“Disagreed with” or “challenged” does not equate “being otherized.” You can’t be serious. Or you don’t understand “being otherized.”
I’ll be blunt. This assessment is wrong, Terry.
“I don’t understand what you’re saying” could mean:
You are using words or concepts that I am unfamiliar with.
You have left out logical steps, without which I can’t follow the line of your reasoning. (Writer error)
I have missed the logical steps in your reasoning and therefore can’t follow your train of thought. (Reader error)
“You’re not making any sense.” is more judgemental and more likely means:
You’re talking nonsense/Bad Science/Quatsch.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
You’re out of your head.
There is no hope of putting together a logical argument from the unrelated fragments of nonsense you have thrown together.
Having a slow day? An atheist who has no “skin in the game” quotes another atheist who “has no skin in the game” as evidence that Christianity didn’t invent charity because …???
So what? “It” also says: “kindliness, humanity, benevolence, love to mankind” (from gods, men, or things)."
Excuse me while retrace my steps and compare them to your steps.
I wrote: IMO, there’s a difference between “I don’t understand what you’re saying” and “You’re not making any sense”.
Your paraphrase of my words are:
“I don’t understand what you’re saying” could mean:
You are using words or concepts that I am unfamiliar with.
You have left out logical steps, without which I can’t follow the line of your reasoning. (Writer error)
I have missed the logical steps in your reasoning and therefore can’t follow your train of thought. (Reader error)
“You’re not making any sense.” is more judgemental and more likely means:
You’re talking nonsense/Bad Science/Quatsch.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
You’re out of your head.
There is no hope of putting together a logical argument from the unrelated fragments of nonsense you have thrown together.
Let’s ignore the fact that this response and the post to which it responds are somewhat off-topic.
I asserted that the two statements at issue differed.
Are you saying that the two statements say the same thing or different things?
Unheard of! Surely you must be joking, Mr. Sampson!
‘eh?
Oh, goodness! My menopausal dyslexia strikes again.
So sorry. You did say they are different. “A difference” is not the same as what my eyes thought they saw, which was “No difference.”
Kendel exits this part of the thread with cheeky red cheeks.
Never heard of her… no one is ever really good enough for that though… life is funny like that… the older you get the easier it is to see through people.
I dunno, Terry. Seems like the skin in the game might be a desire to get to the bottom of the claim of the OP and determine if it’s true?
or not.
T_Aquaticus has been working over time in many threads lately, either clarifying misunderstandings or correcting errors. As well as challenging claims that may not be supportable.
Why would anyone care what beliefs or disbeliefs people hold, if they’re dedicated to getting to the truth of the matter?
I’m reminded of a story I read somewhere by an Episcopalian priest called on by a widow to officiate at the scattering of her husband’s ashes, over an area of the ocean that he had loved to deep-sea fish in.
According to the priest, it was the first “scattering of ashes at sea” that he was asked to perform and apparently he didn’t have a manual of instructions on “the right way to do it”. Nevertheless, he accepted the request and showed up to “do the deed”.
So happens that the widow arranged for a helicopter to take the priest, her, and her husband’s ashes out to sea.
Minutes ticked by as they boarded the waiting helicopter and the pilot flew the two living passengers and the ashes out to the “drop-off” area. The pilot communicated some brief essential instructions to the priest: “tether yourself to the inside of the helicopter, while the door is closed, and remain tethered and near the hanging hand-strap and the bolted handrail as needed, while the helicopter door is open.”
So there the widow and priest were, standing tethered, and holding on while the priest began the Invocation, and read the prayer. Then the pilot gave the warning signal and opened the helicopter door, and the priest opened the urn and shook the ashes out.
However, the priest was unprepared for the rush of air … into the helicopter, while he shook the ashes out of the urn. Consequently, very little of the deceased husband’s ashes made it out the door and to the sea below. The bulk of the ashes were blown into the helicopter and all over the priest and the widow and the helicopter interior.
Mortified, the priest managed to end “the service” and, presumably with the helicopter door closed, sweep up some ashes. And all were silent as the pilot flew them back to airport.
The widow’s last words to the priest, as they parted at the airport were: “I’m sure someday I will look back on this day, and laugh. Thank you, Father.”
The priest’s version of the story, in his book, was definitely funnier and more accurate than mine but hopefully, you get the gist of it. [Unfortunately, I can’t remember the title of the priest’s book.]
I merely pointed out that there is a differing opinion. I have not dug that deeply into the matter and would like to verify Carrier’s claims before I find any agreement.
What I have found is plenty of examples of charity in other religions, some of which predate Christianity and stand apart from Judaism, such as Hinduism.
The title of the thread is “Invention of Charity”. If the claim is Judaism and Christianity invented charity, I’m not sure how that can be supported, especially given the fact that our word for philanthropy comes from ancient Greece and the Greek custom of charity.
Ok… I see what you are saying about why atheists have not written more about charity.
Terry brings up a good point about communal charitable activities.
And I’m still curious about Jesus being the inventor of non-violent protest.
Not to press you any further into the discussion…
So I asked ChatGPT:
Was Jesus the originator of non-violent protest?
No, Jesus was not the originator of non-violent protest. The concept of non-violent resistance dates back to ancient times and has been used by various religious and political leaders throughout history.
Like who?
Examples of leaders who used non-violent resistance include:
Mahatma Gandhi in India
Martin Luther King Jr. in the US Civil Rights Movement
Nelson Mandela in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle
Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement.
What evidence is there that this dates back before Jesus?
There is historical evidence of non-violent resistance and protest dating back before the time of Jesus. For example:
The Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death but chose to drink hemlock rather than flee or fight back, in a form of nonviolent resistance.
The Indian philosopher and royal prince, Siddhartha Gautama, better known as the Buddha, advocated for nonviolent resistance and non-attachment as a path to enlightenment.
The Chinese philosopher Confucius taught the principles of righteousness and respect for authority, which could be seen as forms of nonviolent resistance.
These are just a few examples of ancient leaders and philosophers who utilized or advocated for non-violent resistance.
Some might call this “a teaching moment”; I prefer to call it “a learning moment”.
“Belief in Bigfoot” is the “attention-getter”, kind of like a “neon sign” that catches your attention first, before you see the rundown motel below the sign and pull into the parking lot to get a room. To see the rundown motel, you have to go to the beginning of the post that it’s posted in.
Where’s that? Gee, looks to me like it’s here, in Post #9 of this thread.
So, I said something that T_acquaticus was dissatisfied with and he decided that this thread which I started would be improved by his pointing out that my comment was about as relevant as talking about charity to people who don’t believe in Bigfoot.
But why would anybody, except me, regardless whether they believe in Bigfoot or not, be interested in charity, much less who invented it?
Gee, I dunno, but apparently Bart Earhmann thinks someone is interested, because he’s going to write a book about it and who invented it.
So why does Bart think the topic is important? Because he believes in God, Jesus, Christianity, or is just a charitable kind of guy? Or maybe because of "none of the above***. I venture the guess “none of the above” is the correct answer.
I saw the topic but didn’t remember the name.