''Love Thy Neighbor''

It is surprising that you credit the author more for a brief, off the cuff opinion piece than you do for a reasoned, researched, and richly sourced exposition.

The pearls have been cast. It is your choice to deal with them as you have.

Dan

Dan, the thrust of the piece is a familiar one as it has been often written before, by both skeptics and non-skeptics.

One of his points with which I agree is that people like the idea of group selection. Perhaps man also has a certain pack mentality in that likes do attract likes. We do gravitate toward like thinkers. And yes, we can repel others. The manner in which others are rejected can make a big difference, though.

However, I believe that our concept of a neighbor goes beyond our group, especially as over the centuries man has become more civilized. Why else would a person put his own life at risk to save a stranger?

Though they are paid for it, firemen are willing to put themselves in danger to save lives and property. They don't ask about what group a person selected before going into a burning home. I suspect this is true in countries around the world regardless of their governments.

Though an income tax deduction motivate some, still others have made contributions to natural disaster relief funds, not only in the US, but, for instance, after the tsunami. Why? Because there is something in man that responds to such trials others have gone through. So those victims are considered neighbors though many miles away, and not of their group selection.

Sure, man has still has a way to go toward tolerance of others, compassion, self interest at the expense of others, etc, But what I am trying to say is that I'm one who sees the glass half full as I have seen progress, and have hope. I think those like the author see the glass half empty, and base their thesis on the premise that the past and even the present dictates that there is little, if any, hope.


Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

group selection. He takes the growing acceptance that people are evolved to favor in-group members over out-group members to the point of creating those groups, and applies that idea to address some questionable areas of what many consider a source of morality guidance.

I know of no better solution for the appearance of Cain's wife and in-laws. Nor of the contradiction of handing down the law against killing followed by the command to slaughter the inhabitants of city after city. Among others. Did not the 'Onward Christian Soldiers' section give you food for thought?

I don't view the author as taking a position on the glass being half full or half empty. He is only trying to delineate the process we use to decide who can drink from it.

Dan

needed to spell out the code. It's easy to find inconsistency when you alter the meaning of words within the code.

With no moral authority, all that is left is power. The power to impose your opinion on someone else.

claims to provide the word of that authority must be scrutinized to the nth degree to make sure that all possible interpretations are considered. Only to be reconsidered again and again.

Dan

And how would this understanding grow?

Dan

...only your lone OPINION...which you DID NOT say.

I didn't begin to answer because I think it is a waste of time. But of course, you already knew that since you recognized the reference I made to pearls. I probably should not be posting this, and for the same reason.

OTOH, I'm not quite sure what 'pearls' you were referring to in your reply. Certainly the originally linked article included no pearls of wisdom. Responding to the article in detail would be a waste of time and effort that could be put to better use. You (and he) have made choices based on human rationality that I'm fairly sure are not amenable to change. Why should I make the effort?

The phrase that came to mind when I was reading the original article was a Britishism along the lines of "too clever by half." Unlike you or the author, I do not expect God or His plans or His word to be completely acceptable from a rational perspective. If everything about God made sense to us that would be strong reason to suspect we were missing something:

Paul wrote: (1 Corinthians 3:19)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

A critical point here is that God is SOVEREIGN. He does as He pleases without asking for either my understanding or my approval. If (for example) He chooses to condemn murder (eg: in the 'Ten Commandments') but then chooses to order capital punishment (eg: at Jericho) that is His choice and it is not my place to approve or disapprove of the choice. I don't see any point in getting into a debate with a rationalist about whether those sovereign acts make sense.

Furthermore, I believe the author has seriously mis-represented the Bible and its teachings. As I've noted previously (in other posts), I believe it is usually inappropriate for a person to try to impose his/her interpretation on the sacred text of somebody else's religion. The author may well know more about Greek, Hebrew, Latin or even theology than I do (it wouldn't at all hard) but that does not make him particularly wise or particularly adept at interpreting the Bible. It would just make him a well educated fool.

