A religion called "Empathy"

the bible is full of terms and references which had specific cultural meanings during the times the stories describe

Ywh was initially a war god, (and i think a sky god) which is why he was known as "lord of hosts" (hosts being ARMIES) and also explained why israel would turn so often to other gods after the fighting was over - what does a war god do for a people who need the crops to grow or are looking for a spouse for themself or their child? (a sky god or a storm god might give rain, but often such gods are distant from the daily affairs of men, and while they might be angered, its very iffy that they can be petitioned, according to my understanding of m .eliade)

another example is the sermon on the mount - when jesus says to turn the other cheek and that if you are called to walk a mile, walk another mile with them

well, in those days, roman soldiers had the right to impose upon commoner to carry his gear for up to a mile - so a soldier would grab you and give you a pack full of whatever roman soldiers carried and youd have to hike it up the hill for the next mile - but there was a limit of only single mile that the soldiers could impose and rome did not tolerate the breaking of its rules even by its soldiers - so the exhortation to walk an additonal mile was actually a very clever bit of subversiveness - jesus was the fist non violent social anarchist lol or at least he was a very sophisticated political protester

if youd like to know what turning the other cheek is really about, heres a link

http://dharmagates.org/other_cheek.html

anyway,i mention all of that so that this will make sense: i have no idea what "seeing his fathers nakedness" really meant to the people who wrote that story, but i do believe it meant something very bad - either something sexually exploitative, or treacherous in a familial context - it wasnt just "seeing him naked" in the way we would mean if we said that today

some of the sepculations are that noah was taken advantage of sexually while he was vulnerable ior that noahs son impregnated noahs wife

or something of that magnitude

so there is a likelihood that noah wasnt just being a drama queen on this, and that his reaction was perfectly justified

thats my bet

---

edit

id add that i am by no means an expert, im not interested in being argued with but i certainly have no objection to being corrected by someone who actually knows, if i am wrong in anything ive said or suggested here

SeventhSL wrote: The ten commandments are listed first in Exodus.

Yes, they are. There is one list of ten in Exodus 20 - the chapter before the one with instructions on whom you can enslave, where to buy slaves, how to treat them and how to get even your fellow Jew to become your slave indefinitely - the sixth and the eigth (or fifth and seventh, depending on numbering conventions) of which you mention. There is another list in chapter 34 of that book, and this is the one the Bible actually calls "the Ten Commandments" (Exodus 34:28) and it is incidentally the one that says nothing about either killing or stealing and neither of the two sets say anything that can be summarised with the love thy neighbor line. Now, that line is also a commandment, but it is not in either list of ten. That being said, when it says neighbor, it really means fellow Jew, because your surrounding nations you enslave and the first commandment of the actual Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:12-16) is rather clear about not befriending a nation you invade either, effectively because God must be your only friend.

Being righteous doesn’t make you perfect.

No, it just makes you a role model. Noah is not the only one God approves of either. There's also Job, who would take a mouthful for daring to ask questions, but be rewarded for his loyal service in spite of the abuse he suffered under his master's supervision. And there is Lot, the only person in Sodom worth saving, who according to his good judgement would first offer his already quite promised virgin daughters to a rape mob with barely any hesitation or remorse, lest they rape angels instead, and later on impregnate them himself. The reason he could do this, is because he was the one good man in all of Sodom at the time, on behalf of whom Abraham, another pinnacle of moral virtue, who would forfeit anything and everything for what he believes are direct commands of his god, was negotiating with God. No, the text doesn't say these people are perfect. But it heavily implies that what they do is right by God; it does hold them up as role models. And again, if Noah's curse was out of a moment of weakness or a bad thing to do, then how come he was at no point told so, nor ever did he change his mind about that again, but instead Canaan was "cursed"? And might I remind that this ends up being a curse or condemnation, if you will, of an entire nation, all for the transgression of one person, something you objected to earlier. Noah may not have had any foresight, but God is sure not above damning an entire people for the "sins" of one, so there's something you and Him would differ at; go figure. I don't think there is any excuse to this and if there was one, "well, nobody's perfect, gotta deal with what we have" really wouldn't be it.

