatsoever. Regardless of the culture,
overall, such wise council should bring more humans to a peaceful
situation than not.
Also, don't forget to add in parallel thoughts that Jesus said in
order to get the fuller meaning. For example Jesus said at Mt 19:19,
"...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (KJV)
And it goes even deeper. Mt 5:44,
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," (NASB)
I don't think it takes an 'Einstein' to see that following Jesus'
council would be the best thing for humanity. The "fallacy" here would
be to think that things would be better not following Jesus' words of
great wisdom!
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "cindys" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
22 Oct 2006 04:13:51 PM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
22 Oct 2006 04:29:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
22 Oct 2006 09:49:08 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
23 Oct 2006 12:28:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:49:08 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
26 Oct 2006 06:39:36 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:49:08 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
===>Falsely so. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
23 Oct 2006 08:43:15 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:49:08 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
"DO NOT DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH DANOE TO YOU." -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
24 Oct 2006 05:55:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:49:08 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:13:51 GMT, "cindys" <cstein1@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:dh5nj2hog0amitn1nqe9o6su1ikt05uie6@4ax.com...
"Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org>
Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" whether ascribed to
Hillel or Yeshua / Jesus is oft cited as the evidence for a system
which guarantees peace and progress for humans
-----------
Hillel never said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Rather what he said was: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to
you," which is really quite different.
That's better, but all these one-size-fits-all rules have one failing.
They put you in the other guy's shoes as yourself, not themselves.
The playwright George Bernard Shaw (the only person AFAIK to win both
the Nobel Prize for literature and an Oscar for screenplay)added a
rider to the golden rule: don't do to others what you would like them
to do to you, their tastes might be different.
All these rules go back almost as long as recorded civilisation. The
oldest version I have found is from India.
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Yes it does.
"DO NOT DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH DANOE TO YOU." -- L.
Which puts YOU n the other guy's shoes as YOURSELF, not him.
It's not what HE wouldn't want done to HIM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
24 Oct 2006 06:25:46 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
You are living a fantasy.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
Do you think joining a religion is a passive activity? A
victimization?
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
Yes it does.
"DO NOT DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH DANOE TO YOU." -- L.
Which puts YOU n the other guy's shoes as YOURSELF, not him.
It's not what HE wouldn't want done to HIM.
If person does not want to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, let her
speak out for herself. On statement of personal preferences, the
golden rule corrects the presumption and the consequent action with
"follow my wishes."
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
26 Oct 2006 06:52:40 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
You are living a fantasy.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
Do you think joining a religion is a passive activity? A
victimization?
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
This is the basis of the Inquisition and the Jihad! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
27 Oct 2006 01:35:23 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Too many religionists imagine that their god gave them their version
and this is the only reason to behave decently so the rest of us
can't.
And instead of behaving decently towards everybody else, they justify
their actions by their version of the rule.
You are living a fantasy.
For example too many Christians imagine that if they weren't believers
they would want to be converted.
Do you think joining a religion is a passive activity? A
victimization?
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
of course --and here is where the essence of her fallacy is exposed --
one might argue that 'masochism' 'sadism' and other "unkindly"
activities are prohibited elsewhere by this imaginary Iesou character.
thus ultimately one must appeal to a moral guidance SUPERIOR TO this
proposed "Golden Rule" in order to restrain it from running beserk.
and when we investigate the NT we discover that this foundational
guidance is torah.
that's all there is to it.
Proposing an imaginary "Aryan" Jesus inserted into Judaic culture to
inoculate the Jews has been done before by a friedn of Kaiser Wilhelm
II.
Like Terry Cross he knew nothing of the texts.
her next step would be a trip to India to search for the Golden Rue.
What a surprise she would have there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
27 Oct 2006 05:15:33 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
If you would like permission asked of you, why would you not grant your
neighbor the same courtesy? Such is the intelligent application of the
golden rule.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
The world of sadism and masochism is already lost to sanity and beyond
ethical reasoning. You might as well contrive ethical rules for foxes
and ravens.
This is the basis of the Inquisition and the Jihad! -- L.
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
28 Oct 2006 09:29:28 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
If you would like permission asked of you, why would you not grant your
neighbor the same courtesy? Such is the intelligent application of the
golden rule.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
The world of sadism and masochism is already lost to sanity and beyond
ethical reasoning. You might as well contrive ethical rules for foxes
and ravens.
