[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other. Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

seán s.

[Algernon]

Of utmost importance is understanding what JESUS had to say about what “love” entails. It has nothing to do with “feeling”. Rather it has to do with keeping His commandments.

John 14

15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 21“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” 23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24“He who does not love Me does not keep My words; 31but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me.

“Love” entails KEEPing His commandments/words Not trying to KEEP HIs commandments/words but actually KEEPing them; just as He KEEPs God’s commandments/word – which requires not committing sin. HIS word. Not the word of anyone other than Jesus.

Jesus also revealed the foundation for His commandments/word.

Matthew 7

12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22

36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

In Matthew 7, Jesus says that the “golden rule” IS the “law and the prophets”. In Matthew 22 Jesus says that the “law and the prophets DEPENDS on “loving your neighbor as yourself” which amounts to the same thing as the “golden rule”. Unfortunately many Christians not only fail to do so, they do not believe in doing so.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by  Algernon.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

“Unfortunately many Christians not only fail to do so, they do not believe in doing so.”

This is one of several reasons why I do not give believers any authority to lecture me on morality. Too many don’t even follow the instructions in the book they wave around.

“physician, heal thyself.”

seán s.

[Algernon]

Only those who keep the “golden rule” love God.

Only those who keep the “golden rule” love Jesus.

This is the standard according to Jesus.

As such, regarding the topic of the OP, everyone who keeps the “golden rule” loves God. Whether or not they profess “belief”, they are the only ones who actually love God. For that matter, they are the only ones who actually “believe in” God.

Those who do not keep the “golden rule” do not actually love God. Those who do not keep the Golden rule do not actually “believe in” God. Not matter how much they may profess that they do. They are the “white-washed tombs”, if not the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Jesus warns about.

[jayceeii]

There are two forms of the golden rule, and one might even say humans follow a brass rule instead. There are things which please pure spirit and things which please grasping spirit. The things which please the former displease the latter, and vice-versa. In general humans follow a rule of “avoid others, as you would be avoided.” Thus they minimize conflict. What pleases grasping spirit is a pile of money. They don’t complain if you give that. But pure spirit is displeased by money, as Jesus said only one master may be served.

[lancia]

Perhaps nothing in the Bible illustrates what you say more than the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, as told in Matthew 25:31-46.

There the sheep are identified as those whose actions reveal love for others: they help others in need. Much to the surprise of the sheep, they do not realize that by helping others in need, they also indirectly help even more others, including Jesus, who love those being helped. Thus, possessing the kind of love for others Jesus admonished us to have would link all of us.

Nothing is explicitly said in the parable about things like believing in Jesus or having faith in Jesus or being baptized, things that most Christians believe are necessary for being saved. According to the Parable, it’s all about loving others and doing the things that naturally flow from such love.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

… and if this is true, neither belief in a god nor love of a god is necessary. I’m good with that. Just be a good person. Follow the GR.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).
• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).

[jayceeii]

You are following the brass rule. The closest humans approach the golden rule is with the children. They know their children require the five essentials of life, just as they do (food, clothing, housing, medical and dental care). About the neighbor they say, “Let him go grab fiercely for cash, just as we are grabbing. Let us avoid him otherwise, as we wish to be avoided.” You present needs as if it is a weakness, but logically all bodies have needs. You wait for someone’s plot for cash to fail, then call it charity to keep him from starving.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

This comment of yours is a total non sequitur.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

The comment is for Lancia. At this forum you have to look carefully at the margins.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

And yet, it remains a total non sequitur.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).

[jayceeii]

No, it follows because he has claimed those are justified who follow the golden rule, I point out no humans do. God looking at man, does not find any affection between them.

Lancia gives the standard human interpretation of the golden rule, where Jesus did not specify. But it shouldn’t take much logic to see people should be caring for one another.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Your opinion that no one follows the GR is uncharitable nonsense. All that “follows” from that is that you certainly don’t follow the GR.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

I know a planet without affection when I see it. I know lip-service charity when I see it. If you are looking for someone to defend the human race, I am not the one. I notice you offer no defense, just simple contradictions without presenting any evidence on your side.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

If you believe no humans follow the golden rule, I think you ought to try.

[jayceeii]

How bizarre, you too seem to expect the GR can be used to twist someone’s arm! I have my opinion. Unlike Abraham who stated he saw a few justified humans, I can see none.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Please don’t misunderstand, it is merely a suggestion. I know it’s not for everyone.

[jayceeii]

The golden rule does not state, “Believe the lies of others, as you would have them believe your lies.” But it also has no self-regulating mechanism; it is not objective. It only asks to do what you expect to have done; this can also be something low and self-serving.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Without spiritual understanding, the rule is worthless. When properly followed, it is corrective and golden.

[jayceeii]

It is human nature to declare itself perfect at every step of the spiritual path, although it knows not spirit or its properties. Nothing can get past that smug Cheshire cat grin. Progress proceeds inchwise as the flaws are detected, but some see no way forward at all.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “I know a planet without affection when I see it. [etc.]”

This comment of yours makes no sense to me.

re. “How bizarre, you too seem to expect the GR can be used to twist someone’s arm!“

More nonsense.

re. “[The GR] only asks to do what you expect to have done.“

OMG! No. The GR is

• “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12
• “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Luke 6:31

Your expectations are no part of the GR. How is it you are here spouting about the GR but you don’t even know what it says??

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “I know a planet without affection when I see it. [etc.]”

SS: This comment of yours makes no sense to me.

JC: I see only craving, and selfish attachment and uses. There is no genuine relating.

re. “How bizarre, you too seem to expect the GR can be used to twist someone’s arm!“

SS: More nonsense.

JC: The arm twisting is that I’m expected to accept your lies, as you accept those of other humans, everyone pretending to be good and to love the neighbor, but all of it hypocrisy. I’m asked to “be charitable” in accepting your claim to charity as something not dishonest.

re. “[The GR] only asks to do what you expect to have done.“

SS: OMG! No. The GR is

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Luke 6:31

JC: I do not accept that you think validly of God. Though I see you use the term, you carry a private meaning disconnected from the Living Deity. This is occurs everywhere.

SS: Your expectations are no part of the GR.

JC: The GR asks a man to apply his own standards, do onto others as he’d have them do onto him. To apply it he asks, “How do I expect others to treat me?” This is not objective. Specifically, humans expect to be left alone as they grab selfishly, and grant this to others.

SS: How is it you are here spouting about the GR but you don’t even know what it says??

JC: It was Jesus who was merely spouting, in giving something humans would turn into their brass rule. To enforce it as the golden rule it needs to be added that the function of society should be that all members are granted (and expect) full sustenance. As I said humans approach this only with their children, competing against the neighbor and leaving him in the cold. I’d have expected to see this at least within the churches if they claim to love one another, and there is only one church like that on Earth, the Hutterites.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “I see only craving, and selfish attachment and uses. There is no genuine relating.”

More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

re. “The arm twisting is that I’m expected to accept your lies, as you accept those of other humans, everyone pretending to be good and to love the neighbor, but all of it hypocrisy. I’m asked to ‘be charitable’ in accepting your claim to charity as something not dishonest.”