But, as noted above, I won't waste my time arguing with you about it. You are entitled to reject God in the manner of your own choosing and for reasons of your own choosing.

You don't want to have a "debate" with someone who doesn't believe in God and keeps telling you that YOU are wrong?

argue that bible study is map of the road to salvation. For me it is not so vital but a non-trivial interest regardless of the existence of deities.

In either case, many of the interpretations offered in the article were based upon the Talmudic teachings. Understanding what was meant by a speaker when he spoke is surely a valuable insight.

Dan

as I could take of the link.
In a couple of minutes I detected three common errors, both probably based on simple ignorance compounded by wilful ignorance.
First, misquoting the bible by being very narrow in the quote. Example is the treatment of Achan's crime after Joshua fit the battle of Jericho: "More severe decrements to inclusive fitness were reserved for low-ranking individuals who took a larger slice of the pie than they had been allotted, especially if that slice had been allotted to a dominant male." The previous chapters of Joshua show that the 'dominant male' would be Jehovah, not Joshua; that Achan's crime was deliberate and motivated by greed, not an 'evolutionary' desire to provide for his family; that it brought severe negative consequences on the Israelites.

Second, he uses references to Torah and Talmud as if they are equivalent or at least co-existent. They are in fact as different as any two references can be, in age, aim, content, size, Authorship ...

Third, whatever we can say about the bible, it is not an evolutionary text. That's what all the fuss is about, I think; doesn't Hartung read the papers?! Thus he makes a common error about Cain, his wife and the "Land of Nod". Within the universe of the Pentateuch- myth or reality, history or fantasy, right or wrong- this obtains: "Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living", including her son Cain and his descendants. (Gen 3:20)

BTW, do you know why it's inadvisable to throw pearls before swine? Mt 7:6, which is, they say, an accurate description of pig behavior.

look at 'The Evolution of Cooperation' section again. The examples are used to indicate the workings of inclusive fitness and cooperative altruism. The italics in the quote are not arbitrary. Regardless of the rational for the punishment, it is meted out, not only to the offender, but to the entire gene stock of the offender.

Regarding the wife of Cain, have you never been curious as to her origin? I am not alone among those with that curiosity and this is the best explanation for this prominent question.

Dan

That was Jehovah's decree, not man's rationale. All of chapter 7 needs to be read, at the very least. And an evolutionary view cannot explain it; different universe.

Wife of Cain: One of his sisters. You need to study the whole bible. Here's how to start:
Click on Advanced Search.
Enter Keyword: bible.
Enter Forum: Speakeasy.
Enter Author: Dan McC.
Go.
Get one of the books you'll find recommended there, and study it. Ask for help locally.

That can't be a good model for today's youth.

Dan

The ability and tools to reason through to those answers comes from serious bible study, which you haven't yet had.

Why....everyone knows she was a monkey. That's where all the evolutionist came from. ]

You made the right choice.

apply to the article under discussion?

Dan

I don't see the article itself to be under much discussion at all. You mentioned "seeming contradictions..." (underline is mine) found in the Bible. That's perfectly valid, IMO...especially when one insists on using literal interpretations. But, the author is, apparently, trying to put forth an explanation for the existence of something I don't believe to be true. Perhaps you do. Maybe you have a plan to fix what you think is broken, just suffer through it, or....whatever. My post was directed more at that possibility.

that you do not believe to be true that the author is trying to explain?

Dan

find the article to be disjointed and grasping into empty space. You may see otherwise. As others have stated, I consider it a waste of time to pick at it point by point. To use what I see as your method, this would only bring about a bunch of short questions asking for explanations of individual words or expressions....a long and laborious game of tag.

What I do find interesting, in a generic sense, is how seem to take perceived flaws in the evidence or thinking to find truth and apply that to mean that the opposite is true. Lack of proof of guilt does not prove innocence in a criminal trial....nor does lack of proof of innocence suggest guilt. Humans make mistakes in the application of many things. Science, religion, politics, etc. Perhaps we should toss them all out instead of being selective. "Tag" is over for me.