The Ten Commitments

[rjs330]

And the irony of a Christian calling social justice perverted shouldn't be lost. Much of the time when the Bible talks about justice, it is talking about social justice. Social justice has always been a fundamental component of Christian faith, practice, and social ethics. If we aren't caring for the widows, the orphans, the poor, the hungry, the sick, the foreigner, the naked, and the imprisoned; then we are being unrighteous, unjust.

When we deprive the least of these of justice, we are ourselves unjust, and thus demonstrate our own unrighteousness.

A Christianity that is unconcerned with social justice and social welfare is a non-Christianity, at least by the standards of the Bible and two thousand years of Christian theological and moral teaching and tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

God NEVER promotes social justice. He is just. He is not socially just. Just read Jesus' parables regarding the talents, all the parables on how God treats those who reject him. Look at Romans and the vessels if honor and dishonor.

All of Jesus' and the apostles teaching on caring for widows and orphans are not social justice commands. That's why God demands that we work, demands that widows work in the church. Social justice is a governmental political philosophy that is not commanded by God in any way. Gods commands are to his church to be involved and you and I be involved in helping others. No where does he command that we demand the same from others. If you want to give every penny you earn towards helping others, then you will receive your just reward. Demanding others do the same as you is being pharisaical. Paul told us to give as each of us individually determines.

I would say as a society we do very well. About 78% of our tax dollars goes towards welfare programs. I'd say that's plenty. If that's not enough then perhaps we need to take a harder look at how the welfare programs are done.

God only demanded 10% of our income. Government takes much more than that from us and in some cases takes the majority of our income. That is not just.

Social justice is a perversion of the justice of God. And a perversion of what the bible teaches about helping and caring for people.

 

[rjs330]

Justice means "that which is right", to do justice, to commit to justice, to pursue justice is to put justice into practice--to make things right.

Social justice is the application of justice in society. Justice for the poor. Justice for the hungry. Justice for the oppressed.

Social justice is therefore about establishing justice in our societies and communities. Setting things right.

-CryptoLutheran

What exactly is setting things right? And do the poor have any obligations themselves? Who are the oppressed? How are they oppressed?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What exactly is setting things right? And do the poor have any obligations themselves? Who are the oppressed? How are they oppressed?

I don't know what to do other than point you to the Bible.

If you think the Lord taught against social justice in the Gospels, then you're reading the Gospels wrong, and you don't understand Jesus' own teachings.

Justice looks like hungry people being fed.
Thirsty people given clean drinking water to drink.
Sick people receiving medical care.
Naked people being clothed.
Foreigners being welcomed.

But the heresies of the religious right has poisoned the thinking of so many in the contemporary Church, that what has always been confessed and believed is now regarded as evil, and those things that are evil are now called good.

"Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy [receive] papal indulgences but [instead receives] God’s wrath." - Martin Luther, The 95 Theses, Thesis 45

"A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is. This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers, works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls »enemies of the cross of Christ« (Phil. 3:18), for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the »old Adam«, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his »good works« unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s." - Martin Luther, The Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 21

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

God NEVER promotes social justice.

I'm aware of roughly between 66 and 73 books that say otherwise.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rjs330]

By that rationale, God is a Marxist. I would encourage you to read your Bible more thoroughly, God commanded Israel to be a welfare state.

You know the tithes God commanded of Israel? That was state-operated wealth redistribution.

Much of the time the Bible speaks of justice, it is speaking of social justice.

Social justice is bringing justice into social and legal systems to make them more just.



"For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." Romans 12:3-18




Christ alone has carried His cross for our salvation. We carry our cross of discipleship, bearing the burdens and weights of this life as followers of Jesus Christ, dead to sin, alive to God.

-CryptoLutheran

Did you happen to notice that in that passage Paul didn't say we ALL are required to do all those things? Each if us had gifts? Some have the gift of generosity. That each believer had a different function. None of that scripture demands social justice from all people.