More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

re. “I do not accept that you think validly of God. Though I see you use the term, you carry a private meaning disconnected from the Living Deity. This is occurs everywhere“

More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

re. “The GR asks a man to apply his own standards, do onto others as he’d have them do onto him.”

You are correct in this much. But then you go off the rails again: “To apply it he asks, ‘How do I expect others to treat me?'”

Well, perhaps YOU do that, but I don’t. A person who did like you say would NOT be following the GR. We don’t get to alter it to our convenience.

We should follow the GR as it is stated (see Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31). We must not alter it for our convenience.

re. “Specifically, humans expect to be left alone as they grab selfishly, and grant this to others.”

Perhaps that is what YOU expect. Again, you project your dark thoughts onto others.

re. “It was Jesus who was merely spouting…“

Those are your words, not mine.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “I see only craving, and selfish attachment and uses. There is no genuine relating.”

SS: More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

JC: Evil exists, and is not God’s projection. But, evil does not know itself. All men believe themselves justified. Words will not reform a man, only sadhana can. A cooperative attitude might have gained something, but without it other methods appear.

re. “The arm twisting is that I’m expected to accept your lies, as you accept those of other humans, everyone pretending to be good and to love the neighbor, but all of it hypocrisy. I’m asked to ‘be charitable’ in accepting your claim to charity as something not dishonest.”

SS: More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

JC: I do not accept your lies, thus failing your application of the brass rule.

re. “I do not accept that you think validly of God. Though I see you use the term, you carry a private meaning disconnected from the Living Deity. This is occurs everywhere“

SS: More of your projection: of your own dark thoughts onto others.

JC: The proper response by an intelligent being would be appropriate thoughts about God. Show me you think validly of God, writing “OMG!” You do not, nor any other.

re. “The GR asks a man to apply his own standards, do onto others as he’d have them do onto him.”

SS: You are correct in this much. But then you go off the rails again: “To apply it he asks, ‘How do I expect others to treat me?’”

Well, perhaps YOU do that, but I don’t. A person who did like you say would NOT be following the GR. We don’t get to alter it to our convenience.

We should follow the GR as it is stated (see Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31). We must not alter it for our convenience.

JC: There is nothing objective in the GR since you are asked to treat others as you would be treated. It is left to you to say how you would be treated. Jesus did not specify the treatment, thus we see radically different applications, only the Hutterites succeeding. Maybe you expect that others should hand you a hundred gold bars; so do so to them.

re. “Specifically, humans expect to be left alone as they grab selfishly, and grant this to others.”

SS: Perhaps that is what YOU expect. Again, you project your dark thoughts onto others.

JC: I have stated accurately the human way. It has been the same story throughout history. Translation: Get a job in competition against the rest, accumulate money you won’t share.

re. “It was Jesus who was merely spouting…“

SS: Those are your words, not mine.

JC: You show respect to Jesus only because He spoke vaguely, without identifying sin. Much evil came from Jesus’ lack of specificity, but God thought this the optimal course.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “Evil exists, and is not God’s projection.”

True enough, but irrelevant. You are not god, and the dark thoughts projected I referred to are yours, not gods.

re. “Words will not reform a man, only sadhana can.“

This is merely your opinion, you’ve given no reason to agree.

re. “I do not accept your lies, thus failing your application of the brass rule.”

You misrepresent my words and then reject your misrepresentation of them. That is wise. Now consider what I actually wrote.

The “brass rule” is your invention, I’ve already rejected it.

re. “The proper response by an intelligent being would be appropriate thoughts about God.”

I do seek appropriate thoughts in general. Agreement with your opinions is not an appropriate requirement.

re. “Show me you think validly of God“

I have, but you seem to insist on my agreement with you; that is not a valid requirement. In any event, convincing you is not necessary.

re. “There is nothing objective in the GR since you are asked to treat others as you would be treated. It is left to you to say how you would be treated.”

So close! But not quite there.

One doesn’t get to say how they will be treated, one gets to say how they WANT to be treated.

The GR obligates one to treat others as one WANTS to be treated by all others.

For example: the GR obligates Bob to treat Ann as Bob wants to be treated by all others.

re. “Jesus did not specify the treatment, …“

Of course not, because that’s unnecessary. The Golden Rule tells ALL OF US how to treat OTHERS OF US based on how WE want to be treated by OTHERS. It is not that hard.

re. “Maybe you expect that others should hand you a hundred gold bars; so do so to them.“

When you wrote this, you simply didn’t understand the GR. I hope you do now.

I don’t want to be robbed so I must not rob others.

re. “You show respect to Jesus only because He spoke vaguely, without identifying sin.”

Jesus condemned selfishness (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:25-28, Luke 16:19-31); pride (Luke 20:45-47 and 18:9-14); hypocrisy (Matthew 22:13-39); greed (Matthew 6:24 and 6:33, Mark 12:41-44); unforgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15 and 18:21-35); hatred (John 13:34-35, Matthew 5:21-26); and judging others (Luke 5:27-31, Matthew 7:1-6). This list is not complete.

Look also to the things Jesus praised or commanded. Whatever Jesus was, he was not vague.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “Evil exists, and is not God’s projection.”

SS: True enough, but irrelevant. You are not god, and the dark thoughts projected I referred to are yours, not gods.

JC: Your opinion is duly noted, in case there are historical purposes. Thoughts which notice evil are bright, not dark. But darkness does not need to exist for there to be light.

re. “Words will not reform a man, only sadhana can.“

SS: This is merely your opinion, you’ve given no reason to agree.

JC: Such were the words of the Buddha, whom you should acknowledge as God. You say there are strings of words to convince you God was here, and He brought the best so far.

re. “I do not accept your lies, thus failing your application of the brass rule.”

SS: You misrepresent my words and then reject your misrepresentation of them. That is wise. Now consider what I actually wrote.

The “brass rule” is your invention, I’ve already rejected it.

JC: There are two forms of the golden rule, for selfish and selfless entities. I call the rule of the selfish brass. The golden rule ought to result in utopia; the brass certainly can not. The brass rule amounts to a set of lies or hypocrisy, pretending to be good, not truly good. You can’t drag me down your lanes of thinking. Even did I try, I could not join you there.

re. “The proper response by an intelligent being would be appropriate thoughts about God.”

SS: I do seek appropriate thoughts in general. Agreement with your opinions is not an appropriate requirement.

JC: The point is that to correct a statement that one’s ideas are empty, full ideas are presented. You merely bring negations, that by neglect virtually prove this emptiness.

re. “Show me you think validly of God“

SS: I have, but you seem to insist on my agreement with you; that is not a valid requirement. In any event, convincing you is not necessary.

JC: You have done so much in your mind, it seems, but nothing others can see in text. You don’t seem to understand the question, that shouting “OMG” might offend the Lord.

re. “There is nothing objective in the GR since you are asked to treat others as you would be treated. It is left to you to say how you would be treated.”

SS: So close! But not quite there.

JC: This disdainful attitude is further evidence that with you relationship is impossible. Somehow your contempt for the presence of another, becomes in your mind an argument.

SS: One doesn’t get to say how they will be treated, one gets to say how they WANT to be treated.

