My favorite Bible passage (that I know of; I haven't read it comprehensively) is one of the cliched ones.  But I make no apology.

1 Corinthians 13 wrote:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.  And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. 

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not dishonor others, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, keepeth no record of wrongs; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully, even as also I am known.  And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

(I have been a little naughty and combined the parts of two different translations that I like.  The King James translators were great poets but not great translators; the New International translators were the other way around.)

One of the two great Hillels of ancient Jewish academe:  "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary."

Not a religion in the truest sense but...

"Nothing unreal exists." - Kiri Kin Tha's 1st Law of Metaphysics.

"The gods shall lift those who lift each other."

zevrem wrote:

BSG is BS neoconservative propaganda, but that is awesome advice.

My lack of a response to this is not to be interpreted as acquiescence.

My justification for that outburst, in case anyone's interested.

[If you read anything by Leo Strauss and Norman Podhoretz, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. BSG is a confused mishmash of "realpolitik," a belabored, convoluted belief in "inalienable rights," the carefully maintained illusion of democracy, racial nationalism, God of the Gaps, religious fanaticism wherever it's convenient, a belief in the supremacy of the state and in particular the military, an unabiding suspicion of the poor, and systematic deception on the part of the state. All this plus thinly veiled Zionism. (12 tribes/colonies/cylons, obsessing about going to Earth/the Promised Land, yeah.) Yes, this strange alchemical mixture of conflicting political theories is a feature of any crypto-fascist system, and the beliefs are not particular to neoconservatism, except, of course, for Zionism, which is definitely a feature of neoconservatism. All the of the professors and commentators cited as being central to the movement are Jews, and all of them are explicit about their support for Israel in spite of supposedly being loyal advisers to the US government. No, it's not anti-semitism when half the essays these people put out are about how Israel is a citadel of civilization in the face of the barbarian (Arab) hordes.

Also, the ships are all closed systems where nothing goes in or out without the operator opening the electronically controlled door like once every month or so. How the fuck can a suicide bomber sneak a bomb into that? You can't introduce terrorism into BSG for plot reasons, you have to introduce terrorism because it suits a political agenda. ]

Last edited by zevrem (02-19-2014 09:51:03 PM)

Riri-kins wrote:

it's good advice even if you're not a Christian.

If this is the case, then why become a Christian? Just be a good person without all the overhead. (No pun intended.)

zevrem wrote:

I'm not too keen on "turning the other cheek," it seems like a doctrine that's designed to protect the violent and the reckless.

It's probably notable that both times Jesus gives the turn the other cheek speech in the Bible, it's just to do the oppressor one better one time. If they take your cloak, give them your jacket. If they slap your cheek, present them with the other one.

He doesn't say to keep presenting cheeks to be slapped perpetually.

It's traditionally positioned in opposition to the eye for an eye stuff, which, itself, was usually used to illustrate an unworkable system of exaction.

Further, the extent of it has been taken by Tolstoy and others, to be a form of permitting the aggressor to out themselves, to shame themselves publicly, by taking noticeable advantage of the situation you present them with. Hypothetically, this inspires communal and joint response.

Which, isn't to suggest these methods wouldn't be difficult, or that they're going to give you a happy immediate ending. I have some admiration for the "I'll let you have the first punch" guys and all, but in my personal estimation, if someone pushes on about "let's you and me have a fight," the thing to do is either put some distance between you or just hit them right then and there and hope it ends it. (But, that's because I'm afraid of pain and dislike hardship.)

zevrem wrote:

An "eye for an eye" isn't THAT unworkable.

If my brother gets mad at you and takes your eye, then your dad comes and takes my brother's eye, but I feel you deserved it and he didn't, I go for your dad's in payment, then you might feel that's unfair and I owe you an eye and something for grief and suffering, so there's both my eyes... it increases exponentially unless everyone agrees on the debt and the authority to judge the debt.

"Most of life is knowing when to be helpful or when to let it alone." - Rick Two Dogs, paraphrased

zevrem wrote:

Anyone can "straw man" a system out of existence, I don't see how "turning the other cheek" can be reductio ad absurdum'ed less easily.

Well, yes, anything can. I don't think I was, but to each their own.

Of course, whether or not you or I think one is less workable than the other doesn't change that turn the other cheek was "traditionally positioned in opposition to the eye for an eye stuff, which, itself, was usually used to illustrate an unworkable system of exaction," which was a statement dealing with the intent of some long-dead folks. Both in Christian and Jewish tradition, eye for an eye systems were more often than not used as examples of what they considered an unworkable operation, if for no other reasons than they don't actually have much benefit without exceptional limitations, including jurisdiction. Rabbinical scholars back in the pre-Christian days were very clear that these sort of lex talionis operations should be limited to financial matters, because those are easily appraised, while restitution for violence or hardship would be implausible to gauge objectively. Others suggested that direct recompense was justified, but that it is humane to abstain, and that, thus, betters us all.

It'd be hard to find a biblical or talmudic explication of eye for an eye that prescribed actually following through on it, in all cases, at all times, particularly in terms of physical maiming, which the Torah never calls for, and to memory, the Bible only calls for in terms of metaphoric self-mutilation ("If your hand causes you to do evil, get Ash on that baby and find a just chainsaw replacement" or however the epistle goes).

Thousands of years later, in today, I figure we can at least be that cautious and generous. We, in general, have better things than they did, after all, and a surer life in general. Modern medicine and the internet kind of behoove us to be better behavior.

(I'll stop derailing, now.)

From the Tao Te Ching:

Heaven and Earth are not sentimental;
They treat all things as straw dogs.
The sage is not sentimental;
He treats the hundred family names as straw dogs.

This can be taken literally to mean that the wise person does not put any weight on family name and affiliation. Expanded further, this could also mean that wise people similarly neglect to respect more abstract group identities, such as religions, political sympathies, or institutions of all kinds.

Now comes the final era of the Sibyl's song;
The great order of the ages is born anew.
And now justice returns, Saturn's reign returns,
Now a new lineage is sent down from high heaven.
-The Eclogue, #4, Virgil