I won’t be drawn into defending religion. It is what it is—like any social system, it’s shaped and often corrupted by the people leading it. But taking away freedoms doesn’t protect freedom. Freedom of thought is just as important as freedom of speech, and both are tied to freedom of religion.
I won’t be drawn into defending religion. It is what it is—like any social system, it’s shaped and often corrupted by the people leading it. But taking away freedoms doesn’t protect freedom. Freedom of thought is just as important as freedom of speech, and both are tied to freedom of religion.
For many, religion is their first—and sometimes only—exposure to higher thinking. Would Voltaire, as educated as he was, be quoted today without the influence of the Christian church of his time? It certainly gave him plenty to write about.
Barry (not sure why his being Republican matters) was pointing out the corruption—how people use religion to justify specific policy issues rather than focus on its core teachings. Christian principles are rarely the foundation of policy debates, yet biblical citations are always plentiful.
The platinum rule is more effective: do unto others as they want to be done unto. Removes the other person’s personal bias from the equation. I may not perceive your version of things the way you do.
I think the point of the platinum rule is to understand a bit about the other person. How you want to be treated may be different than how you prefer to be treated, especially if we are from different cultures.
Voltaire was clearly opportunistic bit also had plenty to work with.
Anything worth it is never simple. And don’t overthink it. You don’t need to know someone like a book, just be open to understanding how they might think.
I won’t be drawn into defending religion. It is what it is—like any social system, it’s shaped and often corrupted by the people leading it. But taking away freedoms doesn’t protect freedom. Freedom of thought is just as important as freedom of speech, and both are tied to freedom of religion.
For many, religion is their first—and sometimes only—exposure to higher thinking. Would Voltaire, as educated as he was, be quoted today without the influence of the Christian church of his time? It certainly gave him plenty to write about.
Barry (not sure why his being Republican matters) was pointing out the corruption—how people use religion to justify specific policy issues rather than focus on its core teachings. Christian principles are rarely the foundation of policy debates, yet biblical citations are always plentiful.
I’m not trying to draw you into anything, simply responding with my own opinions to your comment. You won’t draw me in either.
Of course you immediately defended. SMH
SMH?
I looked it up. Thanks
My point is and always has been, be kind.
It has been said many times, in many ways. Within and without religion.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Sorry if I miss understood the intent of your message.
The platinum rule is more effective: do unto others as they want to be done unto. Removes the other person’s personal bias from the equation. I may not perceive your version of things the way you do.
Its my fist hearing of the Platinum rule. How can we implement it, when we can't always know what the other wants?
As for Voltaire, he may have found another topic equally engaging had the church not had so many faults.
I think the point of the platinum rule is to understand a bit about the other person. How you want to be treated may be different than how you prefer to be treated, especially if we are from different cultures.
Voltaire was clearly opportunistic bit also had plenty to work with.
I for sure see the value of the Platinum rule. Implementing it seems tough as understanding is always the hardest part.
Anything worth it is never simple. And don’t overthink it. You don’t need to know someone like a book, just be open to understanding how they might think.