What action deed or word is less ethical because you didn't first think it necessary to become utterly submissive toward 'loving' an abstract concept before another human being, your neighbor. Would you not suppose it less honorable, more troublesome, for a testament to be demanding first considerations go to a Lord (albeit imaginary) rather than a fellow human? Fair to say one does understand the mind and the will of God perfectly, just as soon as the mind and the will of God conforms to what one understands.
You do not seem to much of a 'free thinker' - more of a 'retarded thinker'. You base your assumptions on the discoveries of man to date, as if we had full knowledge of everything. We used to think the world was flat. You are simply a modern day equivalent of someone who believed in witches. It is clear you have great issues stretching your mind to things outside of the current known sphere of knowledge. I expect you have no imagination, zero creative skills, and were hopeless at art at school. In short, you are a philistine.
if a critical thinker ran into the problem you have they might take some time to study how the bible came about and who wrote it. then they might take each individual story in the bible and disect it and honestly ask themselves "how is that possible". thats what a thinker might do. maybe try it yourself. intellectual freedom is the ultimate freedom. you are no longer bound by primitive superstitions.
I do not see any contradiction in those 2 commandments. You can do both, or merely the 2nd, as you desire or see fit. There is no conflict. I would say it is a problem in society that neither is done, more often than not, by believers or non-believers. Though I'm sure plenty would profess otherwise....
I think there is a conflict. Complete subservience to the first as stated, before all others, contradicts the second. It is a clear testimony to do what you like, so long as one is convinced it is for and by the 'love' of the imaginary Lord. It must include overcoming your neighbor for no other reason than its demand, or it is pointless and meaningless as any kind of commandment. It is how wars were and still are started . Accepting the fact that religion is often used as a political tool in support of all sorts of wrong ideas, had the first so called great commandment been "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." there would be a completely different emphasis portrayed. One more in line with primarily maintaining humane priorities.
There is a conflict if you create a conflict. There is no stipulation that fulfilling commandment 1 can or must be done by violating commandment 2. To claim otherwise for political reasons, which would be usurping the intent, anything can be rationalized. For Christians fed to the lions in the Roman Colosseum, they remained true to both.
One cannot stick to both, nor can one consider humanity, where commandment 1 requires an override of commandment 2. That couldn't happen the other way about. Usurping intent would be to switch commandment 1 with commandment 2.
That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. I would not look upon it as fact though. As I stated, the Christians fed to the lions maintained both. True, they did it at great personal sacrifice, because they physically died.... But then, so did the ones that put them in front of the lions. It was just a question of "when"....
Not sure it is just my opinion. Commandment 1 subordinates commandment 2, being biblically described as "This is the first and great commandment." Inevitably there is a conflict, as history so often demonstrates, about first 'loving' an imaginary Lord and such concepts, giving precedence against humanity.
Oh, it is definitely your opinion. You are appending an imaginary "Obey Commandment 1, and kill those who you think don't!" because of your own bias. But that's ok.