The Ten Commandments from Judaism help me understand right from wrong

[Magna]

You have demonstrated the purpose of the 10 Commandments. It is one thing to Say ‘why can’t we all just get along’, but like Rodney King, the answer to the question is in the mirror.

As the OP implies, heartfelt study of the 10 Commandments will enlighten us as to the very reasons that we all can’t just get along. Some people can benefit from that exercise, others cannot.

Would we have been able to get along better as a species if we'd have adopted an "Agree to disagree." fundamental for any viewpoints/beliefs different from our own provided both were peaceful?

 

[Crossbreed]

Under the directive of the Golden Rule, those with clear vision have an obligation to warn others when we see that the "bridge is out!" ahead.

We do not have an obligation to

1. force them to heed our warning, against their will, nor
2. attack them for continuing unabated,

but if they choose to do so, they remain responsible for their own consequences.

 

[The Pandector]

Would we have been able to get along better as a species if we'd have adopted an "Agree to disagree." fundamental for any viewpoints/beliefs different from our own provided both were peaceful?

If we all agreed to grow feathers, would we be any better at unaided flight?
Spoiler: ‘No; it’s not in our nature.’

Different situations call for different responses and solutions. Sometimes, united action is called for, so agreeing to disagree is not an option. Plus, like the asinine rioting in the US, you will find yourself trying to agree about disagreeing about the meaning of ‘peaceful’ (which must, after all, be agreed upon).

If all the jackrabbits agreed to gang up on the coyotes…
If wishes were fishes…

 

[Magna]

If we all agreed to grow feathers, would we be any better at unaided flight?
Spoiler: ‘No; it’s not in our nature.’

Different situations call for different responses and solutions. Sometimes, united action is called for, so agreeing to disagree is not an option. Plus, like the asinine rioting in the US, you will find yourself trying to agree about disagreeing about the meaning of ‘peaceful’ (which must, after all, be agreed upon).

If all the jackrabbits agreed to gang up on the coyotes…
If wishes were fishes…

I agree to disagree. Since this is a thread about religious beliefs and people, myself included advocate for "live and let live" rather than "I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake.", the "united action being called for" in the context of this thread and religion in general is something I interpret as...."I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake." Perhaps better for anyone with that mindset to shake the dust from their sandals....

 

[The Pandector]

I agree to disagree. Since this is a thread about religious beliefs and people, myself included advocate for "live and let live" rather than "I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake.", the "united action being called for" in the context of this thread and religion in general is something I interpret as...."I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake." Perhaps better for anyone with that mindset to shake the dust from their sandals....

I enjoy your feisty dichotomy of potential action. One may either agree to disagree, or one may say ‘I’m right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake’. But, fun tactics aside, I see a very large spectrum of possible scenarios in between those two extremes.

 

[The Pandector]

I agree to disagree. Since this is a thread about religious beliefs and people, myself included advocate for "live and let live" rather than "I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake.", the "united action being called for" in the context of this thread and religion in general is something I interpret as...."I'm right and you need to believe what I believe for your own sake." Perhaps better for anyone with that mindset to shake the dust from their sandals....

Been trying to understand your interpretation of my words. You seem to be saying that there is never a proper call for united action. Of course, that doesn’t imply universal or mandatory action, simply united action. Is that your stand? That there is never circumstance in which it is proper to suggest united action? Why else would you suggest this interpretation?

Also, can you explain why a person suggesting united action would better shake dust from their feet?

 

[Magna]

Been trying to understand your interpretation of my words. You seem to be saying that there is never a proper call for united action. Of course, that doesn’t imply universal or mandatory action, simply united action. Is that your stand? That there is never circumstance in which it is proper to suggest united action? Why else would you suggest this interpretation?

Also, can you explain why a person suggesting united action would better shake dust from their feet?

Agreed that we must be on totally different wavelengths.

"Sometimes, united action is called for, so agreeing to disagree is not an option."

The thread is about religion, the Bible, the 10 Commandments and much reference has been made to multiple people saying they believe it's better to respect the peaceful beliefs that are different from each other. Namely in the context of this thread summed up more or less as: "Believe what you want to believe, but don't proselytize as others simply might not believe what you do."

I misinterpreted your post. Based on the topic of this thread, the numerous "Live and let live." belief holders and your comment I quoted here as one of your responses in this thread, I incorrectly interpreted it to mean: "Sometimes something as important as the Salvation of souls overrides the call to "Live and let live." and compels those of us who are believers to be persistent and "united" in preaching the word to those who don't want to hear it."............. To which I would reply: "Shake the dust from your sandals."

 

[The Pandector]

Agreed that we must be on totally different wavelengths.

"Sometimes, united action is called for, so agreeing to disagree is not an option."

The thread is about religion, the Bible, the 10 Commandments and much reference has been made to multiple people saying they believe it's better to respect the peaceful beliefs that are different from each other. Namely in the context of this thread summed up more or less as: "Believe what you want to believe, but don't proselytize as others simply might not believe what you do."

I misinterpreted your post. Based on the topic of this thread, the numerous "Live and let live." belief holders and your comment I quoted here as one of your responses in this thread, I incorrectly interpreted it to mean: "Sometimes something as important as the Salvation of souls overrides the call to "Live and let live." and compels those of us who are believers to be persistent and "united" in preaching the word to those who don't want to hear it."............. To which I would reply: "Shake the dust from your sandals."

Yes, I often find myself imputing more to a statement than is justified by the statement.

No, I was not thinking of proselytizing when I wrote that. While I understand the topics of the thread, I was thinking more about the universal applicability (or lack thereof) of what, as you point out, is a rational mainstay of the conversation, the live-and-let-live paradigm.

IMHO, some ideas have nearly universal appeal but limited application. Freedom, for example, has universal feel-good vibes; unfortunately, it only works when practiced with discipline and intellectual integrity; therefore, championing freedom without acknowledging the limitations is irresponsible.

I was merely suggesting that live and let live, likewise, has limited applicability.

I should add, I spoke of ‘united’ action because I think of it as the bedrock of civilization.