Considered in these terms, the passage reads like a simple statement of the political purpose of religion, to create a common moral world view through faith in the same God, and so 'love thy neighbour.' — counterpunch
This means that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" does not mean what is commonly understood by the term "love". — Apollodorus
I feel it more likely was merely a matter of hope. — New2K2
It's simply certainty in there being an order, or an afterlife. — New2K2
What? I said the existence of religion was merely to provide certainty in there being an order a an afterlife, — New2K2
I disagree that religion is a political construct, — New2K2
And my argument is that this is an aspiration to the iea of there being a Reason/Order to such a world. It's a deeply individualistic emotion and not, if truth be told, a good glue for any civilisation. Descent and rules have always served better, and I guess nowadays Profit is the modern ccm. Just my opinion. Religion is like old bread, it breaks apart with every new holder. — New2K2
Famously, communists got rid of God and put the state in His place — counterpunch
Yes, is there something I could clear up? First language doesn't mean I'm perfect lol. — New2K2
Descent and rules have always served better — New2K2
It's simply certainty in there being an order, or an afterlife. — New2K2
Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates this ideal rather dramatically, showing that one's neighbour includes people from the out-group. A Samaritan, no less, a foe of the Jews, is described as an exemplar of the ideal neighbor. A provocative notion even today when groups and cultures seem to be so divided and hateful of the other. — Tom Storm
So, basically, only when we understand what is meant by love of God can we understand what it means to love ourselves and what it means to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. — Apollodorus
Maybe that's a theological or doctrinal interpretation; but I'm doing social anthropology. What it means as the word of God is of less interest to me than what it means socially and politically, — counterpunch
Well, I did say "Christian philosophers" — Apollodorus
...so I'm taking a religious-philosophical approach if you don't mind. — Apollodorus
And Jews and Muslims, but not rational agnostics. That's called discrimination, and I take exception to it! I'm officially offended by your discriminatory micro-aggressions toward the agnostic. — counterpunch
How would Christian philosophers on here interpret this commandment and what role do they think it plays or should play in everyday life? — Apollodorus
Oh, really? You may twist and bend it as much as you like but I'm talking about the approach here, not about a person's beliefs. Social anthropology isn't what I had in mind. — Apollodorus
And anyway, you seem to forget that the first thinkers to address the problem of social justice were Christians. Long before atheists like Marx. — Apollodorus
Raised and schooled until 18 in a strict Roman Catholic tradition and, though I'm neither a Christian, Muslim nor Jew, I find Rabbi Yeshua's formulation of the "Golden Rule" too ambiguous (re: ) – therefore a "stumbling block" – and so have always preferred the negative form which I'd first encounter reading Confucius and then later found mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, loosely translated as... the Gospel commandment “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour”.
How would Christian philosophers on here interpret this commandment and what role do they think it plays or should play in everyday life? — Apollodorus
"Philosophical justification"? Like Hippocrates' "First, Do No Harm" or Euclid's axioms, Hillel's golden rule is an ethical precept which either (A) isn't applicable in general / doesn't work in particular cases (e.g. Kant's CI) or (B) is applicable in general & works in particular cases. Experience and sociopsychological evidence warrants the latter (B). In moral philosophy (re: "the role this plays in everyday life"), I think, the closest analogue is negative utilitarianism / consequentialism (which I point out elsewhere is more eudaimonistic than merely hedonistic).That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone. This is the whole of Torah and the rest is commentary. Go study it. — Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE
Why do you keep bringing up Marx? — counterpunch
I think loving thy neighbor may require all the above, if not more... . Of course, knowing that it's almost always through others that we achieve our goals, Love may, just be a mutual respect for those that one engages with...(doesn't mean that it precludes tough love). In that context, reciprocity goes a long way... . — 3017amen
How would Christian philosophers on here interpret this commandment and what role do they think it plays or should play in everyday life? — Apollodorus
I want to chime in anyway. — James Riley
Religion is only one (intuitive) way to respond; philosophy is another (inferential) way; and, perhaps, art, science or crime are other responses too (pace Kierkegaard). — 180 Proof
This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation. — Apollodorus
"spiritual salvation" delivered in the absence of love (agape) or absent concern for the person's wellbeing, results in the missionary position of ramming Jesus down their throat — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.