JC: No, you decide how you want to be treated, and then you treat others that way. And the decision can be divided into selfish and selfless categories, that I’d call brass or gold.

SS: The GR obligates one to treat others as one WANTS to be treated by all others. For example: the GR obligates Bob to treat Ann as Bob wants to be treated by all others.

JC: You have merely restated my point. You were arguing against the wind, it appears. Now try to understand different people applying the rule, will interpret it differently. Then explain why utopia has not arisen from application of the rule, even in one church. That can only occur with varying interpretations, and with inauthentic, hypocritical ones.

re. “Jesus did not specify the treatment, …“

SS: Of course not, because that’s unnecessary. The Golden Rule tells ALL OF US how to treat OTHERS OF US based on how WE want to be treated by OTHERS. It is not that hard.

JC: It seems you are not thinking of any real instances or examples, or don’t know anything about the disagreements to arise among mortals. In general Christians interpret the golden rule to leave others to their selfish grabbing, as they wish to be left to theirs. And although the children are forced to do so, no man interprets that his friend would want to have full sustenance for his embodiment, that is a peculiar thing for intelligence.

re. “Maybe you expect that others should hand you a hundred gold bars; so do so to them.“

SS: When you wrote this, you simply didn’t understand the GR. I hope you do now. I don’t want to be robbed so I must not rob others.

JC: Indeed, there is ONLY agreement among mortals, about the most brutal types of crime. And that agreement is not complete or such crime would cease. You present the brass rule again here, “Leave me alone in my castle, once I have secured my riches.” It’s amazing how your example dovetails perfectly into my argument, like you meant it to fit.

re. “You show respect to Jesus only because He spoke vaguely, without identifying sin.”

SS: Jesus condemned selfishness (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:25-28, Luke 16:19-31); pride (Luke 20:45-47 and 18:9-14); hypocrisy (Matthew 22:13-39); greed (Matthew 6:24 and 6:33, Mark 12:41-44); unforgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15 and 18:21-35); hatred (John 13:34-35, Matthew 5:21-26); and judging others (Luke 5:27-31, Matthew 7:1-6). This list is not complete.

JC: All of this was left to human interpretation, nor have the most serious sins been listed. I think Judgment comes for these sins, not for what man has agreed to be sinful, which can be defined as what the other humans most hate, not that which most offends the Lord.

SS: Look also to the things Jesus praised or commanded. Whatever Jesus was, he was not vague.

JC: Whatever Jesus was, He was vague. You don’t know what you are in your essence, for instance, soul or body or wind of the Holy Spirit. You don’t know God’s opinion on any political question, leading to some claiming allegiance to Christ on all sides of every divisive issue. You think of Jesus as a businessman and a family man, not as True God.

[lancia]

Yes, I, too, cannot see the relevance of your response to anything in my post.

[Pater]

It takes a lot of other words to define the one word – love. That one word requires nuanced explanation depending on context. Love is defined not only by what it is, but also by what it does, and how it is expressed.

Jesus said “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Keeping commandments is an expression of love, but that’s not the definition of love.

Love is the personal commitment to the proper betterment of someone other than ourselves. It requires personal sacrificial relationship. Its absence always results in harm to someone other than ourselves.

If perfectly embraced, the problems of this world would be summarily solved on a moment by moment basis, and joy would be the common persistent state of affairs amongst human beings. If rejected, well, we have what we have. Each one out for themselves, and damn all the rest.

God’s commandment is that we love Him and love each other. If we did, all the other commandments are perfectly unnecessary. If we don’t, we tend to break all the commandments, and stand guilty before a holy God of all our selfishness.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

A lot of hair-splitting and nitpicking goin’ on here!

The Golden Rule (GR) can be found in various forms and in nearly all cultures. One need not believe in any deity to see the wisdom of the GR and try to live a life guided by it.

We don’t know if the historical Jesus actually existed. He probably did, but we don’t know for sure; we’re not even sure what his real name was. Given that, we don’t know what “Jesus said“. We only have a collection of accounts written by others after the fact, and of those we have only translations, or translations of translations.

Since we really don’t know if Jesus existed, nor what he actually said if he did, and since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward the Christian god or any other.

The significance of all this nitpicking is that — even if we did know what “Jesus said” — we would still struggle to understand it.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

So, no god has ever spoken to you? Paul said many have entertained angels unawares, so if you have, then a god spoke to you but you didn’t notice. I’d have guessed Gene Kelly to be a god, for instance. But I’m alone in the assessment.

Here at the forum some have listed their requirements or expectations, how a god could reach them or what kind of evidence they’d find convincing. The gods don’t appear in this gap, though. They must know the estimations are overblown.

We find the Catholics accepting saints, but no real prophets any more. Like prophecy is dead or God gave up trying to reach them. Or as Jesus gave the parable of the vineyard owner, the prophets are killed should they be so bold.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

No god has spoken to me. If some hypothetical deity spoke to me in such a way that they remained hidden from me, that is on them. What person can find what a deity chooses to hide?

seán s.

[jayceeii]

It is not that the deity (god) has something to hide, but that it is known humans are unresponsive unless magic tricks are involved, and then only for a few short hours.

I’d repeat your statement that no god has spoken to you should properly be phrased that no god has spoken to you that you are aware of. If Paul is right, you may have seen many.

To be “on them” implies you are a great prize, but it may not be seen this way. The world is not worse off for your not having been approached and the gods may have stayed alive.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “… it is known humans are unresponsive unless magic tricks are involved, and then only for a few short hours.”

There is no such knowledge. Humans don’t need “magic tricks” to speak to each other. Even animals can get responses from humans or other animals without resorting to “magic”.

Heck, PLANTS can provoke a response!!

Is your god broken??

If some deity has spoken to me in such a way that they remained hidden from me, that is on them. Perhaps that happened, perhaps it didn’t; why should anyone treat that bare possibility seriously?

Maybe that hidden deity was Molach. Hmm … As likely/unlikely as any.

“that is on them” simply means I am not culpable for the consequences of their hypothetical decision. No one has an obligation to a deity who hides from them.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

You will not be able to divorce the human mind from an expectation of miracles from what it calls an “omnipotent God.” Hence, magic tricks. God’s presence isn’t enough.

Yes, it is “on them,” and the world is no worse off for your not having been approached openly. As gods they know what they are doing, and it would be worse to approach you.

The Bible contains irony, and one of the places is where Moses is described as needing to perform miracles again and again, for after seeing one the Israelites soon mumbled again.

I read that and think, “Yes, those are the human beings,” and Christians maintain this expectation before they’d look twice. They have set up no channels to welcome prophets.

My point of you thinking yourself a great prize, is your idea the world is broken since no obligation was communicated to you that you would receive. Angels don’t weep over this.

It is possible things could have been done in a smoother way, had God been able to obtain some cooperation from humans. That it won’t be done in a smooth way is on you, not me.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

You seem to project your own thoughts onto others; that’s a bad habit.

I don’t expect any miracles for a god to communicate with me; a god could say what is needed in a text message. I have a cell phone and email. The post office delivers regularly.

God’s “presence” is not required, words would suffice. Besides, I’ve heard god is present everywhere; is that not so?