God never commanded Israel to be a welfare state. That's a violation of scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics. In Deuteronomy God commands INDIVIDUALS to LEND to someone that becomes poor for their NEEDS. Lending is required of His people. AND God commanded them to lend without interest to the poor. Not from a government. And God does not tell us that we have a right to force others to lend. And God also demands the borrower pay back the money lended.

Jesus also tells us as INDIVIDUALS to give to people who beg of us without demanding anything back. Buy again this is an individual.command if his followers and not of a governmental social justice movement were we as believers demand everyone pay and give as if they were a Jesus follower.

Social Justice is a marxist idea. It is not Gods idea.

 

[Bradskii]

It is mainly because God is left out of it in my opinion. All of a sudden altruism is evil and of course social justice is just a code word etc.

I can play the Advocatus Diaboli at this point and suggest that we can include God for those who feel the need in every point you made (and to show off my 2 years of Latin - and I can still decline 'mensa' after 40 odd years so gee, that's come in handy if I need to use the vocative to discuss anything with my table).

 

[AV1611VET]

- and I can still decline 'mensa' after 40 odd years ...

Have you posted here under another name before?

 

[Bradskii]

Have you posted here under another name before?

No. I think I lurked for a while years ago but never posted.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I think I lurked for a while years ago but never posted.

Okay.

The reason I asked is because we had another [near] mensan post here on CF for awhile; then he disappeared.

Here's his magnum opus: Ask a physicist anything.

 

[rjs330]

I'm aware of roughly between 66 and 73 books that say otherwise.

-CryptoLutheran

None of them do. You're mistaken.

 

[rjs330]

I don't know what to do other than point you to the Bible.

If you think the Lord taught against social justice in the Gospels, then you're reading the Gospels wrong, and you don't understand Jesus' own teachings.

Justice looks like hungry people being fed.
Thirsty people given clean drinking water to drink.
Sick people receiving medical care.
Naked people being clothed.
Foreigners being welcomed.

But the heresies of the religious right has poisoned the thinking of so many in the contemporary Church, that what has always been confessed and believed is now regarded as evil, and those things that are evil are now called good.

"Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy [receive] papal indulgences but [instead receives] God’s wrath." - Martin Luther, The 95 Theses, Thesis 45

"A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is. This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers, works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls »enemies of the cross of Christ« (Phil. 3:18), for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the »old Adam«, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his »good works« unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s." - Martin Luther, The Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 21

-CryptoLutheran

None of that is social justice. And there is nothing in Jesus' words that promote it. He promotes love and compassion and helping your fellow man as an individual believer. The church is also to help others. Social justice is not included. I don't think your actually read my post thoroughly.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't think that behaving altruistically is something on which anyone suggests you should base your whole life. You've got to earn a living. You can't volunteer your time for everything. But altruistic behaviour is simply helping out at the school sports day. Helping little old ladies across the street. Giving your neighbour next door a hand laying his new lawn. Lending a friend your chain saw. Making sure your elderly neigbour opposite can get to the surgery.

Where in heaven's name did the idea that it was evil spring from. And Hitler? Whaaaat?

"We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action"

I don't think any of you are actually reading what the definition on that site says. What does the word always mean in the context of a moral principle?

"But altruistic behaviour is simply helping out at the school sports day. Helping little old ladies across the street. Giving your neighbour next door a hand laying his new lawn. Lending a friend your chain saw. Making sure your elderly neigbour opposite can get to the surgery."

That is the mistake that everyone makes, in just thinking that altruism means goodwill or kindness. It doesn't. If you simply mean goodwill or kindness you should stop using the word altruism. Do you know where the concept comes from? and who coined it? Do you know who invented a complete, integrated philosophy for the sole purpose of saving the morality of altruism? Do you know what he was trying to save it from? I think these are important questions that you should look into answering.

