RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 14, 2015 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2015 at 5:43 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.
Edit Reason: Accidentally said "class or class" instead of "race or class"
)
Cool story. Still missing the point. Also, given that the story of TGS is only mentioned in Luke, and not in the first/oldest couple of gospels (Matt and Mark) nor in the biggest/last collection of Jesus-stories (John), it's questionable whether such a thing happened at all, or was a tale written by the moralist who signed it "Luke", and attributed to the life of Jesus... but that's a side-issue.
There are three people in the story who encounter the mugged man: 1) a priest, 2) a Levite, and 3) the Samaritan. Priests were, of course, those called into the ministry and were considered holy, even as we consider them so today, and interpreters/enforcers of the divine will through theocratic law. The Levites were the holiest of the tribes, dedicated to religious duties and secular ones related to those duties, and in short were a sort of "theologian class" that were considered holy and "called by God". We might refer to Deacons of the protestant churches in the same way, today. On the contrary, the Samaritans were considered (by racist Judeans) to be almost sub-human, animalistic and immoral, the way a member of the Confederate States of America might have seen a slave. Jesus did not pick these three groups by accident in the tale.
He was asked how a person would inherit eternal life (be saved), in Christian parlance. He answered (via the guy questioning him) that the solution was to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
The question was put to him, "but who is my brother?", and he pointed out that it is not our nature, not our race, not our class that makes us brothers, but our choice of moral action. He chose the most hated, subhuman, immoral (according to the values of that religion and place and time) group by which to give this example.
In other words, it is a story against racism, it destroys the idea that a person of one race or class or religion is inherently more moral than another, and it defines "a brotherhood of man" (as John Lennon put it).
Remember how we got onto this discussion?
So I wanted you to see what your actual Ultimate Moral Lawgiver had to say about it. He agrees with one of the most fundamental of Secular Humanist moral concepts, which is that when you treat all human beings as your brethren, you are living up to the highest moral code, and the above-listed problems become impossible. But of course Secular Humanists didn't arrive at this idea by saying, "Hey, Jesus was pretty smart" (actually, I suppose it'd be Buddha or one of the other Golden Rule originators older than the New Testament), we arrived at it by seeing the horrors associated with racism, nationalism, greed, sexism, and every other form of "that guy is not my brother" that is required for atrocities to be committed.
So I'll leave you with the words of John Lennon, beneath this hide tag:
There are three people in the story who encounter the mugged man: 1) a priest, 2) a Levite, and 3) the Samaritan. Priests were, of course, those called into the ministry and were considered holy, even as we consider them so today, and interpreters/enforcers of the divine will through theocratic law. The Levites were the holiest of the tribes, dedicated to religious duties and secular ones related to those duties, and in short were a sort of "theologian class" that were considered holy and "called by God". We might refer to Deacons of the protestant churches in the same way, today. On the contrary, the Samaritans were considered (by racist Judeans) to be almost sub-human, animalistic and immoral, the way a member of the Confederate States of America might have seen a slave. Jesus did not pick these three groups by accident in the tale.
He was asked how a person would inherit eternal life (be saved), in Christian parlance. He answered (via the guy questioning him) that the solution was to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.
The question was put to him, "but who is my brother?", and he pointed out that it is not our nature, not our race, not our class that makes us brothers, but our choice of moral action. He chose the most hated, subhuman, immoral (according to the values of that religion and place and time) group by which to give this example.
In other words, it is a story against racism, it destroys the idea that a person of one race or class or religion is inherently more moral than another, and it defines "a brotherhood of man" (as John Lennon put it).
Remember how we got onto this discussion?
So I wanted you to see what your actual Ultimate Moral Lawgiver had to say about it. He agrees with one of the most fundamental of Secular Humanist moral concepts, which is that when you treat all human beings as your brethren, you are living up to the highest moral code, and the above-listed problems become impossible. But of course Secular Humanists didn't arrive at this idea by saying, "Hey, Jesus was pretty smart" (actually, I suppose it'd be Buddha or one of the other Golden Rule originators older than the New Testament), we arrived at it by seeing the horrors associated with racism, nationalism, greed, sexism, and every other form of "that guy is not my brother" that is required for atrocities to be committed.
So I'll leave you with the words of John Lennon, beneath this hide tag:
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