I do not think I am a great prize, I’m pretty ordinary. Perhaps there is some god, and they just don’t care about me; I’m okay with that. But that does absolve me from all obligations to that indifferent deity. I’m good with that too. Mutual, reciprocal indifference. Okee doke.

I don’t think the world is broken, it just is as it is. I used the word “broken” with regard to your god whom you seem to think lacks the communication skills of ordinary plants and animals. Hmm! Is your god broken?

I don’t worry about Angels, if they even exist they clearly don’t care about me.

If your god exists, maybe he didn’t get much cooperation from humans because he was too opaque.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).
• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).

[jayceeii]

SS: You seem to project your own thoughts onto others; that’s a bad habit.

JC: I think people don’t integrate what they are saying. Their words betray their thoughts. You can’t say exactly what you mean here, can you? An unspecified charge is empty.

SS: I don’t expect any miracles for a god to communicate with me; a god could say what is needed in a text message. I have a cell phone and email. The post office delivers regularly.

JC: So you say, but I can prove otherwise. There are many claiming to be God and giving stunning words as well as claiming verified miracles. Your mind is not swayed by them at all. If these are good words and they are not penetrating, there are no words that penetrate. Why don’t you list what your text message should say, so that you’d believe?

SS: God’s “presence” is not required, words would suffice.

JC: Nay, it is the presence of the Incarnation which matters most, or of a prophet. There are fakers whose words are strong but whose presence is weak. But to wield discrimination about a personal presence is not possible for those blind to personality. Again I’d challenge you to write out what words would prove you’d heard from God. You won’t be able to do it because that string of words cannot be crafted by the Almighty.

SS: Besides, I’ve heard god is present everywhere; is that not so?

JC: Now you are asking for something different, a manifestation from the invisible, a.k.a. a magic trick. Legend has it God embodies and sends prophets; and you will deny them.

SS: I do not think I am a great prize, I’m pretty ordinary.

JC: Yet you have stated things strangely, unlike other atheists who are content to say God is unreal. You said you have “no obligation of any kind toward the Christian god or any other.” That is a weak form of atheism, looking at God with eyes half open and half shut.

SS: Perhaps there is some god, and they just don’t care about me; I’m okay with that.

JC: God may not care about you in the way you expect or could perceive. Christians think of Him as Father but I think this is anthropomorphizing God, not seeking Him.

SS: But that does absolve me from all obligations to that indifferent deity.

JC: If you have no obligation it could be because you could bear none. God is left to do the heavy lifting, in a process that as I said, could have gone smoother with cooperation.

SS: I’m good with that too. Mutual, reciprocal indifference. Okee doke.

JC: One sees oneself in others first. A relationship with you may not be possible.

SS: I don’t think the world is broken, it just is as it is. I used the word “broken” with regard to your god whom you seem to think lacks the communication skills of ordinary plants and animals. Hmm! Is your god broken?

JC: I meant you seemed to think the world is broken if God doesn’t come pounding on your door. In essence all humans have been left free of obligation, since the religions did not rise to a status of saving commands. The commands given were those natural to man. God could reach man if man could respond, as easily as I am sitting here typing for you. But you see Jesus didn’t bother to write. He only spoke, knowing men would deny God.

SS: I don’t worry about Angels, if they even exist they clearly don’t care about me.

JC: Again this should be rephrased, to your perceptions they don’t care about you. There are many things occurring in this world you may not be perceiving, but others could see.

SS: If your god exists, maybe he didn’t get much cooperation from humans because he was too opaque.

JC: No, the darkness cannot be penetrated by light, even the best the Almighty could do. The human mind is not amenable to saving logic. It always challenges, convinced it has no need of saving, mistaking the body for a secure platform. This barrier is impenetrable.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “you can’t say exactly what you mean here, can you?“

You’re avoiding the question; I was clear. The charge is projection.

re. “So you say, but I can prove otherwise.”

Your “proof” is that I am unpursuaded by humans talking about gods, which is foolish. Gods speaking for themselves would be categorically different from the idle talk of humans.

re. “I’d challenge you to write out what words would prove you’d heard from God. You won’t be able to do it because that string of words cannot be crafted by the Almighty.”

I did that long ago; it wasn’t even challenging.

re. “you have stated things strangely”

No, you just aren’t reading what I’m writing; and you are projecting your presumptions on me.

re. “One sees oneself in others first. A relationship with you may not be possible.”

You were looking in your mirror when you said that!

re. “I meant you seemed to think the world is broken if …“

This is a confession of your bad habit of projection. I wrote clearly but you let your projections get in the way.

re. “Again this should be rephrased, to your perceptions they [Angels] don’t care about you.”

Yet more projection. You’re not even trying to follow my thoughts, are you?

re. “the darkness cannot be penetrated by light, even the best the Almighty could do. The human mind is not amenable to saving logic. It always challenges, convinced it has no need of saving, mistaking the body for a secure platform. This barrier is impenetrable“

That’s a pile of projections. AND … So much for an Almighty God!!!

By the way, isn’t your Almighty God supposed to be the designer/creator? He made this mess if he exists. Sounds like he owes us all an apology!

Your god needs to just use his words. It ain’t hard. Most humans learn to do this.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “you can’t say exactly what you mean here, can you?”

SS: You’re avoiding the question; I was clear. The charge is projection.

JC: I asked for clarification. What do you say that I am projecting? It seems you cannot.

re. “So you say, but I can prove otherwise.”

SS: Your “proof” is that I am unpursuaded by humans talking about gods, which is foolish. Gods speaking for themselves would be categorically different from the idle talk of humans.

JC: If there are some offering persuasive words and claiming to be God, but you don’t care, it proves that no one can approach with persuasive words. You can’t be persuaded. God approaching you would be limited to the English language. Though you insist it must be categorically different from human speech, would you recognize it if it were? How would it differ? How would you know? You have nothing but an empty notion here.

re. “I’d challenge you to write out what words would prove you’d heard from God. You won’t be able to do it because that string of words cannot be crafted by the Almighty.”

SS: I did that long ago; it wasn’t even challenging.

JC: It’s an empty boast, but it would be a useful exercise had you actually done this. It would be a good exercise for any believer, but would the ideas be real or only self-serving? If you imagine God a slave at your feet and to your desires, that is not God.

re. “you have stated things strangely”

SS: No, you just aren’t reading what I’m writing; and you are projecting your presumptions on me.

JC: You are the first atheist I’ve seen saying anything about a supposed obligation. The others such as Fred or Mammal are clearheaded in their conviction that God doesn’t exist.

re. “One sees oneself in others first. A relationship with you may not be possible.”

SS: You were looking in your mirror when you said that!

JC: Man thinks he is ready for a relationship with God, but God may see they are not ready for any relationships. A relationship has reverence for ideas that may seem foreign.

re. “I meant you seemed to think the world is broken if …“

SS: This is a confession of your bad habit of projection. I wrote clearly but you let your projections get in the way.

JC: Your style of argument seems to be mere reflection. As if you have no original ideas. I appreciate the arguments of Mammal and Fred. Though we don’t agree, they don’t reflect. You have said this word “projection,” but aren’t pointing to any specific instance.

re. “Again this should be rephrased, to your perceptions they [Angels] don’t care about you.”