Where did I get the idea that it was evil? From reality. From a rational examination of what morality is and what facts it is based on and why man needs it. From judging altruism against the standard of morality which is man's life and its requirements. Evil is that which destroys the life of a rational being. The good is whatever supports the life of a rational being. Man's life requires that he act and that he act in specific ways, in accordance with his nature as man and in accordance with the world he lives in. Man's life requires the gaining of values. For the most part, these values have to be produced and they require a man to think in order to produce them. The morality of rational egoism tells you all this and it leaves open the choice to help others when appropriate. But the individual has to be the ultimate beneficiary of his actions in order to live. If a man acts "always" to give up his values to others without accruing any benefit, well then he would die. To make this a moral principle to guide one's actions is worse than a contradiction.

The morality of rational egoism tells you to pursue values by rational means and then once your needs are met, you can properly help others and concern yourself with their welfare so long as you don't make it your primary purpose in life and you don't consider it a moral virtue. It has to be a secondary issue.

"And Hitler? Whaaaat?"

It wasn't just Hitler. Don't forget Stalin. In fact, you could plug the name of any dictator into that sentence. Read their speeches. Note how many times the word altruism is mentioned and selfless sacrifice for the people. The Nazis were committed, explicit altruists. They would have loved this list on the humanist site. They were also mystics. They explicitly denied reason. It's not surprising that they were altruists because they were mystics and it's not surprising they were mystics because they were metaphysical subjectivists. Ethics and politics are not primaries. They depend on epistemology and metaphysics. Look at history, there are plenty of examples of what happens when people try to put this principle into practice. You can watch it happening in real-time in America. Is division on the rise? Is group and identity politics on the rise? Is violence on the rise? Is propaganda on the rise? I think we are more divided now than before the civil war and I think we're ripe for another one. What's also on the rise is anti-reason. It's so bad now that people no longer think of altruism as one ethical system but altruism is equated with morality qua morality. That's because people have been taught this in school, in church, in books, in television shows, in movies. It's everywhere and no one has ever given them a rational alternative, until the publication of The Virtue of Selfishness and it's like a drip compared to the Atlantic ocean. And just like in the Germany of the late 19th and early twentieth century, America is ripe for a Hitler or Stalin to come in and cash in on the widespread belief that selfless sacrifice is a virtue. This item number 10 on that list is every would-be dictator's wet dream. Because no dictator ever came to power preaching rational egoism and the sanctity of individual rights. They do not preach that your life belongs to you and you have a right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No, they tell you to sacrifice your individual plans, dreams, and ambitions, your good, for the good of others whether those others are society, your next-door neighbor of some god, it makes no difference. It all leads to the same thing: destruction.

Why? No rational answer is ever given. Altruists either appeal to the supernatural or to society or to other animals as if animals need morality or even understand it. The supernatural doesn't exist, is outside of the realm of reason and the society doesn't speak with one voice, it means the edicts of some spokesman for society such as a Hitler or Mao.

 

[Bradskii]

"We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action"

I don't think any of you are actually reading what the definition on that site says. What does the word always mean in the context of a moral principle?

"But altruistic behaviour is simply helping out at the school sports day. Helping little old ladies across the street. Giving your neighbour next door a hand laying his new lawn. Lending a friend your chain saw. Making sure your elderly neigbour opposite can get to the surgery."

That is the mistake that everyone makes, in just thinking that altruism means goodwill or kindness. It doesn't. If you simply mean goodwill or kindness you should stop using the word altruism. Do you know where the concept comes from? and who coined it?

Who coined it? Well, I know now. It was the French philosopher Compte. From the old French 'autrui' (from or to others). It was meant as a word to indicate that we should think of others. Not as a means to an end but we should help as necessary with no expectation of reward.

So let's back up on the invective. It's a simple term used in a relatively neutral manner as just defined. This is how everyone thinks of the word and how I shall continue to use it. Or at least that's what I thought. I never imagined anyone could leap from the concept of altruistically lending some tools to a neighbour or literally helping old ladies across the street to a thousand year reich and the holocaust. What sort of dictionary have you got?

