Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

John Key is an agnostic Jew (his mother escaped Germany in WWII), who is on record as saying that he and his family go to Church because he and his wife believe it is the right thing to do.

Keeping the channel open just in case, perhaps.

[Teallaura]

Oh my - that comes dangerously close to describing me

I do admire many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Not sure I would call myself an "atheist Christian" though - but it does possibly explain the title that other member was apparently trying to claim.

When I was an atheist, I made the conscious decision to use the Judeo-Christian ethic for my morality (I so NEVER bought the 'natural law' version). However, I was also never so deluded as to believe that I was still a Christian.

[carpedm9587]

When I was an atheist, I made the conscious decision to use the Judeo-Christian ethic for my morality (I so NEVER bought the 'natural law' version). However, I was also never so deluded as to believe that I was still a Christian.

Nor do I. I was simply commenting that the description was fairly apt. I do not "use the Judeo-Christian ethic" for my morality - but my morality is, in many ways, aligned with it. We do, however, diverge on some significant issues.

[Cow Poke]

Roy Who?

[carpedm9587]

Roy Who?

[Mountain Man]

Oh my - that comes dangerously close to describing me

I do admire many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Not sure I would call myself an "atheist Christian" though - but it does possibly explain the title that other member was apparently trying to claim.

So you admire the teachings of someone who your worldview can only accept as a lunatic who got himself killed for insisting he was a deity?

Interesting...

[KingsGambit]

Even Richard Dawkins called himself a "secular Christian": https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...Christian.html

[carpedm9587]

So you admire the teachings of someone who your worldview can only accept as a lunatic who got himself killed for insisting he was a deity?

Interesting...

No - I admire many of the teachings attributed to a rabbinical preacher who lived 2,000+ years ago. Whether those were actually his teachings, I do not really know. As for the rest of the claims about him, I know those were the claims of the early Christian community writing 25-80 years after his death. Beyond that, I don't know much about what he actually claimed for himself. I doubt he was a lunatic. I suspect he would have been mortified to discover the community that came behind him had deified him. But we'll never know. However, love those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, do not cast the first stone, are all laudable themes.

I wish I lived up to them more completely. Alas...I don't.

[Teallaura]

Even Richard Dawkins called himself a "secular Christian": https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...Christian.html

This is the more telling comment:

[Tassman]

So you admire the teachings of someone who your worldview can only accept as a lunatic who got himself killed for insisting he was a deity?

Interesting...

The "Golden Rule", i.e. 'Do to others what you want them to do to you', is what's central to Christianity. God/Man Jesus says so himself. It has been the central ethical principle in many other cultures as well...ranging from ancient Egypt to ancient Greece and China and many others. It embodies the ethic of mutual reciprocity essential to human survival as a social species.

[Mountain Man]

No - I admire many of the teachings attributed to a rabbinical preacher who lived 2,000+ years ago. Whether those were actually his teachings, I do not really know. As for the rest of the claims about him, I know those were the claims of the early Christian community writing 25-80 years after his death. Beyond that, I don't know much about what he actually claimed for himself. I doubt he was a lunatic. I suspect he would have been mortified to discover the community that came behind him had deified him. But we'll never know. However, love those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, do not cast the first stone, are all laudable themes.

I wish I lived up to them more completely. Alas...I don't.

The "Golden Rule", i.e. 'Do to others what you want them to do to you', is what's central to Christianity. God/Man Jesus says so himself. It has been the central ethical principle in many other cultures as well...ranging from ancient Egypt to ancient Greece and China and many others. It embodies the ethic of mutual reciprocity essential to human survival as a social species.

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. The central message of Christianity is the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "Golden Rule" is simply our expected response to that fact. While many people love to quote the second half of the "Golden Rule", they always seem to forget the first half:

Matthew 22:35-40, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment

You see, without the "great and first commandment", the second commandment is little more than feel-good pap with no moral force behind it. Without the authority of Jesus' divinity, the "Golden Rule" can be heeded or modified or outright discarded as pragmatism demands, making it more of a "Tin Rule". If we were to create a "Golden Rule for Atheists", it could just as easily read, "Never do to others what you can not get away with," or "Always do what is in your own best interest, even if it is not in the best interest of others."

It will always strike me as illogical and irrational to claim to admire Christian ethics while divorcing them from everything that gives them their moral authority leaving you with nothing more than a set of "take it or leave it" guidelines.

[Cow Poke]

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. The central message of Christianity is the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "Golden Rule" is simply our expected response to that fact. While many people love to quote the second half of the "Golden Rule", they always seem to forget the first half:

Matthew 22:35-40, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment

You see, without the "great and first commandment", the second commandment is little more than feel-good pap with no moral force behind it. Without the authority of Jesus' divinity, the "Golden Rule" can be heeded or modified or outright discarded as pragmatism demands, making it more of a "Tin Rule". If we were to create a "Golden Rule for Atheists", it could just as easily read, "Never do to others what you can not get away with," or "Always do what is in your own best interest, even if it is not in the best interest of others."

It will always strike me as illogical and irrational to claim to admire Christian ethics will divorcing them from everything that gives them their moral authority leaving you with nothing more than a set of "take it or leave it" guidelines.

[Cow Poke]

It will always strike me as illogical and irrational to claim to admire Christian ethics [while] divorcing them from everything that gives them their moral authority leaving you with nothing more than a set of "take it or leave it" guidelines.

This is well said!

Here's what I find so often, and I link it back to the WWJD movement - What Would Jesus Do?

Selectively choose the passages you like about Jesus, and build your own version of "Jesus" from that.
Using this version of Jesus, pretend to know what He would actually do in any given circumstance, even if it flies in the face of the precedent He set in the Bible by His own actions and other statements.
"WWJD" becomes entirely subjective, and often way off base.

MUCH better to go with WDJS - What Did Jesus Say, than pretend to know what He would do.

[Charles]

And you only need to read a few chapters further i Matthew in order to see a picture that does at least at first glance look a bit different:

It certainly gives the impression that what you actually do towards your neighbour is what is important. But interpretation allows for rather selective choises of what is important, what context it should be read in and so on and so forth.

[Cow Poke]

And you only need to read a few chapters further i Matthew in order to see a picture that does at least at first glance look a bit different:

He is apparently expanding on what he meant by the second commandment, which in no way negates the first.

It certainly gives the impression that what you actually do towards your neighbour is what is important. But interpretation allows for rather selective choises of what is important, what context it should be read in and so on and so forth.

I think it's more about the motive (of the heart) than the action - we can all do good things for bad reasons.