SS: Yet more projection. You’re not even trying to follow my thoughts, are you?

JC: You are not communicating anything substantial, just reflecting whatever I have said and saying, “No!” You must present words, and not expect the world to be a mind-reader.

re. “the darkness cannot be penetrated by light, even the best the Almighty could do. The human mind is not amenable to saving logic. It always challenges, convinced it has no need of saving, mistaking the body for a secure platform. This barrier is impenetrable“

SS: That’s a pile of projections. AND … So much for an Almighty God!!!

JC: It’s a stack of truths. Humanity has not been closely guided by God for God could not reach so low. It turns out it mattered, for the planet might’ve been developed more wisely.

SS: By the way, isn’t your Almighty God supposed to be the designer/creator? He made this mess if he exists. Sounds like he owes us all an apology!

JC: Humans overpower God at the Holy Spirit interface, their brutality against His wisdom. He did make it, and it is a mess today. He may have a plan to fix the mess.

SS: Your god needs to just use his words. It ain’t hard. Most humans learn to do this.

JC: To prove this, you would need to show there is a string of words which would convince you that God was interacting with you. If when He uses words this is different from humans and you can’t see it, you will classify Him as a human and condemn Him.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Re. “What do you say that I am projecting?” and “You have said this word “projection,” but aren’t pointing to any specific instance.”

I’ve already answered this and pointed out several examples. Repetition is pointless now.

Re. “If there are some offering persuasive words and claiming to be God, but you don’t care, it proves that no one can approach with persuasive words.”

Since I have never said anything like this, this is just more projection by you. If some god chooses to speak to me, I am sure they will be able to convince me. You don’t understand how that would be, but your understanding is not my concern.

Re. “You are the first atheist I’ve seen saying anything about a supposed obligation.”

I don’t say anything about a supposed obligation; the obligation was raised at the beginning of this thread. I reject the existence of any obligation between me and any deity.

Re. “Humans overpower God at the Holy Spirit interface, …“

Cite where in The Bible we can find the phrase “Holy Spirit interface“.

Re. “To prove this, you would need to show there is a string of words which would convince you that God was interacting with you. If when He uses words this is different from humans and you can’t see it, you will classify Him as a human and condemn Him.”

Since I see no proofs from you, I see no reason to provide proofs when you don’t.

If some god chooses to speak to me in plain English, I am sure they know the words necessary to make themselves known. I know RIGHT NOW words a god could say that would convince me. You don’t know what those words are, but your knowledge does not matter.

The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other. Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person. And since you don’t even know what the Golden Rule says, you opinions are worthless.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

Re. “What do you say that I am projecting?” and “You have said this word “projection,” but aren’t pointing to any specific instance.”

SS: I’ve already answered this and pointed out several examples. Repetition is pointless now.

JC: You have done this only in your own mind, not in text. You are not communicating, instead despising. This gives evidence of what I said, relationship is not possible with you.

Re. “If there are some offering persuasive words and claiming to be God, but you don’t care, it proves that no one can approach with persuasive words.”

SS: Since I have never said anything like this, this is just more projection by you. If some god chooses to speak to me, I am sure they will be able to convince me. You don’t understand how that would be, but your understanding is not my concern.

JC: Some examples are Sai Baba and the Vissarion, each of whom is accepted as God by millions of humans, and each of whom gives discourse difficult to distinguish from the Lord. As I said the presence is wrong, but to discriminate when the Lord is near is tough.

As I said this is a proof you could not be convinced. You can’t even raise minor interest in your mind, although millions of your fellow humans are convinced, and are down on their knees before these figures. God sees all men, not just you, and you share their faults.

Your idea you can be convinced is transparently empty. It is fascinating you have this belief about yourself, and also that you can’t “make it real” in any way, by giving examples of the words you think God might use, to convince you it was really Him.

How about, “Hey, Sean, it is me, God, I’m back again today just as I said I would be.”

Re. “You are the first atheist I’ve seen saying anything about a supposed obligation.”

SS: I don’t say anything about a supposed obligation; the obligation was raised at the beginning of this thread. I reject the existence of any obligation between me and any deity.

JC: There, you did it again! No other atheist at the forum is hung up over any obligation. They are able to think in a clearheaded way, treating the God-concept as totally unreal. It seems amazing to me you can repeat the error, in the very sentences you use to deny it.

Re. “Humans overpower God at the Holy Spirit interface, …“

SS: Cite where in The Bible we can find the phrase “Holy Spirit interface“.

JC: Oh, Paul talks about that all the time. It’s central to Christian doctrine, the indwelling Holy Spirit. Christians pray for the Holy Spirit to come into them, and insist that It does. My point is the interface is shallow and the effects temporary, making God into a loser.

Re. “To prove this, you would need to show there is a string of words which would convince you that God was interacting with you. If when He uses words this is different from humans and you can’t see it, you will classify Him as a human and condemn Him.”

SS: Since I see no proofs from you, I see no reason to provide proofs when you don’t.

JC: You have not asked me for any proofs. Your mind is empty, so you defend by reflecting. You really don’t have any ideas of the words that God might use, do you?

SS: If some god chooses to speak to me in plain English, I am sure they know the words necessary to make themselves known.

JC: How about, “I was here as Buddha, Krishna, and Ramakrishna, as the Hindus relate.”

SS: I know RIGHT NOW words a god could say that would convince me.

JC: How about, “I am here RIGHT NOW, you are not interacting with just an angel.”

SS: You don’t know what those words are, but your knowledge does not matter.

JC: I say your mind is empty. You have a theory there could be words, but there could not be. The Almighty Himself could not get through to a human, for the minds are illogical. The lion tamer can’t communicate with a lion, therefore he stays back and cracks a whip.

SS: The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other.

JC: You again phrase this so peculiarly, an atheism as freedom from obligation to God. That’s what is wrong with it, if there is no God there is no vindication to be free. To presume vindication from a non-existent entity means the idea he is unreal, is unclear. Mammal and Fred do not have this issue. Their atheism has a firmer ground than yours.

I’d repeat no humans have an obligation to God, for God knew He could not ask for one. The religions do not contain saving commandments. They can’t be used for justification. You exult to be free of what obligations they seem to have taken up, but these aren’t saving. The Buddha said your obligation is to yourself, to find your way along the path.

SS: Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

JC: God has never asserted moral authority over humans. What was given to them in the name of virtue is not worthy of the name. They were handed the rules they’d have invented from usual selfish purposes, as you have said you follow your version of the GR without religion. Man is allowed to be wicked, but he finds other men stand against him.

SS: And since you don’t even know what the Golden Rule says, you opinions are worthless.

JC: The golden rule became the brass rule in human hands, for it allows a man to define the good without reference to the actual good that God wants to see, all in human bodies having full sustenance. It’s a minimum one should expect from so-called intelligent ones. Failing in this, humans don’t rise to God’s lowest threshold. Jesus said He stands in the door, but human doings are something like ants at His feet, with no real communication.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Regarding your long comment dated April 20, 2024 at 4:54 am, it is just a hash of misrepresentations and projections of your dark thoughts onto me and humanity. You not only think ill of humanity, but you think of god as weak and foolish.