Altruism: /ˈaltruːɪz(ə)m/ (noun)

Concept used by dictators to convince people to sacrifice personal ambitions, dreams and personal right and to promulgate a nation state leading to ultimate destruction and despair.

Good grief, Happy. Chill out...

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

God NEVER promotes social justice. He is just. He is not socially just. Just read Jesus' parables regarding the talents, all the parables on how God treats those who reject him. Look at Romans and the vessels if honor and dishonor.

All of Jesus' and the apostles teaching on caring for widows and orphans are not social justice commands. That's why God demands that we work, demands that widows work in the church. Social justice is a governmental political philosophy that is not commanded by God in any way. Gods commands are to his church to be involved and you and I be involved in helping others. No where does he command that we demand the same from others. If you want to give every penny you earn towards helping others, then you will receive your just reward. Demanding others do the same as you is being pharisaical. Paul told us to give as each of us individually determines.

I would say as a society we do very well. About 78% of our tax dollars goes towards welfare programs. I'd say that's plenty. If that's not enough then perhaps we need to take a harder look at how the welfare programs are done.

God only demanded 10% of our income. Government takes much more than that from us and in some cases takes the majority of our income. That is not just.

Social justice is a perversion of the justice of God. And a perversion of what the bible teaches about helping and caring for people.

Bingo. This, this, this (the bolded). That's what the current autocracy and its supporters cannot understand.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Thanks for replying brother.

I will ask you nicely to please stop calling me brother. Thank you.

Why are theocracies immoral? What makes then immoral?
Please show the comparison as to why democracies are not immoral?
Please provide a statement or account that gives your reason is to how theocracies are immoral?
So if everyone in this theoretical country wanted theocracy, why would you consider theocracy as immoral?

This post is too long to talk about things that are not related to the OP. If you want to talk about theocracies and why they are immoral I am willing just start another thread.

No my dear brother, you missed the point I made and again framed the question to suit your misunderstanding.

I said "Imo, I believe my vote is useless and i cannot align my self with a political party. I believe I have no say under democracy, I can not choose who political parties choose as candidates no more then I can choose which monarch will rule."

I dont want more say than others. My point is I cannot see the difference between a monarch I have no say in and a political candidate that a party puts forward, that I have no say in.

Imo, I believe my vote is useless as I don't necessarily agree with the candidates that are put forward.

Not on topic. Again we can discuss in an other thread.

Well let's discuss it then brother.

For example Why, Why would you choose humanism based on Marxism as opposed to humanism based in deism?

What type of humanist are you?

I am a humanist based on reason. Not deism or Marxism. All humanists are doing is trying to figure out how best we should live.

How did you prove "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation both
Can not be demonstrated?

You didn't give me an explanation for why they are illusory and harmful?

I said they HAVE NOT been demonstrated to be true not CAN NOT be.

You didn't give me an explanation.

Why is immortal salvation harmful to humans? Why is eternal judgement harmful if if may be the truth?

Where does it say in the Bible you will burn forever for lying?

Again off topic.

Well the humanist Manifesto that you sent me has;

"Ethics

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience."

So which authority should I agree with, the manifestos or yours?

That is up for you to decide.

Please explain to me why humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead but not globally and especially with religious beliefs being ubiquitous?

Well as we see here I am getting pushback on these commitments from theists. To fully implement something like these commitments we would need to convince people that they are good to adhere to. Since most people in the world are theists of some sort this is an uphill battle.

What are some examples of some rights being more important than others?

How do you grade one right being greater than another right?

Give me such situations to show the contrast?

Again off topic. Start another thread.

You previously said "Again, when a person in society is infringing on on another's rights then action should be taken to correct the problem."
I don't accept the authority of the un but will produce an article about so-called human rights.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I have a right under the UN charter - which most western countries adhere to - that I can manifest my religion in public.

I want to preach the gospel to you - my religion tells me to go out into the world and spread the good news that Jesus died so you can be reconciled to God.