This is the basis of the Inquisition and the Jihad! -- L.
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>You are so ignorant!
Fighting "heretics" is part of the Christian history from the beginning.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will.
===>Who told his followers to sell their coats and buy swords? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 03:27:44 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>You are so ignorant!
Fighting "heretics" is part of the
Christian history from the beginning.
They murdered Hypatia of Alexandria and burned the greatest library in
the world to the ground.
"All ships passing through the port of Alexandria were required to
allow copies to be made of any scrolls they had on board, if they were
of interest to the Library.
By the middle of the first century B.C., the Library had in its
possession 532,800 manuscripts, which were listed, filed and preserved
by highly sophisticated methods. One of its finest achievements was the
"Pinakes" of Callimachus, a catalogue of all existing works, which not
only gave their titles but also supplied detailed information on the
authors and their works, as well analyzing each text. This gigantic
bibliography, now lost,..."
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will.
===>Who told his followers to sell their coats
and buy swords? -- L.
She has things backwards --the "Jesus" with whom she is unnaturally
enamored is not the Yehudi Yeshua, it is that simple.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 01:00:33 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
If you would like permission asked of you, why would you not grant your
neighbor the same courtesy? Such is the intelligent application of the
golden rule.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
The world of sadism and masochism is already lost to sanity and beyond
ethical reasoning. You might as well contrive ethical rules for foxes
and ravens.
This is the basis of the Inquisition and the Jihad! -- L.
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>You are so ignorant!
Fighting "heretics" is part of the Christian history from the beginning.
Fighting heretics is the essence of the abominable and bloody Mosaic
tradition. For example, consider Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you
love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go
and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have
known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one
end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him.
Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly
put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death,
and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he
tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of
Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be
afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is
giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have
led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship
other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe
and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved
that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must
certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it
completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the
plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely
burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD
your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None
of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the
LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have
compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to
your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all
his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his
eyes.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will.
===>Who told his followers to sell their coats and buy swords? -- L.
And where does it tell you what to do with your sword? Is it an
instrument of offense or defense? That remnant of Jesus' words does
not tell you.
And in any case, that passage is not the golden rule, the subject of
this thread.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 04:13:52 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
===>The original rule is correct.
It does not imply that you can do ANYTHING to others without their
permission, but prohibits you from doing to others anything you would
not want done to yurself. It is really a principle of reciprocal
freedom, a libertarian ideal. -- L.
No it assumes he wants what you want.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
===>The ORIGINAL says DO NOT ASSUME he wants what you want.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
===>Nonsense. It merely asks you to respect the privacy of
your neighbor.
Jesus' rule recognizes that people are naturally social.
===>The twisted version attributed to the "Jesus" character
assumes you have the right to do things to others, whether
they want it or not, so long as you think you would wish the
same thing done to you.
If you would like permission asked of you, why would you not grant your
neighbor the same courtesy? Such is the intelligent application of the
golden rule.
A masochist, you like to be whipped.
SO, you are told to beat up others, because that is
what you wish to be done to yourself. WOW! How kind!
The world of sadism and masochism is already lost to sanity and beyond
ethical reasoning. You might as well contrive ethical rules for foxes
and ravens.
This is the basis of the Inquisition and the Jihad! -- L.
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>You are so ignorant!
Fighting "heretics" is part of the Christian history from the beginning.
Fighting heretics is the essence of the abominable and bloody Mosaic
tradition. For example, consider Deuteronomy 13:
===>How does that excuse its Christioan and Islamic heirs?
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you
love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go
and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have
known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one
end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him.
Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly
put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death,
and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he
tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of
Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be
afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is
giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have
led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship
other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe
and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved
that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must
certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it
completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the
plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely
burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD
your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None
of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the
LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have
compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to
your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all
his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his
eyes.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will.
===>Who told his followers to sell their coats and buy swords? -- L.
And where does it tell you what to do with your sword?
===>It is amazing that you are unaware what swords were supposed to
be used for.
Is it an
instrument of offense or defense?
===>In view of Zechariah 9, clearly identified with Jesus,
(also see Zech. 14), it is to be used for OFFENSE.