,,What a wonderful world it would be if there were a religion called empathy. No invisible beings, inexplicable miracles or colorful fables, but instead merely placing oneself in the position of a fellow human and treating him or her as you would wish to be treated.''

If empathy can be found within religion or not, it is within people. Would it make a difference? I think it does :blush: Empathy is a important factor to be able to have non-verbal communication messages. If religion is a structure and does not have Empathy, then how is it able to exist? Empathy surrounds all factors of communication. It would be a religion close to every being, that would be a unforgettable experience.

Wow Gisteron there is lot of material in there I'd just love to discuss in more detail. Great discussion for a new thread I'm thinking?

Mosses received and wrote down more than just the ten commandments while he was on the mountain. I think you'll find you are confusing additional words of testimony as being the 10 commandments. But ha don't take my word for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments. Not that Wiki is the be all end all.

Even if you were right and Christianity and Judaism are wrong about what exactly the 10 ten commandments are, then you still have God himself, perfect being, roll model of role models, clearly commanding you "Thou shalt not murder". Kill, murder, suicide bomb, be a terrorist? Yer I don't think so.

among other things, moses was the chief judge of the israelites - if one wanted to consider moses and the giving of the law without presupposing an actual real god, then one might say that as moses spent more and more time and energy mediating the disputes of his people, he developed more and more of the laws that he saw necessary to prevent the disputes from happening in the first place, and to serve as standards for response when they did

slavery was the custom, held by probably all of the peoples of that era

according to the story, the israelites had just escaped their own slavery to egypt at the time of the commandments

so its not like youre going to tell people of that time, "slavery is wrong, dont do it!"

which actually is a much greater point than many realize: we are modern people, we do not think, speak, or see the world in nearly the same way that ancient peoples thought, spoke, and saw the world

the gap is huge, and to either promote or critique religion without having a solid historical context is difficult, because such context is required to understand the ideas as they were initially expressed

more about the law

from: http://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/

"The Bible presents the lawgiving not as a single dramatic event but as a lengthy process that begins on Sinai but does not end until 40 years later. Moses descends Sinai not once but eight times, and more and more laws keep coming all the time. Moses commits them to writing twice; God inscribes two sets of tablets. Moses conveys laws to the Israelites time and time again."

---

also, moses may be a composite (i personally believe many of the OT figures are, including Abraham) and there is evidence that the exodus of the bible didnt really happen

from http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/moses-myth-fiction-or-history-002246

"In The Bible Unearthed, Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman dispelled any illusions that their digs had verified the story of the Exodus: “The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan – they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people – the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were – irony of ironies – themselves originally Canaanites!"

---

i agree with Gisterons assertion that people can and often do become very dangerous when they accept religious ideas at face value, and then demand that others accept them as well

the asserttion that religious ideas are without worth or have done more harm than good is not correct imo

for every person who has ever killed in the name of religion there are countless others who havent and who have found in religion a map or at least a compass towards the ideals of honesty and kindness and loyalty and all of the other, pretty much universally admired, traits of social interaction

despite the flaws and the corruptions of those who have exploited religion to achieve their own agendas, within religious literature can be found the most essential and enduring truths of human existence - i would say that that is the prime criteria for long term success as religious literature

ideology and ideological fanaticism is dangerous - but ideology does not need religion

for example, its arguable that communism has killed more people in the 20th century than religion has in all of history

Aqua wrote: Mark 12, 31:
,,Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”[/color][/i]

I don't believe that religion is the problem. Religion, like any other system, works perfectly until you add actual people into the mix. For me the issue is people using religion, particularly cherry picked parts of it, to justify their own personal bias without ever examining it.

I believe empathy can help the world immensely. That I believe can help us with our problems.