Your many words are empty.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

SS: Regarding your long comment dated April 20, 2024 at 4:54 am, it is just a hash of misrepresentations and projections of your dark thoughts onto me and humanity.

JC: You have not asked for the fuller description and justification against the evils I behold. If humanity is in darkness and I speak of it, they try to reflect this back at me.

SS: You not only think ill of humanity, but you think of god as weak and foolish.

JC: God is weak against human brutality. If He is still favorably to be called the Almighty, He must have tricks up His sleeve not revealed before, to rein humans in.

SS: Your many words are empty.

JC: My words are empty of effect but full of truths the world should’ve heard long ago.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

This has gone on long enough.

You are here spinning tales about a fictional god employing fictional angels who speak fictional words to real people. Being fictional, they have no power in the real world. But you say I and any others who don’t respond to your fictional god’s fictional words — well it’s because we are bad!

Even as fictions go, yours is pretty lame.

The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other. Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

Your fictional god’s fictional words change nothing.

Your repetition of your fictional account serves no purpose.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

SS: This has gone on long enough.

JC: Geez, really? I was just getting warmed up.

SS: You are here spinning tales about a fictional god employing fictional angels who speak fictional words to real people.

JC: To speak correctly, say fictional to you. Your mind deciding they are fictional does not declare reality. That you suspect it does, shows that you are not admitting reality.

SS: Being fictional, they have no power in the real world.

JC: Christians attest to the power of the Holy Spirit, although this does not cure sin.

SS: But you say I and any others who don’t respond to your fictional god’s fictional words — well it’s because we are bad!

JC: Hypothesizing how Jesus could have said more and thereby closed some loopholes of sin ought to have been a major preoccupation of Christians down the ages. Humans are not craving more or clearer commandments from God, or they’d complain from only ten.

SS: Even as fictions go, yours is pretty lame.

JC: It is real in my life, but fictional in yours at this time.

SS: The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other.

JC: I told you no human is under obligation to God, for God saw you could not bear it. If you wanted me to give you the commands I think would save you, I would give it a shot.

SS: Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

JC: You should therefore focus on Buddha rather than Jesus, who told you to stand on your own. If my standards have no authority over you, you won’t mind when I avoid you.

SS: Your fictional god’s fictional words change nothing.

JC: When Jesus came or Buddha came, you see God’s sole channel of direct influence over His creation, and it is limited to words, not miracles. Thus Jesus is called the Word.

SS: Your repetition of your fictional account serves no purpose.

JC: Corrected: it serves no purpose to you, as you are persuaded it to be fictional. I have understood now, that when you say boldly no god has ever spoken to you, you are making a presumption the speech or writing patterns of the Deity would be immediately noticed by you, or that He might be able to rearrange clever words that will convince you, but that you have absolutely no solid idea what this would look like, and can’t even try. It’s an empty presumption of an impossible miracle of God communicating to a human.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Many words, but none that are new. Your fictions remain fictions; the god in your fiction remains impotent and unworthy.

A real god could reach me or anyone else through words or deeds, but fictions cannot act in the real world, and your god is a fiction.

The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other. Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

SS: Many words, but none that are new.

JC: Oh, this is all new, far beyond the old religions.

SS: Your fictions remain fictions; the god in your fiction remains impotent and unworthy.

JC: If God took the existential assertions of humans seriously, they’d self-annihilate dozens of times a day. The clay pot calls the potter unworthy. Should he discard the pot?

SS: A real god could reach me or anyone else through words or deeds, but fictions cannot act in the real world, and your god is a fiction.

JC: You deny the efficacious and beautiful words of Buddha and Jesus are from God, yet maintain an empty expectation such words can be crafted though you couldn’t craft them.

SS: The bottom line remains unchanged: Since no god has ever given me any command, made any request, nor spoken to me at all, I (and others similarity situated) have no obligation of any kind toward your god or any other.

JC: We are agreed, you have no obligation. We are not agreed, that you couldn’t bear one.

SS: Your beliefs have no moral authority over any other person.

JC: There is more than belief available. This statement is that of a dedicated foe or enemy. This is the most unfriendly thing to say, and you say you have relationships!

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

You still have nothing.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

You still lack the saving commandments from God, since these were not given in the religions. You also lack the sentences God could use to convince you it was really Him.

Friends have moral authority for one another; without compatible moralities there is no basis of relationship. You make me your enemy, whoever I am and whatever my power.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

You still have nothing.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

Well, I do have proofs of something. I can speak authentically about certain barriers. Your anger about the introduction of a sounder morality might be meaningful to those who agree God wanted all in the bodies of intelligence to have full sustenance, as society’s function. You show why Jesus couldn’t speak of this, and expect Christianity to flourish.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

You’re still projecting, I see. I’m not angry about anything here.

You have not introduced any morality at all.

Your opinions are no kind of proofs.

We don’t know was Jesus said (or didn’t); all we have are translations of muddled things written by humans. They are unreliable.

Nothing in this conversation has changed.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

SS: You’re still projecting, I see. I’m not angry about anything here.

JC: You come across as hostile. Rejecting any and all ideas which I “project.” At the very least you are unfriendly to my purposes, as I had been arguing for a more robust morality.

SS: You have not introduced any morality at all.

JC: How do you think Jesus would have replied, had I pointed to the Hutterites and said, “There are some who are authentically interpreting your golden rule. It is the only church in the world where a man makes the physical well-being of his neighbor as important as his children’s well-being. All the rest grab for profit first, then think of the golden rule.” The early disciples of Jesus interpreted the golden rule this way, and Jacob Hutter followed that example. That isn’t to say it is an acceptable church, only that it is the best.

SS: Your opinions are no kind of proofs.

JC: You have come across as a vivid example of what Jesus said about attempting to serve both God and Mammon. You will hate the one and love the other. Preferring the brass rule, you say each man should grab for himself, and hate if this seems threatened.

SS: We don’t know was Jesus said (or didn’t); all we have are translations of muddled things written by humans. They are unreliable.

JC: More importantly, you do not have lengthy writings from the Lord, nor has anyone even guessed He would have been capable of doing far more than Herodotus, nor has anyone wished that He had said more. The materials of writing were at hand but Jesus only spoke, and had it recorded secondarily. Humanity is not able to receive the Lord.

SS: Nothing in this conversation has changed.

JC: Your mind is unchanged, and you have a theory you can change it, but can you really? I have heard it said the human mind thinks itself, like a chariot out of control.

5. When one lacks discrimination
And his mind is undisciplined, the senses
Run hither and thither like wild horses.
6. But they obey the rein like trained horses
When one has discrimination and has made
The mind one-pointed.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “You come across as hostile.”

These days, being frank and straightforward is often interpreted as anger or hostility.

re. “you are unfriendly to my purposes, as I had been arguing for a more robust morality“

I am all in favor of a “more robust morality”, but I think you’re going about it all wrong. You will not find a “more robust morality” in fever-dreams or blind acceptance of ancient writings.

re. “How do you think Jesus would have replied, … ?“

I will not make the mistake of imagining I can speak for anyone else, much less Jesus. Nor am I interested in passing judgment on religious sects.

re. “You have come across as a vivid example of what Jesus said about attempting to serve both God and Mammon.”