That remnant of Jesus' words does
not tell you.
===>Does not need to.
And in any case, that passage is not the golden rule, the subject of
this thread
===>The "Godlen Rule" is a gold-plated phony rule, designed to
encourage violent conversion of non-believers. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 05:27:56 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will.
===>Who told his followers to sell their coats and buy swords? -- L.
And where does it tell you what to do with your sword?
===>It is amazing that you are unaware what swords were supposed to
be used for.
Is it an
instrument of offense or defense?
===>In view of Zechariah 9, clearly identified with Jesus,
(also see Zech. 14), it is to be used for OFFENSE.
That remnant of Jesus' words does
not tell you.
===>Does not need to.
And in any case, that passage is not the golden rule, the subject of
this thread
===>The "Godlen Rule" is a gold-plated phony rule, designed to
encourage violent conversion of non-believers. -- L.
Preach it to the masses. You might have a million dollar doctrine
right on the tip of your tongue. If you can find someone to front you
the rent for a tent ...
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
24 Oct 2006 10:48:32 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:43:15 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
You are living a fantasy.
Generally, human beings are so similar, presuming the other person
needs what you need is a reasonable presumption.
Wrong again in any case.
Generally humans are very dissimilar,
biologically, linguistically, and cult-urally.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
24 Oct 2006 07:20:14 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Generally, human beings are so similar,
Your mind is utterly disintegrating.
i do not know anyone like you and doubt that anyone on this thread
knows anyone as repulsive and disgusting as you.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
What a jackass.
it's unbelievable.
No wonder we are at the close of an era and returning to an age of
strict authorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
26 Oct 2006 06:54:01 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Generally, human beings are so similar,
Your mind is utterly disintegrating.
i do not know anyone like you and doubt that anyone on this thread
knows anyone as repulsive and disgusting as you.
Hillel's rule imagines the majority of human contact consists of
unwanted interference. It presumes people would be happiest when
marooned in solitary.
What a jackass.
it's unbelievable.
No wonder we are at the close of an era and returning to an age of
strict authorities.
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
27 Oct 2006 05:17:41 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
28 Oct 2006 09:31:20 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>Who said all Chriostian atrocities were committen by the
Inquisition?
It was just ONE EXAMPLE of the use of that crazy
gold-plated rule. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 01:02:03 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>Who said all Chriostian atrocities were committen by the
Inquisition?
It was just ONE EXAMPLE of the use of that crazy
gold-plated rule. -- L.
You have not yet shown - either philophically or historically - that
the Inquisition was derived from the golden rule.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 04:22:26 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>Who said all Chriostian atrocities were committen by the
Inquisition?
It was just ONE EXAMPLE of the use of that crazy
gold-plated rule. -- L.
You have not yet shown - either philophically or historically - that
the Inquisition was derived from the golden rule.
===>ALL of the atrocities committed by Christianity throughout its
history can be justified by that phony gold-plated rule. I.e.
If you would want others to help you get into "heaven",
you are directed to "help" others to get there by any means
you or your king or priest can use. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 05:31:40 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>Who said all Chriostian atrocities were committen by the
Inquisition?
It was just ONE EXAMPLE of the use of that crazy
gold-plated rule. -- L.
You have not yet shown - either philophically or historically - that
the Inquisition was derived from the golden rule.
===>ALL of the atrocities committed by Christianity throughout its
history can be justified by that phony gold-plated rule.
Given the creativity of the autyhors of the Talmud, you could "justify"
a Lincoln Continental by the gall bladder of a mosquito.
But when all is said and done, would it be the truth?
I.e.
If you would want others to help you get into "heaven",
you are directed to "help" others to get there by any means
you or your king or priest can use. -- L.
You can invent doctrines all you like, but they only meet the real
universe when you find historical examples with widespread and
long-term usage. Let me know when you find some.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 03:20:08 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
===>Who said all Chriostian atrocities were committen by the
Inquisition?
It was just ONE EXAMPLE of the use of that crazy
gold-plated rule. -- L.
You have not yet shown - either philophically or historically - that
the Inquisition was derived from the golden rule.
