Are you really an atheist?

[Stevil]

Funny how millions of Jews have no problem understanding the mystical magical invisible God-the-Father. Funnier still that millions of Jews cannot understand the mystical magical God-the-human-son sent to them.

Perhaps it was because vicarious human sacrifice is illegal in Judaism and that God's covenants (in the mistakenly called Old Testament) remain in force for all time.

Perhaps still, the mystical magical parts of Jesus, including the son of a god, the son of a virgin, and being the third part of a polytheistic belief trope never really existed outside of mere humanness...if indeed, he existed at all.

Honestly. When it comes to Jesus Christ, I think the last thing we need to worry about is the opinion of the Jews. They had their time with him and we all know how that turned out.

If Jesus even existed, he was a Jew. His chosen religion was Judaism, he was not a Christian, neither was his mother or father.
If you think Jews got it wrong, then you think Jesus got it wrong.
If you don't like Jews then you don't like Jesus.

[AnimatedDirt]

If Jesus even existed, he was a Jew. His chosen religion was Judaism, he was not a Christian, neither was his mother or father.
If you think Jews got it wrong, then you think Jesus got it wrong.
If you don't like Jews then you don't like Jesus.

...or those pesky OT books that "only serve as historical background".  Basically (heh) anti semetic thinking.
So now you know one reason "they" changed the Sabbath.

[Davin]

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.

It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.

I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.

Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. The basic don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.

This, in a thinly veiled way, implies that every member in my family is either autistic and/or psychopathic. While this may be true, it still doesn't make this kind of rule universal. Even NT's like some things done to them that other people would not. Some people like hugging a lot, most people do not, and I'm pretty sure no neurological deviance is necessary.

[xSilverPhinx]

Indeed. Nonetheless, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the standard of love.

It's not Christian morality is the point I'm trying to make. It's human and universal.

I don't agree that it's universal. One problem is that my family enjoys treating eachother in ways that most people would take as us being ass holes to eachother. I prefer this kind of dickish treatment and humor and think it's all good fun. However I know from experience that most other people do not like to be treated in this way. So is it a good idea for me to treat other people the way I want to be treated if most people would prefer not to be treated that way? I don't think it is, so with me, the "do unto others as you would them do unto you" fails.

Sorry, I meant to say that the capacity for this kind of behaviour is hardwired in humans and therefore universal, save in the cases of neurologically different people, such as autistics who lack mirror neurons, which cause a neurological response in the person's brain as if they themselves were experiencing what another person is doing, and psychopaths who lack empathy. The basic don't hurt others because it can hurt you comes from this, but again, it doesn't solve moral dilemmas because of subjective preferences and complex social interactions such as a person who does hurt others but thinks they will get away with it.

This, in a thinly veiled way, implies that every member in my family is either autistic and/or psychopathic.
While this may be true, it still doesn't make this kind of rule universal. Even NT's like some things done to them that other people would not. Some people like hugging a lot, most people do not, and I'm pretty sure no neurological deviance is necessary.

No, those are just my two favourite examples and in the case of autistics, easy to demonstrate that morality is also partly learned. Just because they don't have theory of mind or the same kind of empathy that NTs have, doesn't mean they're going to be anti-social, want to hurt anybody or don't care if they hurt anybody. Psychopaths lack the hardwired capacity for empathy. They can still learn how to act morally, though if it gives them the social charm they need to get what they want.

I didn't mean to use it to imply that your family fit in either category. Besides, there are still social interactions to consider, if people treat others they know better in a certain way, for whatever reasons, doesn't mean they would treat a complete stranger the same way.

One example that intrigues me are sarcastic jokes between friends. The kind of scenarios where, if they weren't friends, then it would be considered bullying. Pranks too. The golden rule doesn't apply here too, yet it's accepted behaviour within that same group. Doesn't mean that they're all psychopathic either.