Actually, all I’ve ever come across are muddled accounts by mere men claiming to report things about Jesus. In your very next paragraph you reverse yourself and agree with me, saying “More importantly, you do not have lengthy writings from the Lord, … [etc.]”

re. “You will hate the one and love the other. Preferring the brass rule, you say each man should grab for himself, and hate if this seems threatened.“

None of that is true; not one word of it.

re. “but can you really [change your mind]?”

Well, since I’ve done it before, I’m sure I can again.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “You come across as hostile.”

SS: These days, being frank and straightforward is often interpreted as anger or hostility.

JC: You don’t read or process what I write, you don’t admit a single point of mine is right, you don’t counter a single point of mine cogently, and there’s no communication.

re. “you are unfriendly to my purposes, as I had been arguing for a more robust morality“

SS: I am all in favor of a “more robust morality”, but I think you’re going about it all wrong. You will not find a “more robust morality” in fever-dreams or blind acceptance of ancient writings.

JC: See, this is hostile, accusing me of “fever-dreams and blind acceptance.” But I have not relied on the ancient writings; you are doing so. What I am describing is beyond this.

re. “How do you think Jesus would have replied, … ?“

SS: I will not make the mistake of imagining I can speak for anyone else, much less Jesus. Nor am I interested in passing judgment on religious sects.

JC: The point of all this is that anyone who can conceive rightly of God as promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all claiming to be intelligent, will see Jesus had to take that next step, were He God. You don’t expect this, so you don’t see the necessity. You claim to follow the golden rule, but are not interested in granting full sustenance except to your children. The neighbor you expect to grab for himself as you are grabbing.

re. “You have come across as a vivid example of what Jesus said about attempting to serve both God and Mammon.”

SS: Actually, all I’ve ever come across are muddled accounts by mere men claiming to report things about Jesus. In your very next paragraph you reverse yourself and agree with me, saying “More importantly, you do not have lengthy writings from the Lord, … [etc.]”

JC: You mistake a change of angle for a reversal. The argument is not clear in your mind. I can’t argue from the words of Jesus, for He did not say enough to found a full morality. You can say that I was adding to what you said as a doubt; not agreeing Jesus was unreal.

re. “You will hate the one and love the other. Preferring the brass rule, you say each man should grab for himself, and hate if this seems threatened.“

SS: None of that is true; not one word of it.

JC: Corrected: none of it is understood, nor is there significant curiosity to understand. Someone reading what I am writing now must hate it or love it; you clearly don’t love it.

re. “but can you really [change your mind]?”

SS: Well, since I’ve done it before, I’m sure I can again.

JC: You have the appearance of the mind changing, but was this original on your part or was it in reaction to the climate and events around yourself? To see things originally is not easy, but drifting along with others is, as the Buddha said the challenge is to swim across the river. Furthermore you have no insight into how your ideas are generated. If this is from a deep mechanism that is reacting to the senses, as the Katha Upanishad implies, then your “chariot” is running amok in the world, the reins not in your hands.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “You don’t read or process what I write, you don’t admit a single point of mine is right, you don’t counter a single point of mine cogently, and there’s no communication.“

I do, but all you is post human accounts or opinions. I respect your sincerity, but no human words can stand in for god’s. For every opinion or interpretation you supply, I can find several others that are quite the opposite. So there’s nothing more for me to say in response.

re. “I have not relied on the ancient writings; you are doing so. What I am describing is beyond … ‘fever-dreams and blind acceptance.’“

I don’t rely on any ancient writings to support my doubts. Whether yours or someone else’s, what you are describing is pure opinion. HUMAN opinions. As before, nothing human can stand in for god.

re. “The point of all this is that anyone who can conceive rightly of God as promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all claiming to be intelligent, will see Jesus had to take that next step, were He God.“

An opinion you are entitled to which all claiming to be intelligent are free to reject. Anyone claiming to be intelligent can conceive of a god “promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all” who does not even exist. Pleasant fictions are numerous.

re. “You claim to follow the golden rule, but are not interested in granting full sustenance except to your children. The neighbor you expect to grab for himself as you are grabbing.”

<b style=””>So you’re back to projection? How disappointing! You say that crap as if you know me! As if you are my confessor!

re. “Corrected: none of it is understood, nor is there significant curiosity to understand. Someone reading what I am writing now must hate it or love it; you clearly don’t love it.“

More projection; more pretending that you know me. More mischaracterizing my words. That is shameful.

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “You don’t read or process what I write, you don’t admit a single point of mine is right, you don’t counter a single point of mine cogently, and there’s no communication.“

SS: I do, but all you is post human accounts or opinions. I respect your sincerity, but no human words can stand in for god’s. For every opinion or interpretation you supply, I can find several others that are quite the opposite. So there’s nothing more for me to say in response.

JC: This is very fascinating. Your argument has become that anyone who can understand the principle of living demonstrated by the Hutterites is a more authentic interpretation of the golden rule than capitalism, is beyond human, a god. You say Jacob Huttter was a god, and the early disciples of Jesus were gods, and that humans cannot join them there.

re. “I have not relied on the ancient writings; you are doing so. What I am describing is beyond … ‘fever-dreams and blind acceptance.’“

SS: I don’t rely on any ancient writings to support my doubts. Whether yours or someone else’s, what you are describing is pure opinion. HUMAN opinions. As before, nothing human can stand in for god.

JC: You think I am alone but I am not. Jacob Hutter voiced these same opinions and from it a movement arose that agreed authentic love for the neighbor meant granting him full sustenance, if the beings claim intelligence. It’s a principle easy to state but you are now telling us no humans can accept the principle, only gods. If Jacob Hutter and myself have seen taking money for yourself while the neighbor suffers dearth means there is no true love for the neighbor, that one must care for his immediate welfare for there to be love, you are arguing that only gods have such love, and that humans are devoid of such love.

re. “The point of all this is that anyone who can conceive rightly of God as promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all claiming to be intelligent, will see Jesus had to take that next step, were He God.“

SS: An opinion you are entitled to which all claiming to be intelligent are free to reject. Anyone claiming to be intelligent can conceive of a god “promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all” who does not even exist. Pleasant fictions are numerous.

JC: Once again, this does not necessarily have anything to do with God looking down. It is about the people and how they regard one another, with you making a claim to intelligence when you throw your neighbor down into the dirt. This is an intelligence which denies the joys of others like yourself. You are in a class of entities which denies the joys of others like yourself, but Jacob Hutter obviously was not with you in that class. You have no explanation for the class except spouting off about how it must take a god.

re. “You claim to follow the golden rule, but are not interested in granting full sustenance except to your children. The neighbor you expect to grab for himself as you are grabbing.”

SS: So you’re back to projection? How disappointing! You say that crap as if you know me! As if you are my confessor!

