Zarathushtra

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe. Or it could be the other way around.

Think you're getting your dates mixed up.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm pretty sure you'll trouble finding the exact date the Jews went monotheistic.

Of course. But the Book of Job (c. 16th cent. BC) is distinctly monotheistic - so it would have to be before that.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course. But the Book of Job (c. 16th cent. BC) is distinctly monotheistic - so it would have to be before that.

Where's that date come from?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Christian belief is that all have been forgiven. No one goes to hell for sin.

A person who understands the bigger scheme of things, in relation to the society at large around them, would not become a serial fill-in-the-blank.

Most times, people are ignorant and careless specifically because they are never held accountable for their actions. Wit ...[text shortened]... h thing as demand and/or force those unwitting, defenseless upstanding citizens into those acts.

You certainly paint a grim picture. I would admit that in light of your post my statement about everyone having a chance to change if society and mob will allow, seems somewhat... shallow.

Let me restate my position, so that it's clear. I would agree that a person who understand the bigger scheme of things (and their relation to the society at large) would not become a serial killer; but also add that the key is that the person in question feels that he's in fact part of the society at large.

There is of course one very important point I missed. The respect for other living things. If you don't respect all living things, you cannot possibly do the right things. A person who doesn't have respect for all living things will be able to perform evil deeds like the one you mention above without regret. I still think such a person can change (however unlikely they would, if it's come to that).

The question then is: Do we have to learn to respect others? Or, do we learn from childhood to not respect certain things in nature (such as certain groups of people)?

The very moment you start to think of yourself as in any way better than anything else (communists, monkeys or americans), is the moment you loose track and you can become just about anything that circumstances makes of you. This is the moment to ask yourself what is good and think carefully before making a choice.

In short, the men you described above, clearly had no respect for the people they violated, and who's fault is that? How could they become like that? Because no one set limits for them? I doubt it. There must be something else. Something pushing them in that direction, because honestly, we're not like that initially.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Think you're getting your dates mixed up.

The Jews, as you refer to the genetic offspring of Abraham, weren't even in existence as a national entity until Moses took them out (away from) Egypt.
Before that, from the time Abraham was called out from the Chaldeans, was circumcised, began begatting at an old age and accumulating the beginnings of his many nations, his family was worshipping God.
Job has no reference to either Abraham, or any of his descendants, which, coupled with other things, leads to the belief that Job was a Gentile, and pre-dated the other writings.

Originally posted by stocken
Something pushing them in that direction, because honestly, we're not like that initially.

As the father of a basketball team (five, plus a sixth man), I can tell you assuredly, we ARE like that initially.
Society has rules against behavior, not for behavior, because of man's bent.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As the father of a basketball team (five, plus a sixth man), I can tell you assuredly, we ARE like that initially.
Society has rules against behavior, not for behavior, because of man's bent.

Wait a sec.? Are you saying that the kids in your basketball team is raping and savaging each other?.. You sure you don't have anything to do with that?..

Society has rules against behavior, not for behavior, because of man's bent.

The rule that says: Do not kill. Is the same as the encouragement that says: Let live. One has a negative ring to it, and one has a positive ring to it. We respond so much better to that which is positive.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Where's that date come from?

I was citing from memory (I remember reading that the book of Job is 3500 years old). I'll find you a reference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So what if we have an innate ability to empathise? We still know the difference between something that's happening to us and something that's happening to someone else. It's not like all of humanity shares a single conscious Mind.

If empathy and reason were sufficient to ensure moral behaviour then the only criminals we'd have would either be insensitive or irrational.

The idea that the Golden Rule and moral objectivity MUST be handed down by divine authority is nonsense. I sympathize and empathize with my fellow humans. It is a natural function of our consciousness, which makes us social beings. I strive to "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me", and when presented with tragedy I think (paraphrasing) "there but for the grace of Bob go I"...I have no theological indoctrination of any sort. How can you account for this contradiction?

Originally posted by David C
The idea that the Golden Rule and moral objectivity MUST be handed down by divine authority is nonsense. I sympathize and empathize with my fellow humans. It is a natural function of our consciousness, which makes us social beings. I strive to "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me", and when presented with tragedy I think (paraphrasing) "there b ...[text shortened]... ...I have no theological indoctrination of any sort. How can you account for this contradiction?

How do you know you have no theological indoctrination of any sort? Most of your personal choices will reflect the traditional norms and mores of your society - which are very much linked to the theology/religion of that society.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How do you know you have no theological indoctrination of any sort? Most of your personal choices will reflect the traditional norms and mores of your society - which are very much linked to the theology/religion of that society.

Woh... Stand back... The moral laws and norms may be spoken about in many religious scripts, but strip away the religion and it still works. How can you claim that you need theology/religion to build a society (for that is what you're saying isn't it?).

Originally posted by stocken
Woh... Stand back... The moral laws and norms may be spoken about in many religious scripts, but strip away the religion and it still works. How can you claim that you need theology/religion to build a society (for that is what you're saying isn't it?).

Not quite. I'm just pointing out that religious beliefs and society go hand in hand. Theological points affect social norms and vice versa over time. It's silly for any person who was not brought up alone on an island to claim that he has no theological indoctrination whatsoever.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not quite. I'm just pointing out that religious beliefs and society go hand in hand. Theological points affect social norms and vice versa over time. It's silly for any person who was not brought up alone on an island to claim that he has no theological indoctrination whatsoever.

It's silly for anyone to think that they can't break from theological doctrines should they want to.

Granted, theology and sociology has gone hand-in-hand for centuries. That's not a necessity though (from a pure philosophical point of view).

Or would you care to disagree?

Originally posted by David C
The idea that the Golden Rule and moral objectivity MUST be handed down by divine authority is nonsense. I sympathize and empathize with my fellow humans. It is a natural function of our consciousness, which makes us social beings. I strive to "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me", and when presented with tragedy I think (paraphrasing) "there b ...[text shortened]... ...I have no theological indoctrination of any sort. How can you account for this contradiction?

I sympathize and empathize with my fellow humans. It is a natural function of our consciousness, which makes us social beings.

Do you think it would be impossible to be a social being without sympathy and empathy?

I strive to "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me", and when presented with tragedy I think (paraphrasing) "there but for the grace of Bob go I"...

"But for the grace of Bob" - LOL. You can barely express the idea without running into God.

In any case, the point is - that tragedy is not happening to you. It's happening to someone else. Some other tragedy may befall you, but it won't happen to someone else.

In particular, when it comes to "Do unto others" - so what if you deliberately wrong someone? That's happening to him/her - not you. Your being good to others will not stop someone committing a crime against you.

Originally posted by stocken
strip away the religion and it still works.

Stocken is exactly correct in this regard. God has given man an establishment policy, by which members of a society are kept safe, regardless of theological beliefs, or the lack thereof.
In Codex 1, these safety guidelines are enumerated.