What can you think of, that would stop me or not allow me to preach the Gospel to you.

Could you tell me how this right is allowable or not allowable?

I have no problem with you preaching the gospel on public property. Although you may have to follow some reasonable rules depending on where you want to preach. I work on a university campus and we have preachers here regularly. To do this you must get a permit, not so they can allow or disallow your rights, but to make sure that the university police know so they can make sure their rights are protected and there is not another use of the space at that time.

No brother.

You said "We all love ourselves differently and I may not want to be treated the way you would treat yourself or love the way you love yourself."

That is a precedent, if you like I will give you the opportunity to recant it and re word your reply.

Are you suggesting something else or is that statement still valid?

Remember that this section of our dialogue is in context of "love thy neighbour as thyself".

You argued that we love ourselves differently so love thy neighbour as thy self is problematic?

I will clarify. I do think we love ourselves differently but my main point was that we do want to be treated differently than others at different times.

So does that mean also that when I say love thy neighbour as thy self that you also doubt it intentionally means to hurt someone else?

Yes.

If dignity and respect obviously mean no intentional harm, why does it not also apply to the word love?

But as you say, dignity and respect should not mean intentionally hurting someone. I'm going to include love because the word love is just as specific as dignity and respect.

It is specific but means different things.

So if i change "you" to "they".

Do unto others what "they" want done to them?

How does it do "nothing" for empathy?

Please give a justification as replying with nothing is not an argument. It's just a word.

I am not sure what you mean. If you don't care to know how another person wants to be treated, how is empathy even relevant in that situation?

But you said to do unto others as they want done to them. I want to be treated this way, why is it unreasonable now?

Why can you decide which way to treat me when you said you would treat me the way I want to be treated?

Because I can choose to not treat you that way. But at least with my golden rule I would know how you wanted to be treated. If you wanted to be treated in a way that if I treated you that way would violate my morality I would not do it.

Then it's virtue signalling?

Ho hum.

These aren't written in stone and can not be enforced.

I never said they could.

But none of these ways I want you to treat me is harmful to others or you.

I want you to treat me in such a way that I always have an advantage over you?

What advantage is that?

I want you to call me magnificent when ever you address me?

Ok

If I do wrong, i want to be treated as perfect and infallible to your laws?

Nope. This is where your wrongdoing has consequences because you may have violated someone else's rights.

I want to eat before you at all times? I want your neighbours to treat me like I'm the owner of your house?

Then you need to ask this of my neighbors, not me.

I want you to treat with me disrespect and if I fail I want you to whip me?

I won't do this because it violates my morals

Why is it unreasonable to treat me these ways I want to be treated?

See above. Each situation is different and may have a different answer. Situational ethics and all.

You now know.but yet you won't treat me the way I want to be treated.

This is a huge problem, you know what I want but won't give it to me, why?

I will unless it violates my morals.

To scare someone is nothing to do with morality. Try again and use an example that is within the context of morally treating someone.

Yes it does. What do you think morality encompasses? It is about determining right and wrong actions. It is wrong to intentionally scare a person that says they do not want to be intentionally scared.

The context is with reference to the principles of right and wrong behaviour. To scare someone has nothing to do with right and wrong behaviour. Please don't go off the rails.

That is a behavior.

What has sex got to do with love in regards to right and wrong behaviour?

Really? Beating you during sex is a behavior.

But why? You said that the golden rule does not work. You changed it to do unto others as they want done to them?

Why will you not do this for me if it doesn't hurt you or others?

Already addressed.

No it isn't. Its how she wants to be recognized for work she does. For some reason she has no confidence in front of a crowd. That's her problem and welcome to the real world, where if your job requires you to be in an environment where this stuff happens.

What she asked is more to do with confidence then right or wrong behaviour.

Do people get punished for praising ppl I public usually?