JC: This behavior is absolutely universal in history, with the exception of the Hutterites and the early disciples of Jesus. You take a job in competition with the neighbor and abscond with money you won’t share, leaving some of your neighbors in poverty and even starving, as there are millions of children in America going to school hungry. You are not an upholder of the human species, instead “looking out for number one.” Jacob Hutter was an upholder of the human species, and your only explanation is he was a god.

re. “Corrected: none of it is understood, nor is there significant curiosity to understand. Someone reading what I am writing now must hate it or love it; you clearly don’t love it.“

SS: More projection; more pretending that you know me. More mischaracterizing my words. That is shameful.

JC: It seems further that not only does it take a god to enact the principle I’ve been discussing, it takes one to understand it, as your “intelligence” appears to completely shut down when confronted by ideas of an egalitarian lifestyle, where all in human bodies (or at least within one church like the Hutterites) are guaranteed full sustenance. Like Jesus said I can see your deeds, and your words here are insufficient to hide your malfeasance. If you are intelligent this ought to be something you can freely discuss in a non-hostile manner, without making ad hominem attacks and throwing out red herrings constantly. This doesn’t have to be about God looking down, but about men looking at one another.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

re. “Your argument has become that anyone who can understand the principle of living demonstrated by the Hutterites is a more authentic interpretation of the golden rule than capitalism, is beyond human, a god. …“

I said nothing like that. I don’t like capitalism.

re. “You think I am alone but I am not. ...”

I said nothing like any of that.

re. “Once again, this does not necessarily have anything to do with God looking down. …“

I said nothing like any of that.

re. “You have no explanation for the class except spouting off about how it must take a god.“

I said nothing like that.

re. “Jacob Hutter was an upholder of the human species, and your only explanation is he was a god.“

I said nothing like that.

re. “your ‘intelligence’ appears to completely shut down when confronted by ideas of an egalitarian lifestyle, where all in human bodies (or at least within one church like the Hutterites) are guaranteed full sustenance.“

I said nothing like that. I have no objection to “an egalitarian lifestyle, where all human are guaranteed full sustenance.”

seán s.

[jayceeii]

re. “Your argument has become that anyone who can understand the principle of living demonstrated by the Hutterites is a more authentic interpretation of the golden rule than capitalism, is beyond human, a god. …“

SS: I said nothing like that. I don’t like capitalism.

JC: Here is what you said:

“I do, but all you is post human accounts or opinions. I respect your sincerity, but no human words can stand in for god’s.”

“Whether yours or someone else’s, what you are describing is pure opinion. HUMAN opinions. As before, nothing human can stand in for god.”

I couldn’t understand why you kept referencing gods, when any intelligent beings should be able to see these things. Was this all a non sequitur? Why else did you force the argument that direction? Were you changing the subject? You admit you don’t see why I have called the golden rule as most follow it, the brass rule. That means you don’t understand the basic principle which Hutter preached and followed, setting up his society. You say only the gods can think about this kind of thing, so I took you at your word. Or, show me you can think about it. Admit you’ve been following the brass rule, and that Jacob Hutter saw a better way. You can say it is more authentic to Jesus, or better to man.

re. “You think I am alone but I am not. …”

SS: I said nothing like any of that.

JC: You think my ideas die when you snap them off, seeing no crowd agreeing with me. Now you admit at least one has done so, Jacob Hutter, and the Hutterites preach his message each Sunday. Now the question is if you can see Jacob Hutter envisioned a better version of the golden rule you claim to follow, while you still deny the neighbor. Or if you can’t see it and he could, what does that say about him? A better kind of man?

re. “Once again, this does not necessarily have anything to do with God looking down. …“

SS: I said nothing like any of that.

JC: Here is what you said:

“Anyone claiming to be intelligent can conceive of a god “promoting and expecting peace and cooperation among all” who does not even exist.”

So, my response is on the mark. We don’t need a god to see a better form of the golden rule, we just need actual love for our neighbor, to defend the human situation for everyone. At the same time it’s sad for me, to see you cannot envision an objective God, which is to say one who looks upon all in human bodies, and expects they’d cooperate.

re. “You have no explanation for the class except spouting off about how it must take a god.“

SS: I said nothing like that.

JC: See, this dull repetition of, “I said nothing like that,” is a sign of an overwhelmed mind, shutting down when it should be attentive, caring and responsive. You do indeed have no explanation for Hutter and anyone who approves of his form of the golden rule. His system ensures what an objective God wants too, full sustenance for all in the human frame. The society is designed that way from the ground up, as intelligent people would.

re. “Jacob Hutter was an upholder of the human species, and your only explanation is he was a god.“

SS: I said nothing like that.

JC: Yes, if God made men then Jacob Hutter stands with God, agreeing the human body is a benefit worth cherishing. God did most of the work bringing the biosphere and bodies, but when the human souls are placed into these all they can think about is money. You are not an upholder of the human species. You want some to have less than yourself.

re. “your ‘intelligence’ appears to completely shut down when confronted by ideas of an egalitarian lifestyle, where all in human bodies (or at least within one church like the Hutterites) are guaranteed full sustenance.“

SS: I said nothing like that. I have no objection to “an egalitarian lifestyle, where all human are guaranteed full sustenance.”

JC: Oh, are you now agreeing with me that the Hutterites represent a better golden rule? I have a hunch you are not agreeing, and your idea of an egalitarian society is still ruthless. If you truly care then you should look into the Hutterite lifestyle, and prove these words. I’d guess where your mind shuts down is over the issue of not being allowed ownership. Jesus and Jacob Hutter gave examples of this, but people try to serve two masters, saying let me just have what I want and then be good, not let me good, then define what I want.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

First off .. hell? There is no need to believe whatever is that you belive about it.

As there is no obligation to love God, most of what you have written doesn’t make much sense. The summation of the Bible is to love God. It’s the basic agreement for believers.

As a side note, if you do love God, then you understand more why you do, and then you do it more. It’s pretty neat.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  HB (Unorthodox Agnostic). Reason: Side note

[Poul]

Imagine that I, as the great programmer I am, created a computer simulation in which there were some characters that had an “awareness” of (the real) me that they found in an “old book”. In that book, I had written the “commandment” that they “love” me. I (the real me) would take serious offense if (due to some programming error on my part) they failed to love me, perhaps not even bothering to read “the old book”. Would you think I was being sane?

The only reason I can see for writing such a computer simulation would be if I could (perhaps after a few mods) sell it to my even geekier friend Allah.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

Not sane. It is obvious that you created the error. But, if these aware things you created did love you that would be cool.

[Poul]

It wasn’t meant as a “wouldn’t it be cool”, but rather to show the absurdity of a designer demanding love from the creature he has designed.

[HB (Unorthodox Agnostic)]

“Therefore, this situation gives God the right to punish us (send us to hell)”

Do you believe that God is bound by the Bible?

[Johan]

Punish? Hell is not where God send people for punishment. Its a place without God where people who chose not to love him, choose to go. You make the choice: eternity with God or without Him,light or darkness…

[Poul]

That would be Hell 2.0. The wikipedia article unambiguously starts “In religion and folklore, hell is a location or state in the afterlife in which souls are subjected to punitive suffering, most often through torture, as punishment after death.“

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  Poul.

en.wikipedia.org

Religion" - Wikipedia

Religion" - Wikipedia

[James]

Light or darkness and no other option. Such binary thinking is sufficient to ring alarm bells, in and of itself.