RE: What Distinguishes Humankind
Some interesting points.
As for the old testament holding truths...what if it started off as articles composed by scientist/philosophers, who foreseaw their knowledge is to be lost, so they preserved it in a form that less sophisticated societies would understand and treasure.
Does your article above mean we are beginning to approach their level, so that is why we are able to recognise what they did - and the why?
As for quality of life. It is too broad a term for one answer.
I want luxuries while also enjoying security and all the basic comforts? Then I can turn evil, for I might see it as providing me with what I want.
Quality of life in a more cerebral manner [as is enjoyed by philosophers and people who want a world which approaches the ideal?].
Then we cannot allow evil - apart from the first lot, who might see it as the opportunity to take advantage of our dreams (a good example would be Al Gore - who has turned out to be totally rotten at core, not caring if he destroys civilization, as long as he can take advantage of the good in others and it serves to help him grow in wealth and power).
I think so yes, about Scriptures.
I find it hard to believe that there did not exist civilizations more sophisticated than ours in times long gone by. How else could we have obtained the ability to adapt so quickly to developments, gain 'new' insights so easily? It feels more like we are regaining ground lost before, maybe through some major disaster.
A heavenly existence appears to be our classic perception of the ultimate in quality of life, i.e., a perfectly peaceful, perfectly comfortable, perfectly honest environment within which the resources for fulfilling our needs are freely available. What we can strive to obtain in this world in terms of quality of life, I guess is as close an approximation of this as we can achieve. It is a socio-economic rather than a purely economic concept, as the most important ingredient is peace.
My perception of evil is in short exploitation, that is, enhancing your own quality of life at the cost of the quality of life of others, or otherwise put, transgressing the "love thy neighbor as thyself" rule. In this perspective, it would not be evil to obtain any luxury, on condition that obtaining that luxury does not negatively affect the quality of the live of other people, neither in this or following generations.
I hope my explanations make sense my friend. We live in a complex world, with our perception of it made more difficult by a facade of deceit veiling just about everything we need to know in order to escape from the very cleverly devised socio-economic structure within which the vast majority of us are being exploited for the benefit of a tiny minority. We can only engineer our way out of this if we have a clear understanding of the whole setup, and getting there isn't an easy ride.
In my story, Samantha hates the idea of tomes of laws and rules and looks to find a single rule - and she evolves a way of thinking that is accepted by others. the rule is simpler than the 'love thy neighbour'.
It states "It is my duty to protect you from myself."
If everyone applies that rule, we do not need to worry about defending ourselves.
I think the "love thy neighbour as thyself" may be a little hazy because of the terminology used. I think it is a little more abstract way of putting is, but to my mind it says exactly the same.
Maybe it was written, or translated, this way to obscure it a little, perhaps to hide this powerful principle from the common people. Something people deliberately tend to overlook is the fact that the Bible as we know it was put together by a Roman emperor and that emperors are emperors. What emperor would want to loose control over his subjects by encouraging them to apply a simple principle in their own right, that will empower them to say no when he orders them to take up their swords?
As you imply, by applying only this law and by having all man made rules comply with this principle, we can have perfect order and peace in this world.
has almost nothing to do with the rule I advocated. Protecting others from me, if everyone follows that rule, means there is no one to fear or defend yourself from.
EDIT
Why I say this is because there are a great many people who do not love themselves - having them apply this rule you mention would be catastrophic to everyone else.
I see your point @arthur.grafo. You express exactly the desired limits on one's behavior in an unambiguous rule. Kudos for that!
I think the confusion here arises from the fact that there does not exist a word in English that can serve as a proper translation of the original Greek word "agapē" in this context. A more correct translation of what stands both in and between the lines of the original statement may read something like this: "have an unconditional respect for your neighbor's right to have a fulfilling life in the same sense as you expect an unconditional respect for your own right to have a fulfilling life", which is a very involved and clumsy statement, to say the least. This crude example of mine can certainly be improved upon, but I trust you get the drift.
Unfortunately the English word "love" has a selfish quality about it, especially in the popular tongue, more akin to 'desire', while the meaning of the original Greek "agapē", or 'unconditional love', leans more toward meaning 'unconditional respect' in this context.
My guess is that the translators chose to translate "agapē" with "love" in order not to lose the notion of 'compassionate empathy' for having a presence in the translated sentence, which would be the case ending up with just a stark military rule of behavior.
Just my guess. Please do not believe a single word I say, as my words are only those of a simple human being trying to find his way. You are welcome, however, to take whatever you hear or see to your inner room, where only your mind, your heart, your soul and your Maker are present, to judge what is right and what is wrong.
An interesting point you may not have heard.
Empathy in Greek is (?) empathia?
It certainly looks like the word Empathy comes from Empathia doesn't it...but
Empathia is exactly the opposite of Empathy. It means you have no empathy.
I wonder how that happened.
Interesting, thank you. Maybe 'compassion' would have been a better choice.