Why bring punishment into it? And how do you know it is a lack of confidence. She was not mad or upset she just requested that she did not want to be praised in that way. I see no reason why I would not respect her wishes. This is an example of my rule being superior to your golden rule. Seems like you would not respect her wishes and you would treat her like you want to treat her. That is what the golden rule comes down to.

See this is where things get better for me and harder for you.

I called you brother as a sign of respect. Calling you brother does not harm you or anyone else. I want to be treated the way that I want to be treated.

You have insulted me and hurt my feelings. Why will you not do unto others as they want done, I want to call you brother as a sign of respect?

You have just contradicted your main argument.

No. This is where your golden rule fails. If you call me brother as a sign of respect and I make it known that I don't want to be called that with my rule you would stop. With your rule you won't and that does not maximize well being of all. Seems you want to treat people as you want to treat them no matter what they actually want. With this example and the example of my staff member.

Well you are not treating me with dignity and respect. Like your staff member I now have an aggrievance you. I want you to treat me like I'm your brother and I want to call you brother. Where do we go from here?

I would hope that you have enough respect not to call someone a name they do not want to be called. I will call you brother all day. Is that how I need to address you? Or is it magnificant? Just tell me and I will address you as that.

Why can you choose? You said to treat others as they want to be treated. That's how I want to be treated.

What is your detailed argument that you should not treat me the way I want to be treated?

Already addressed above.

You said "We all love ourselves differently and I may not want to be treated the way you would treat yourself or love the way you love yourself."

Just to be clear, what is your objection. I will not accept an answer without argument and justification?

Already addressed above.

Why are they good commitments to live by. Ease provide justification and an argument?

These have shown to bring people together in a way without religion. Also notice in my OP I was not stating these were the most correct ones. But I think they are a good starting point for discussion for people that want to make our communities a better place to live. If you don't want to be part of that then ok then do your own thing.

So there are no consequences for my actions. These 10 commitments - or is it 12 - are pure virtue signalling.

We have been through this. There are consequences for your moral actions. There is not consequence for not following these commitments. No one is enforcing anyone to comply with these.

So you don't want to discuss the existance of God. I declare He exists and you will meet Him one day.

What do you think?

I never said that. I said that it is up to you to provide good evidence god exists. Please do in another thread.

So as long as I maximizes the well being of all, that makes me a good person.

People are neither good or bad. People do good and bad things. The actions people do are good and bad not the people.

What happens if, I maximize the well being of others but stop a transgender man (man to woman) from using the female toilets?

Justify how this maximizes well being of all.

Because they cannot be enforced, are not set in stone, can be altered and added to at whim and all it is, is an attempt to show other people that you are a good person by making a list of commitments that se fashionable.

What do you think?

What does enforcement have to do with it? Can a secular person discuss morality and ideas to make the world better without it being called virtue signaling? How do we go about doing that?

No. We are talking about right and wrong behaviour.

Your staff member has confidence issues in a real world scenario, if being praised in public embarrassed her then I don't know how she got this far in life.

Why the insults? Is that how the golden rules is applied? You have no idea why she wants to be treated as she does.

I reject your scenario but i would still like you to give me an instance of when you can hurt someone using "my" golden rule.

My staff member was a scenario. reject it if you like but that is a real life example.

Dude, you need to put more effort into this.

Please don't call me dude?

You still haven't answered this question. Can you or can you not?

How do you think you love yourself differently from me?

I clarified what I meant by this above.

So is it a no? You do not dislike yourself that much that you dont mind be racially abused.

I don't want to be abused.

No, you dont want to be persecuted.

I do not want to be persecuted.

Yes, you do mind me called brother by me. Why?

I do not want you to call me brother. I don't have to give you my reasons. Will you respect me enough to stop calling me brother? Or are you going to treat me as you want to treat me and keep calling me brother?

 

[Bradskii]

Just in passing, weren't there 11 Commitments?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just in passing, weren't there 11 Commitments?

Dunno, but:
The Commitments (1991) - IMDb

 

[AV1611VET]

Just in passing, weren't there 11 Commitments?

Here's a good one: