Posted on 12/10/2014 7:43:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Perhaps you might consider that what is known in the heart is in the category of religion, not separate from it. It's certainly not in the category of science.
I don't know that I could answer that to anyone's satisfaction. However, if you believe that God did so, then I think you would have to come to the conclusion that any ethical tradition that shows that kind of influence, Confucianism in this case, is equally as valid as any other form so influenced.
Religion is not about morality. Moral people go to Hell without a Savior.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
Atheism is a faith based system.
By 500 BC, Confucius was preaching the “Golden Rule” exactly as we find in the Jewish/Christian tradition. In fact, his wording is almost verbatim to ours.
Not really.
Confucious’s version of the Golden Rule was negative, as in what you should NOT do.
The Judeo-Christian version is positive, as in what you SHOULD do.
It can make for some very large differences in action.
Seems like a minor point to me. Being reciprocal, you should be able to turn the phrase either way. But it looks like the Hindus state it in the positive in the Hitopadesha. Since it looks like they got the heads up first, maybe you should convert.
>> Seems like a minor point to me.
The priest and the Levite in the Good Samaritan parable were obeying the negative version.
The Samaritan was obeying the positive.
The difference made the parable what it was.
>> But it looks like the Hindus state it in the positive in the Hitopadesha. Since it looks like they got the heads up first, maybe you should convert.
I have no idea what the Hindu version is in whatever religious text that you mention. I don’t even know all of the numerous texts they have; I only know their scripture is voluminous.
I have no need to convert to Hinduism, but thanks for the invitation. Perhaps later on you can preach the wonders of Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, Lakshmi, Ganesh, or whatever other aspect of Brahma you happen to favor.
Thereby disproving the article authors' original point regarding atheists. Religion is not in fact needed for moral behavior.
Religion starts first with the observation of nature and God reveals Himself in His own creative work.
>> Thereby disproving the article authors’ original point regarding atheists. Religion is not in fact needed for moral behavior.
Samaritans were atheists?
Oh wait, maybe this is just part of the whole atheist-vs-Christian script where you say “Atheists are just as moral as Christians!” and I answer with the parable of building a house on sand, is that it?
OK, that’s out of the way, what’s the next script dead horse you want to pull out into the field to beat?
The Old Testament genocide thing? The shellfish thing? The wearing two types of cloth thing? The selling your daughter into slavery thing? Or if you’re tired of the Old Testament, maybe drag out some New Testament stuff, like how Jesus was a racist and a thief?
This crap goes on forever on the internet, and you want to drag it in here because you think it makes you look smart.
Men a lot smarter than you and I have gone on and on about these things, and nowadays the arguments and counter arguments haven’t gotten any better; if anything, they’ve devolved into bad caricatures of what they used to be.
I made my point. If you refuse to get it, no big loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.