TCross
Without a superior moral regulation to provide a context --a "law" or a
basic "instruction" -- the so-called "Golden Rule" can mean ANYTHING
one wishes it to mean, and a convenient pretext to "Help" others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
28 Oct 2006 03:43:54 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
"Matt 10:34 "Do not suppose that I came to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword."
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it
be already kindled?
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables
Luke 23:2 We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is an anointed one, a
king !"
Thus, "The Tragedy of Barabbas".
The person of whom you have become unnaturally enamored is not a Jew
but is the Apollonius of Tyana character.
"http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
"The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the
first century AD."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
28 Oct 2006 09:33:34 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
"Matt 10:34 "Do not suppose that I came to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword."
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it
be already kindled?
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables
Luke 23:2 We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is an anointed one, a
king !"
Thus, "The Tragedy of Barabbas".
The person of whom you have become unnaturally enamored is not a Jew
but is the Apollonius of Tyana character.
"http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
"The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the
first century AD."
===>The "Jesus" character of the Gospel stories is a composite of
many would-be "messiahs", at least one of which was a militant Zealot
leader. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 03:33:25 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
"Matt 10:34 "Do not suppose that I came to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword."
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it
be already kindled?
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables
Luke 23:2 We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is an anointed one, a
king !"
Thus, "The Tragedy of Barabbas".
The person of whom you have become unnaturally enamored is not a Jew
but is the Apollonius of Tyana character.
"http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
"The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the
first century AD."
===>The "Jesus" character of the Gospel stories is a composite of
many would-be "messiahs", at least one of which was a militant Zealot
leader. -- L.
Indeed it is my view that the original account tells the tale of a
leader from the Essene tradition who is inspired by circumstances (and
the prophetic frenzies of his cousin or leader Yochan) to strike and
prove the worthiness of Yisrael to receive divine intervention and
vindication before the nations.
the other characters, Cilician rituals, Gnostic `EIKON` of the
PANTOKRATOR, and the Hellenist Syncretism are the result of Paul's cult
absorbing Mediterranean non-Jews of the Classical persuasion.
p104 p66 p75 show the work in transition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 04:49:40 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>"Do onto others" is the principle of the Inquisition and
the Jihad! -- L.
Does saying it twice in the same thread prove the brilliance of the
comment?
If the golden rule were the basis for the Inquisition, we would have
Inquisitions from the first Christian kingdom until today - but we do
not. The Inquisition was a localized and short-lived aberration in a
society that was hardly Christian from its inception.
Jesus had no golden robes, nor palaces, nor sceptor, nor armies to
enforce his will. He said
Matthew 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Where is the Inquisition in the teachings of Jesus?
TCross
"Matt 10:34 "Do not suppose that I came to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword."
Luk 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it
be already kindled?
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let
him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let
him sell his garment, and buy one.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables
Luke 23:2 We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding
to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is an anointed one, a
king !"
Thus, "The Tragedy of Barabbas".
The person of whom you have become unnaturally enamored is not a Jew
but is the Apollonius of Tyana character.
"http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
"The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the
first century AD."
===>The "Jesus" character of the Gospel stories is a composite of
many would-be "messiahs", at least one of which was a militant Zealot
leader. -- L.
Indeed it is my view that the original account tells the tale of a
leader from the Essene tradition who is inspired by circumstances (and
the prophetic frenzies of his cousin or leader Yochan) to strike and
prove the worthiness of Yisrael to receive divine intervention and
vindication before the nations.
===>It is clear from the Gospel stories that THAT character is
following the ancient prophecies, especiallyt Zecharias (Chs. 9, 14)
as a script. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Golden Rule" --Fallacy |
29 Oct 2006 06:05:31 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
"http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html
"The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the
first century AD."
===>The "Jesus" character of the Gospel stories is a composite of
many would-be "messiahs", at least one of which was a militant Zealot
leader. -- L.
Indeed it is my view that the original account tells the tale of a
leader from the Essene tradition who is inspired by circumstances (and
the prophetic frenzies of his cousin or leader Yochan) to strike and
prove the worthiness of Yisrael to receive divine intervention and
vindication before the nations.
===>It is clear from the Gospel stories that THAT character is
following the ancient prophecies, especiallyt Zecharias (Chs. 9, 14)
as a script. -- L.
If it is so clear, why don't the Jews acknowledge Jesus, hm?
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|